Wiktionary:Votes

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. Once you have created your vote, add it to the list at Wiktionary:Votes/Active.

Other

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

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

• Pages starting with "Wiktionary:Votes".
• Pages starting with "Template:vote-".

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

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]

(see also: timeline, policy)

Ends	Title	Status/Votes
Oct 11	User:Catonif for admin	passed
Oct 24	User:Ioaxxere for admin	passed
Nov 11	User:Svartava for admin	11 2 4
Nov 27	Excluding trivial present participial adjectives	0 4 1
(=4)	[Wiktionary:Table of votes]	(=79)

Nomination: I hereby nominate Catonif (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He is a long-term editor and has made a lot of contributions.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 04:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Vote created: Svartava (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance:

• Languages: it, en-3, fr-1
• Timezone: UTC+1/+2 (CET)

I accept. Catonif (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support as nominator Svartava (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Although the acceptance is still pending, [T]his user has already been using the Template Editor and Extended Mover rights. In addition, there is currently a reason why it would be helpful if this user were able to delete pages. The contributions made by this user seem to be good. So, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be appropriate to upgrade this user to an admin. Kutchkutch (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support User is level-headed and could benefit from the tools. Vininn126 (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wholeheartedly Support, kind of disappointed I didn't nom myself. Thadh (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 11:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Fay Freak (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support --Vahag (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, and I apologise for not setting up the vote myself. PUC – 18:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   No worries, I'm glad there wasn't any serious reason behind it. :) Catonif (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Reworded my vote as Oppose. PUC – 19:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Hors des sentiers battus, you never cease to subvert my every expectation. :p Catonif (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support--Urszag (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. A better candidate is hard to imagine. Nicodene (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, the first in almost two years. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Imetsia (talk (more)) 14:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Theknightwho (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Megathonic (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 14:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Good entries. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 04:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Hmmm... should Catonif or should Catonif not be an admin? 🎲 Proficiency in more than one language, 💬 maintaining composure, 🌺 edits galore, 📊 entertaining jellyfish video 🪼 on the user page... such a green flag! 💚 "Don't talk to me." 💔 Flame, not lame (talk)
21. Support — BABR・talk 04:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support AG202 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Chihunglu83 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support əkrəm. 08:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Einstein2 (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. lattermint (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. I do not know this person! (jk) Trimpulot (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I Oppose the very notion of Catonif not being an admin. PUC – 19:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abstain: I am not familiar with this user. DonnanZ (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Abstain: I don't know the user. --Davi6596 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain: Surprisingly, I've never encountered them either. Denazz (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abstain: Not familiar either, but I'm not going to stand in their way. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passes 28-0-4. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations @Catonif! Pinging crats: @Chuck Entz. Svartava (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for the nice comments and for putting your trust in me! I'll try my best. Catonif (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caant' w82bb blokked!Denazz (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically passed yet, this is the last day. Vininn126 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. @Catonif, please add yourself to the list of administrators in WT:A. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Ioaxxere (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 13:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Vote created: Svartava (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance:

• Languages: en
• Timezone: UTC-5

Ioaxxere (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See previous votes at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-02/User:Ioaxxere for admin and Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-11/User:Ioaxxere for admin.

