Open main menu

Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2015-11/User:Chuck Entz for bureaucrat


User:Chuck Entz for bureaucratEdit

  • Nomination: I hereby nominate User:Chuck Entz as a local English Wiktionary Bureaucrat. We all know him and his careful work both in mainspace and dealing with unruly editors and vandals, and I have complete trust in him to do the job well. There are currently 8 bureaucrats, but only two of them are regularly/reliably active, and we have had backlogs now and then as a result, putting us back in the situation we had in 2012. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote started: 03:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Acceptance: I accept the nomination. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


  1.   Support as nom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  2.   Support. An excellent candidate. · (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  3.   SupportJohnC5 06:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  4.   Support  — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 07:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  5.   Support although this vote will probably be stricken. SimonP45 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  6.   SupportUngoliant (falai) 16:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  7.   Support --WikiTiki89 14:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  8.   Support without reservation. Chuck is an asset to the project. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
  9.   Support Aryamanarora (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. I also oppose Dan Polansky's condition - a vote is a vote and should not carry ifs and buts. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 21:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  10.   Support --Vahag (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  11.   SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  12.   Support --Benwing2 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  13.   Support on the condition that the nominated editor will lose bureaucrat rights if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the bureaucrat position and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping bureaucrat rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  14.   Support --Haplogy () 02:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15.   Support Purplebackpack89 19:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  16.   Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  17.   Support Equinox 02:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  18.   Support Of course. DCDuring TALK 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  19.   Support Pengo (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  20.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  21.   Support but oppose to the extent that Dan Polansky's condition is met. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  22.   Support per Dan Polansky oppose condition and merry forty-eight hour Christmas time zone. --Riverstogo(talk) 12:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)



  1.   Abstain --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


  • Passes by a large, though not necessarily unanimous, margin, due chiefly to Dan P.'s illogical conditional voting and the counterproductive response to it. Calling on a 'crat: @Stephen G. Brown, SemperBlotto, Hippietrail, RuakhΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. —Stephen (Talk) 15:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is up to the closing admin to pass questionable claims of conditions, such as that they are "illogical". For, the closure should be objective, and I believe the claim that my conditional voting is "illogical" is far from obvious (I would actually claim it is obviously false). I would ask the closing admin to restrict such dubious claims to posts in which he does not act as a closing admin. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
      Don't worry yourself about it, Dan, my closure was objective. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    I mean, "passes" is unequivocally the case, no possible qualms. Other than that, the above comment contains zero proving, argumentation or pointing to evidence, and is rather merely an assurance which does not probably deserve further comment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have provided long and detailed arguments about why your conditional voting is procedurally impossible, illegal, and misleading. You have chosen to ignore them or provide little counterargument in each case. As stated before, I would consider your conditional votes to be oppositions unless and until you create a policy vote applying the condition universally. As it stands, I will directly opposed the implementation of your condition until said vote is passed. Again, I think the content of your condition is perfectly sensible and well-intentioned but, from a parliamentary standpoint, indefensible. I'm sorry if it seems like I have been mean or picking an argument with you in this or previous votes (I thoroughly enjoy your contributions to this project both in content and discussion), but I firmly believe that these conditions are not the way to solve this problem. —JohnC5 06:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)