Open main menu

Wiktionary > Votes

Votes formalize and document the consensus-building process and the decisions that the community makes. This page displays the full contents of recent, current and planned votes. Edit Wiktionary:Votes/Active to add new votes to the "active" list and remove old ones. Finished votes are added to Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline, an organized archive of previous votes and their results, sorted by the vote end date.

Policy and help pages, respectively: Wiktionary:Voting policy (including who is eligible to vote) and Help:Creating a vote.

See also Wiktionary:Votes/ for an automatically generated, less organized list of votes.

Before clicking the "Start a new vote!" button below, change "Title of vote" in the field just above the button to a short descriptive title.

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2019-10/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2019-10/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2019-10/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2019-10/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2019-10/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2019-10/User: for bot status}}


Admins, please periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/

Look for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

Main sections of this page: #Current and new votes and #Proposed votes. See also /Timeline.

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
Sep 14User:So9q for interface adminFailed
Sep 16Rescinding the "Coalmine" policyFailed
Sep 29User:Erutuon for adminPassed
Oct 14Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes 13  12  1
(=4)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=88)

User:So9q for interface admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate myself So9q (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Interface Administrator.

Motivation: I would like to be able to edit and improve the Mobile View, TranslationAdder.js and various other CSS and JS on en:wiktionary.


  • Vote starts: 20:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: So9q (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)



  1.   Support - as an "interface administrator" only (not an administrator). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    Why? They write on their own profile that they're Lua-0 and JS-1. Those are not the qualifications of someone who should be editing such site-breaking elements. --{{victar|talk}} 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose: Hard no. This user hasn't taken part in any programming discussions in his 6 years on en.Wikt. We have no telling what his qualifications are and, more to my point, such edits require discussion first and they've been virtually silent for all that time. Also, do we even have policy for voting on interface admins? --{{victar|talk}} 06:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    @victar:. Thanks for taking the time to vote. It was unclear to me whether there is a policy for interface admins or not. Actually as I applied to this I was of the impression that no one was actively doing anything to maintain our code and scripts, but I recently found out that @Erutuon is indeed active as our only, to my knowledge, admin interested/qualified to do some maintenance. As I now have started collaboration with him, I no longer need any special permissions as I can ping him to discuss, review and apply.--So9q (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    There are many of active coding editors -- don't just bother Erutuon. Submit your queries and suggestions to the Grease pit, Beer Parlour, and, you know, talk pages! (oy vey) --{{victar|talk}} 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose If he creates a vote for it, he apparently “really needs it”, and besides they write Lua-0 and JS-1. Previously people have just been made interface admin when requesting it in the Beer Parlour or somewhere, based on the observation that someone is a known coder, based on the Wikimedia decision that the mass of people having access to JS and CSS should somehow be filtered. But from So9q we know nothing, he never participated in a discussion and only added a lot of translations in two short times, it’s almost like someone tries his luck in social engineering. I want to emphasize that if he wants to change something, he can propose it in the Beer Parlour and Grease Pit for someone privileged to add it. I doubt that we are even allowed to vote people into an interface administrator under such circumstances. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Fay Freak:. Thanks for taking the time to vote. I understand the need to be careful who to trust with privileges. I have no ill intentions and actually I'm happy to see that I got at least one support based on my admittedly short edit history. Either way this turns out I'm happy as my proposals for protected pages seriously considered as explained above.--So9q (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose. This editor's name is wholly unfamiliar to me, which is damning enough, and they don't even profess the relevant expertise! As a side note, this should not be a matter for a formal vote in the first place. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose I guess they changed their userpage to have JS-2 in response to this vote. Still don't think giving such a right to someone who isn't even autopatrolled yet makes sense. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 22:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


  1. I'll   Abstain for now, but I'm inclined to   Support: user seems to know what he's doing. Waiting for other opinions. Canonicalization (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain - It sounds harmless, but I'm not taking chances. DonnanZ (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain I don't really recognise the user name (but I see six years of apparently good edits and have proposed whitelisting at WT:WL). Equinox 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


1-5-4, fails. — surjection?〉 08:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy

Voting on: Rescinding the "Coalmine" policy, as originally approved at WT:COALMINE and incorporated into the CFI at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity. That is, removing the following paragraph from WT:CFI:

Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words are included if they are significantly more common than single-word spellings that meet criteria for inclusion; for example, coalmine meets criteria for inclusion, so its more common form coal mine is also included.

