Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-06/User:Smuconlaw for admin, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

User:Smuconlaw for admin

Support

  1. Support --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Equinox ◑ 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  6. Support —JohnC5 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  7. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  8. 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)
  9. Support +++ DCDuring TALK 22:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  10. Support. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  11. Support for admin and {{support}} the great work SMUconlaw does here. - TheDaveRoss 20:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  12. Support – Jberkel (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    OK, I've updated it. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

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. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Well we certainly have a rule against permablocked users starting votes. --WikiTiki89 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it make you feel better if I nominated him instead? -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better for an admin to do it, especially now that the issue has been raised. @Vahagn Petrosyan, Equinox, Angr: Would one of you co-sign on the nomination at the top of this vote? --WikiTiki89 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Done 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)
Aye, there doesn't seem to be any rules against it. -Xbony2 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
But in this case, we needed extra authority to overrule WF, whose authority is far in the negative. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Maybe we should just give you bureaucrat rights so we wouldn't have to waste our time voting. -Xbony2 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Abstain I couldn't come up with a good reason for me to become the votemaster. Turnedlessef (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Illegal abstention by permablocked user. --WikiTiki89 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Lamest strikeout ever. --Turnedlessef (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, even lamer than this one. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia