Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Smuconlaw for admin[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Support --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Equinox ◑ 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support —JohnC5 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping adminship; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. A clarification: My position is that my condition only applies if passing of the vote depends on support of editors who used this condition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support +++ DCDuring TALK 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support for admin and {{support}} the great work SMUconlaw does here. - TheDaveRoss 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – Jberkel (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. oppose The user page identifies the user account as one for a project, not for a person. I assume that the user account is operated by a single person, the assistant professor, and that no one else has access to the account. I don't think this kind of identification is good enough for an admin flag. That said, I don't remember any qualms about the editing from the account. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The account has always been used for editing solely by me. I created it to run a student project (which ended a while ago), but students were always required to create their own accounts. At the time the account was created, I didn't know there was a rule about naming an account in a way that makes it look as if it doesn't refer to an individual, even though it is. In fact, Special:CreateAccount provides no information or links on rules relating to account naming. I also had a look at Help:Contents to see if there was any information on this, and didn't see any. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that, given the account history, the account name itself is acceptable, although renaming it would be preferable, IMHO. But I think you should change the user page to no longer state that it stands for a project. As for rules, I do not know of any rule or policy. Rather, I base the above on what I think is good and proper. I am using my judgment to figure out what is good and what is not good, as is my habit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it would be a good idea to change your user page, especially now that the student project is over anyway. I see no reason to change your user name, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've updated it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

Abstain Since when do we allow non-admins to nominate people for adminship, let alone non-whitelisted users? I think this vote should be redone with a proper nomination. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any rules against it. I've been nominating people for adminship for years now (under various usernames, of course), and by and large they've been successful - in fact, I've probably nommed more successful sysops than any other user. But it's a good point that you make. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well we certainly have a rule against permablocked users starting votes. --WikiTiki89 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make you feel better if I nominated him instead? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better for an admin to do it, especially now that the issue has been raised. @Vahagn Petrosyan, Equinox, Angr: Would one of you co-sign on the nomination at the top of this vote? --WikiTiki89 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, though I think a non-admin in good standing would have been as good as an admin for this purpose. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, there doesn't seem to be any rules against it. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case, we needed extra authority to overrule WF, whose authority is far in the negative. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfool has a track record of decent admin nominations. From what I remember, people usually do not complain when Wonderfool makes an admin nomination. I don't see why even a banned user should not be able to start a vote, although they would not be able to vote in it. The only problem with it that I can see would be vote overflood; other than that, each voter should vote based on the merit of the proposed change rather than the proposing person. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the rule should be that only Wonderfool should start admin votes. I'll try to think up a decent reason why over the course of the week. --Turnedlessef (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should just give you bureaucrat rights so we wouldn't have to waste our time voting. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I couldn't come up with a good reason for me to become the votemaster. Turnedlessef (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal abstention by permablocked user. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lamest strikeout ever. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even lamer than this one. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw_for_admin&oldid=45314780"