Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2007-08/User:BD2412 for checkuser

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

User:BD2412 for checkuser[edit]

  • Vote ends: 19 September 2007 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 19 August 2007
  • Acceptance: I accept, and agree to abide by all relevant policies. As an attorney, I've had plenty of practice in keeping confidences. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support DAVilla 10:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Thryduulf 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (conditional upon formal acceptance)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg SupportRuakhTALK 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
    (I'm not convinced that we actually need so many checkusers as are currently being nominated, and I'm slightly concerned that this might be one of those positions that you shouldn't fill many more than you need … but, I guess I'm not so concerned as to actually vote against candidates I trust.) —RuakhTALK 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support Rod (A. Smith) 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support Versageek 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support EncycloPetey 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I wasn't sure about your technical experience, but if Versageek supports you, I do too.
    I looked at the specs that Connel laid out on his talk page in a discussion of what new CU's should know. I believe I understand the area well enough to learn the rest. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg SupportSaltmarsh 06:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support Jeffqyzt 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support Robert Ullmann 14:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support Williamsayers79 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Symbol support vote.svg Support Tohru 12:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Symbol support vote.svg Support H. (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is not a vote of lack of trust, and I don't really have concerns about any of the candidates presented. However, I must say that the proposed additions are too many CheckUsers for a community our size. We already have as many CheckUsers as most Wikipedias our size or larger, and the tool is used even less here than there. I don not want to give the appearance that I see it as an exclusive club, but CheckUser is a very sensitive, even dangerous, tool, and not one to give out needlessly. There are only 3 CheckUsers currently, adding 4 is excessive; even is we were understaffed, and as a CheckUser, I don't really think we are, we should add one at a time, and then assess the need. Dmcdevit·t 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    I am aghast! Reasonable, though. bd2412 T 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Highly unreasonable! It is very difficult to believe that your motivation is pure. If you sincerely felt that there were too many nominations, then why did you oppose Rodasmith, who had more support than anyone else? It couldn't have been because of technical requirements. By supporting Versageek over him, you are trying to dictate who will be appointed and who won't. Not an exclusive club indeed! For someone in your role, in whom the community has placed so much faith, this kind of behavior is unusual at the very least. Maybe you just don't feel like training anyone? There are people outside of Wiktionary who can help with that, and probably enough within Wiktionary anyway.
    You do understand that CheckUsers are extremely difficult to appoint in the first place? Although the majority of the more active users have already supported three if not all four candidates, this vote is still only halfway to the +25 mark. It doesn't take an objection to limit the number of users passed. Uncle G's nomination was unsuccessful without any objections. If you have a good reason for objecting to BD2412 then come out with it. Frankly I feel that he, as a lawyer, would understand the privacy implications better than anyone else here. I hope you're not afraid of that. If it were me, I would be happy to have someone in the loop to ask those kinds of questions, even if he rarely took over the controls.
    Or someone like Stephen, who could use language ability as a discriminating factor in addition to all the tools. You or I wouldn't have a clue when someone was, e.g., faking to not know a language. Not long ago we were limited to mostly one-word translations, but our reach has been expanding. Are you saying that, if such a multilingual case were to arise, you wouldn't feel less qualified than him? It's only a matter of time.
    This line of argument also contradicts some of the discussion on a policy of Assume Good Faith, if you've followed it. Connel has been very insitent that English Wiktionary does not have the kind of admin support of Wikipedia. I would have thought the comparison you make to the Wikipedias to be a sound argument, that the number of admins is suggestive of the community size, but apparently there are more edits here, relatively, then there are people to monitor them, or certainly to baby them. Isn't that intrinsically related to this role of CheckUser? Isn't the use of that tool related to the size of the project rather than the community? If the tool is used so little here, maybe it's because the capacity has been limited to handful of notorious cases, and on the rest we just went on assumption. That, if anything, has been our biggest black spot, and as I understand it the basis of a handful of unjust blocks.
