Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-11/User:Donnanz for admin

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

User:Donnanz for admin[edit]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Donnanz (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

Acceptance: Nomination accepted. It may be better to delay the vote until after the vote for Mnemosientje is finished.

  • Languages: en-n, da-1, de-1, nl-1, nb-2, nn-1, sv-1.
  • Timezone: UTC0.
DonnanZ (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Support Why not. DTLHS (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally love Wonderfool, but I think probably there are some people who would oppose strictly on the basis that the person was nominated by him. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 15:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about that too, but had to assume the nomination was made in good faith. As the discussion on my talk page was omitted from the nomination I am adding it here. DonnanZ (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per comment section. @Stephen G. Brown, your comment sounds like a support vote. Is it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't vote. —Stephen (Talk) 19:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes, of course. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote for the editor to keep the admin flag and the vote does not achieve consensus; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle.

    Now to the candidate: I have quite some reservations about the nominee, but as long as he can be desysopped by a mere superminority--and my vote does not lend itself to any stronger position--he can be given a chance to prove himself in a role that will require a new self-restraint on his part. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you really condition support this way? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot, unless other editors agree. In the absence of other supporters agreeing to this stipulation, we are forced to count this as an oppose vote, and that is what we've consistently done. Usually, admin votes are not close, so it has not mattered, but in this case, Dan's abuse of parliamentary procedure could endanger Donnanz's chances. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think to have established before that conditional supports are okay, and were used before by other people without much complaint, but some disagree. As for my alleged endangering Donnanz chances, I think that, to the contrary, I only feel okay supporting Donnanz because of the ease of desysopping should there be such a need; without such ease of desysopping, the issues with Donnanz I am aware of, some of which were articulated by the right honorable gentleman, would lead me to oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage you to try to convince @DTLHS, Lingo Bingo Dingo, Andrew Sheedy and any other potential supporters to agree to this condition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For other readers unfamiliar with this issue, this vote provides more background on Dan's reasoning and various lines of argumentation against it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I support his condition, provided that should we vote on this issue in the future, it be approved by a 66% supermajority. (Just kidding, I support it unconditionally.) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is nonsense. You either support someone, or you don't. There is no such thing as conditional admin votes. --{{victar|talk}} 06:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The key point is that Wiktionary votes are actually votes-cum-discussions, in light of the fact that pure votes have some undesirable characteristics. Wiktionary votes are attempts to find what there is consensus on. If this vote would need my vote to pass, and at the same time, if there was any concern about this violating "parliamentary procedure", we could create a second vote for Donnanz in which my condition would be part of the proposal voted on. In that vote, those who supported Donnanz for full adminship would be able to explain why they do not support him for an easy-desysoppable adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, a conditional adminship is nonsense. --{{victar|talk}} 08:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's your position, completely free from argument or evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan, it's not just my position, it's been consistently the case every time you try and make these conditional votes. --{{victar|talk}} 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have said many times before, Dan cannot piggyback his conditions into unrelated votes. Until there is a vote directly addressing the notion of votes of no confidence for admins, this condition must be ignored. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If Dan's vote and the votes of any others supporting the condition prove to be pivotal (which doesn't seem very likely, but more likely than the vote passing with an unconditional majority), I don't object if the condition applies for some limited term. But should the condition apply indefinitely, I would object. I am not going to support the condition, however. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is necessary to interpret Dan's phrase "in future" as meaning "in perpetuity". (Please correct me if I am wrong.) As a result, your statement does not change anything with respect to vote-counting. (I'm not really saying this to you, Lingo, so much as to myself or any other admin who has the task of closing this vote.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that other supporters of this vote have not stepped forward and supported Dan's condition, I withdraw my support for it. My support is primarily for this vote, and only for Dan's vote inasmuch as it helps this vote to pass (which does not seem to be the case). I think Dan's votes should either simply be counted as support or oppose depending on what section he puts them under, or be considered an abstention. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Counting it thus would be explicitly contrary to his stated and bolded intent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then his vote should just be ignored. He's voting for a (currently) non-existent option, and thus could be considered to have not participated in the actual vote. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, it doesn't make a difference whether we count him as an opposer or if we strike his vote as invalid — both lead to no consensus as the outcome. (With his vote struck, it would come to 62.5% support, as in this vote closed as "no consensus".) That said, if more votes come in, it could potentially make a difference, so we need to decide how to handle it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote should be count as oppose toward unrestrained adminship. It only supports restrained adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Vahag (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support Sorry I'm late. DCDuring (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but too late. If the vote had been made on time, it would be 66.6 % in favour, right on the perceived borderline. DonnanZ (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring any vote-count minimum, Dan's conditional vote is void, so it still would not have been enough to pass. --{{victar|talk}} 20:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any final decision was ever made on that, in any case I wasn't particularly bothered by Dan's stipulations. No one bothered to ask me either. DonnanZ (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you're bothered by it or not, we don't allow for conditional adminships, which is also why his vote is void.--{{victar|talk}} 22:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue the point. DonnanZ (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for "we don't allow for conditional adminships", that is factually incorrect in that no determination by editors to disallow restrained adminship can be found. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What caused all the fuss here was the unusually narrow margin in favour. If you can't find any proof, @Victar needs to back his statement up with other instances outside this vote (bearing in mind Dan's conditions are often unchallenged). DonnanZ (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh, "Dan's conditions are often unchallenged"? Did you miss the whole conversation above? --{{victar|talk}} 02:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed "other instances outside this vote". DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose (assuming the vote has indeed started). I have not seen evidence that Donnanz needs admin tools: I have not seen him regularly undo vandalism or need to edit protected modules. More importantly, I have seen evidence that when Donnanz has been faced with tasks of the sort admins must handle, he has not performed them well. One important example is his conflict with Koavf over a categorisation scheme for counties, where he resorted to mild personal attacks ("Are you a bit thick?"), vague threats, and even butting into another conversation to say that Koavf should remove the "fake heart" from his signature (see User talk:Koavf for these and more). In this case and in others, he has wilfully ignored consensus, and at innumerable votes in RFD, he has ignored policy as well, instead bringing up personal feelings about the word in question as his rationale. Donnanz has contributed many good entries to the dictionary, and I hope he continues to do so; I merely think that he is unfit for the mop. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not true to say I don't revert vandalism, I do but not on a regular basis, and have picked up and reverted (mopped up if you like) undetected vandalism months afterwards. I wouldn't use admin tools regularly if I had them, there are times when a page is admin only, and they would be useful to have without having to trouble another admin. But if that is your judgment, so be it. DonnanZ (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to put the record straight on the Koavf affair. I felt badly let down by him after he "fished" for my support in his admin vote, which I gave in good faith. I certainly don't want to follow that example and fish for support here. My character is nowhere near as bad as Metaknowledge paints it. DonnanZ (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember that "fishing", nor do I see how it is relevant. As for my part, I have merely described your actions, as a manner of determining how you might act as an admin. Your character is not under examination, as far as I am concerned. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The "fishing" should be recorded in the Koavf vote archive. I admit my emotions may have got the better of me on occasion. I know another admin "loses his rag" occasionally, and I have been on the receiving end. But having met him I consider him as a friend, and won't condemn him. BTW, thanks for the feedback on my contributions, it is much appreciated. DonnanZ (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    weak Oppose per Metaknowledge. I don't think there would be misuse of the admin tools, but I've had several unpleasant interactions with Donnanz, and many "wtf" moments. Per utramque cavernam 12:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most of my adverse comments have related to RFD, where you are a proven deletionist, but don't always make good decisions. Your independent assessment is still welcome however. DonnanZ (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched my vote to abstain. Per utramque cavernam 12:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose partly per other votes, mostly per nominee's responses here — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: --{{victar|talk}} 06:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose: -- Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain Per Stephen and Dan Polansky. Per utramque cavernam 12:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