The effect of this vote, if passed, would therefore be that a multi-word term that means no more than the sum of its parts, such as coal mine, would become eligible for deletion under standard rules (assuming that no other exemptions apply), irrespective of the fact that an entry for the corresponding single word exists.

For the proposer's rationale for rescinding, as well as other statements in favour of or against the poposal, please see the Disussion page.

Be sure to vote the right way. A support vote is a vote to rescind the "Coalmine" policy; an oppose vote is a vote to retain the policy.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Mihia (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Other Discussion:


  1.   Support as proposer. What a so-far thoroughly disappointing response to the opportunity to abolish this ridiculous rule. Mihia (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Support. Canonicalization (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Support.​—msh210 (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose 1) Use the right lemma: Let us have compound term, compound-term and compoundterm, all attested. I consider the three items to be three different forms of what is essentially one word. The question is: where should we lemmatize it? If compound term is much more common than compoundterm, compound term is the proper lemma, in my view, even if sum of parts; alternatively, compound-term could be the lemma, depending on the frequency. 2) COALMINE is usually easy to administer, and from my experience often has us keep terms that I would instinctively like to keep for other reasons, which are harder to investigate and articulate. That is a bonus of COALMINE: it speeds up RFD for terms worthwhile for other less well articulable reasons. 3) Vanishingly rare solid forms compoundterm that we have good reasons to believe are misspellings should be deleted using WT:CFI#Spellings rare misspelling exclusion policy, thereby making COALMINE toothless: himand was deleted, so him and is not supported by COALMINE. (himand*10000), him and at Google Ngram Viewer provides frequency evidence of rare misspelling, and these are deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    Other dictionaries: per coal mine at OneLook Dictionary Search, "coal mine" is in[1], Collins[2], Macmillan[3], and[4]; perhaps they found other rationale to keep than WT:COALMINE. For "iron mine", I find[5]. iron mine, (ironmine*500) at Google Ngram Viewer shows an unfavorable ratio that could lead to the conclusion that "ironmine" is a misspelling or misformation; ironmine at OneLook Dictionary Search find no dictionary at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I am in favor of simple rules that are easy to apply. I think we should be less afraid to have "arbitrary" inclusion criteria that helps us avoid long philosophical discussions in RFD on what even really is a word, man (we just don't know). DTLHS (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose: If WT:COALMINE is abolished, then we will be left in the unenviable position of having entries for uncommon one-word forms of terms, but lacking entries for multiple-word forms of them (e.g. having a entry for coalmine but not coal mine). This will put us in the position of appearing to endorse rare one-word spellings of several common terms, which would confuse users and new editors alike while offering no real advantage. I don't believe that a notice placed at (for example,) coalmine reading "coal mine is the more frequent spelling" is enough to dispel the weirdness that this policy creates. As a aside, I also think that the fact that speakers choose to spell terms such as coal mine as one word could be used to adduce that they believe these terms to be non-SOP on some cognitive level. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    "coalmine" is just an arbitrary spelling variation that makes no difference to the fact that it is "coal" + "mine". I would support deleting "coalmine" itself on the basis that it is SoP and/or written by people who don't really know how to spell, except that it is probably impossible to devise criteria to distinguish single-word SoP terms, and also to enable users who don't know how to break up the word to discover the meaning. But the fact that we have one unlegislatable SoP term is no reason to add another that is legislatable. Mihia (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose: I have reservations about WT:COALMINE, as I feel it can be manipulated in creating rare single-word forms of two-word terms, but on the whole I support keeping it. It can also be applied in creating compound adjectives, e.g. angellike vs. angel-like. The fact that many two-word terms probably aren't "coalmineable" shouldn't be grounds for deletion as SoP though; e.g. maple leaf and snap election. DonnanZ (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Getting slightly off-topic, but what we need is a "set phrase" exemption from SoP rules. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose --{{victar|talk}} 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose Until we have better inclusion criteria. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose (though not strongly) on the grounds that the existence of single-word forms often indicates at least a perception that a compound word/phrase is considered NSOP, and per Hazarasp above. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I think this argument is just nonsense. Something like "coalmine" is sum-of-parts whether written as one word or two. See my comment above. Mihia (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose / (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose SemperBlotto (talk)