    Plus, if they are a select bunch, aren't the CheckUsers on Wikipedia some of the most dedicated contributors there are anywhere in the world? Do we expect all of our CheckUsers to be so devoted? To say that CheckUsers here have lasted for long would be a poor generalization. Just because there are four nominees, even if they were all accepted, that doesn't mean there will be seven CheckUsers a year from now. In the past year we've had Kipmaster and Jon Harald Søby appoined only to see them resign locally. I was under the impression that TheDaveRoss was less active in the role, but regardless, I would be very surprised if, with little additional help, all three current CheckUsers weren't worn out from it a year from now. Connel once mentioned that he would like to find a replacement. I don't know or want to imply how he feels presently, but when any of you do feel that way, can we trust each of you to remain active until a replacement is found? Do you feel your position as that high of a duty, that you would place other events in your life before it?
    Wiktionary is growing, and going about this one arm-twisting nomination at a time is not an ideal solution. With the mediocre success rates we've had of nominations and the somewhat surprising turn-over of appointees, it feels like a much stronger argument is necessary to object. I informed everyone I approached of the technical requirements and had some decline. Their number is not as great as you exaggerate it to be. I made these nominations because I felt that each and every one of these active contributors has strong community support and that they can be trusted. I can't think of any other reasonable criteria to judge them on. What are you trying to do? DAVilla 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    What am I trying to do here? I spoke plainly, and did not expect to be personally attacked like this. I find it interesting that you bring up the discussions on AGF, as that idea really rings hollow if I cannot express my own reasoned opinion without being accused of impure motives and trying to engineer my own results. Frankly, this is a volunteer project. And, while I have volunteered as an administrator at various Wikimedia projects since before you even started editing, and have been a CheckUser since before you were ever an admin, I did not volunteer to be subjected to paranoid rantings that, frankly are offensive. Really, most of what you've said demonstrates that you don't really know what you are talking about, and don't really care to find out, either. I do think there are questions we need to discuss and answer, and there is plenty of time to do that before the vote ends, but I was expecting discussion, not a boxing match. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    I got carried away, and I owe you an apology. While I said that "it is very difficult to believe that your motivation is pure", I do believe your reason for casting three opposing votes. I just believe that doing so, while not meant underhandedly, is a misguided effort to restrict the number of nominees. I was not questioning the work you've volunteered or any other part your record. I was specifically questioning your vote, and doing so on the basis of how you voted. You spoke plainly, but you did not act plainly, and I'm sorry that I took offense. There is a misunderstanding on my part, and despite what you say, I really do want to know how. I'm sure I must owe you a greater apology. I'm sure that, having the knowledge of a CheckUser yourself, you are more able to make a convincing argument. If I made too many nominations, then I must have gotten some things wrong. It's much more likely that you will be an active CheckUser on Wiktionary a year from now, you're saying. Very well, we'll take the first one or two past the mark, if we can get that far, and I'll withdraw the others. When you vote as you wish, to satisfy me you don't even have to give a reason. After all, no one else has given a reason for selectively abstaining. It is easier to believe that someone who objects doesn't fully trust a candidate and is hesitant to say so publicly. That was not the case for you, but objecting to a candidate is a big stigma for anyone else voting, regardless of the reason given. Large numbers of CheckUser nominations are not unprecedented, nor the rational that there are already a sufficient number. But please wait until we have an appointee to make this kind of declaration. DAVilla 20:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    As I said, it is not a good idea to create CheckUsers needlessly, since it means giving more people access to sensitive information. If people don't need access to personally-identifying information, they shouldn't have it, both legally for the Foundation, and ethically for all of our sakes, when we edit. There is a reason that the Foundation imposes the absolute minimum of 25 votes for a project to support a CheckUser, and I think if you are frustrated at how difficult that number sometimes is to achieve, you are missing the point: that threshold is intended to demonstrate when a community is too small to support CheckUsers.
