Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-12/User:Equinox for admin

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

User:Equinox for admin

[edit]
  • Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Equinox as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Equinox has helped out a lot with the site maintenance, reverting countless instances of vandalism, starting RFD and RFV discussion with clear rationale, adding templates and inflected forms. His plentiful new entries are almost always perfectly laid out, with interesting, date-specified, and useful example sentences. I've never seen him being anything but diplomatic, despite having been suspected as being a notorious troll (which, of course, I believe [and sincerely hope] he is not). Jackofclubs 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote ends: 23:59 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 00:00 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Jackofclubs 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Ƿidsiþ 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Conrad.Irwin 22:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Unless CU brings up evidence.[reply]
  4. Support Duncan 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I may be wrong, but I've seen too much presumption of guilt in my life to take this lightly.[reply]
  5. Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC) With a similar caveat to Conrad's.[reply]
  6. Support. After thinking about it, I prefer Atelaes' approach to SB's. I never visit the main page anyway, so I don't much mind if it disappears. :-P   —RuakhTALK 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose Παρατηρητής 15:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (And it would not surprise me if JackofClubs was also a sockpuppet of WF)[reply]
    • Oppose pending vetting by a CheckUser. —RuakhTALK 15:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's always been my understanding that while a user check can prove (more or less) that someone is a sockpuppet, it cannot prove (or even provide meaningful evidence) that someone is not a sockpuppet. There are simply too many ways to evade detection -- especially for those who know the ropes. -- Visviva 16:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That is pretty much the case, has a request for CU been made for this guy for reasons other than this vote? If so I haven't seen it. Looking at this user's edits I can see why folks are suspicious. If you are wary, vote oppose regardless of what the CU results might be, they are too easily manipulated. - [The]DaveRoss 22:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I have filed three requests at WT:CU - though I now realise I already asked for one of them before, so that can probably be ignored. Conrad.Irwin 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose We cannot risk WF being a sysop again SemperBlotto 16:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we think he is WF? Ƿidsiþ 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Behavioural similarity. Conrad.Irwin 22:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose —Stephen 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Lacking in reason and common sense. —Stephen 13:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. By the way, I believe this pre-emptive opposition based on presumed sock puppetry to be harmful. Anyways it distracts us from the broader point. I oppose but only because the history is far too short. If there were a Wikipedia account I would probably have to support. In fact I very much hope that this contributor will be made admin some day. As it stands admin rights can wait a few months. This will not detract in any way from the value of the contributions. DAVilla 11:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain Visviva 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I wish we were in a position to require some kind of confidential identity verification for adminship. Unfortunately, I can't begin to imagine how that would work. -- Visviva 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Nadando 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain EncycloPetey 09:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

First of all, I'm glad to see that Conrad has taken the time to actually post an official CU request for Equinox. If the check does in fact implicate him as WF, then I will concede that it is probably not appropriate for him to gain admin status at this time. However, if it comes back as negative or inconclusive, then I think that his possible identity should be taken as of little consequence, and here's why. I think it unjust to profile a person based on some vague resemblances to another user. Anyone who has been on the English Wiktionary community for awhile will probably realize that quite a number of people (especially people of otherwise good community standing) have been suspected as WF socks, and that's probably in part because his modus operandi includes a number of admirable qualities (a large number of high quality contributions, a good sense of humour, and knowledge of French). Apparently, there are others which some cabal is safeguarding, but.... Anyway, I think it ignoble to let our fears get the better of us and prevent us from doing what needs to be done. Speaking as someone living in a country which is letting its fears run amok, this kind of witch hunt mentality sort of presses my buttons (could I be any more melodramatic?) Additionally, I still don't regret my decision to vote WF's latest incarnation in. Weighing the incredible contributions he made to this project against the Main page's deletion for a couple hours (an unfortunate event, to be sure, but not apocalyptic). While I do wish WF would grow up just a little bit, I am willing to take him as is. Oh, and Equinox, if you are not, in fact, WF, then I apologize for all of this. I imagine it must be rather surreal and unsettling. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any use, Conrad Irwin knows my real name (just from chatting on IRC, where this Wonderfool business eventually came up), and I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt with scanned passport, birth cert, updating of my (that person's) personal Web pages, etc., which I don't mind doing for some particularly established and trustworthy admin if it will help. Clearly I don't want to splash my identity all over the wiki though, and I realise everyone could just be all "well, he is that person, but that person must be WF then" — but there's no way on Earth to counter that. Equinox 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mechanism in place for identifying oneself to the Wikimedia Foundation, CheckUsers and Stewards are required to do so. This meta page describes how to do so. It is secure in that the only people who ever see your personal info are WMF employees (Cary I think). - [The]DaveRoss 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done this. So, er, anyone privileged who might want to compare notes with the WMF can now do so. Equinox 22:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have nothing against WF; he's a fun guy, and as you say, he's made great contributions, even if we count subtle vandalism as negative contributions. But I don't see the point of making him an admin; is he going to vandal-patrol? Is he going to speedy-delete garbage? Or is he just going to delete the main page within five minutes, forcing us to call in a Steward, and getting one of his accounts permanently banned? (Granted, they're a renewable resource, but still …) The point about a witch-hunt mentality is a good one, but an "oppose" vote is not quite the same as a "guilty" vote; it doesn't bother me too much if we mistakenly don't grant the admin privilege to someone, as long as said someone realizes that it's nothing personal. (But maybe I'd feel differently if I were the one being voted on!) —RuakhTALK 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I'm being obtuse. I took your comment as making two completely separate points, but now I see that they actually fit together: you're saying that the risk of sysopping WF are not as great as the benefit of sysopping a good WF-like editor. (Right?) I'm not sure if I agree or not. :-/   —RuakhTALK 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruakh, what concerns me is that if this vote fails (and it is only failing because of Wonderfool suspicions, and not because of anything I, Equinox, have done) then I think that people are likely to take that as official confirmation that I am Wonderfool and must never be given any responsibility. I find that rather irritating. Equinox 13:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might yet vote "oppose": I'm thinking about it. (Actually, if you check the history, you'll see that I voted "oppose" and rescinded it.) But as Ruakh stated (though he later qualified it): "an 'oppose' vote is not quite the same as a 'guilty' vote; it doesn't bother me too much if we mistakenly don't grant the admin privilege to someone".—msh210℠ 18:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]
Ah, well. Thanks for the honest votes anyway. Perhaps the WF "witch hunt" (someone else's words!) will die down eventually. Equinox 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]
Yeah, a while ago. It came back "inconclusive". Equinox 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-12/User:Equinox_for_admin&oldid=5976216"