  11.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 22:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose I don't think this vote addresses my specific problem with COALMINE, which isn't the fact that it allows a (fairly acceptable) subset of SoP terms to be added, but rather that it sometimes gets abused to create blatantly SoP terms, by starting with an incredibly rare and non-standard single-word forms of a term that properly requires a space or hyphen (I seem to recall "oldman" and "stupidfuck"). DonnanZ's remark that "I feel it can be manipulated in creating rare single-word forms of two-word terms" is the same issue. Equinox 09:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    I acknowledge that all too often people create vanishingly rare compoundterm forms to support compound term. I now sent stupidfuck to RFD since it appears to be a rare misspelling per stupidfuck, stupid fuck at Google Ngram Viewer. If the form gets deleted (I hope so), we may delete stupid fuck as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  13.   OpposeMahāgaja · talk 18:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  14.   Oppose 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  15.   Oppose, as this is an excellent rule which prevents us from being restricted to less common forms of collocations that are frequent enough to have yielded single-word variations. bd2412 T 00:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  16.   OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 02:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  17.   OpposeNumberguy6 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  18.   Oppose — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  19.   Oppose Ƿidsiþ 06:29, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  20.   Oppose. I think it's healthy that we continue to relitigate this as a community every few years (no, really). Despite the fact that this vote is going to be heavily defeated, I'd like to commend @Mihia for bringing up an important policy that should rightfully be somewhat controversial. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  21.   Oppose, why rock the boat? Doesn't seem worth it to me, but hey it's good to have these types of discussions every now and again. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain – Either delete both coalmine and coal mine as SOP compounds, getting a better understanding of material criteria, or neither. I would support a motion for excluding terms that are SOP though written together. It has been wrongly assumed by the community that terms can be included on the sole ground that they are written together – the pertinacious adherence to which has lost Wiktionary very valuable editors. On the other hand, the fact that a reference to this misconception is included in the CFI text voted upon here is a ground for deleting it. But the CFI are contradictory and widely misunderstood and misapplied in many cases. They are full of epistemological criteria, or external rules of thumb, in the guise of actual rules, foster anglocentrism, and fail to recognize the difference between rules of inclusion and rules of deletion. The fact that this document considered by the majority basic is called “criteria” and not “rules” alone disqualifies the document called WT:CFI as a yardstick. Criteria are not rules but building blocks for methods whereby rules can be obtained, but people are incapable to derive to rules from that document – it could be a serious dictionary otherwise. Either they try to buttress their common sense about what the rules are or should be by references to it, or they try to underpin their perverse sense with arguments in reference to it, both leveraging personal convictions because nobody is convinced of the CFI, or they try to lever their lack of any sense by applying everything in the WT:CFI literally and out of context or telos, which gives the worst results. I should write my own inclusion/deletion document according to all insight at some point and let it be voted upon for a Neubekanntmachung. Fay Freak (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    To write to be understood or to bloviate? That's the question. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    "It has been wrongly assumed by the community that terms can be included on the sole ground that they are written together" is mindbogglingly confusing. The community correctly knows that it has nearly unbounded power to set the rules wherein terms can be included or excluded. Whether that is wise or not is a completely separate question.
    "But the CFI are contradictory and widely misunderstood and misapplied in many cases" is a little less mindboggling, but still, if you believe a set of criteria are contradictory and ill-advised, you are hardly in the best place to know how they are correctly understood and applied. Pragmatically, I'd say a set of rules constructed by discussion and voting mean what they are applied to mean, more or less. Certainly, rules created recently by the same group that's enforcing them are unlikely to be "misunderstood and misapplied", no matter how much you may not like how they're understood and applied.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain - I don't like COALMINE, but it does allow us to keep some terms which I think should be kept when I have no other CFI rationale for doing so. It also allows us to keep even more terms which I think should be deleted, but I can't vote to rescind without a better version to propose, and I haven't figured that out yet. I would rather keep a useless term AND a good term than delete a useless term AND a good term. - TheDaveRoss 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain - We need some sensible way of reducing the number of silly entries that COALMINE permits. This is not it. I don't know of a good, non-arbitrary way. DCDuring (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      Abstain - Why don't we just have a single page explaining how words that are sum of parts should be looked up as separate entries in Wiktionary ? I can see a Lua module that would try to break up a reference into separate words and automatically create links to the individual pages. We would still have REDIRECT links to this sum-of-parts-module page, so when someone tried to look up the pages for a word phrase or a hyphenated-word-phrase or a combinedwordphrase. This would allow our wiki to handled the words, but not have pages that are effectively duplications. Jawitkien (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Indented, as cast after vote ended. — surjection?〉 17:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