1. Support Ioaxxere has been here for a lot of time now and is pretty active. He has been nominated before, but there is a saying that “all the best users need 3 admin votes”. Svartava (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The saying actually goes that the best people get 5 successful admin votes Denazz (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   This might actually be the sixth. Svartava (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support but technically voting isn't supposed to start until Ioaxxere accepts the nomination, which he hasn't yet. — BABR・talk 13:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 18:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Einstein2 (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support I do not carry forward judgements on previous votes, it would be confirmation bias, so glad I don’t remember them. Participation of the user in discussions is a bit low still – though apparently not the edit count in general, in comparison to other recent admin votes – but after all nobody is forced to get into disputes on the internet and it is also a good trait not to. And this user is already interface administrator so the risks from getting deletion or banning rights is negligible; for the latter rights in particular I find it likely that he won’t exercise them as much as other admins do, extrapolating the low participation in controversies, rather for more obvious vandals than subtle dismantlements of the dictionary. Say it’s a junior admin and in three years he will mature but we will have it done already. Fay Freak (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support – Great user, has a clue and a genuine need for administrative tools (the only real criteria for adminship). I acknowledge the concerns below, but an administrator does not have to be a jack of all trades or a friendly community leader in my view as long as they are experienced, trustworthy and have a real use for the tools given by the role, which the illustrious Ioaxxere certainly possesses. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support this time. I think the user has really grown a lot as an editor and their understanding of the site has grown a lot, among other things. Vininn126 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Despite what the nominee himself claims below, I do feel he acts much more rationally and much less impulsively that he did before. I do not believe past votes failing should be taken into consideration, it is the present situation that should be considered. Catonif (talk) 08:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Ioaxxere has learned quite a lot recently and generally acted in a calm and considered manner, as well as being willing to put a lot of time into fixing UI-related issues. For this reason I made him an interface admin recently, even in the absence of adminship (which had a precedent in User:Erutuon), and he has shown himself to be a capable and trustworthy interface admin, so I believe he will make a good admin as well. Benwing2 (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I supported this user the last 2 times he was nominated and I see no reason to act differently now. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support HumblingFumbling (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Binarystep (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support for supporting the unblock of Wonderfool. lattermint (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Theknightwho (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Chihunglu83 (talk· contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Ioaxxere don't talk too much boring things. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 16:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Juwan (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. This is the third admin vote for Ioaxxere in two years (the prior two having failed outright), and the last vote wasn't even a year ago. It just feels like we’re hoping that the electorate is different enough this time. In the other cases where an admin was voted upon three times before becoming an admin, there were 3 years between the first and last votes for PUC and almost 5 years between the first and last votes for Equinox (edit: Equinox was elevated in March 2009, but then was de-adminned in 2012 for deleting the main page, but was re-elevated in September 2013, so not the best example). Ioaxxere has put in good work, but I still don't see what's changed since the last time and why they'd need admin tools, and this is mentioned at User talk:Ioaxxere § Adminship, where I was indirectly mentioned. We should have waited to hear why Ioaxxere wants to be admin now before starting this vote. Also, I'm sure that the canvassing that occurred in the last vote may still be on people's minds. AG202 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding the need for admin tools, I'm quite sure Ioaxxere would be interested in helping out clearing the huge backlogs of the RFs and the pages which hang around for weeks and months in CAT:D. About "what's changed since the last time", is that Ioaxxere is a much more experienced editor now than when his first vote was conducted, and would thus be much more aware of rules now, which was apparently the main concern last time. Svartava (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I would really prefer for Ioaxxere to answer this himself. AG202 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think your assessment is pretty accurate. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   If that’s the case, this is why I wish we had a deleter role. I’m fine with you having the power to delete pages since we do have a backlog, but I’m still not the most comfortable with you having the other powers that being an administrator brings, such as blocking or dealing with user disputes. Administrator power shouldn’t just be given to active members with a number of edits (which is part of why I’ve pushed against being nominated myself several times until recently), but folks that people trust to handle running the project. After the whole Equinox scandal (which still leaves a sour taste in my mouth and I’m disappointed that people still praise him knowing what he did), the issues of admin not enforcing our own policies, and severely increased admin inactivity, I’ve sensed a need for a more serious shift on this project, and this nomination doesn’t seem to be moving us in that direction. AG202 (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, the canvassing last vote was definitely problematic, and part of the reason I didn't vote, but to me it genuinely seemed like he just got really excited and started yapping, without realizing that was canvassing.

   Regardless, @AG202 @Svartava Ioaxxere still has not accepted the nomination and the voting should not have started until he did. This vote should probably be closed pending his acceptance. — BABR・talk 17:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Babr He's not even edited after the vote began, and I've seen many votes where the voting had begun before acceptance. Svartava (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose I'm not convinced that enough has changed since the last 2 votes. Megathonic (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   The main issue brought up during the last votes was that Ioaxxere was new and inexperienced, how has that not changed? Svartava (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   My thoughts: I don't feel any more qualified or experienced than I did then. And those with whom I've interacted in the past will probably agree that I haven't changed or grown as a person. But @AG202 noted that the outcome could hinge on a changing "electorate", so I'm curious to see how that pans out. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose too soon. Denazz (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   You're just jealous. Vininn126 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose for supporting the unblock of Wonderfool. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abstain. Ioaxxere is a great user, and I think they can be a great admin if they actually want to engage in this kind of activity (especially welcoming and guiding newbies and combatting vandalism). Their recent interactions of this kind seem calm and effective, but few in number, and I'm not convinced this is something Ioaxxere actually wants to do more frequently. I might be wrong, but the nominee sounds like someone who just wants to code and make English entries. Thadh (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Admins should indeed "just" want to contribute to the site. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 07:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   There's no need to be an admin for that. Unless the user somehow needs anything adminship could give them - deletion and blocking, two things I don't see the nominee using in the near future based on their recent interactions and contributions - is there really any need in granting those? Thadh (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   “Adminship isn't primarily about whether someone truly needs the tools, it is about whether someone can be trusted with the tools.”

