Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2007-12/User:Keene for admin
- Nomination: I hereby self nominate User:Keene as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Ive been around for around a year, helping with many parts like RFD, RFV, categories, adding English, Spanish, French and Italian entries, and staying civil. I did get blocked for a few days for changing WT:ELE ages ago, but that was a naive mistake, and I would like adminship for Christmas, when i will be around more. I have been a civil editor, and will have a lot more time soon to help out.
- Vote ends: 22 December 2007 23:59 UTC
- Vote started: 8 December 2007 23:59 UTC
- Support Widsith 12:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Though I hope he takes EncycloPetey's thoughts into account.[reply]
- Support DAVilla 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Likewise, regardless of whether granted, although I don't consider those points to indicative of character. Keene has a stake in the project, and sysopship isn't supposed to be a big deal. DAVilla 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Language Lover 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (I actually agree with most of EP's comments, but I trust admin-Keene not to speedy-delete things that present-Keene RFD's; and we have plenty of admins who are completely out of touch, e.g. because they spend all their time transwiki-ing and no time following discussion pages. As long as we trust the admins to know when they're out of their depth and to use their admin tools only when they know it's appropriate — and I do trust Keene — there's no problem.) —RuakhTALK 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) User:Keene's so-called "questionable" RFD nominations are much more in line with Wiktionary's original (ill-defined) target of covering "real" English terms. The fact that he is willing to work within the system (e.g. RFD/RFV) indicates his attitude represents a good midpoint between the opposing factions. --Connel MacKenzie 21:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose EncycloPetey 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) You might make a fine admin one day, but you lack the experience right now. For the pattern of contributions you've been making, the admin tools aren't really necessary. You have done some nice work, but you seem to come in for one day and make lots of edits, then disappear for a month or more. As a result, you end up with a high rate of concerned feedback for the brief times when you're here. So, in terms of your edit history it wasn't that long ago that you were blocked for altering WT:ELE and chastised for deleting the image on WT:TR without discussing the change first. Sorry, --EncycloPetey 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right that it's a little premature, and I think I agree on a few points, but not fullheartedly even on those. Primarily, I don't understand how anyone could be blocked for making these changes. Have we decided that our policy pages no longer need the occassional tomb sweeping? If anything, I would call to question your actions, not Keene's.
- Is early April of this year really "not that long ago"? I feel I've come a ways since then, shooting off unanounced changes. It also appears that most responses were made quickly, often the same day. This doesn't square with your comments. There are a few really regular admins, but most disappear for stretches of time.
- I try to reply as quickly as I can, but I don't normally know when these long stretches away will happen, due to my professional and personal commitments (which I'd rather not expand on). --Keene 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But for you, April was 10 edit days ago. Ten days of editing cannot add much experience. The initial problem was being out of touch with community practice. Editing for only 10 days since then is insufficient to improve your knowledge of our community norms. --EncycloPetey 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the admin tools probably would be helpful given the number of entries marked
{{delete}}, most of which I'm sure wouldn't show up in the list of user contributions by now. Looking at what remains, I do agree that a little more caution could be taken, but that applies to everyone. Admins delete a lot of content, and some of it is later verified on RFV. I would hope that such pages would be RFV'd in the first place rather than deleted outright, but no one's perfect. I'm not immune either, as I have been recently called to question on a batch template deletion.
- I have to conclude that your comments are based on memories and personal experience that are exceptional to the majority of contribution. I am worried about overall experience too, but I'm open to investigating other wiki experience, and I think keeping out of the thicker battles here should be taken as a positive sign. DAVilla 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned on my talk page, I have no other wiki experience. For me, Wikipedia is too big and complex for me to find my place there; while Wiktionary is growing at a nice pace. I appreciate the comment anyway. --Keene 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose —Stephen 20:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Taste for deleting pages verges on obsession. Especially phrases and proper nouns.[reply]
- I'm surprised by that comment, because most of my nominations were good (looking at these edits. Admittedly, some I nominated for deletion were kept in the end, but I assume that's the same with a lot of other users. That's what the deletion discussions are for, surely? Thanks for voting anyway. --Keene 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your latest proposal is to delete all the contents of an 1811 slang dictionary because "All of the individual entries I've looked at have no mention in gbc, so would fail CFI anwyway." This shows you are out-of-touch with the requirements for meeting CFI. (The second entry that I looked at had a citation from Shakespeare in the entry.) --EncycloPetey 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Cynewulf 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Per EP.[reply]
- Oppose Robert Ullmann 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC) concurring with other issues supra. I had suggested on you talk page (or mine?) that you wait for someone to nominate you, and it would be easy? No, too many questions. Probably a good idea, but not yet. (I waited almost to limit on this to avoid biasing anyone else, but there it is.) Robert Ullmann 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Neskaya talk 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC) On the basis that I have never had a single interaction with this user, and feel uncomfortable voting in support. --Neskaya talk 23:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what DAVilla says rings true to me, and I think you probably wouldn't break the wiki if we made you an admin. :-) I also grok that adminship is no big deal. I am a little concerned however, than in the last 6 months (spanning your last 500 edits) you've been active a total of 10 separate days. Are you planning on being able to be active more regularly? Dmcdevit·t 05:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'll have more free time on my hands over Christmas. Unlikely I'll be online every day though, but a lot more so than usual. --Keene 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see why number of days active per month is a valid metric. This isn't McDonalds. A characteristic of important, notable people... is that they're freakin' busy! By forcing admins to put in ridiculous amounts of time on what is a volunteer job, we'd automatically limit adminship to a very narrow class of individuals not very representative of our userbase. Language Lover 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a happy medium between sparsely active and putting in ridiculous amounts of time. I understand your concern, and there is not much inherently wrong with giving adminship to someone that is less active. There is, however, the concern that someone that is active for a day and then gone for a month before being active for another day, does not have the necessary interaction to be aware of community norms. Dmcdevit·t 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain — [ ric ] opiaterein — 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC) I might be pretty keen on deleting a lot of clutter we've got, but the things brought up above in the oppose section do worry me slightly. Maybe at some point in the future.[reply]