3-21-3, fails. — surjection?〉 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Erutuon for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Erutuon (talkcontribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Erutuon does a lot of valuable work with templates and modules.

See User talk:Erutuon § Administrator?


  • Vote starts: 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


  • Languages: en, grc-2, la-1, de-1, fr-1, ar-1 (except for English, not much conversational ability)
  • Timezone: UTC-6 (winter), UTC-5 (summer)
I refused a few times before, but this time I accept because I think I could do useful things with some of the admin tools, such as moving and deleting incorrect titles, protecting vandalized templates and modules, and improving or adding abuse filters. — Eru·tuon 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Support, as the editor who recently suggested this. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Support I don't know of any other editor as both technically skilled and linguistically knowledgeable as Erutuon. Nardog (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Support, indebted for his generous help, his greek and his magic modules. Thank you Erutuon. sarri.greek (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Support, thanks for all the wikilove <3 you give to this project.--So9q (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Support wholeheartedly — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  7.   Support — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 08:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  8.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  9.   Support enthusiastically. - TheDaveRoss 12:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  10.   Support Fay Freak (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  11.   Support. Canonicalization (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  12.   Support selbstverständlichMahāgaja · talk 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Support I obviously support Erutuon, but are Wonderfool votes even valid? Seems to me a permablocked user shouldn't be allowed to create votes. --{{victar|talk}} 22:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I suggested creating the vote and asked for help. The anonymous IP obliged. I didn’t know who it is (how did you know?). — SGconlaw (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm aware. It's rather obvious that it's Wonderfool. --{{victar|talk}} 03:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    The IP only created the page and didn't cast a vote (which they obviously can't), so I don't know if there is anything we need to determine if it's "valid". Nardog (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Again, as I just said, I'm aware of the situation. You don't need to repeat it. --{{victar|talk}} 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    If by "Wonderfool votes" you meant "a page under Wiktioanry:Votes created by an IP which appears to be the same person behind Wonderfool" and not "votes on this page cast by Wonderfool('s socks)", yeah, that was not clear at all. Nardog (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    Who are you even quoting now? Strike that too, I don't care. --{{victar|talk}} 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  13.   SupportJberkel 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  14.   Support --Vahag (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  15.   Support, of course. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  16.   Support, no doubt in my mind. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  17.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  18.   Support Of course. DCDuring (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  19.   Support. We need admins like Erutuon, although I disagreed with the change to {{der3}} etc, (since redirected by Benwing in another "great improvement", an admin I have had trouble with in other changes). We don't need admins like Koavf, whom I regret voting for. DonnanZ (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  20.   Support Leasnam (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  21.   Support Seems like a perfect candidate, from the impression that is available. On a general note, the English Wiktionary still lacks easy-to-desysop policy, and Wiktionary:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes does not fare well so far. Something should be done, but I don't know what that would be. I think a superminority has a de facto power to enforce an easy-desysopping policy via conditional admin supports, but seems unlikely to wish to do so. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  22.   Support duh —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  23.   Support İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 16:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  24.   Support -Ultimateria (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)



