Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-06/User:JohnC5 for admin

User:JohnC5 for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He's not a bad user. Type56op9 (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
 * Vote ends: 23:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Acceptance: I accept. Thanks for the opportunity! I don't know whether y'all might be interested in this? — JohnC5 14:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Languages: en-us-N, la-3, de-2, fr-2, ine-pro-2, sa-1, fro-1, non-1, gem-pro-1, grc-1
 * Timezone: UTC-6
 * — JohnC5 09:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  — I was going to start just such a vote today. This user is extremely helpful, produces truly top-notch entries, and is polite almost to a fault. He is becoming increasingly proficient in the use of modules; the ability to edit certain protected pages would be an asset to him and, as a result, the project. It should go without saying that he can be trusted with these tools. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) . Likes etymologies and ancient languages. My kind of a Wiktionarian. --Vahag (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Why not. --Z 15:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  — Ungoliant (falai) 14:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  (and no worries, Semper — non-WF Wiktionarians were going to nom him anyway). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if a confirmation vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do your mean by "a confirmation vote"? I don't understand what this refers to. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean a vote in which someone asks that an admin is confirmed in the role of admin. The proposal of a confirmation vote is along the lines of "The person Joe should continue being an admin". If the confirmation fails, the admin is desysopped. We did not have any such vote in the English Wiktionary yet, AFAIK; we only had multiple desysopping votes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it inequitable to impose this condition on JohnC5 when it doesn't apply to any of the other hundred-or-so administrators already "in office"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @I.S.M.E.T.A.: I don't think it is unfair or unjust. It is unequal (it applies the treatment only to new admins), which is acceptable to me as long as political alternatives with similar performance are absent. The hope of achieving a considerable check on what looks to me like basically unchecked power makes it worthwhile to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think it should be an extraordinary thing for an editor to be desysopped. The need to achieve a ⅔ majority in favour of desysopping rather a mere ⅓ minority (which is what your proposal amounts to in practice) is a check against hounding out less popular administrators, encourages people to work together (instead of trying to drive one another away), and is beneficially antipopulist. IMO, the closing administrator, bureaucrat, or whoever should count your vote as one in opposition, because I find it very unlikely that the community would enforce the condition you propose. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally disagree. Ensysopping, guarded by 2/3-majority approval, happens at the point at which the person has not shown their true sysop-colors. That is why the ensysopping vote is an insufficient check, and the hurdles to desysopping should be rather small. I reject the argument that people in power should be protected so that they can make unpopular decisions. And I don't believe honest and decent admins have anything to fear from 2/3-confirmation, any more than from the initial 2/3-ensysopping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. Do not fret about my taking this personally; I understand this could have been done on any ensysopping vote. I was, however, curious whether this principle is going to be put to a vote separately. I ask only to clarify the parliamentary procedure, as merely stating this intention within my vote does not seem like it would represent a binding contract for all future sysops (particularly as that would be a policy change and this is not a policy vote).
 * I hope this does not dissuade from voting for me, and I appreciate your support thus far! I am merely trying to make sure your vote is not misused in your eyes, if later it turns out your proposed policy is not implemented. As it stands, I would guess that the only scope in which your request could hold would be that of my particular election. I would be fine undergoing a confirmation if necessary (though it would be a tad strange to be the only person for whom it was required), but I'm relatively sure you cannot generalize this principle out to all future votes from this single instance. You could use it to set a precedent, I suppose, but I would imagine that the direct terms of the vote would need to be changed and voting would need to be restarted in order for this to apply directly to me.
 * Again, I say this solely to avoid a situation in which you feel that your franchise has been falsely used. Feel free to oppose my election if the terms of my ensysopping are not to your liking―I won't take it personally! :) — JohnC5 22:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @John: I am currently not planning to put this to a separate vote. Either some people join me in posting conditional supports and conditional opposes, or they won't. Those who see 2/3 as too high a threshold for confirmation (I still don't see why it is not then too high for ensysopping) may perhaps require at least 1/2 for confirmation rather than mere 1/3 for confirmation. This conditional support of mine only impacts the present vote; it has no power to directly impact future votes. Naturally, unless I change my mind, I will be posting similar conditional supports (and conditional opposes) in future. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)    &mdash; Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 10:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  Have not interacted, but seems good. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  —Stephen (Talk) 06:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Vote passes, 11-0-0. Waiting for a bureaucrat to grant him admin status. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. —Stephen (Talk) 09:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)