  • I'm not perturbed by any occasional impoliteness, as Donnanz is in my experience generally helpful to newcomers, or by his reasons for voting in RFD, as he can vote any way he likes imo, even as an admin. But I would like to know from Donnanz whether he intends to act in accordance with policy as an admin. And I'm curious for what kinds of things he would expect to use admin tools. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I already act in accordance with Wikipedia policy, but I think the only area I have a problem with is SoP policy, which I find very restrictive, and which has affected my voting in RFD, where RFD nominations shouldn't in a lot of cases be rubber-stamped. What would I use admin tools for? Combatting vandalism of course, which I do already on a limited scale, and a few other places where editing is admin-only and I feel competent. Nothing ill-considered hopefully, and I don't want to create any botch-ups. I am still developing skills and acquiring knowledge about the workings of Wiktionary even though I have been a registered user for five years now. DonnanZ (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am particularly interested in administering the etyl cleanup, which Mahagaja used to do. At current rates this could still be going on in ten year's time, particularly English. DonnanZ (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The admin tools are not (and should not be) given out as a party favor to candidates who we like (for whatever reason). The tools are given out for the benefit of the project. That's it. If a candidate for admin is doing good work, creating good pages, good edits, the tools will help him or her to work better and more efficiently, which benefits the project. As a bonus, having the tools helps to keep constructive admins around for a longer time.
New candidates who have never been an admin on any Wikimedia project always have some ideas and expectations about the tools, what they do, and they also have ideas about what will be expected of them (their duties) ... but their ideas and expectations are always inaccurate to some extent, especially in regard to what's expected of them. They don't really know what the tools are, and they don't know what will be expected of them. Often they think that they will have to put in regular hours, like a 9 to 5 job, or may have to do programming work (modules, templates) that may be beyond their capabilities. Or they think they will be required to act as police, judge and jury in regard to anons and other users, and they may feel uncomfortable with that. The reality is that they can just continue doing what they've been doing all along. It's nice if they will accept some mopping-up jobs like patrolling new edits, but that's not a requirement. There are no scheduling requirements, no being saddled with certain unpleasant tasks. Admins just do the things they're good at and enjoy doing, or are willing to accept and take on, and the tools will make it easier for them to do that.
The main complaints that some of us have about some new candidates are usually that they might be hard to get along with and could cause trouble and damage that's hard to clean up. That's simply nonsense. Anything an admin does can be quickly halted if need be, and any damage is easily and quickly set straight. The important thing is whether the candidate is doing good work (whatever work that may be), and that he edits well enough that other admins do not need to clean up after him. I see no reason at all that DonnanZ should not have the admin tools. It will help the project, and I don't think there is a downside. —Stephen (Talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Votes like this bring to mind that we need to segment more admin powers into roles. In that way, we can pick and choose what powers to grant users and allows us to forgo much of the politics. --{{victar|talk}} 18:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Metaknowledge did hint that he may close this vote, but under the circumstances I feel that would be unacceptable given his strong opposition, and further attempts to derail the vote, all of which may have affected any potential votes in favour. An independent decision by an admin who didn't vote is preferred. At the close it was 63% in favour by my calculation, which may not be enough, if Dan's vote is disallowed the figure would drop to 60%. DonnanZ (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did oppose (not sure I would say strongly; after all, there are many people who would be disastrous admins, and you are not one of them), although I did not derail. Per your wishes, I will let another admin close this vote. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"... and you are not one of them". That wasn't the impression I got (and maybe others) when I read "I merely think that he is unfit for the mop." DonnanZ (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much experience closing votes, but I have to say this Fails. However you calculate it, it's not quite the supermajority that we seem to require: I've seen discussions in the past about whether the minimum should be two-thirds or three-quarters- neither of which are met here- and the lukewarm and/or ambivalent nature of comments by some of those in favor doesn't argue for pushing the boundaries in this instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz: Could you find a link to this requirement, please? I disagree that votes should be based on the "warmness", passion or comments provided. A vote is a vote, one doesn't require to make a "strong support", just "support", provide comments or rebut opponents. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "warmless" was a factor at all. This ratio would have failed regardless of the subject of the vote. I do think though that admin votes should require a certain vote count and only pass with a super majority, and I believe that has been always been at least the de-facto requirement. --{{victar|talk}} 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A de-facto requirement obviously isn't good enough. Has a supermajority ever been specified? Not to my knowledge. DonnanZ (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has, but I too am unhappy with the fact that there is not a set percentage we can refer to. I think that there should really be a vote on this, and I will probably create one if nobody else gets around to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That part of my comment was just an aside. As for the margin needed: if you can show me admin votes passing on less than two-thirds, I will change my result. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the vote in favour was over 50%, no consensus would be more appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. No consensus is indeed a better description. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is no consensus. As for the proposed unrestrained adminship and the support and oppose that can be determined from this vote page, I see 7 supports (my vote not including, DCDuring including) and 5 opposes (my vote including), amounting to 58.3% support. As for restrained adminship that I support, that would have to be done via another vote, given the opposition voiced to it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DCDuring's vote does not count, as it was after the deadline, which would make it 6-5-2. --{{victar|talk}} 02:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dan never changed his vote, so it ended 7-4-2, without DCDuring. DonnanZ (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever makes you feel better, man. --{{victar|talk}} 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I never changed my vote, and it said "oppose to the extent the condition is not met". As for the deadline, I am not bothered all that much; votes are consensus seeking exercises, not cold mechanisms, in my book. The evidence of DCDuring supporting the adminship is there, and the vote should have been extended by at least a week to count DCDuring in while at the same time addressing objections to fishing for results. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late now to extend the vote. I would rather let matters rest for the time being. DonnanZ (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can create a vote for your sysop with the easy-desyopping clause, but only if you wish. The easy-desyopping clause does not limit the admin tools in any way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Myself, and I recon many others, would not support the concept of a conditional adminship. I've seen them in other communities and they're virtually impossible to regulate to the point of them being no different than a normal adminship, defeating the point of any conditions. If you want to push conditional adminships, I say have a vote for that first. --{{victar|talk}} 18:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the above at all. We are talking adminship with a caveat or additional clause, not a conditional adminship. The regulation is very easy: the enadmining vote either contains the easy-desysop clause or it does not, and if it does, and someone creates a desysopping vote, the vote needs a superminority (1/3 + one additional vote) to pass. This is how it works in Czech Wikipedia and Czech Wiktionary for all admins; there, no such clause is required on a per-admin level. As for voting on the possibility of easy-desysop clause in a general vote, I don't see why: it is not forbidden. In any case, since Donnanz does not seem interested, this discussion is probably merely academic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-11/User:Donnanz_for_admin&oldid=51275230"