Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2021-02/User:PUC for admin

, when you create a vote, you also have to add it to WT:Votes/Active. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I knew that, but I hesitated because the nomination hasn't been accepted yet. Anyways, I've added it now. Imetsia (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple user names
I would really like PUC to commit to not creating further user accounts. He/she does it regularly and it's a bit confusing and annoying. I don't know what the motivation is. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or editing anonymously, which is similarly unhelpful (and like the new accounts, actually puts more work on admins who have to patrol those edits). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Save for this one exception - which, granted, is one too many -, I haven't, AFAICR, created any sock in the past two to three years; you can check this here. But yes, I won't do it again, and I in fact just got rid of the last accounts I had access to apart from this one, that is User:Barytonesis, User:Canonicalization and User:Anus Dei. It was funny to me in the past, but it isn't anymore.
 * Regarding IP editing: all right, I'll stick to account editing, or abstain from editing altogether when I don't feel like using my account. PUC – 23:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with multiple-account creation, guys Oxlade2000 (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

PUC, you should know that in my head this one is pronounced and understood as :) Vahag (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It could also be read пук or поц but I actually didn't think that way :) (it's a joke, don't change your name again, people will get even more upset!) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Name Change and Commitment to Professionalism
I know that PUC is a stellar contributor to this site and I greatly value his presence. However, PUC has not always acted in the most professional manner. It does not seem that PUC displayed any malice rather impish immaturity. That is why I would consider supporting him. However, given the past behavior of PUC, I believe that PUC needs to make several commitments before PUC can become an administrator. First, PUC needs to change his user name: PUC is an initialism for a sexist Latin phrase. His permanent administrator name must be professional. If it's discovered that the name that PUC choose is inappropriate or offensive, PUC should lose his administrator rights immediately. Second, PUC needs to apologize for his past behavior and make a formal commitment to never exhibit such sexist/racist/etc behavior again. I like to see individuals grow and develop for the better. However, the past cannot be completely erased. If PUC is willing to make these two commitments, then I will support his nomination. Languageseeker (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He has apologised and committed but it seems people ignore that. I don't know why. Not sure if another name change is required, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are unspoken rules about having silly user names then they need to be codified, right? Equinox ◑ 03:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, picking on user names seems unfair, even though considerations are expected. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "PUC" is a problem, but some of his past usernames have been. The rule against such usernames is already codified at WT:USER; one could argue it's not a binding document, but it's certainly not unspoken. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's useful. This can be improved after discussions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, PUC is a fairly obvious initialism for "Per utramque cavernam." Languageseeker (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be obvious to you but since he changed it, it's no longer "Per utramque cavernam" but "PUC", which can stand for anything. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing argument
The nomination needs just three more support votes to pass. To those who are still undecided, I would consider: Are small disagreements (ambiguously "offensive" usernames, long-ago excessive alt-account creation, uncertainty about how many of the admin tools would be used) worth preventing this nomination from reaching the finish line? PUC is a great editor, and I would hate the nomination to fail over a number of these relatively minor objections. (Note also that all of these objections have been responded to). Imetsia (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PUC is a great editor, yes — but would he be a great admin? Normally, a closing argument gives a positive case for the nominee. Instead, you have decided to claim that is only "ambiguously" offensive, or that alt accounts and IPs as recent as last December are "long-ago". To anyone familiar with the evidence, this is not the most convincing line of reasoning you could offer. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I admit I may be splitting hairs and even being somewhat pedantic, but I worded my argument carefully. With the usernames thing, I'm referring particularly to Languageseeker's point that PUC is an unacceptable username because it is an initialism of a sexist phrase. In fact, I wasn't even aware of the username you mentioned until I checked it just now on his list of socks. (So I concede I should have been even more careful with my wording than I thought I was being). Even so, the fact that the user's past comments and username preferences do not meet certain standards of decorum doesn't dissuade me from supporting his nomination. Some could quibble over it, but I can't imagine how this is a justification against supporting any admin nomination. And I also mentioned long-ago excessive alt-account creation. One alt account in the past 2/3 years is by no means excessive, and I'm not including IPs in that count. In addition, the nominee has also pledged not to create alt accounts in the future. In sum, the closing argument is not for those who, like you, have already made up their minds. It instead encourages some undecided users to look over minute objections and see the entire perspective: PUC is a good user, has made good contributions, would make use of the admin tools, and therefore this vote should pass. Imetsia (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to feel very invested into this vote. Do you feel your prestige is at stake? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It might have something to do with the fact that this is the first vote I've ever started. As for my "prestige," I don't think I have much, since I'm one of the less impressive admins on here. Imetsia (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's normal to try to get the vote you created to pass by convincing people or at least addressing negative comments. you haven't described your reasons for opposing, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't feel the need to do so. All the arguments have already been advanced. It solely remains to familiarize oneself with them and form an opinion, which I did. I also note that all voters notice that PUC is a good editor, and all top editors deserve praise for the hours they put in (not necessarily adminship). It's just that the intensity of emotions around this vote could give an outside observer the impression that this is not a dictionary wiki, but the UN General Assembly. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that putting it into the mouth or both holes is not wrong and half of the internet is porn anyway, so such learned allusions are unfit to get one shook. Correspondingly, I suspect that if someone is a poof with furry profile pic then there are no charges because this is in the spirit of the times and high status, or past mending. It is just easy to go after straight white males, everyone is so extra about them. Fay Freak (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm a poof (although unfortunately not furry) and I spent some time yesterday trying to make out what's sexist about the Latin phrase, and didn't. Being straight doesn't make you unique in despising today's culture of 'let's look for something I could find offensive'. --Droigheann (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)