Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-06/User:Bogorm for admin

User:Bogorm for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Bogorm as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. This user is helpful in a number of languages, and with the cleanin-up of Wiktionary. Despite the user's obsession wirh the letter ſ and uber-pompous language, I hope we can allow hereupon the humble mantle of adminship (and plus, his English is probably bedder than mine) Jackofclubs 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 24:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Acceptance: Thank you. I accept the nomination. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Languages: bg, en-3, de-4, ru-4, fr-3, da-3.
 * Timezone: UTC+2/UTC+3(summer)

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Anatoli 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) He is adding a lot of value to Wiktionary and has good manners. Provided he agrees to become admin, of course. Anatoli 01:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support — Statistically, positive force in the universe. And even if he doesn't pass this time, I'm sure less political agenda and more active article writing (Bulgarian is severely underrepresented) will help for the next time. Vahagn Petrosyan 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, agreed. DAVilla 02:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC) There were problems but he has responded well to discussion.  < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 07:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Ivan Štambuk 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support — Clearly committed to the academic integrity of the project, and heck! – I quite like the archaisms, FWIW…  ;-)  †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Dijan 04:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. Stubborn. DAVilla 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Equinox ◑ 09:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose EncycloPetey 12:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) In addition to reason given by others, I can't support for sysop anyone who deliberately makes his comments harder for other people to read with archaic spelling and vocabulary. --EncycloPetey 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Sorry, but no IMHO. I may be judging a book by its cover but for one thing (without even knowing much about Slavic languages barring the fact that the was/is a lot of political upheaval and turmoil surrounding them) I don't like his so called "linguistic credo". OTOH I can sympathise with him as regards his insistence on saying a herb and not *an herb (<--- this kind of thing is why I hate English accents that cut off h at the start of words [or in a worst case scenario when the people do it when writing it too.]). 50 Xylophone Players talk 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a bit traditionalist, but if it raises suspicions of POV, I shall remove it or move it to a separate user subpage. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm an American, I don't drop initial /h/'s, but for me it's always /ɝb/ (unless I'm talking about an old man). Though I do usually say "an historic" instead of "a historic". Sometimes Britishisms add a bit of flair, ya know? :-P --Ruakh TALK 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought an historic was something only Americans say. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, in that case, sometimes faux-Britishisms add a bit of flair. :-)  --Ruakh TALK 01:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose. As opinionated as myself. --Duncan 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Dan Polansky 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Per EncycloPetey's "I can't support for sysop anyone who deliberately makes his comments harder for other people to read with archaic spelling and vocabulary." --Dan Polansky 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My propensity for archaic vocabulary is not confined to English - this is also the case for my German (and French, inasmuch as I am conversant with its dated vocabulary). My use of words having Latin origin may seem prodigal, but that's because I memorise them much more easily. There are contributors here who tend to use colloquial or slang vocabulary and I thought that a slightly dated style would not disturb many, but ostensibly it has. In forthcoming conversations with non-native speakers I can pledge to express myself as simply as possible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ur propensity 4 archaicisms is 1 of da reasons I nommed ya. It maketh me smile...but I dig dat dis aint no "Votes:Bogorm makes me smile". --Jackofclubs 18:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, this does not sway my opinion one way or the other. DAVilla 04:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The funny spelling (and language) on talkpages? Me neither. &#x200b;  --msh210  ℠  16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a non-native English speaker, and find it inconvenient, to say the least, to have to look up the meanings of archaic words when reading someone's responses. While for natives archaisms may look interesting for their novelty, for me they prevent understanding. The use of archaisms and unusual spelling makes the speech interestingly idiosyncratic at the expense of comprehensibility. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just curious, was the last sentence meant to be ironic in any way? I imagine most people would understand it, but I know many who would not. DAVilla 04:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean the last sentence to be ironic. If the sentence about comprehensibility was incomprehensible, too bad for me. I guess I phrased the sentence the way I would have phrased it in Czech. --Dan Polansky 08:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with your last sentence. I don't understand why he would think it would be ironic or hard to understand. --Stephen 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a high-level sentence, with several complex or unusual words. If he wanted to make a point of writing simply, he could have said something like, "He uses old words and unusual spellings. They're interesting and quirky, but they're hard to understand." Still, I doubt most people here had any difficulty with his sentence, or even noticed that it was complex; and, it loses something in the simplification. Besides, lots of us talk convolutedly, it's more fun that way! :-)  --Ruakh TALK 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Given the archaicisms and my general interactions with this user, I have to strongly oppose him ever becoming a sysop, unless things change dramatically in the future.  I have no desire to see someone who has caused such confusion become one of the people that is looked to as the face of this dictionary, which I find that many administrators are.  Additionally I would like to point out that the continual use of nonstandard characters makes discussions inaccessible by such things as a screen reader, and that is another thing that I cannot see endorsing, which I would be doing if I supported this nomination.  Maybe in another six months or so of continual good contributions and lack of conflict with other users.  And lack of use of nonstandard characters, but that goes without saying. --Neskaya  kanetsv  21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Well maybe not so strongly. But still oppose.--Neskaya  kanetsv  21:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask to which general interaction you are referring? I mind no major disputes with you concerning the stuff from the main, Appendix or Citations namespaces. If it is something concerning policy (namespace Wiktionary), I thought everyone is permitted to express one's own opinion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against you as an editor, and I was hoping to make things quite clear in the reason for my oppose from that. However, the use of nonstandard characters (which break even my screenreader) in the past, such as ſ and some others, just leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth, and while I value your content creation, I'm not sure I can support you as an admin just yet.  General interaction isn't referring to disputes.  It is just referring to what I've seen of discussions, and while I admit that I haven't participated in very many discussions the same as you I still end up at oppose when I consider my vote as for this.  --Neskaya  kanetsv  06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px]] Oppose Robert Ullmann 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain  Dislike the archaic stuff in regular conversation and some other little things, contribs not bad, but eh. I'm leaning toward oppose, but not a strong enough oppose to actually oppose. So, I'll abstain, unless my mind starts swinging one way or the other. -- [ R*I*C ] opiaterein -- 22:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just noticed, user was nominated by Jackofclubs, who apparently is Wonderfool. Should that be taken into consideration at all? -- [ R*I*C ] opiaterein -- 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I might, but that's just me. --Neskaya kanetsv  23:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't think so. The nomination was accepted, and the vote has proceded normally. --EncycloPetey 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Decision

 * Vote fails, 7–8–1 (or 7–7–1, if we ignore the late vote). Note that this does not preclude the possibility of a future successful nomination. —Ruakh TALK 18:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)