Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-01/User:Per utramque cavernam for admin

User:Per utramque cavernam for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Per utramque cavernam (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Per utramque cavernam is an active editor of French, English and classical languages and also requested a link to this section for full disclosure.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 11:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept.

• Languages: fr, en-2
• Timezone: UTC+1

Per utramque cavernam 04:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Comes across as diligent and sensible. -Stelio (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
2. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Support – Jberkel 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
4. Support Fay Freak (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Everybody is weird on Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
6. Support Equinox ◑ 20:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Have only really had pleasant interactions w/ this user and appreciate their many high-quality contributions (both to mainspace entries and to debates in the discussion rooms) & rollbacks of vandalism, and I was not aware of any issues until checking out this vote. But that self-nom-via-sockpuppet episode, which was only a year ago, seems extremely weird and red-flaggy to me. And, leaving aside for the moment the self-block request which was over two years ago now, the 10+ sockpuppets brought up by Victar also puzzle me, and include some pretty objectionable (1), (2) (cf. négraille: this is equivalent to someone editing under the username "nigger") ones. I am not sure this is the right time for adminship. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Mnemosientje: His current username is actually a reference to a Roman text slandering a woman, saying that she gets molitur per utramque cavernam (“fucked through both holes”). Pleasant. --{{victar|talk}} 18:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   With that revelation I can see another name change on the horizon. DonnanZ (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Donnanz: If he was really serious about becoming an admin, he should have changed it back to Fsojic or Barytonesis, instead of choosing a sexist and vulgar username. --{{victar|talk}} 19:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   To Donnanz: I don't plan on changing usernames again, no.

   That being said, I've had some misgivings myself about my current name when LBD offered me to be nominated; working as a regular contributor, I don't really see a problem, but if I were to work as an administrator, people might be disturbed by seeing such a username in a managerial position. Especially if, as Mnemosientje writes below, an admin is representative of the site. I don't know. Per utramque cavernam 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   Some 2000-year-old obscenity doesn't really bother me, it's those specific things I mentioned that disturb me a bit, considering an admin is also supposed to be (imo) representative of the site as a whole. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   The idea that admins represent Wiktionary is an interesting and underdiscussed assumption that many, though not all, of us hold. Some historical background on people's views can be found here, among other places. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   That's why I'm all for breaking up admin abilities into smaller roles, like we did for page moves. If someone needs a tool, let's just give them that tool. --{{victar|talk}} 01:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   I agree, but I have two remarks.

   • I'm chiefly interested in page-deleting rights, as I spend a lot of time in RFD. However, it's already quite a powerful tool, and in my opinion there should be a vote of some sort every time before granting it to a user.
   • I'd also like to be able to block vandals as soon as I spot them. But the blocking tool is probably the most powerful tool, and the one requiring the most discernment; with that in mind, I suppose once a user is granted that right he might as well be granted all the others. Besides, having blocking rights without page-deleting rights seems somewhat inefficient.

   So yes, I agree that creating smaller roles is a good idea, but it will require a bit of discussion, and I don't think it will (entirely) eliminate the need for votes (or any procedure allowing one to express one's trust or distrust in a user.) Per utramque cavernam 18:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

   It's not the vularity that really bothers me, is the history of sexist rhetoric, as exampled by "Fickle as a female". --{{victar|talk}} 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose for obvious reasons. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose -- good editor, not sure about judgement and that has been a problem with existing admins of late (or always). - TheDaveRoss 16:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Vote changed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

1. Abstain Very wary, given past history of unusual behaviour, from his requesting a self-ban, his frequent account name changes, to his sock-puppeted self-nomination last year. Abstain for now as more people comment. --{{victar|talk}} 01:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   All very weird, a sign of instability? DonnanZ (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Donnanz: That is what I'm worried about, that he lacks the emotional stability and maturity to be trusted with admin tools. --{{victar|talk}} 19:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   It's adminship we're talking about, not access to the nuclear briefcase. – Jberkel 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: So you're saying that emotional stability and maturity isn't required for adminship? --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   Shouldn’t one develop oneself instead of being stagnant? Fay Freak (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak: In regards to changing usernames? Inherently that's not an issue -- many admins have changed usernames, though not a frequency as him (you're a good second, I imagine) -- but it appears to me a symptom of a larger picture. --{{victar|talk}} 20:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   @Victar: Some is certainly required, but I think you're reading too much into it. Changing usernames frequently does not automatically equal instability. And he's requested the disclosure of the self nomination, where he even admits that it was a bad idea. To me this is a sign of maturity. – Jberkel 21:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   I address just that (username changing) above. I don't think admitting something is a bad idea, especially after you're caught, is any sign of maturity beyond that of an 8yo, nor does it negate the act. --{{victar|talk}} 22:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

   It's worth considering that requesting full disclosure goes beyond merely admitting wrong. The current list of socks has also been disclosed for about half a year (the later edits added IPs). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)