Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-03/User:Amgine for admin

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

Amgine for admin[edit]

  • Vote ends: 17 April 2008 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 18 March 2008 23:59 UTC

Support[edit]

  1. Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Old school is good school.[reply]
  2. Support it's about time. -- ArielGlenn 06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Connel MacKenzie 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support only if he promises never to create a userpage. [The]DaveRoss 10:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support EncycloPetey 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —Stephen 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Robert Ullmann 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC) It is amusing to note that the vote linked above was followed by a successful vote for Dangherous, opposed only by someone called "Wonderfool" ... Robert Ullmann 14:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Dijan 17:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Versageek 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Amgine has tons of previous wiki experience and can be trusted with the tools.[reply]
  11. Support Neskaya talk 05:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Definite support from me here.[reply]
  12. Support Some comments: The lack of recent contributions is troublesome, but I'm given to understand that Amgine would essentially be blocking and deleting for us, allowing those of you who already contribute a lot to focus on the good work you're doing. Amgine otherwise works mostly at Wikinews and is definitely a trustworthy contributor (and any wrong an admin does is trivial to undo anyway, with our current infrastructure). Derision of IRC as a bad idea factory is unhelpful and unwarranted. Just as it shouldn't be used as evidence in favour of actions, it shouldn't be used as evidence against either. Amgine is a regular on IRC and that's where they point out vandalism to the rest of us, that's all. This is cutting out the middleman. And for the love of all that's good, we needn't've rehashed this damn "admin needs a userpage" nonsense. A userpage is of no use to anyone but the user themself and if they have no use for it, what business is it of the rest of you? Unprofessional my blue arse. --Wytukaze 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Connell66 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose DAVilla 11:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) I don't like basing my vote on little more than a single personal encounter, in the debate over the reprimand vote, but besides some vandal fighting I don't see too much. I'm not denying the main point of not using blocks punitively, but it feels strange that the user could jump in out of nowhere... that is, not anywhere I am familiar with. I also have difficulty with the assertiveness of that debate and for User:Sesshomaru given that Amgine, though clearly well-intentioned, is not a regular here, with fewer than 500 edits total, barely over 100 recently. I would probably vote to support if I knew Amgine better, or if I had something more to base a vote on. The unrestored discussion is short, and journowiki.org doesn't load for me. It also seems that there isn't full disclosure since the user has old edits that require administrator privilidge, but when was adminship granted? Overall, I'm finding many more questions than answers. DAVilla 11:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Mostly what DAVilla said. (I was actually going to leave this vote be, but if I'm not going to be the only one opposing, then I might as well say it. :-P) I think a lot of people in this community have a bias toward people who were here way-back-when (i.e. people who were part of the "good old days"), which is understandable, but IMHO counterproductive, since in my experience the way-back-when, now-here-for-round-two types generally don't adapt well to the community's current norms. (Hmm. Maybe I have a bias against these people? AGF discusses people who come from other wikis and expect those wikis' norms to apply here; I suppose early-Wiktionary is an extreme case of that.) —RuakhTALK 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: If Amgine sticks around, I'll probably be ready to vote "support" within a few months. But for whatever reason, my current concerns about this user aren't allayed by the existing "support" votes. —RuakhTALK 12:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Ivan Štambuk 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Sysop buttons are just a matter of convenience around here, but with this infinitesimal amount of activity Amgine is generating, I sincerely doubt he/she/they'll miss them. And why no user page? It sends a bad message of unprofessionality. The overall impression of this vote, from my perspective, is that some users are artificially trying to correct some "injustice" that occurred a long time ago, and that newcomers don't really give a heck about. --Ivan Štambuk 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Too bad there isn't a general comments section) Actually the way this vote came about was: I'd been sitting on irc for, well, a year now I guess, with Amgine off and on providing useful advice. And the other day they were asking for some anon ips to be blocked. (Vandalism.) And I wondered aloud, wait, why don't they have adminship already? They know all the policies, are certainly trustworthy. So I asked that very question and was told that there had been some previous failed vote. Frankly I don't give a fig about a vote in which the primary opponents were Primetime and clones, so I asked if Amgine would accept a nomination and they said yes. There's nothing (in my mind) about injustices (well before my time) or about "the good old days" (also well before my time)... So, there ya go. -- ArielGlenn 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (indented your comment, hope you don't mind.) That seems odd, since this user made no contributions on the wiki between 10 September 2006 and 5 January 2008. I for one would be much happier if Amgine had participated in actual on-wiki discussions for more than the past 10 weeks (out of the past year and a half). I mean, participating via IRC is not necessarily a sign of delinquency, but I've never seen anything introduced or defended with the words "we talked about this on IRC" that didn't turn out to be a colossally bad idea; thus I find it difficult to accept IRC participation as a useful metric of good judgment. -- Visviva 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IRC "contributions" are not reasonably defined metric, and you cannot except other people who don't want to waste time on some primitive chat protocol (and do some real stuff in NS:0 instead) to agree on your logic, especially when you're proposing someone who is generating so little contributions that the whole idea of granting an adminship on the basis of "yeah, I know and trust did dude" could be a precedent to 1) legitimize *every* other proposal for adminship of anybody minimally involved in wiktionary, but designated as a "person of trust" (either on IRC, on being an admin on other wikiprojects etc.) 2) make abstain/oppose votes for adminship of someone who has shown a great deal of benevolence and eagerness, but has not gained enough "trust" (like the Keene's first vote) on the basis of "prematurity" or "not enough edits" or "not active long enough" look utterly hypocritical. --Ivan Štambuk 07:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Keene2 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Hardly any edits, despite the lengthy time spent here.[reply]
    Note: The above vote is from a banned contributor, and does not count. —RuakhTALK 15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Thryduulf 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)} Thryduulf 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Not enough recent contributions for me to be comfortable with giving them adminship at this time. I don't contribute to IRC so I cannot comment on his conduct there, but whether it is good, bad or indifferent it is irrelevant, imho, to determining suitability to wield the admin tools. Thryduulf 00:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