  1.   Abstain Not going to vote on an IP created vote. --{{victar|talk}} 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter who created the vote. SGconlaw suggested it, that's what matters. DonnanZ (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Wow, someone else to tell me what happened. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 12:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The IP seems to belong to a block assigned to Megafon, a Russian telecom. Yet another example of Putin trying to influence Western elections! - TheDaveRoss 12:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think Wonderfool has migrated to Russia. As long as it isn't Johnson or Trump. DonnanZ (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Konichiwa, behold, the power of a VPN. But as I say above, I'm abstaining because of it being an IP created vote, regardless of the actor. --{{}} 02:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


  • Passes 24–0–1 (100%). Could a bureaucrat update the requisite rights, please? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes

The status quo: De-sysop votes require a supermajority to remove an admin's powers. This means that if 50% of voters had opposed me gaining admin powers back in 2012, I wouldn't have received them, but if 50% of voters were to oppose me keeping those powers in 2019, I would still get to keep them.

The proposal: Confirmation votes will be used instead of de-sysop votes, and will function just like the votes for new admins. If the vote passes, the editor continues to be an admin; if it does not, the editor loses their admin powers.

The rationale: Admins should not be given carte blanche, and this vote would increase accountability. With a more effective voting policy, we could rely less on bureaucrats to keep order and have the community pass judgement instead.


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Vote created: —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)



