Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-12/User:Embryomystic for admin

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

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 10:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: Vealhurl (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept this nomination. Many thanks to Vealhurl for the compliment.

• Languages: en, fr-3, ga-3, eo-2, es-2, gd-2, gv-2, io-2, sco-2, br-1, cy-1, it-1, kw-1, la-1, lad-1, pt-1, rm-1, sga-1, sq-1, yi-1
• Timezone: UTC-5

embryomystic (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose. In general, it's good to discourage any admin nominations made by Wonderfool. In this particular case, I also don't see why Embryomystic would need admin tools. Furthermore, I (and others) have been troubled by his long-running habits of adding entries without checking whether they are attested, which is an important part of good editing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

   I'm honestly having second thoughts after looking into who nominated me (and seeing that they've since been blocked, presumably very soon after the nomination). I'd rather not be associated with someone like that. Also I know that I've made mistakes in the past, including the one we most recently talked about, so I can understand where you're coming from on that. embryomystic (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per above. Even though I don't deal with them directly, Embryomystic is an infamously problematic user and is also known for deleting discussions on their talk page that paint them in a bad light. --{{victar|talk}} 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

   I won't try to change your mind on the vote, but I do feel that I should clarify: I didn't delete those discussions out of a desire to mislead anyone. My intention at the time was to 'clean up' my talk page (you'll note that I also removed discussions that didn't paint me in a bad light at all). I didn't realise at the time that it was such a no-no. If I could restore the posts easily, I would. I don't have anything to hide, regardless of my past poorly-thought-out decisions. embryomystic (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. It would be helpful to voters if you could also explain what you hope to do with your admin powers. --{{victar|talk}} 06:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

   I don't know if I have a good answer to that, like a politician campaigning for office. Honestly, what happened was that someone who's complimented my edits in the past left a message on my Talk page, offering to nominate me. I haven't been aiming to end up as an admin, for all that I enjoy contributing to Wiktionary. And the fact that I've been nominated by someone with such a bad reputation definitely gives me pause. Anyway, I've made my share of mistakes, but the main thing about me is that I've always acted in good faith. Even if you're not inclined to change your mind about opposing my being made an admin, please hear me when I say that. embryomystic (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

   If you actually don't have a desire to become an admin, and knowing what you now know about your nominator, you can still decline. The latter doesn't really bother me as much as it does Meta, I think. I've turned down adminship a couple of times because I just don't need it; well, I would like to be able to delete pages, but I don't think that's enough to make it worth it -- worth the politics, that is. If you've followed any of my admin votes, you'll know I up-vote users that actively need admin rights, and if you don't have a substantive idea of why you should be an admin, I'll probably just keep my vote as it stands. But hey, I'm just one vote from some guy that edits pages, so what do I know? --{{victar|talk}} 03:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose Embryomystic has 1) a long-term pattern of creating unattested entries, 2) had other problems noted by editors on their talk page per its revision history, and 3) repeatedly removed threads from their talk page in a way that I find problematic and that leads to a misleading result, where the reader sees a positive post from 2013 but many critical posts made after 2013 are not shown. Example removals are diff and diff. After the removals, the 'Welsh "bron"' thread from 2013 stayed on the page while some other threads with a later date got removed, but not in a block so some interleaving threads stayed. If all threads older than a certain date were removed, that would be a different story, and proper archiving of the talk page as practiced by many editors would be even better. Examples of deleted unattested entries created by Embryomystic include midomestika, mivitrigar, diftongigar, diferencialigar, debochigar, detonigar, debetigar, deviacigar, and efervecigar. At one moment, I made a point of sending Embrymystic suspect entries to RFV but after some time I gave up; it was too much work and RFVs are administered slowly and overflow with entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose DonnanZ (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

1. Abstain --02:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Octahedron80 (talk)
2. Abstain — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
3. Abstain. Canonicalization (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
4. Abstain as I have rarely interacted with EM and there seems to be no clear reason for nomination at this point. Equinox ◑ 08:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
5. Abstain He seems to be well meaning and probably wouldn't abuse admin privileges, but I continue to find Irish entries that are flat-out plagiarized from {{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}, and Old Irish entries that are (1) actually Middle Irish and (2) flat-out plagiarized from {{R:DIL}}, even after I have asked him to stop creating such entries. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

   BTW, Embryo, if you want to keep your talk page tidy, you can create archive subpages (see my talk page for an example). That way people can read old threads without your talk page becoming unwieldy. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

   I'll keep that in mind for the future. At this point, I'm not really concerned with curating my talk page, especially since I've been criticised for the way I went about it in the past. embryomystic (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

   You can still curate it retroactively; nothing is ever lost forever on a wiki. If you were to do so, it would certainly obviate any of that criticism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

   That's a good point. I'm currently looking through my old edits and reminding myself of the conversations I removed from my talk page. Some of them I can see why, some not so much. Either way, I'm thinking about assembling a big file including the deleted threads, and at least creating an archive page of those. I appreciate the constructive input. embryomystic (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

   That would be a really great gesture. --{{victar|talk}} 23:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

6. Abstain, --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

   Abstain, I've only been around here for less than a day, so I don't really know the other users here very well. Perhaps give a few months to a year, I can make a more informed vote. - GTContributor

   Not eligible to vote according to the voting policy. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 14:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

0-4-6, fails. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 00:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)