Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/User:Ioaxxere for admin

U knowz howz it goez. Plz make Ioaxxere (talk • contribs) adminz

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Vote created: Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Acceptance: I accept.

• Languages: en
• Timezone: UTC-5

Ioaxxere (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Support. Ioaxxere has been a prolific contributer since joining a few short months ago and I think he'd do a good job. I also don't think that who nominates someone should be taken into consideration for these votes. Of course others can vote however they want for whatever reason they want but that's just my 2p. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   I agree with Overlordnat1 Beebopbink (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Support. Lots of high-quality contributions, and I don't see why it matters that Wonderfool is the nominator. Binarystep (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Support Weak support. Trustworthy IMO. Wouldn't mind waiting longer. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

   # Support. Has proven competent, productive, and even-keeled in his time as a contributor. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Strong oppose. For similar reasons mentioned at the last admin vote. Ioaxxere has only been editing since July 22, 2022, which is imho not enough time to truly be an admin of a this community. Also, I'm opposed to wonderfool's nominations (including my own which I rejected on my talk page), as it truly seems like they're throwing folks into the gauntlet almost randomly, which isn't fair to the nominee nor the community. This portion isn't as important for this admin vote, but I'm also a bit wary which some of the fervor with some entries at RFV and the almost circumvention of the WT:DEROGATORY rules that we put into place, until they were called out about it, which makes me worry about enforcement as it's already low, along with needing a more proper understanding of the policies that we have in place (more examples include: when to close RFVs/RFDs, the restraint needed when adding citations, the usage/mention distinction, properly applying CFI, etc. etc.). I don't doubt that with more time and more practice, Ioaxxere could make a good admin, but now is not that time. (CC: @TheDaveRoss from the RFV discussions) AG202 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   I'll concede that I would be pretty new by admin standards (although not the newest). I would like to emphasize, though, that the controversial terms ending up in RFV make up a tiny part of my overall editing. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   One: @Metaknowledge began contributing on January 2, 2012 and was made an admin five months to the day later. I'm not bringing this up to single him out, given his solid, decade-long history here. It's just the first example that came to mind since I remember it being the first admin nomination in which I voted. Sometimes editors prove themselves productive and competent right out of the gate. Of course, power also corrupts, or at least reveals. Sometimes adminship goes to the recipient's head or brings out their worst tendencies. People also change over time – not always for the better. No one has a crystal ball that lets them see into the future. Every decision is a calculated risk necessarily made with the information available to us in the here and now. There is a process for de-sysopping errant admins. It's not common, but it has happened.

   Two: WF does not seem to push people beyond the initial suggestion of a nomination. I haven't been tapped for adminship again in the ten years since I declined. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

   That might depend on how the user phrases their declination; when Wonderfool tapped me for adminship, I said I'd have to decline for now, and they said they'd ask again next year. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 15:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

   Had I been around when he was being proposed, I likely would've opposed him as well. And yeah, while no one has a crystal ball that lets them see into the future, that doesn't mean that I can't oppose them now until they have more practice and evidence. AG202 (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

   Maybe because you haven't been here for ten years under one name, but keep creating new ones. It's confusing and gives you very limited history. Equinox ◑ 23:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

   I've had two accounts and three usernames since 2010. Would've stuck with Astral the first around but was forced to change to CCL in 2013 due to the global accounts policy. Forgot the password to that account after a three-year hiatus but apparently I was memorable enough for you to recognize. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

   The issues being highlighted at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/February § Disallowing mass closures and continuing the practice when folks have told them to pause (even when they said that they'd pause themselves), causing increased problems, only continues to me now that they're not ready for adminship. AG202 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

   This is not at all an accurate characterization (but, whatever) Ioaxxere (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

   For the record, I think Ioaxxere has responded reasonably well to the points brought up there, e.g., their adoption of a better approach involving some basic sanity checks to make sure a term is at least non-trivial to cite before closing a discussion as RfV-failed. But they are a bit gung-ho, and may possibly have interpretations of CFI that are in conflict with established practice, e.g., the recent disagreement in which they claimed an alt form with only one citation can be kept, as long as enough uses of the more common form exist.

   Also, I know that lately it may seem like I'm scrutinizing their edits, but I have a very high opinion of the quality of their mainspace edits, and I genuinely see Ioaxxere as a great asset to the project. I hope that this is understood. 70.172.194.25 02:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

   While I do appreciate that they've updated their approach, I still believe that they should've just paused as we're still having to play clean-up and clarify a ton after @Theknightwho's initial post. And as mentioned, I'd prefer that folks being nominated for adminship have a strong grasp of the practices and rules that we have, as I don't want to be in a worse state than we are right now (where some rules aren't even being enforced). That being said, I don't hold any ill will towards @Ioaxxere, their citation skills are impressive, but I've seen this project go through many growing pains and problems in the past 2 years that I've been here, so I've become much more hesitant and more easily on edge when these issues come up (especially after having to take a break a while after charged labels/attacks were levied towards me by IPs and now-banned users). AG202 (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

   Changing vote to strong oppose for similar reasons to WordyAndNerdy, highlighted more at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/March § RFVE Mass Closures (Again). AG202 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

2. Oppose. A Wonderfool nomination. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 13:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Gnosandes 💜 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose: I have doubts about both nominee and nominator. There may be a need for more admins to replace those who are now inactive and possibly deceased, but that doesn't mean we should bring in anybody who's only been around a few months and relatively green. As for the nominator, who is treated as a pariah by the Wiktionary community, he should realise that his nominations are usually doomed to fail for that reason. DonnanZ (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose Too little for any remark. Fay Freak (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose. I think everyone's comments here are about right - very good editor who learns very fast, but I think it's far too soon. I agree with Overlordnat1 about the nominator not always mattering, but that alone has absolutely no effect on my decision to vote against. Vininn126 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

   # Weak oppose. I don't care whatsoever that WF nominated them. But, I'm not sure about the candidate themself yet. I'm open to supporting them in the future, including later this year, if they continue with their high-quality work & remain respectful towards others (that last point being something which certain admins on this wiki lack). Megathonic (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

7. Weak oppose. My thoughts echo Vininn126's above. – Guitarmankev1 ^(talk) 15:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Abstain I don't see any red flags upon first examination, but I'm not familiar enough with the nominee to feel comfortable casting a full-fledged support vote. (Also, for the love of sanity, Wonderfool, please leave the admin nominations for the rest of us to make!) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 11:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Admin nomination has been outsourced to WF for quite some time now. Not sure when his contract runs out. – Jberkel 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   I've left messages on the talkpages of both of the currently-active Wonderfool iterations listed at User:AryamanA/Wonderfool, asking them to please leave off on nominating people for adminship and let the rest of us do that. No idea if they'll respond or if it'll have any effect on their behavior. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 21:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Update: Wonderfool responded favorably to my request on one of the talkpages where I reached out to them, but I have no idea if they'll actually follow through and stop making admin nominations. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 15:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Abstain: Ioaxxere was recently given template editing privileges. I think we should let them settle into the role for a while before considering adminship. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Abstain. Changed to abstain. I'm not at the point of supporting them yet, but my hesitations are not strong enough to oppose them either. Megathonic (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Abstain. Changed to abstain on account of using unreliable sources to attest bigenital surgery, which based on evidence seems to be either a marginal concept documented in a single Vice article or a hoax. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

   To be clear, I think this was simply a major error in judgment, not a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation. Ioaxxere was well-intentioned, as ever, but my vote of confidence is shaken. (For now.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Failed 3-8-4. Vininn126 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)