  1.   Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Support Numberguy6 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  3.   SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Support: if half of the community doesn't think a person should be an administrator, they should not be an administrator. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Support. I really don't think we should have to wait till 2/3 of the community no longer wants someone to be a sysop before we can de-sysop them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    Query: @TheDaveRoss, Andrew Sheedy, the participants in a vote are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. This current vote (replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes) includes no description of or requirements for a quorum. If this passes, we could theoretically have a vote with only two participants, one vote in support and one in opposition, and the vote would conclude as a "pass". Such a vote cannot be indicative of the will of the community, unless our editor population winds up severely depleted.
    Do either of you (or anyone else) have any proposals for how to correct for this lack of any quorum definition? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    It works either by a set amount of needed participants, or by a minimum amount of time a vote has to take place, so one does not deadmin by a vote that runs half a day. Probably combined: Must run x days / weeks at least, must have y participants, or if not (for the rare case the community dies out and there are only a dozensome people who work here or visit vote pages) then can pass without y participants if z weeks is reached. Applicable for admin and deadmin votes. Fay Freak (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    I think the level of participation is sufficient that I'm not concerned about the possibility of only a couple people participating in a vote. If that becomes an issue, the de-sysoping policies can be revisited. Theoretically, we could de-sysop someone with three people with the current rules, so I don't think we'd be creating any new problems if this vote passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    The general voting policy already stipulates that votes should last a month, only suggesting a shorter duration for bot votes. Re quorum, I am not concerned. If there is a de-sysop vote in which only two people participate that tells me that there isn't a reasonable amount of support for the person at issue just as much as a 50-50 vote with dozens of voters would. - TheDaveRoss 12:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  7.   SupportMnemosientje (t · c) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  8.   Support, although a quorum would be nice; but I do think Andrew Sheedy above is right that its absence isn’t likely to be an issue. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  9.   Support Nardog (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  10.   Support: I'm not sure about the title though, and I'm not sure whether the admin concerned can vote for (defend) themself. Anyway I have no admin powers to lose. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    Looking at Victar's Oppose vote below, he has the same problem with the title. I feel "Vote of Confidence" would be a better name. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    I raised this at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes#Confirmation vote or vote of confidence on September 8th, but no-one said they preferred "vote of confidence". I feel the choice of the term, while not entirely immaterial, is less important, and does not harm the purpose or the mechanics of the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    As for "whether the admin concerned can vote for (defend) themself": the proposal does not prohibit that, and I think it almost does not matter; the fundamental accountability is established either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    I can't recall seeing any admin candidates voting for themselves, although some have nominated themselves. DonnanZ (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  11.   Support: I second TheDaveRoss.--So9q (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  12.   Support per nom. I was pondering whether this would make admins too weak, but experience does not suggest as much: the two desysop votes that took place in the English Wiktionary whose passing I was most interested in ended up with over 2/3 support for the admins, and thus would not result in desysopping even with 2/3-confirmation rule. From elsewhere, the Czech Wikipedia had a similar principle since 2007 and is doing fine. The proposal is a good fundamental principle that, as experience shows, does not make admins too vulnerable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  13.   Support I don't think this threshold would actually be a problem, as others have proposed. Also, knowing that no super-majority is needed for desysopping would allow people to be more lenient with nominees for adminship. It's common to see good editors failing their nominations, and I'd bet that's because most people feel like electing someone is irreversible. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 23:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 11:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose I am for lowering the threshold of de-sysop votes to 50%, but am against the renaming of de-sysop votes to "confirmation votes", as I feel the name is misleading to the purpose of the vote. Since I can't vote for one aspect of this vote and not the other, I am forced to vote oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose This is designed to nudge admins into "correct" behaviour by the constant threat of de-sysopping. 50% is very easy to reach, especially since the voting threshold is so low and there is no limit on how many times a vote can be proposed. Having been under the constant monitoring of PC police for slip-ups I am telling you this is an unfair and unpleasant situation. A person with a weaker temperament would have left the project. --Vahag (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose It does not increase accountability, if people vote for various improper reasons. You want to lower the threshold because you do not trust in a supermajority having enough sense, but this argument can just be reversed, for if many people are always wrong, then a smaller amount of the many is easily wrong, and this threshold can be leveraged deliberately: The lower the threshold, the easier a takeover. Fay Freak (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    "It does not increase accountability, if people vote for various improper reasons". A weird argument, really. Let's abolish votes altogether, then? