Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2021-01/User:Donnanz for admin
User:Donnanz for admin edit
Nomination: I hereby nominate Donnanz (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. DonnanZ is kind, thoughtful, and works hard to preserve others' work. He's been active for seven years. DonnanZ doesn't strike me as the type who'd abuse his authority; he prefers dialogue to taking action without consultation. He's an incredibly pleasant person. All in all, he'd be great for the future of our dictionary and our community.
Schedule:
- Vote starts: 21:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vote ends: 23:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Vote created: Dentonius 21:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Acceptance:
- Not accepted. I have been through this before, and there is opposition already. Sorry. DonnanZ (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- DonnanZ, you've been through it already and I know it would be hard to deal with it again. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. Two "oppose" votes doesn't mean it's impossible. There are plenty in this community who would like to see you become an admin, but you'll never know if you throw in the towel before the fight's started. I beseech you; please try. — Dentonius 23:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Too late now; Metaknowledge has cancelled the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, DonnanZ. This has nothing to do with Metaknowledge. I nominated you; not Metaknowledge. If you simply state that you accept the nomination, the rest will take care of itself. In thirty days, you'll know what's what. But don't give up now. I believe in you. — Dentonius 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I could un-cancel it. But I don't think this vote would be any more likely to pass than the last one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- At the moment I'm not prepared to go through with it, if your prediction is true. DonnanZ (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I could un-cancel it. But I don't think this vote would be any more likely to pass than the last one. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, DonnanZ. This has nothing to do with Metaknowledge. I nominated you; not Metaknowledge. If you simply state that you accept the nomination, the rest will take care of itself. In thirty days, you'll know what's what. But don't give up now. I believe in you. — Dentonius 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Too late now; Metaknowledge has cancelled the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- DonnanZ, you've been through it already and I know it would be hard to deal with it again. But nothing ventured, nothing gained. Two "oppose" votes doesn't mean it's impossible. There are plenty in this community who would like to see you become an admin, but you'll never know if you throw in the towel before the fight's started. I beseech you; please try. — Dentonius 23:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I must however ask, was DonnanZ consulted about this vote and did he express wanting to become an admin? At least Wonderfool asks the people he wants to nominate if it's something they want. In this case, I just see a random ambush with no regard to DonnanZ, the community or past votes. --Robbie SWE (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I was consulted at 21:55 on 1 Jan, see my Talk Page.
- No, I did not request a nomination for admin from anybody, and never have done that in the past. DonnanZ (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry DonnanZ, but it actually says that you were nominated already and that a vote was underway. That's not discussing it with you. It's a pity because I personally wouldn't have had an issue voting in your favour, but it all just seemed so rushed and the reasons for the nomination were just so flimsy. The nominator did you a disservice by using you as a ploy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I did notice the vote was created before I was consulted. And all the votes were cast before I replied, and I was forced into turning the nomination down. I think I am fated to never be an admin. Never mind, I can manage without. I'm not going to blame anyone for that. DonnanZ (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry DonnanZ, but it actually says that you were nominated already and that a vote was underway. That's not discussing it with you. It's a pity because I personally wouldn't have had an issue voting in your favour, but it all just seemed so rushed and the reasons for the nomination were just so flimsy. The nominator did you a disservice by using you as a ploy. --Robbie SWE (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Support edit
Support. I hope he accepts. Here's my early support vote. Dentonius 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose edit
Oppose. Everything that needs to be said has already been said in the last failed vote: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-11/User:Donnanz for admin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)- Oppose. As many users have noted in the past, Donnanz has no coherent, respectable rationale for casting votes at RFD. Instead, he bases those choices on personal feelings about the terms in question with an extreme bend to keeping every entry in existence. The mild personal attacks seem to still be an occasional issue too. Imetsia (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank God I abstained in your vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Love that British humour. To be fair to him, he's looking out for his interests. Wake up and smell the coffee. — Dentonius 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank God I abstained in your vote. DonnanZ (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Abstain edit
Decision edit
Vote cancelled, as nominee does not accept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- As the against votes were cast before I arrived on the scene, I had no choice. DonnanZ (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- That is false. You have always had a choice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- As the against votes were cast before I arrived on the scene, I had no choice. DonnanZ (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)