Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2017-04/User:Kiwima for admin

User:Kiwima for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate, or ask someone else instead of me to nominate, Kiwima (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. The user is not going to destroy the website.

Schedule:

Vote starts: 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Vote ends: 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Vote created: WF April 2017 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance:

Languages: en, (fr-2)
Timezone: UTC+12.5

Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Equinox ◑ 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Droigheann (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although, as I point out frequently, we have too many administrators and really don't need more. And I don't particularly like that Wonderfool goes around offering administratorship to people. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The more the merrier, although I agree Wonderfool seems like a loser. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no reason to oppose, and there's certainly no reason the majority of our editors shouldn't be admins if they can be trusted with the tools. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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) 20:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Such a relation which relates itself to its own self (that is to say, a self) must either have constituted itself or have been constituted by another." True, the passage was totally incomprehensible to me, but what of it as long as Kirkegaard was having fun? --Woody Allen
Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there's merit to giving somebody who's responsible and very active in RFV adminship. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support DCDuring (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Abstain I only really know Kiwima from their diligence in rescuing entries on RFV, which isn't really a strong basis for supporting or opposing nor is it something for which admin tools are particularly useful. They seem like a cool person though. I'll abstain. — Kleio (t · c) 21:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain DonnanZ (talk) 10:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Don't admin votes normally run for two weeks? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. My bad. I changed it. --WF April 2017 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a requirement that e-mail be enabled for all admins? AFAICT she doesn't have e-mail enabled. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't an admin yet. Once she becomes one, then she'll have to enable it. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Passed: 12-0-2. Done. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]