Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2007-08/SemperBlotto

• Nomination: I hereby nominate User:SemperBlotto as a local English Wiktionary Check User. In light of User:Kipmaster's stepping down and User:TheDaveRoss' absence, the need is somewhat increased. It has taken a significant amount of cajoling to get him to accept this nomination. But the timezone variety can only help. He has the technical understanding needed for the various CU roles, and knows when (and how) to ask for help, if he finds a particularly tricky situation. I have complete confidence that our number one human editor will make good, fair use of the tools provided. --Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Vote ends: 16 September 2007
• Vote started: 2 August 2007

• Acceptance:

**OK - This will stop me from pestering Connel at least once a week (I'm wrong in my guesswork at least 50% of the time). I just hope that it doesn't take time away from building the dictionary. (I did enjoy the "beans" link) SemperBlotto 08:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• After finally reading the relevent policy pages, I have decided that I do not agree with them and, even if I promised to abide by them I might be tempted to ignore them. As there are legal privacy implications I have decided that it is better if I DO NOT accept this offer. Thank you all for your kind support, and sorry to have wasted your time. SemperBlotto 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Support Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (Early vote on basis of e-mail acceptance before nomination.) Confirming this vote, post-acceptance. --Connel MacKenzie 02:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Support EncycloPetey 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (as above)
4. Support Thryduulf 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (not as per Connel, but based on acceptance on this page.) Thryduulf 08:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Support † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Support ArielGlenn 12:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Robert Ullmann 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) good idea
9. Support, for sure! bd2412 T 14:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Support H. (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC) of course.
11. Support --Tohru 15:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Rod (A. Smith) 16:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Support —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Medellia 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
16. Support Dvortygirl 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Leftmostcat 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Versageek 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
22. Support As per that I think from what I've seen he'll know how to use it correctly.Neskaya 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Hippietrail 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
25. Support I still don't really get the importance of Check Users, but if anyone should have the power it's SB. Widsith 08:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Wytukaze 09:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
28. Support \Mike 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) As per Widsith: if anyone should be a CU, SB should...
29. Support —Stephen 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
31. Support birdy _{(:> )=|} 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC) --birdy _{(:> )=|} 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Abstain DAVilla 08:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I would like a statement from all new checkusers that they will not abuse their power, in particular that they will not use the checkuser facility to persue those with whom they, personally, have disagreements. In other words, I would like to have a division between investigation and prosecution, so to speak, because it has not always been clear on Wiktionary as to what constitutes vandalism versus a content dispute. This goes a little beyond the policy on meta, which must be agreed to at minimum, and which would suffice for me if the distinction between vandalism and a content dispute were somewhere more delineated, to where a checkuser would be more certain that his or her actions fell within the acceptable boundaries, or if on the boundary would be less intimidated to ask. DAVilla 08:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose by voting in support of his nomination, we signal that we expect him not to abuse his newfound godlike powers. It'd be mighty odd to support if we thought that would happen. --Wytukaze 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I think you are greatly mistaken. If I understand your complaint correctly, the above-mentioned meta: policy does already clearly prohibit that class of abuse. (In that regard, I have prevented myself, in several cases, from checking specific users. In such cases, I am unquestionably required to pass it off to another CU. This is true even in some cases where such "personal conflicts" have arisen as a direct result of other CU checks.) If you have more specific questions, you are welcome to question me directly at mailto:[email protected] or Special:Emailuser/Connel MacKenzie. --Connel MacKenzie 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   Then I am mistaken. Nonetheless, I would like a statement from checkusers that they will abide by the policy. Frankly, I would like to know which policies an admin such as myself are expected to respect as well, beyond that of regular contributors. DAVilla 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

   I think accepting a nomination for a privilege indicates one's acceptance of the responsibilities of the privilege; otherwise, there'd be no reason not to accept a nomination, and we wouldn't bother asking. (Even so, something explicit might be nice.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominee, despite overwhelming support. DAVilla 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)