Nomination: I hereby nominate Benwing (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He has made great contributions in the Arabic language contents, modules and templates, set up a whole infrastructure, which enabled complex Arabic verb conjugations, noun, adjective, etc. declensions, accurate Arabic transliteration of terms with diacritics. Good linguistic and technical skills. Helpful and responsive, has the the right attitude to become an efficient admin. Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)10:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think that we need a separate rights group for editors who need to edit technical pages but not necessarily have blocking rights or patrolling responsibilities. --WikiTiki8913:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I have no reservations about Benwing specifically (who I'm sure will make a great admin), only about our admin-to-regular-editor ratio. --WikiTiki8913:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has such a rights group: w:Wikipedia:Template editor, which actually works by establishing a second type of page protection, protecting templates with that protection rather than with normal protection, and then allowing template editors the right to edit pages protected with that protection. I would think it would be easy for the devs to turn that feature on here, if we asked. - -sche(discuss)04:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the 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) 09:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you suggest that my being not the nominator prevents me from opposing what are in effect unaccountable adminships for life, I think you are quite mistaken. I am aware of your previous arguments, and I found them unconvincing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Polansky: Unfortunately, I must agree with META in this matter. You can't walk into a voting booth, vote for an official, and then claim that your vote only counts if the official does what you want; that is simply not how elections work. You must institute this separately via a policy vote as what you are requesting is a policy change. I could be fine with with the conditions your proposal (with very specific definitions of the terms and procedures involved), but I am sure some other users would not approve of it at all. Until a policy change is instituted, your vote must be read as an oppose out of pure parliamentary practice.
I'd also point out that this problem is part of a larger spate of ex post facto condition injections that have been showing up in other Wiktionary votes. I'm considering proposing a vote banning the addition of new conditions to an already running vote unless a separate sub-vote is appended to the original accepting the change. Again, I do not mean to offend you (and I hope I have not), but we cannot allow users to inject their conditions without public agreement. —JohnC512:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is not any policy for adminships and their removal, only a common practice. I think it charitable of me to post a conditional support rather than posting an oppose. You have not offended me; you have merely stated an agreement with ISMETA, which is your right. This is not a court of law. I do not intend to investigate the meaning of terms like ex post facto any deep, but let me note that I am not making anything retroactive but rather only on a go-forward basis for this particular nomination. I note that the "musts" that you present are largely unsupported by an argument, but rather seem to draw an analogy to a certain legal practice. In votes for an official, my vote cannot be accompanied by a meaningful comment, which is not the case here. I do not believe my vote must be read as oppose, but as long as I am the sole voice under my banner, it can be so read, and this discussion is moot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The more the merrier. (Regarding the policy discussion that has leaked into this vote: ideally, every experienced editor in good standing would have admin privs. Regrettably that is not currently the case, but the fact that the pond already doesn't have enough water is no reason to drain it.) -- Visviva (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let us have many people become admins as long as they wish. I have seen people rejected because they did not discuss enough; I find that inferior. The problem is editors who are objectionable in the role of an admin. Whether someones is a bad admin can only reliably be found by seeing them doing the adminship. It should be rather easy for people to become admins, but also rather easy for people to lose their bits. To give high hurdles to people becoming admins is bad, but it is something that has to be done as long as there is no easy way to desysop. Once there is an easy way to desysop, it can get much easier to ensysop. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I could only support under the condition that, if there is a future vote seeking to confirm adminship of this editor and that vote achieves no consensus, the editor loses the admin rights. Since that condition is not specified on this vote, I cannot support it. This is nothing personal, only a matter of general principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this and apologize to you for making a stink about it and to Benwing for removing a supporting vote. I do hope that you will set up a separate policy vote as you are correct that the system of adminship is broken and needs stricter guidelines. —JohnC512:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think the carps will agree to having their pond emptied, as we say in Czech? (If the metaphor is too hard to understand, I'll try to find the native English expression instead.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(That is a good expression. I'm having a hard time coming up with a good equivalent.) You are correct that there are several admins whose power is mostly unchecked and who would oppose such action. I know that I am acting in good faith and believe strongly that ISMETA is too when we oppose this method of change. I have seen the arguments raging across this project and tend to avoid them because they are too inimical for me, but you are very much correct that some new system is needed, whether it be arbitration, term limits, reëlection, or something else. —JohnC513:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Term limits would include unnecessary bureaucracy since they would require express reelection (people casting votes) of someone whose ability to continue has never been questioned in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain. I see no reason to distrust Benwing specifically; though we have not interacted too often, so this is not really saying much. I think that too often this project hands out admin rights like the Nobel Committee the Peace Prize. Like Wikitiki, I would welcome the addition of a group that can edit protected pages. —Keφr14:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think that we need a separate rights group for editors who need to edit technical pages but not necessarily have blocking rights or patrolling responsibilities. --WikiTiki89 13:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I could only support under the condition that, if there is a future vote seeking to confirm adminship of this editor and that vote achieves no consensus, the editor loses the admin rights. Since that condition is not specified on this vote, I cannot support it. This is nothing personal, only a matter of general principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