   Aside from that, the nominee would definitely be using the delete button. Svartava (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   You're not quoting me, so I don't see how that should change my vote? I simply disagree with that statement. Thadh (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Abstain Upon further reflection of what Fay Freak said, my concerns aren't strong enough to warrant an oppose vote. Megathonic (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain, can't recall interacting with Ioaxxere all that much, but I will not stand in their way. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abstain: I'm deeply impressed by Ioaxxere's work on improving the site's JavaScript and CSS. I'm pleased when I see him ask questions when he doesn't understand the reason for something in the code, rather than just changing something. I'm concerned about recent heated conflicts between admins and regular users, and I feel like it's best if an admin engages in a contentious area, they have the ability to take hostility and respond without escalating the conflict. I'm not saying admins are to blame for all or even most of the recent conflicts or that de-escalation would have been possible, but there you go. I don't know if Ioaxxere has that type of discretion and restraint so I'm not voting for, but I don't recall definite evidence against, so I'm not voting against. It's clear Ioaxxere will be an admin and I respect what he has done as an interface admin so I wish him the best in dealing with the responsibility of adminship. — Eru·tuon 17:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Passed: 20-3-5. – Svārtava (tɕ) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ioaxxere: As a new sysop, please add yourself to the list at WT:A when you get the chance, thanks. AG202 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination: I hereby nominate Svartava (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Svartava has been with us for four years now and has definitely grown during those years. He is an integral part of the Indo-Aryan editing community and has made many contributions across languages. Svartava has matured into a responsible editor over the years and is a suitable candidate for passing on the torch to, given the fact that the other administrators in the Indo-Aryan editing community are sporadically active.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 04:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Vote created: 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 04:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance: I accept with thanks.

• Languages: en, hi, sa-2, inc-pra-1, gu-0
• Timezone: UTC+5:30

Svartava (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2022-04/User:Svartava for temporary admin for previous vote.

1. Support, as nominator -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 05:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I have known Svartava since he joined four years ago. Like most users, there were a few issues when he first joined. One of his previous accounts was temporarily blocked after calling another user an inappropriate name. The extended mover right was taken away from him for creating new pages by moving candidates for speedy deletion without a redirect. He has been characterised as impulsive by other users. However, now he has matured to the point that it would be appropriate to make him an admin. And, the previous issues can be forgotten about. There are already three admins that specialise in Indo-Aryan with fluctuating levels of activity (including myself). There is another account Svartava2 that is used for automated tasks. Kutchkutch (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. For the record, I was re-made an extended mover later and have hopefully been using it fine (unless someone finds any overlooked mistakes). Svartava (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Although I was already aware of being re-made an extended mover, thanks for the clarification. According to,

   https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=50765434

   Romanophile obliged to your private request. Bringing up past issues for the sake of full disclosure is disheartening since it takes away from the positivity. Just like نعم البدل mentioned below, my interactions with you

   have been helpful and respectful. [Your] feedback has enabled me to be a better contributor on this site … This is also backed by [your] immense contributions and knowledge on Indo-Aryan languages.

   I certainly agree with AryamanA’s sentiment that

   [we] need experienced Indian-language admins like Svartava who can patrol recent changes and clean up all the new entries being made, since the presence of these languages on Wiktionary is rapidly scaling up.