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    In the current setup, a superminority (say 34%) can ensure someone keeps their admin flag, regardless whether the superminority has sense, and regardless of how poor arguments they supplied. That seems to render the above invalid; the check on power proposed is lead by the distrust of superminorities. Both minorities and majorities can be wrong; votes cannot resolves the problem of poverty of argument, but nothing better is known to mankind, and, luckily enough, English Wiktionary votes are votes-cum-discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose In broad agreement with @Fay Freak here. As a rejoinder to @Allahverdi Verdizade's comment, I've seen a few votes over the years where the voters weren't necessarily savvy to how the outcome would impact different parts of the community that the voters themselves weren't part of, and things were ... awkward, as a result. Also, with no definition of what constitutes a quorum, we could theoretically have a vote where only two people participated -- one for, one against -- and the subject admin would be de-sysopped. This does not seem ethically just, if votes are truly meant to seek the will of the community. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Since January 2018, there have been 14 votes of this kind, including one for de-sysoping a user, and one for debureaucrating. One vote is still ongoing. Average participation is 15,7 votes cast per vote. The highest number of votes cast in a single vote equals to 21 and the lowest to 10 (in two recent votes where nobody knew the nominees and it was quite obvious they wouldn't be approved anyway, so no-one cared to cast a vote.) Thus, your hypothetical situation where a de-sysoping is achieved by two voters remains highly hypothetical. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: Votes appear in the watchlist of anyone editing, and therefore a quorum problem appears unlikely. The empirical evidence found on wiki suggests no quorum problem, as pointed out by Allahverdi above. Sure, voters may be wrong, including the 34% of voters that can keep someone in power. The 34% of voters do not even need to be wrong; they may merely protect their own group interest, that is, lack of accountablity. That is to say, from what we know, there is the phenomenon of group loyalty in which a human protects another human on account of being a member of the same priviledged group. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    It took me months to find the watchlist, and I have been a heavy editor. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    That may be true for some users. In any case, anyone who uses watchlist regularly will see the running votes there. Anyone who does not use the watch feature may still regularly check WT:VOTE to see what's going on. In any case, Allahverdi pointed out there is no actual quorum problem. And if there were one, it would equally apply to ensysopping. Any quorum problem is perfectly orthogonal to the proposal of this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose The rationale of this vote is to increase the accountability of administrators. While this intention is a noble one, I haven't actually seen any evidence that lack of admin accountability is a real, significant problem on Wiktionary. As a result, this seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    I don't want to wait for a problem we won't be able to address. I've tried avoiding discussing specific people, because I don't want to make this about whether or not we agree any given admin's actions are forgivable or not. But what I can say is that I don't think I've ever been an abusive admin, but I personally think it's a good thing for the community to have a greater say in whether I keep my rights. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    It rather seems to me to be a source of unrest. Compare the Brexit: 52% vote for Leaving, then it is again 48% and one cannot abide by one’s decision because muh democracy and one finds a magical majority relevant, although it is roughly half/half all the time. Hence for a vote to decide certain things one needs a more clear tendency: A classic is absolute majority to make it more likely that there at least will be a majority over time. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm impressed how often you're getting politics into Wiktionary discussions lately :D Equinox 15:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose though fairly weakly. Equinox 12:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  8.   OpposeAryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 20:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose - I don't see the point. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose for renaming confusion per Victar above.--Jusjih (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose, this is just so confusing. Is it like substituting an impeachment process with a snap election? The point with a de-sysop vote is IMO to send a message that someone has done something disagreeable and taking the necessary measurers to control the damages. Substituting that with a confirmation vote is taking an indirect road to the same destination. I agree that the intention is a noble one, but I just have a hard time seeing how this makes it any easier around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly, I dislike that it disguises the severity of a de-sysop vote. I really wish Meta didn't lump two votes into one. --{{victar|talk}} 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  12.   OpposeSaltmarsh. 06:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain—whilst   Supporting the concept as it has worked well in English Wikisource. I think that you need to work on your procedure a little more. How will it work? Is this an annual thing, or a vote of confidence as expressed above. Having a regular process to look at who is administering, and being active is useful. Having it discussed and processed by the community rather than automated procedures is also good. What it is meant to be doing here, and does the process have defences against abuse? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    @billinghurst: You voted "support" in the "abstain" section, did you mean to abstain or support? - TheDaveRoss 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. Trying to be encouraging to the concept though not seeing the clarity on the practice to say the confirmations are understood. I have amended the prior comment to be less confusing. I lean in favour of the proposal as a means for a non-huge wiki to manage administrators as more of a community approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Proposed votes

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, such that the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or such that the vote appears to require substantial revision. If you have not created a passing vote yet, it is recommended that you use this section and actively solicit feedback by linking to your proposal in discussion; your vote may have a better chance of passing if it is first reviewed.

Votes may linger here indefinitely. If changes in policy make a proposal irrelevant, the voting page will be requested for deletion. On the other hand, you do not have to be the creator to initiate one of the votes below. Place any votes with a live start date in the section above at least a few days before that start date arrives.

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: