Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2022-01/User:Thadh for admin

< Wiktionary:Votes

User:Thadh for admin edit

Nomination: I hereby nominate Thadh (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He has been here since late 2018, made over 35000 edits, and has both the knowledge and the temperament appropriate for an admin. His patient, careful approach with problematic editors and long-time fixtures alike is evident, and he has expressed interest in helping out with our shared administrative burden.

Schedule:

Acceptance:

  • Languages: ru, nl, en-4, fr-2
  • Timezone: UTC+1/+2 (CET)
I accept. Thadh (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

  1.   Support Equinox ◑ 02:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Ultimateria (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support as nominator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support: prolific editor, good experience, friendly behaviour. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 05:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Incredibly active in RF's, engaged with the community, great editor, has a head on his shoulders. I foresee no problems here. Vininn126 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support – Jberkel 12:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support – Ya Allah. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support - Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support --Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support: Friendly and active editor, collaborated with him many times. Luxtaythe2nd (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Thadh's active and helpful and will, I feel, make for a good admin. Hythonia (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support I know that my opinion is probably considered here to be worth less than the Venezuelan bolívar, but since he was nice to me, I have to say: yas. Shumkichi (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Support RcAlex36 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose. I’m the lone dissenter so far, and my vote probably won’t make a difference; but I’II still take the time to express just how problematic this nomination is.

    Thadh has shown bad judgment in prior cases, and I wouldn’t exalt an injudicious user to the ranks of adminship. The plus-templates situation is a prime example. I wouldn’t penalize him for his opposition to the templates themselves, but his views on the related block/unblock are indefensible. Unblocking Victar was an act of judicial activism and picking favorites, but Thadh nevertheless supported it. It might be one thing to have cheered that on as a bystander. But it’s completely another to actually be holding the reigns of power, having to ponder that decision on one’s own. If Thadh couldn’t make the right decision back then when the stakes of his involvement were low, I cannot trust him as an admin when he’ll be faced with similar situations in the future. Moreover, because admins are tasked with the heavy responsibilities of adjudicating disputes and monitoring debates, these previous mistakes on Thadh’s part really matter.

    Additionally, Thadh has signaled that he is unwilling to support policies (even very useful ones) if they are even the least bit “bureaucratic” in implementation. This argument is potentially unconfined, as any new policy is “bureaucratic” insofar as it requires the establishment of new procedures, guidelines, etc. In practice, however, it’s a line of attack typically deployed whenever the occasion calls for it, to defeat helpful proposals. As such, it is an opportunistic tactic that I wouldn’t want to legitimize via an adminship approval. Imetsia (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  2.   Oppose per Imetsia. Thadh's actions and judgement regarding the plus-templates and Victar are a complete deal-breaker. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 05:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, the plus template situation did come to my mind while voting, but I don't think it deserves much attention after this time, more so because Thadh showed his willingness to compromise and was okay with the templates being used in languages of which the editors preferred them. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 09:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Svartava: As I said above, "I wouldn't penalize him for his opposition to the templates themselves, but his views on the related block/unblock are indefensible" (added emphasis). It just shows bad judgment and disqualifies him as a serious candidate for admin. What would you say to that? Imetsia (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imetsia: I supported the block, as did you, but there were many who opposed it (like Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, Mahagaja). I know about the arguments for it, and the fact that if the block had been in place, the dispute (which dragged for much longer) had a good chance of ending there, but I also think it was something which had differing opinions, so I also wouldn't penalise anyone for opposing what I supported. (Might I note, Inqilabi, also a supported of those templates, supports Thadh's adminship. Let's leave them there.) —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 04:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "After this time"? That whole brouhaha happened less than a year ago. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 12:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let’s forgive & forget. We are all here to make a dictionary, ideological differences notwithstanding. The oppose votes seem like a personal attack on the nominee. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing grave doubts about the nominee's ability to use admin tools appropriately, based on the nominee's well-documented prior instances of egregiously-poor judgement, is in no way a personal attack. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 16:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think opposing this nomination is not the correct approach. If you are serious about this, then you would have to desysop Mahāgaja first, for obvious reasons (not a good idea). If Thadh makes poor judgement in the future, then you may create a vote to have them desysoped. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note is that much of the relevant evidence regarding the plus-template shenanigans was rendered inaccessible by the deletion of Victar's userpage and user talk page; any objective examination of the case by those not themselves involved in the dispute at the time it took place would require that those two pages be undeleted, with their full histories available (and very likely also require some means of preventing Victar from blanking those pages or attempting to have them deleted again). Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 21:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Party is already being torn apart by internal strife. Comrade Lenin can't get his central committee to vote his way. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose per Imetsia. Supporting the unblocking of a user who was blocked for disruptive edit warring and flippant disregard towards other editors' discretion is not something I can get behind. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 02:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Abstain: I'm not enthusiastic. 35,000 edits? That's chickenfeed. DonnanZ (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Abstain I am not familiar enough with this user to make a decision. Prahlad balaji (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Passed 19-3-3 Notusbutthem (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation! Pinging our bureaucrats: @Chuck Entz, Surjection, SemperBlotto. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 08:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Done @Thadh, please add yourself to WT:A. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2022-01/User:Thadh_for_admin&oldid=65973459"