   And you have certainly been an important factor in this scaling up. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support User frequently makes helpful edits. Limited misconduct. User expressed remorse and lessons learned. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support There was a time when Svartava was a little too eager for the mop but I think that time has passed. I see Svartava patrolling recent changes quite often, he makes good entries, and overall is great to work with. So I'm very happy to support. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support During my interactions with Svartava, I have found them to be very helpful and respectful. His feedback has enabled me to be a better contributor on this site, and I would be very happy in supporting his nomination for admin-ship. This is also backed by his immense contributions and knowledge on Indo-Aryan languages. نعم البدل (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Binarystep (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Svartava pointed out to me proper-noun CFI I'd overlooked and gave me guidance on whether to add a proper noun to the Wiktionary, not to mention all his contributions to the wiki, knowledge of Indo-Aryan languages, and ability to make complex templates. --Davi6596 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Svartava is a very active editor with high-quality contributions, and he clearly has a need for administrative tools. He also has the sound judgment and temperament needed for the role. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Juwan (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I only see them abusing admin tools, given their temperament. --{{victar|talk}} 00:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   For the uninformed reader: I don't trust Victar's judgement in this admin vote given occasional unnecessary disagreements with Svartava, particularly the Prakrit merger vote which was a piece of pointless bureaucracy should have never happened if not at Victar's behest (and was resolved very peacefully). Additionally, I don't recall any recent cases (in the past 2 years) of Svartava engaging in serious conflict with any users, so I believe this concern is unfounded.

   Meanwhile, Victar has managed to use up almost all the goodwill among the Indian language admins by engaging in random conflicts and has not been subject to admin tool abuse yet, so I expect things will continue to be fine. Overall, I strongly believe we need more admins that are knowledgeable in Indian languages since their presence on Wiktionary is scaling up rapidly, and Svartava is the obvious candidate. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 05:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   While the Prakrit merger vote may have seemed bureaucratic to you, major restructures of language families should always be brought to the wider community for discussion, even if only to keep everyone informed. Unfortunately, too many decisions are still being made privately on Discord without sufficient open discussion, which is something that needs addressing.

   As for Svartava, while it's true there haven't been major conflicts in the past two years, that alone doesn’t guarantee similar issues won’t arise in the future -- especially if they gain admin tools. Temperament and decision-making under pressure are essential for any admin, and even minor disagreements can reveal deeper concerns about leadership style. Let's not forget that their previous admin vote was a resounding failure for a reason.

   Your reference to my standing with other Indian language admins is an irrelevant ad hominem. Though, I agree we need more admins with expertise in Indian languages, it's equally crucial that those admins demonstrate sound judgment, fairness, and the ability to minimize conflict. Experience should not overshadow concerns about temperament when it comes to positions of authority.

   --{{victar|talk}} 17:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Re: Prakrit merger, I am not aware of the Discord discussion behind that since I was quite inactive then but I still remember chiming in the BP discussion at some point, it's not something that happened in secrecy. It shouldn't have been a community-wide vote but rather in Wiktionary:Language treatment requests at most. Finally, you yourself were an early evangeliser of the Discord and I remember making a lot of editing choices from discussion with you on there in c. 2018. I guess you left the server during the time I was inactive. AFAIK no major decisions on Indian language treatement have been made on the Discord server, so this point is moot.
   Re: Potential future conflicts, the admin vote he made for himself was 2 years ago (and I agree premature). We have current admins who have edited for less than that amount of time, so I believe 2 years is plenty of time to mature and become ready for it. Additionally, there is nothing else we can go off of rather than track record; admins can go crazy and e.g. delete the main page any time, and if they do we simply de-admin them. However, Svartava has not engaged in very bad or consistent conflicts that would disqualify them from adminship, and certainly nothing in recent history (and in fact, in your conflicts with him you got what you wanted!). As a Bayesian, I am pretty convinced by now that their temperament is good for adminship.
   Finally, I raised the point about your conflicts because I believe it biases your thinking about whether Svartava is ready to be an admin. It's not an ad hominem (do you disagree that you have had unneeded conflicts with Svartava or me or Pulimaiyi lol?); I merely want potential voters to be aware about the context of your vote. We need experienced Indian-language admins who can patrol recent changes and clean up all the new entries being made, and Svartava is a great choice. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   "admins can go crazy... if they do we simply de-admin them." I wish it were that simple. While deleting the main page would be a clear and easy way to de-admin someone, in practice it's far from that simple. Part of why I've become more wary of new admin is because I've seen multiple admin participate in questionable behavior, with one notably making racist and anti-LGBT comments before he left on his own accord. However, because of the almost god-like treatment that admin get, a lack of proper conflict resolution channels, and a lack of rule enforcement currently, it's frankly almost impossible to get anything done in reference to those problems. And so, while I don't really agree with victar on the other points, I do think there needs to be more thought into why someone should be made an admin and what they actually need the tools for, because once they become an admin, it's much much harder to do anything if they go on a power trip and treat users unfairly. AG202 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Any relevant diffs? I recall having one conversation with him that was productive and don't see anyone else pointing out poor judgement, conflict, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I did have some unpleasant edit wars with Victar over the use of complete etymological wording using the templates {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} in Indo-Aryan entries. However, they were later on standardized by Benwing2 with the agreement of all other Indo-Aryan editors so the issue was eventually sorted out at least in this area. Svartava (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately, too many decisions are still being made privately on Discord without sufficient open discussion

