Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2011-11/User:Lo Ximiendo for admin

User:Lo Ximiendo for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.  Rockpilot 16:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Acceptance: I'm going for it, but how's the life as an admin? --Lo Ximiendo 18:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Languages: en, but is being only monolingual detrimental?
 * Timezone: America/Detroit, even though I might move to Twin Falls; I'm also a night owl/high school senior.
 * E-mail this user" link works

Support

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  Jumping the gun, since I know she's down for it. —  [Ric Laurent] — 18:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support &mdash;Internoob 20:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —CodeCat 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Rockpilot 20:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Permablocked user. --Yair rand 23:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Anatoli 21:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Equinox ◑ 00:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC) After being ranted at below! Yes, I suppose it doesn't matter who made the nomination or why, and the nominee being slightly uncertain is not necessarily a bad thing because it suggests a good sense of caution. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Yair rand 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  if my count is correct, this will be the second female admin. That is always worth supporting! -- Liliana • 00:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Who did I miss? Enlighten me, please. -- Liliana • 01:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Among current admins, we have CodeCat, yourself, and Pharamp who list themselves in their preferences as female; among former admins, Logomaniac does. There are two other current admins who I suspect may be female (but whom I don't wish to mention, since obviously they don't want to list themselves as such). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention User:Hekaheka. --Anatoli 22:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't know if she is an admin, I don't see her on the list. --Anatoli 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * She's not, but I think she should be. —  [Ric Laurent] — 00:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * CodeCat and female? Haha. I've seen him in person, so I know better  -- Liliana • 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Dvortygirl is not very active, but is a female bureaucrat (I've seen her picture) and more importantly in my view, she's an engineer...not that either fact has anything to do with being a good admin or bureaucrat. --Eng in ear 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, how did you determine which of your sentences I was responding to? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess: Benefit of the doubt. Had you said what you did to one of those sentences, it would've made you appear to be sexist. lol —  [Ric Laurent] — 21:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should this pass, I might as well be the first autistic admin (or is it?). --Lo Ximiendo 01:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or at least the first admin formally diagnosed as autistic -- for those of us who left school many years ago, it was never considered as a possibility except for very low achievers. I suspect there are others of us here who are at least borderline autistic, but have never been diagnosed.  Compared with 'pedia, we have here a much stricter format for entries, and visiting 'pedia editors are forever criticising our "poor social interaction".  But most of us are happier here than there.  I think that's a clue that we're not quite normal, but all that matters here is that we are good at editing a wiktionary! --Eng in ear 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been (formallly?) diagnosed as autistic in at least 1995 and visiting doctors (or workers, I don't remember) monitored me in at least the early years of my life. --Lo Ximiendo 10:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Stephen (Talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Ultimateria 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support  Just cause she's autistic!Lucifer 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Added missing formatting. When voting, just copy and paste from the first line and it formats your yes vote for you. —Stephen (Talk) 06:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 06:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support --Eng in ear 02:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Equinox ◑ 18:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Nothing wrong with Lo Ximiendo, but she seems very uncertain . Nominator Rockpilot, who has admitted to being Wonderfool, has a habit of starting large numbers of arbitrary bad-faith nominations. I suspect he picked her as an easy target for persuasion  because of her autism. Equinox ◑ 18:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch —  [Ric Laurent] — 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I see anything wrong. --Lo Ximiendo 18:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit rude to say she can't think for herself. :/ —CodeCat 18:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't say it then! I didn't either. Equinox ◑ 18:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying that she might be more easily persuaded because she has an autism spectrum disorder. I read that as meaning that because you consider her to have some kind of weakness she should be protected against Wonderfool. —CodeCat 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know she was autistic before starting the vote, and even if I had, I still would've nominated her. As for these "arbitrary bad-faith nominations", I don't consider myself to have started any so please inform me of an example (except for perhaps Razorflame, I concede that one). And I picked her because she is a long-standing reliable contributor, above all else. --Rockpilot 19:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the nominations Rockpilot has made don't seem to be "bad faith". --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So... what are you arguing about, again? Surely she'll still make a good admin. -- Liliana • 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ehh, okay then :) Equinox ◑ 00:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes, unanimous support. —Stephen (Talk) 23:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)