    I don't think it constitutes not acting plainly to have this concern, and to prefer not to more than double our small community's CheckUser population in a single month. I voted for the only candidate with CheckUser experience, and it was because I think that adding one CheckUser is sufficient. My objections are not intended as a stigma to the candidates, as they are not really based on a lack of trust. But even in the case that they do cause stigma, I'm afraid that preventing hard feelings is not a reason to give access to sensitive information either, and I'm no trying to be heartless. Dmcdevit·t 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    Having the concern is fine. You've convinced me that it's legitimate. We won't double the number. But if having too many CheckUsers is the concern, then why hand-pick one out of the bunch instead of waiting to see who has the most support? You voted in favor of the most junior member. Because of his experience with the tools and his demonstrated understanding of our blocking policy, I don't think Versageek is any less qualified than the others. But why pass up the others, especially Rodasmith, who was closer to the mark than anyone else? You didn't just vote in favor of Versageek, you voted against each of the others. I can understand bringing the other votes to a halt once we have a couple of appointees, and that does address your concern. I can't understand how ruling out anyone this early, on no other grounds, can help anything. DAVilla 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    I honestly don't think my nomination is worth this much argument (and if the argument is about other noms it should be on other pages). I am always willing to take on an extra task for the benefit of the project, but I am equally willing to pass up the opportunity to take on such a task, for the benefit of the project. I had the conception in mind that we would have a CheckUser team, and that if I was part of that team I would be able to offer a legal perspective to other CheckUsers, since they would be barred from obtaining a fully informed opinion from someone outside the team. I think this is a worthwhile vision, but not so much that I wish to be the cause of dissension in the community. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your diplomacy, but it's a discussion worth having, and I accept DAVilla's apology, so I don't think it's dissension to figure out why we think what we do. :-) Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    It seems like your main concern is that I voted for someone who had fewer votes than the leader, but I have to admit that that reasoning is still incomprehensible to me. I did wait a while, too see how the votes would pan out. However, it is clear to me that people tend to simply support unless there is an obvious flaw with the candidate; in fact, I suspect any admin could get a unanimous CU vote, (and I suspect that's the only reason I did, when I was newer to Wiktionary than many others!) I see that as a flaw, perhaps an inevitable one, in the system: the effect of requiring 25 votes to vet out the small communities means that any community that can get 25 votes can elect any number of CUs, even thought he intent is that they be proportionate to the need. So, that's when I decided to oppose. If that means I only support my first choice, I don't think I am obligated to support whoever has the most supports instead. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Re: "people tend to simply support unless there is an obvious flaw with the candidate": I don't think that's completely true, going by who's voted for each candidate; there were several people who voted for all the candidates (or all but themselves), but there were also plenty who didn't. (I did a tally the other day, and I think it was about half and half.) —RuakhTALK 01:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I voted in favour of the three candidates who I know enough of to to feel comfortable with in the role of checkuser. I did not vote for or against Versageek as I do not know them well enough to feel comfortable appointing them to the role of checkuser, but equally I know of nothing that makes me want to oppose.
    Not every admin would be able to gather a unanimous vote for checkuser. I do not have the technical knowledge required for the role (nor would I want the job if I did), and so if for some reason I was nominated I would not be supported by users who are aware of the technical abilities of others (Connel and Robert Ullmann come immediately to mind). Thryduulf 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, you are both right; if I was exaggerating it was because I was trying to make this general point: the candidates presented here are mostly good, and I can think of more—In fact, the number of acceptable candidates likely far outweighs our need. That puts us in the situation of voting down acceptable candidates, as I have chosen to do, or voting in excessive candidates. In general, I am a firm believer in the philosophy that adminship is not a big deal, and that any acceptable candidate deserves the tools, but this is not the same way we ought to be looking at access to sensitive personal information. Admin actions are reversible, CheckUser uses are potentially harmful. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but aren't you saying that the potential harm to be done by a CheckUser is based on their possibly revealing sensitive information, rather than by their ability to make some irreversible technical change? bd2412 T 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Not personal (I trust him very much) but reviewing the log, English Wiktionary doesn't seem to need another checkuser. At least now. 50 checks were performed since August 1, 2007. I think three users enough to deal with them. And generally I think the number of checkuser granted users should be kept only as many as necessary. --Aphaia 03:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Abstain[edit]

Decision[edit]

  • Had been withdrawn. DAVilla 02:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)