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.

See 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.

For admins, periodically check for orphan votes at Wiktionary:Votes/ for votes and voting templates, including templates for creation of new votes:

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

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

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 16:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
• Vote created: —User:Vealhurl (talk 16:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Acceptance:

• Languages: en-N, la-3, grc-0
• Timezone: UTC-5

Graearms (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

1.  Support vealhurl knows best Zbutie3.14 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
2.  Support bearing in mind AG202's concerns below; while vague and illusionary, I think the “said user” they refer to was an administrator for ages and was jaded which I do not think pertains to the appointing of new administrators on Wikt. Most importantly (to me), Graearms does have a need for administrative tools, specifically being able to delete RfD'd entries in RfDs they close—which is efficient. In addition, Graearms certainly knows the rules and philosophies of Wikt well and has been very cordial in discussions alongside making genuinely beneficial edits to the project and fantastic entries. I have no problem with an editor like this possessing administrative tools. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   @LunaEatsTuna: The user (Equinox) was linked in the discussion, but nonetheless, the reason I mentioned it was that many of our current admin defended the behavior, and no one at the time disciplined Equinox. Several users pinged several admin to do something and no one did anything. Why are we adding new admin when we can't even properly handle clear cases of abuse with our current ones? Almost every new admin that's been added in the past few years has had the rationale of "good user" and "RFD/RFV". Yet, as I linked below, we still have numerous pages in RFV & RFD that are unresolved, and I don't get what the admin tools are being used for otherwise. We have too many admin with too little action. It should not be just a stepping stone in the project. AG202 (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

3.  Support ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 18:12, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
4.  Support Knowledgeable, active, and excellently-behaved contributour in evident need of tools. I will gladly hand him the mop. Catonif (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply
5.  Support Although this is a Wonderfool nomination, I have found Graearms to be extremely knowledgeable both about linguistics and about Wiktionary conventions, and also extremely careful and of the right temperament for an admin. These are the kinds of people we need as administrators. In particular, in response to AG202's comments above, I see Graearms as not just a good contributor but someone who is likely to play a positive role in dispute resolutions (as they have already done in various cases), which would be facilitated by having them as an admin. I also don't see how problems with a different, ill-behaved admin (who was made an admin in the early days before people were careful about giving out admin status) have much anything to do with this particular nomination. Benwing2 (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
6.  Support as nommer. —User:Vealhurl (talk 12:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
7.  Support per the above; I don't see what other admins have to do with this, nor how not adding another will worsen complaints mentioned. Vininn126 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
8.  Support purely because some of the opposers/abstainers are fg ridiculous. Also can someone pls nominate the guy who has a problem with every single nomination so that he can have the adminship and calm the f down Allahverdi Verdizade on a flying visit (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
   1. That guy is next-but-one on Wonderfool's list of controversial users to nominate...—User:Vealhurl (talk 20:26, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

      Nice try, but you've already tried nominating me twice now. AG202 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

      Are you nominating people based on their controversy? Lurker 320698738032 (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

   I mean... okay? I've been nominated before as mentioned in my comment... And I haven't opposed every admin that's been nominated... Kinda personal if you ask me. AG202 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

   I didn't mean you, I meant Donny... Allahverdi Verdizade on a flying visit (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2026 (UTC)reply

9.  Support Pious Eterino (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2026 (UTC)reply
10.  Support You twisted my arm. Flame, not lame (Don't talk to me.) 00:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)reply
11.  Support No objections. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:26, 15 October 2026 (UTC)reply
12.  Support --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)reply

1.  Oppose. Wonderfool nomination, see User talk:Graearms § Admin. Also, for similar reasons as my vote in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-07/User:Polomo for admin. Being a helpful or active user does not make an admin. I looked for the rationale at the user talk page too, and there's nothing there that explains the nomination. We have over 60 "active" administrators, yet the speedy deletion candidates category has 162 entries at the time of this vote. WT:RFV is packed to the brim. And I will never forget what happened with Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/July § How to report a user? where an administrator used a slur against a user, and other admin either defended said behavior or refused to take action. In the end, said user ended up leaving, but imagine if they hadn't? It makes me wonder what the purpose of having so many admin here is in the first place. What are most admin doing? How often are they using their admin tools? Yes, it's a volunteer project, but should this many people have this much power? That's part of why I've resisted being nominated for admin a few times now. I think we need to have a serious discussion about what being an admin should look like and if our current admin are impartial enough to take action against other admin. Otherwise, it just feels like a big club. I do appreciate the work that most admin have done, I just want there to be more accountability before we add even more. AG202 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   Legend has it that if you say his name quickly three times in a row, he will appear in the form of a mysterious temp account and proceed to claim that your freshly created entry is unattestable. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   Legend has it that if you nominate a reconstruction entry for deletion, within 24 hours a "Delete per nom" vote will appear. Lurker 320698738032 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   Even without magic incantation he sometimes appears mysteriously and fixes your last edit while you're still preparing to hit "Publish changes" Jberkel 21:21, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   @Graearms, I agree that you should share how you plan to utilize the administrator tools. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 17:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   I was planning on contributing to RfD and RfM. There are bunch of old RfD discussions that, in spite of broad consensus, still have not resulted in actual page deletions, such as the one about *h₁op- and also the one about *gʷeg-. I would like to help clear out this RfD backlog. Graearms (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   You don’t need to be an administrator to close RfD discussions, though. Do you otherwise have a need to delete pages yourself?

   (It’s true that WT:CSD can get a little full at times, but most of the entries that linger there are those that get tagged with {{d}} with no real explanation. My understanding is that entries that fail RfD or RfV are usually deleted semi-quickly.) — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 16:40, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   I do not mind if they get deleted more quicklier, especially when the user doing so is trustworthy, makes good decisions and has a clue. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   I technically don't need to be an admin to close RfD discussions, though it would be quicker if I could delete the pages myself. To my understanding, I do need to be admin in order to perform history merges, which are requested for the vast majority of Proto-Germanic rfd discussions. Graearms (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   No part of that comment is about Graearms. Catonif (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   @Catonif: I am aware that it wasn't anything specific about Graearms (though I think accepting a WF nomination is an error and requested a rationale why they needed admin tools which they responded to). But as I've yet to see any marked improvement in the way that admin handle conflicts here, then I'll continue to oppose the addition of new admin without a very strong rationale. AG202 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   If the current admins are bad, categorically opposing any new one while keeping the current ones does not seem like a solution. I don't see why a scandal three years ago should be the reason why Graearms can't delete pages on his own. If the action of admins are too few, further reducing the number of admins also doesn't seem like a solution. Your concerns are valid, but they all seem like reasons to support. