Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2022-08/User:Fish bowl for admin

User:Fish bowl for adminEdit

Nomination: I hereby nominate Fish bowl (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 21:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Dunderdool (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Acceptance:

  • Languages: en, yue, ja, zh, cmn, ko
  • Timezone: (some USA timezone)
Fish bowl (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

SupportEdit

  1.   SupportFytcha T | L | C 〉 22:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Support PUC – 09:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Support PseudoSkull (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Support --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Support --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Support Roger.M.Williams (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  8.   Support Ffffrr (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  1.   Oppose - great editor as far as I can tell. However, too willing to unilaterally go against consensus when they disagree. See this diff and related discussion on talk page deletion. When others objected to deleting the pages Fish Bowl chose to delete the discussion and tag a bunch with speedy deletion templates. - TheDaveRoss 16:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'll make sure to forward all their future inquiries to you <3 —Fish bowl (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose: Although Fish bowl is certainly a hardworking editor that frequently fights vandalism and is active in the wiki community, they also seem to be quick to pick a fight (witnessed also in their comment above), which is a quality I would rather not see in an admin. I'm sure that if they worked on their communication with other (especially non-Chinese) editors, that they would make a great admin, but I'm also of the opinion that this vote is premature. Thadh (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 18:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Rationale please. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Unacceptable conduct: the incident already mentioned; “unironically kill yourself”; “loser” (Koavf agreed that Fish bowl should have been temporarily blocked for name-calling); and general immatureness. J3133 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    oh no, i'm not harsh on vandals, trolls, and other idiots :( —Fish bowl (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Why do you think that name-calling and telling someone to kill himself are acceptable? Are these the kinds of behaviors that you want admins to perform? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    To be honest both the conduct described and displayed (by you) above isn't acceptable for regular users - people have been blocked for less - let alone someone aspiring to become an admin. Thadh (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    If I were admin I could just click "block" and never have to think about these people again 🤔 —Fish bowl (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Fish bowl Ohhh, who's an edgy boii, who's an edgy boy? Yes, you are. Srsly, don't cut yourself on that edge, no one is impressed. Take a look at Vininn126, Thadh, or BigDom and follow their example if you want to be a good admin. From what I can see, you're trying too hard to be a good editor and at the same time to fight for the freedom of speech. But this is not how it's done, ok? You're too obvious with your edginess and trolling, and this dismissive attitude, to the point that it's just not funny. Tryhards go home. Shumkichi (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Were you an admin and you saw someone tell a "loser" to "unironically kill yourself", what would you do? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Judge the relevant parties based on how they are contributing to the dictionary instead of tone policing like some pearl-clutching Puritan, obviously. —Fish bowl (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    Well, it's good that no one is doing that. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that you have no serious interest in this position or what would be required of it. Thanks for clarifying. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose I was already opposed due to the above interaction, but had Fish bowl been willing to own up instead of doubling down, I could have at least abstained, since he seems to make a lot of useful edits. But admins shouldn't only have useful edits (that's what makes editors); they need good judgement, an ability to discuss, etc. The exchange above this comment is totally unacceptable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose User evidently lacks the maturity and self-control to be trusted with admin guns. (Also, I have some misgivings about an adminship vote being started by someone who is evidently a sockpuppet of an indeffed user.) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 23:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose Equinox 00:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose for reasons stated above, and that they stated on their talk page their motivations for running were "[I]t'll be funny. I can be really irresponsible, it'll let more people hate me, and maybe it'll accelerate my mental illness and make me leave or something" -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
    Stricken out as ineligible to vote (WT:VP). — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose - DonnanZ (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose Per the several objections above. In particular, I am concerned about Fish Bowl's ability to communicate respectfully and come to consensus with other users in a productive way. It is not that examples of poor communication have been brought up in this vote, for surely these are vastly outnumbered by the user's constructive edits, but that Fish Bowl seems unwilling to acknowledge (or unable to see) the problems in them. To be entrusted with admin tools one ought to at least be able to distinguish between good and bad interactions, which Fish Bowl refuses to demonstrate to the community that he can do. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose I haven't really interacted with this user, but both the attested conduct earlier and the immaturity and dismissiveness shown by Fish bowl shown in this thread are things that I definitely do not want to see from an admin of this community. GabeMoore (talk) 05:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

AbstainEdit

  1.   Abstain - I have had some interactions with this editor, but not interacted enough to form an opinion. Vininn126 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain - being a good editor does not entail being a good admin. Abstaining because I understand the frustration, sometimes. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain The fact that they conspicuously do not reveal that they used to edit under the usernames Umbreon126 and Suzukaze-c does not bode too well in my opinion. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    @MuDavid: I don't think that they're trying to hide this information in the way that you're implying. Had they wanted to hide their tracks, they would have created new accounts, not renamed their existing one. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    It's also perfectly legitimate to want to change account names. Theknightwho (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    I’m not saying it’s due to maliciousness. I only discovered their previous identities by accident. As it happens, I have good memories of Suzukaze-c, but others may have different opinions and this may influence their voting behaviour. For this reason, I feel they should have at least mentioned their previous user names here. Carelessness or uncaringness are in my opinion certainly red flags. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

DecisionEdit

Failed 8-10-3. This, that and the other (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)