   There was no advance notification that this was vote going to happen. As far I know, there has been no private persuasion to vote a particular way or any sort of predetermination. The observation that Svartava has become more mature seems to be organic. If I wanted to oppose or abstain from it, then I would have done so. Kutchkutch (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Weak oppose. I'm a bit conflicted between oppose and abstain, but I've regretted voting abstain in the past, so I feel like taking a stronger stance now. I really do believe that one of the most important parts of being an admin is conflict management (including blocks), and I'm unsure if I fully trust the nominee to handle them appropriately. AG202 (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems to me that your vote is primarily founded on the basis of your concerns about the powers of adminship grants on the whole, rather than specific issues about this particular nominee (at least based on my reading of your previous comment: "while I don't really agree with victar on the other points"). Obviously you don't owe any explanation for your vote, but would be great if you could elaborate what leads you to believe Svartava won't handle conflicts appropriately. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @AryamanA: Prior arguments that I've seen from Svartava and other users, though they were a while ago, give me pause about conflict resolution. I'm also rather unsure why this user needs all the powers of adminship. Yes, I do have concerns about the powers of adminship as a whole as well, and in my opinion, we should be looking for more admin who are well-versed in conflict resolution and rule enforcement, rather than just users that we find are active and popular. (I am aware of the lack of admin in the Indo-Aryan editing community, though) AG202 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abstain Temperament may be there, but this is what motivates people and can be channelled. I found little evidence of disagreeable interactions but so neither for judgement, though linguistic one he applies and verbalizes to new users, so quality standards I expect to be upheld, quite not admin tools abused. Others may have understood more. I don’t have a way with misdecisions in the sphere of India by her own editors. What is appropriate for man differs by the corner of the world one is socialized in and is then but vaguely fathomable, so it is easy to have externals misled in their recognition of abuse. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Abstain: Much less "noisy" than a few years ago, which I believe is a good sign, but I'm undecided. PUC – 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain On the fence. Megathonic (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Abstain Also on the fence, leaning towards support. I think this user has really shown a lot of growth and maturation and also shown to be more responsible with tools than in the past. Vininn126 (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on:

• For an English adjective sense to be included, at least one of the following conditions has to be met (for it is otherwise trivial):

1. The adjective sense does not coincide with a present participle in pronunciation (i.e. is not a homophone).
2. The adjective sense does not coincide with a present participle in orthography (i.e. is not a homograph).
3. The adjective sense does not coincide with a present participle in etymology.
4. The adjective sense does not have a 100% transparent meaning based on our definition of the corresponding verb (i.e. it does not mean "which VERBs" for any one of the verb's senses). The corresponding verb is understood as the verb whose present participle coincides with the adjective sense regarding criteria 1-3.

Rationale:

