Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2005-11/User:Ncik

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Administrators.

Ncik edit

Nominating myself. Ncik 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although my self-nomination has been up here for quite awhile, and surely many people have taken notice of it, I only just received my first two votes. As you guys know, I've been around for nearly a year now and am a frequent contributor always trying make improvements to Wiktionary (quite often not considered as such, but nevermind). I would like to become an admin to be able to make changes to protected pages like the main page, who definitely needs an overhaul, and other special pages, and to find out what other magic tools an admin has at his disposal. The lack of votes might indicate that on the one hand people are afraid I might abuse any admin-powers given to me but on the other hand can't get themselves to vote no because they don't want to disgruntle a fellow Wiktionarian. Anyway, I'm not going to start blocking pages or people for any other reason than vandalism. Hope you trust me; and please vote. Ncik 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another thing I always wanted to do, but don't seem to be capable of as a non-admin: Getting rid of most of the preloaded templates in the table which is being displayed when a search fails. Ncik 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for: And actually voting for myself. Ncik 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He'll do --Wonderfool 22:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

against:

Started edit war at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained on Jan 1st 2006, ignoring requests to discuss the issue. Gerard Foley 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I think about this can be found here. So far I've got the backing of SemperBlotto for one of my points and no opposition. The other one was the old POS issue, which I'm aware doesn't (yet) have community backing. Ncik 03:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really explain his opinions. It's important for someone so powerful to have a well-reasoned justification for their actions. --Primetime 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) The items he "wants" admin privs for he could easily address on those page's talk pages. But communication prior to action is supposed to be the MO for a sysop. I don't recall ever seeing User:Ncik ask first. With a history of goading other sysops I have tremendous doubts that he is sincere about not abusing sysop powers in an edit war. I was falsely accused of just that, in one User:Ncik skirmish last year; at the time, his actions were much worse, IMHO. I have not seen evidence of any attitude improvement over time.[reply]

This has been here for over a month. How long do these things last? Gerard Foley 00:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; really two months. Eclecticology 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Denied. There has been no significant support for this nomination. Perhaps if he tries again after a wait of three months ... Eclecticology 02:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]