Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-12/User:Fenakhay for admin

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

User:Fenakhay for admin

[edit]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Fenakhay (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

Acceptance:

  • Languages: ar, ary, fr, en-4, arq-4, aeb-4, ayl-4 (Western), mt-3, apc-3, arz-2, es-2, de-2, tru-2
  • Timezone: UTC+1
I accept. — فين أخاي (تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت) 22:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
Support. I nominated this user before, but got no reply. Hence, in my own personal tally of admin-votes, I am counting this as "my nomination". Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck vote by banned user. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't banned at the time. I suspect this vote inspired the ban. DonnanZ (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we don't let WF vote, and he knows that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WF wilfully cast his vote so as to get blocked. As he described it himself, “WF likes to be blocked when they've got important things happening in their life, or if the weather is really good, because it gets them to go outside.” — inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as the actual nominator for quality edits and good judgement. Might need to improve on responses. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, however, I do have two conditions: 1) you answer users who reach out to you on your talk page, and 2) avoid edit warring with anons who undo your edits (it's better to at least try to find some common ground before blocking them). Otherwise, I think you'd be an asset to the team as an admin. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robbie SWE: In some defence of the blocking certain pesky anons I observed - there are a few or maybe a couple of Arabic anons who totally refuse to engage (it maybe me or someone who tried to engage but always in vain) and they simply remove edits, insist on certain points of view or just don't know certain rare words or senses, which takes time to verify but they won't. Sometimes their edits are recognisable by returning to previously undone edits and their block expires. Not much can be done with those editors. I won't search for specific edits and blocks but I have been watching Arabic edits for a while and I don't think Fenakhay has been unfair. I agree we should have more patience and try to engage first. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm (painfully) aware of some of the issues surrounding edits by anons to Arabic entries - I myself have engaged in edit disputes on multiple occasions, reverting back to Fenakhay's edits only to have the IP undo the changes. In those cases, a block is most often the only (temporary) solution. My point is, that we as admins have to show an unbelievable amount of patience and we can all be better at it, including yours truly (I'm not always the most patient or tactful, but I promise to do better in 2021!). --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robbie SWE: I agree about the talk page issue, but not the anon. They are unwilling to collaborate and have to be blocked to prevent edit wars. By the way, we've been over Dan Polansky's conditions in admin votes many times, so I am compelled to make it clear that we cannot respect conditions: this is either a vote in favour of the proposal, or against it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I'm completely with you on that. I've had my fair share of complaints from disgruntled anons and registered users, who find me too harsh and quick to block. It can be a bit discouraging at times and I wouldn't want Fenakhay to feel unjustly treated if they happen to hear these grievances from blocked users. My conditions should only be seen as friendly nudges and not conditions like Dan Polansky's - I'm 100% behind my support vote, with or without my so called "conditions". --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Fay Freak (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, but only under the same conditions as @Robbie SWE. Not responding to important talk page messages a lot of the time is a big problem, and I would very much like that to be considered by Fenakhay upon their getting the admin bit. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — inqilābī ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 21:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Maybe a tad soon. PUC – 11:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Kutchkutch (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Vahag (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Imetsia (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 03:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose. No, not at this time. This user has only been here for 1 year and 4 months. This user needs to spend more time learning the history and customs of en.wikt. I don't see any kind of imbalanced behaviour in RFD. In another year and a half, I would not stand in the way if this user were nominated again. — Dentonius 15:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain. Not responding to talk page messages is a problem. I don't want to oppose on this basis alone, but if someone asks an admin why they rollbacked a good-faith edit, and they choose not to reply even while actively editing, then that admin is not doing their job. The most recent section on Fenakhay's talk page is a perfect example of this. It may be that his unusual talk page structure means he doesn't get a notification when a new message is left, but that seems like a bad practice as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain - I can't see any evidence of his patrolling recent pages or undoing any vandalism. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain. – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Passed 15-1-4. @Fenakhay please add yourself to WT:A. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 00:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-12/User:Fenakhay_for_admin&oldid=61694701"