  1. Abstain SemperBlotto 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Considering the massive mistake that I made with Dangerous (see above) I had better take no part in this vote. (And I'm not really happy with the lack of a User page.)[reply]
  2. Abstain Krun 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. {{subst:support}} {{subst:oppose}} {{subst:support}} Support and Oppose I feel I ought to comment here, but I cannot decide which way to throw myself. I trust Amgine (having chatted on IRC for months) and doubt that the tools would be abused, particularly the work put into the new wiktionarydev (to be shortly unveiled I hope) is amazing. However looking at Wiktionary only I can find no real evidence that Amgine should be granted adminship. Then again it is no really big deal, and anyone who can help with counter-vandalism is a bonus. Though that brings up possible civility issues (not that I am innocent of those) certainly in the time of the "reprimand" vote it seemed that there was a bit of sniping going on. Amgine has had a "past" on Wiktionary about which I am mostly ignorant, however it seems that there is more than enough wiki-knowhow to see that the tools would be well-used. However this does then come back slightly to the cabal issue, of "Wiktionary was good" lets keep it that way, <edit>which is the only reason I can see for this nomination, though I am not accusing Amgine of being part of it</edit> - which is something that is certainly evident on IRC in a semi-lighthearted way. </ramble> Conrad.Irwin 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain Visviva 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I have no doubt that Amgine will be a competent handler of the tools, but I am concerned about the lack of participation in the project prior to January of this year. Also the manner of this user's re-engagement with the community (in the reprimand vote) is not encouraging -- both because of the language used, and because of the pattern which was seen in that debate, in which people parachuting in from IRC collectively demonstrated a singular lack of understanding of the issues. We really do not need another over-sensitive, obsessive patroller who puts excessive weight on IRC snap judgments. I'm not saying that Amgine is such a contributor, but this user's recent contributions just don't give me enough to go on. -- Visviva 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Indented to remove from the tally, as I intend this as an actual abstention, not a fractional oppose. [reply]
    I seem to recall discussing this before, but should we maybe replace "abstain" with "comment only" or "weigh in" or some other verb? Because I don't think any abstainer ever wants their vote taken as a fractional oppose. —RuakhTALK 00:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a vote would only count toward quorum, if we ever get around to defining that, if there is even a need to do so. As to the tally, removing this abstain vote shouldn't affect it at all. It was msh's advice that abstain votes be completely neutral, not counting either way. A single vote in favor and a hundred abstentions is passing. I don't know anyone other than myself who had suggested it should be any other way. DAVilla 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I must have misunderstood or misremembered the previous discussion. Relisting. -- Visviva 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

Slightly controversial, but the Aye's have it, could someone please flip the bit. Conrad.Irwin 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Hasn't our bar for "consensus" been something like 3:1 or 4:1? (Personally I think I'd be O.K. with a somewhat lower bar — this vote does have 70.5% in favor — but it would be nice to determine a meta-consensus about what constitutes a consensus. :-P ) —RuakhTALK 04:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discounting all indef banned users it is 3:1, but I agree it is important to determine whether the nays agree that an aye consensus exists. - [The]DaveRoss 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has any 'pedia bureaucrat contacts, we may want to ask them what their standard is. Inasmuch as I'm certainly not for just going along with whatever the 'pedia does (quite the opposite actually), I have to imagine they have a more concrete concept of what counts as consensus and what doesn't. It might be worth at least hearing what their bar is set at. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The traditional RFA threshold on WP is 75% (or 3:1), though I think anything between 70% and 80% is considered to fall within the discretionary range. Can't seem to find a current page on that, but this is interesting.
Speaking as an oppose-leaning neutral, I would have no problem with a finding of consensus to promote. -- Visviva 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an oppose-leaning oppose, I also would have no problem with it, especially since (as TheDaveRoss points out) it is actually 3:1 if we ignore Keene's vote (as we should). —RuakhTALK 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-03/User:Amgine_for_admin&oldid=75279410"