Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-07/User:Julia for admin

User:Julia for admin
Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Equinox ◑ 04:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a previous vote on this: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2018-08/User:Julia for admin; that vote was aborted early because of academic/sporting commitments (what in England we call "messing about in a boat").

She has continued doing a lot of work here and now would like to run the vote again. See contribs here: Special:Contributions/Julia

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 04:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Equinox ◑ 04:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance:
 * Languages: en, de-3
 * Timezone: UTC-5
 * Julia ☺ ☆ 23:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  – Fay Freak (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Equinox ◑ 22:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  PseudoSkull (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  Ketiga123 (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 6)  -  TheDaveRoss  12:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) . On a general note: in the past, I casted conditional supports pointing to lacking proper desysop policy but these supports have produced quite a lot of antagonism, as evidenced e.g. in Votes/2019-03/Disallowing conditional voting. Instead of casting a conditional support, let me point out that it is currently too hard to desysop people, which is not in the spirit of consensus based decision making and governance. The English Wiktionary needs a policy that enables something like votes of confidence, in which an admin keeps an admin flag only if they achieve consensual support, or if that policy is considered to make admins too vulnerable, if they achieve a plain majority support. Keeping admins supported only by a superminority is fundamentally flawed in my view, and raises unnecessary doubts about prospective admins instead of letting them prove themselves fit for the mop and the power. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After seeing that you had added nearly 1,000 bytes to the page, I hoped that you'd be the first to provide some actual cogent rationale to why Julia needs adminship; unfortunately, I still seem to be out of luck. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 14:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * All right. Julia probably does not need admin tools very much. An unstated English Wiktionary policy (or would-be policy?) seems to be that anyone who has contributed to the English Wiktionary for an extended period of time and did not disqualify themselves by doing something questionable can become an admin; the more the merrier. The examination is not of the need for tools but rather of possible problems or risks; that seems reasonable to me. On a different note, on the vote talk page, Julia said "The most useful tool would be able to speedily delete things myself in languages I work on like Alemannic German and Cimbrian. I would also like to be able to edit some of the Module:languages data." --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And to repeat what I wrote there, delete should suffice in all such (rare) cases and the template editor roles grants language data access, if that's even something they would ever need. I simply fundamentally disagree that just being a (semi) active user is grounds for automatic adminship, especially when desynoping an admin is virtually impossible. -- 16:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  DTLHS (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , haven't seen much reason not to support really, the given reason that the tools would be useful for moving entries from unattested dictionary spellings makes sense. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the page mover role, without the need to adminship. -- 01:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have gone for that had I seen cogent arguments that Julia would be unfit for the role, but I hadn't. The point was that the application/acceptance for admin status was not without reasonable motivation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Canonicalization (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  AuroraeLux (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  a high-volume quality editor. --Habst (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Still a sloppy editor, in my opinion. There also has been no indication why this user should be synoped. --  20:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Some examples of "sloppy editing" from the last few months (any earlier examples are irrelevant, as she could've learned from them or at least learned to avoid doing them) would make your point come across as more credible. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 02:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed my example because I just wanted to let people look at Julia's record and judge for themselves, but since you asked, the other day, Julia added to an entry, which is not how we handle Chinese at all, but more importantly, shows that they didn't bother to look at other Chinese entries for guidance. It's rookie mistakes like that which make me wary and again, it hasn't ever been made clear what she needs admin tools for -- this is practically a blank nomination. --  04:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  While I don't have any particular objections to Julia becoming an admin, I find it slightly concerning that nobody supporting her adminship has offered any sort of reasoning whatsoever for why she should become an admin (it's not like this vote matters anyways, given that it still leaves a comfortable 80% majority; if it gets more competitive, I might reconsider what is essentially a protest vote). --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 14:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I now responded under my vote: need is usually not carefully examined, risks are. Our experience shows fresh admins usually find ways to use their tools, often in ways they could not have articulated or predicted beforehand. I like this ad hocism. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  Julia did point me in the right direction regarding uploading images using the Commons Upload Wizard, something I have made good use of. However I cannot comment on her editing, our paths don't usually cross there. DonnanZ (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Decision
14 supported, 2 opposed, and 1 abstained. The vote passes, with 87.3% (not counting abstention) support. It also should be mentioned that this is over 3/4 support, which is the maximum Wiktionary seems to require for a supermajority. Could a bureaucrat please change 's rights? PseudoSkull (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 3/4 (75%) has never been required in the last several years, from what I remember, if ever at all. Votes/2019-03/Defining a supermajority for passing votes applies to this vote, and the applicable threshold is 2/3 of supports to supports + opposes. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)