Support on the condition that the editor will lose admin flag if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping adminship; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. A clarification: My position is that my condition only applies if passing of the vote depends on support of editors who used this condition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose The user page identifies the user account as one for a project, not for a person. I assume that the user account is operated by a single person, the assistant professor, and that no one else has access to the account. I don't think this kind of identification is good enough for an admin flag. That said, I don't remember any qualms about the editing from the account. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The account has always been used for editing solely by me. I created it to run a student project (which ended a while ago), but students were always required to create their own accounts. At the time the account was created, I didn't know there was a rule about naming an account in a way that makes it look as if it doesn't refer to an individual, even though it is. In fact, Special:CreateAccount provides no information or links on rules relating to account naming. I also had a look at Help:Contents to see if there was any information on this, and didn't see any. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, given the account history, the account name itself is acceptable, although renaming it would be preferable, IMHO. But I think you should change the user page to no longer state that it stands for a project. As for rules, I do not know of any rule or policy. Rather, I base the above on what I think is good and proper. I am using my judgment to figure out what is good and what is not good, as is my habit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be a good idea to change your user page, especially now that the student project is over anyway. I see no reason to change your user name, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Since when do we allow non-admins to nominate people for adminship, let alone non-whitelisted users? I think this vote should be redone with a proper nomination. --WikiTiki8917:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have any rules against it. I've been nominating people for adminship for years now (under various usernames, of course), and by and large they've been successful - in fact, I've probably nommed more successful sysops than any other user. But it's a good point that you make. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfool has a track record of decent admin nominations. From what I remember, people usually do not complain when Wonderfool makes an admin nomination. I don't see why even a banned user should not be able to start a vote, although they would not be able to vote in it. The only problem with it that I can see would be vote overflood; other than that, each voter should vote based on the merit of the proposed change rather than the proposing person. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the rule should be that only Wonderfool should start admin votes. I'll try to think up a decent reason why over the course of the week. --Turnedlessef (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Abstain
Done, though I think a non-admin in good standing would have been as good as an admin for this purpose. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