1. By precedent: In the deletion discussion of spiring, the community has established a precedent of not including these kinds of adjectives. Judging from the currently ongoing RFD discussions, it is clear that it is merely a matter of time until one or the other RFD of such an adjective entry is going to fail, leaving the dictionary in an internally inconsistent state. The vote serves to remedy this.
2. Of marginal use: Once somebody knows the grammar rule that present participles can be used adjectivally, all of these entries become self-evident.
3. Bloat: These transparent adjective entries make navigating the existing articles harder, especially on mobile, not least because, unlike the true present participle entry, these adjectives are actually allowed to come with translation boxes (as is the case in growing). They also make it look like there's more than there actually is—when all there is is just duplication with no new semantics—increase editors' workloads, make them waste time, and can lead to errors, or entries gradually falling out of sync.
4. Suppressing true information: Their inclusion makes looking up actually interesting information harder, an example of which is finding a list of all present participles that have acquired additional, unpredictable semantics in their adjectival sense (e.g. eating or becoming).
5. A categorical mistake: Although each individual present participle has the property of being able to be used adjectivally, it is in fact the category of present participles that intrinsically possesses this quality. We shouldn't include this trivial information about the category of present participles within each present participle entry. The information of how to use present participles in general belongs to a grammar section.
6. By analogy: To provide another point of reference, in German and Romanian, almost all adjectives (bar a few exceptions) can be used adverbially with no orthographic or phonetic alteration. Including every transparent adjective sense in all English present participles is tantamount to including adverb senses in all Category:German adjectives and Category:Romanian adjectives, which is, of course, patently absurd.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• Vote created: — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote starts: 00:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Davi6596 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion:

• Talk:spiring § RFD discussion: April 2021–January 2022
• Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § growing
• Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § falling 2

1. Support as the opener of this vote. --Davi6596 (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose in its current form. I strongly object to the removal of any syntactic criterion. Even if these tests are sometimes tricky to apply, linguists generally recognize a difference between the use of forms such as "exciting" as a participle in contexts like "The boss showed favoritism to Alice and Bob, exciting jealousy in their coworkers" compared to its use as an undeniable adjective in contexts like "a very exciting story" or "I think that would be more exciting". There needs to be a clarification that "Adjective" entries are allowed for cases like this (or if an entry for the adjective "exciting" is in fact intended to be excluded as trivial, I disagree with that policy).--Urszag (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Urszag The problem of the former criterion 5 is its tautology. And I don't know how to add your clarification without making the proposal tautological. Davi6596 (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think I agree with the currently active criteria about when to include adjective entries in English (as far as I understand them). I guess it's inevitable that adhering to those criteria would make this proposal tautological, in the sense that there wouldn't be any changes with a "yes" vote, just a clarification of existing policy (though it looks like Wiktionary:English_adjectives#Words_ending_in_-ing is only a policy think tank, so I don't think it's entirely meaningless to formalize it with a vote). I can't quite tell at this point whether the proponents of this vote intend for it to be a mere clarification, or a meaningfully different policy from the current status quo. What is your intention?--Urszag (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Urszag My intention is to remove the Adjective label from present participles (and even from past ones, if it's the case too) that mean nothing besides "that which VERBs" (or "that which was VERBed" in the case of past participles), e.g. growing, for the reasons above.

   Maybe the vote should only propose removing participial adjective entries that fail the tests in Wiktionary:English adjectives. Davi6596 (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   However, growing currently doesn't have an Adjective heading. It was removed before this vote even started. So why is this vote necessary?--Urszag (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Because Wiktionary:English adjectives is only a policy think tank, as you said. Davi6596 (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, if your goal is just to clarify that this policy think tank should be followed (not to exclude any adjectives that it allows), I think you should just leave in "The word meets generally accepted tests for being an adjective (for example, the ones in Wiktionary:English adjectives)" as a condition and ignore Ioaxxere's criticism that it is a tautology.--Urszag (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @Urszag I'm thinking of canceling this vote and creating a separate vote to make Wiktionary:English adjectives an official policy, since it'd be broader than this. Davi6596 (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I think that makes sense. Of course before a vote starts for that, the whole page should be checked to make sure it is all up to date.--Urszag (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per Urszag; categorically banning adjective entries of this sort doesn't make sense from a linguistic analysis standpoint, and unlike paper dictionaries we have (effectively) no space limitations to be wary of. I will check what CGEL says about this in a bit when I have time. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 07:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per the two peeps above me in this section. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose since, despite having opened this vote, I realized that, actually, this proposal is lexicographically narrow and problematic. It's better to start a vote on making Wiktionary:English adjectives official. --Davi6596 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abstain. The 'bloat' rationale is not unreasonable, but on the whole having both parts of speech strikes me as mostly harmless. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following are proposals for new votes, excluding nominations, in cases where the proposer of the vote prefers that the vote is written collaboratively, or where 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.

Forthcoming votes:

Votes intended to be written collaboratively or substantially revised: