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

User:Per utramque cavernam for admin
Nomination: I hereby nominate 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)  Comes across as diligent and sensible. -Stelio (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  12:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  – Jberkel 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Fay Freak (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Everybody is weird on Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  Equinox ◑ 20:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  If we're going to have a standard of conduct for admins and their conduct and usernames it needs to be written down and not arbitrarily applied in other votes.DTLHS (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) --Calak (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 9)  my mentor (not just patroller). He is a born teacher: patient, passionate.  He is young. Exciting. His humour, aristophanic. And his greek is excellent. sarri.greek (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)  DCDuring (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  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)
 * His current username is actually a reference to a Roman text slandering a woman, saying that she gets . Pleasant. -- 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)
 * 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. -- 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. -- 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)
 * Thanks for the reply, . I think it's always helpful to get a list of what nominees actually want to do with their adminship. I've been giving this some thought, and maybe what's needed is a blocker role that allows users to add blocks, but those blocked users are then are placed on a list for review by an admin. Something similar could be done for deletions, but isn't that what delete is anyway? Maybe we could make a more expedited vandal (dv) tag category. -- 18:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you say here is: Umm, I expect he would use the admin tools right. But … but what then against his being admin? This is it. It’s not like he would mistreat people because they are women or black. Being racist or sexist is a meme. What matters if one judges individuals as individuals, individual cases individually, unsettled by the torrents of words. How poor would someone be who lets himself be guided, captured by how he has named himself!? Fay Freak (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that I would be OK giving him the tools on a role basis, which is easier to grant, and just as easy to take away. Vahagn's de-synop vote is a perfect example of how the de-synoping process is virtually impossible to pass. -- 22:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that being racist and/or sexist is not a "meme", it is being racist and/or sexist. And you have the logic backwards, it is not a concern that in choosing a name s/he may be influenced by that name, but it is a concern that there is a decided lack of wisdom, decorum, decency or civility shown by the choices which have been made. - TheDaveRoss  17:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Particularly with people interested in multiple languages I would be careful to assume them being “racist”. This is an indication that they aren’t. They rather just like to exert their vocabulary. Extrapolating degrees of “wisdom, decorum, decency or civility” there is magniloquent. What about creativity? Choosing names is hard. There are also many good books with bad names.
 * Surely it is a meme since these words are often used and rare with clear concept. Being racist is when you take actions only to further the cause of a race. Or when a cop let’s someone go because it is a fair woman, irrespective of the character or degree of offence, that’s sexism. People give themselves names like “Shqyptar” or “Iranian” without this being problematic. Being “somehow focused on race” is not racist.  is also not racist. Ironically, it was purported that he abides in Nigeria, and it was totally possible. This part is crucial: “Though it doesn’t matter who I am, as the only thing that matters is my plan, it may be worthwhile to let the record show that I am a very nice person, who has always treated people of all races as individuals in any and all of my one-on-one interpersonal interactions.” I wouldn’t have a problem if Mr. Anglin appeared and made good edits and were planned to be made admin. People get upset in many wrong directions. Fay Freak (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was not making a judgment, you said "Being racist or sexist is a meme.", I was disagreeing. Also, if you think Andrew Anglin isn't a racist/sexist simply because he said that he isn't... well I have a bridge I would love to sell you. - TheDaveRoss  18:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not the vularity that really bothers me, it's the history of sexist rhetoric, as exampled by "Fickle as a female''". -- 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  for obvious reasons. DonnanZ (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- 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)
 * 3)  per Mnemosientje, including self-nom-via-sockpuppet. The people who want to be admins so much that they have to resort to that kind of thing are the people who should not be admins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  per raised issues. --Njardarlogar (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  as well. I've only had good contact with him, but the issues mentioned above, especially the relatively recent ones, make me think he isn't ready to be an admin yet. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  per my comments above and below. --  06:05, 11 February 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. --  01:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All very weird, a sign of instability? DonnanZ (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm worried about, that he lacks the emotional stability and maturity to be trusted with admin tools. -- 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)
 * So you're saying that emotional stability and maturity isn't required for adminship? -- 19:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t one develop oneself instead of being stagnant? Fay Freak (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. -- 20:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. -- 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)
 * Fair enough. If he hadn't, that would have been worse, for sure. The list of socks was created at the behest of Meta. -- 18:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision

 * 10-7-0 is not a sufficient majority. Vote fails no consensus. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm disappointed, but that's ok; I understand the reasons for the oppose votes. Anyway, thank you for the nomination, and thanks for the other votes of confidence too. Per utramque cavernam 18:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, we usually close this as no consensus, but the result is the same. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW I am thinking User:Per utramque cavernam should at least be given template editor permissions, if he is interested. I will go ahead if the user is interested, unless someone seriously objects. Benwing2 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I don't have any technical skills, so I don't think it would be of much use. As of yet, I've never been in a situation where having the template editor status would have been useful. Per utramque cavernam 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Benwing2 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)