Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-08/User:So9q for interface admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate myself So9q (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Interface Administrator.

Motivation: I would like to be able to edit and improve the Mobile View, TranslationAdder.js and various other CSS and JS on en:wiktionary.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 20:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: So9q (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance:

1. Support - as an "interface administrator" only (not an administrator). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Why? They write on their own profile that they're Lua-0 and JS-1. Those are not the qualifications of someone who should be editing such site-breaking elements. --{{victar|talk}} 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose: Hard no. This user hasn't taken part in any programming discussions in his 6 years on en.Wikt. We have no telling what his qualifications are and, more to my point, such edits require discussion first and they've been virtually silent for all that time. Also, do we even have policy for voting on interface admins? --{{victar|talk}} 06:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   @victar:. Thanks for taking the time to vote. It was unclear to me whether there is a policy for interface admins or not. Actually as I applied to this I was of the impression that no one was actively doing anything to maintain our code and scripts, but I recently found out that @Erutuon is indeed active as our only, to my knowledge, admin interested/qualified to do some maintenance. As I now have started collaboration with him, I no longer need any special permissions as I can ping him to discuss, review and apply.--So9q (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   There are many of active coding editors -- don't just bother Erutuon. Submit your queries and suggestions to the Grease pit, Beer Parlour, and, you know, talk pages! (oy vey) --{{victar|talk}} 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose If he creates a vote for it, he apparently “really needs it”, and besides they write Lua-0 and JS-1. Previously people have just been made interface admin when requesting it in the Beer Parlour or somewhere, based on the observation that someone is a known coder, based on the Wikimedia decision that the mass of people having access to JS and CSS should somehow be filtered. But from So9q we know nothing, he never participated in a discussion and only added a lot of translations in two short times, it’s almost like someone tries his luck in social engineering. I want to emphasize that if he wants to change something, he can propose it in the Beer Parlour and Grease Pit for someone privileged to add it. I doubt that we are even allowed to vote people into an interface administrator under such circumstances. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   @Fay Freak:. Thanks for taking the time to vote. I understand the need to be careful who to trust with privileges. I have no ill intentions and actually I'm happy to see that I got at least one support based on my admittedly short edit history. Either way this turns out I'm happy as my proposals for protected pages seriously considered as explained above.--So9q (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose. This editor's name is wholly unfamiliar to me, which is damning enough, and they don't even profess the relevant expertise! As a side note, this should not be a matter for a formal vote in the first place. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose I guess they changed their userpage to have JS-2 in response to this vote. Still don't think giving such a right to someone who isn't even autopatrolled yet makes sense. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose — Zack. — 22:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

1. I'll Abstain for now, but I'm inclined to Support: user seems to know what he's doing. Waiting for other opinions. Canonicalization (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Abstain - It sounds harmless, but I'm not taking chances. DonnanZ (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Abstain I don't really recognise the user name (but I see six years of apparently good edits and have proposed whitelisting at WT:WL). Equinox ◑ 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

1-5-4, fails. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 08:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)