Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-01/User:Rsvk

User:Rsvk for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Rsvk as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. --Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Vote ends: 28 January 2008 23:59 UTC
 * Vote started: 14 January 2008 23:59 UTC


 * Acceptance: I accept the nomination; thanks! Rsvk 17:48, 18 January 2008
 * Languages: en,la-2,sp-2,de-1,grc-1,he-1
 * Timezone: UTC+9
 * RSvK 01:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Connel MacKenzie 01:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (Private e-mail confirmation of acceptance.)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 18:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Atelaes 00:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC) While DAVilla makes a good point, the fact that the user has made so many edits without receiving a lot of hate mail seems to indicate an ability to follow the rules and such.  Not every good admin is overly chatty.
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support per Atelaes. I haven't encountered this editor very much, but given how much he's contributed (see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=rsvk&amp;dbname=enwiktionary_p), that's probably a good sign. —Ruakh TALK 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support EncycloPetey 19:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support DAVilla 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Rod (A. Smith) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Rod (A. Smith) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Clearly this is a knowledgeable editor, but I do not see much in the way of discussion, nor particularly any instances where the editor gave in to an argument. With such a long history, would it be possible that RSvK is active on another wiki where such interaction could be judged? Otherwise I would have to oppose abstain. DAVilla 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kudo. Sorry if I haven't been in many discussions.  Holding a full-time job can do that.  If you want an argument, I would argue for dropping the "to" before verbs--I don't know of any other dictionary that puts them in, and  "to" doesn't even work for all verbs, e.g., can.  I've enjoyed making contributions and will continue to do so.  Cheers, guys.  RSvK 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly I agree with you. Why give the infinitive form of the verb, but not the base form? Having the infinitive form using "to", shouldn't we also give the future form using "will", and a slew of others? However, it's not the arguments themselves that I was looking for, but conciliation. I've given your talk page another skim, and have less objection now. DAVilla 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DAVilla. Not that it matters much, but per a (s)he elsewhere above, I'm a he.  --Robert Steven van Keuren, a.k.a. RSvK 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passed at 7-0-0. --Keene 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is done. &mdash; hippietrail 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)