Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2020-10/User:Imetsia for admin

User:Imetsia for admin
Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. User hasn't annoyed anyone yet, and is active in RFD discussions. Candle-holding servant (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Candle-holding servant (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Acceptance:
 * Languages: it, en-4, de-2
 * Timezone: UTC-6
 * I accept. Imetsia (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) . Sorry, I'm weak -- I don't have the heart to spoil WF's fun. Anyway, Imetsia's a fantastic editor and will make a fantastic admin. Ultimateria (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) . Imetsia's a good editor, we could use an admin who's active in Italian and I'd hate to scupper Imetsia's admin vote just to disincentivise Wonderfool. If this vote fails only because most opposers want to send a signal to WF, it is unlikely that Imetsia will be immediately renominated. (Also the ending date is way too late.) ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  08:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 30 days is quite normal for an admin vote. Am I missing something? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're apparently right. Though since about 2016/2017 2 weeks has been more or less the norm in practice. (Apart from a few joke nominations by the usual suspect.) I don't think that inconsistency is really desirable, but nevermind for now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  He's only been around for 14 months, but why not?  – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , we shouldn't shoot the messenger if they come with good suggestions ;-) I second Ultimateria. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Robbie SWE --DannyS712 (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  so that they can delete Angelucci's SOP entries on sight. PUC – 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't egg 'em on to go rogue on the first day! ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Equinox ◑ 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  Contributions look great. TBH I think being nommed by WF is actually a plus point. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 22:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why “a plus point” (just curious)? — inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 14:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  and see no reason to object to this particular Wonderfoolery. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . Nothing against Imetsia, but I oppose all WF nominations as a way to disincentivise him from being annoying. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) . As above (sorry). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) . I've been familiarising myself with the person who nominated Imetsia. I can't in good conscience support Imetsia for an administrator role at this point in time. You've been here since 29 January, 2019. That's not much time at all. The real risk and danger that a mistake represents is too significant and so I'd rather err on the side of caution. I will declare today that I will oppose anyone for admin who has not been contributing for at least five years three years. The person who nominated you is no joke. He's nothing to laugh at. The danger represented by the person who nominated you is that he is competent enough to escape our notice before he begins his campaign of destruction. He likes to leave glaring clues as to who he is and what he's doing (cf. Dangherous). In the aftermath, I don't want to be one of those who looks back and says I should have known better. I would encourage  to heed my words and reconsider supporting Imetsia for this position at this time. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dentonius, your five-year standard is silly. We would run out of active admins if we insisted on that. And WF most certainly is something to laugh at — you don't seem to understand the situation at all. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Metaknowledge, what's a reasonable minimum period? What's the attrition rate like? Please, educate me. Even an autopatroller here can do a significant amount of damage. If you trust the wrong person, that person can corrupt the dictionary in ways which are hard to detect., before you came here, the person took over this place and blocked just about most of the admins and bureaucrats here for fun. That seems pretty serious to me. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I became an admin four months after I arrived. That's probably too early, but I haven't managed to destroy the wiki yet, so I guess it worked out. WF has not tried to be sneaky at all for almost a decade, by the way, so your fearmongering comes off as a bit clueless. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Five years is a long time. But, certainly, three years must be a reasonable time to learn the ropes here, gain experience, and prove commitment to this project? When you call him Wonderfool, by the way, you're making the threat out to be something cartoonish. It's a reason why I don't refer to this particular threat in that way. We're dealing with a clearly skilled tech-savvy user whose intention is to get promoted as far up the chain as possible without being detected. -- Dentonius (my politics | talk) 05:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware that Imetsia is not a long-time user, but I don't think that it is too soon for adminship. By the way, the ping did not get through. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  08:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For pings to work, they and your signature have to be added in the same edit: they will not work if there is not, or is already, a signature. You can also remove your signature then re-add it with pings in the next edit. J3133 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find Wonderfool generally good-intentioned and competent, so I don't see a problem in his nominations. I think a hard time requirement for admin is unnecessary. We don't really ever have enough admins, so better to take it up on a case-by-case basis. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * : I don't know this user. BTW, Metaknowledge blocked the nominator immediately, not for the first time. DonnanZ (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I believe the reason given for the block this time was recorded as "Unacceptable username". – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a common excuse; do you need to have a dirty mind and suspect innuendo? DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a stock reason that's sometimes given when Wonderfool is banned. Don't read too much into it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  18:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Common excuse = stock reason. DonnanZ (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more of a joke. We don't actively block WF for abusing multiple accounts, so why bother ticking that box? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * : Don't know the user. Re: WF votes, I wholeheartedly support heavier restrictions on who can create a vote, especially nominations. -- 19:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why it should make a difference. Could you explain what restrictions you'd want, and why? PUC – 21:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever works best to stop socks. I understand why you would wouldn't understand. =P -- 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * “Whatever works best to stop socks.” -- The best way is to ban this sockpuppeteer forever, right? Also, if you be of the opinion that users like WF should be barred from (nomination) votes, then it is better to start a vote regarding it, so that to-be-sysops not lose potential votes because of Wonderfoolery! — inqilābī  [ inqilāb   zindabād  ] 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  فين أخاي (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Jberkel 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passed 9–3 (75% support). ? PUC – 14:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Made it so SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)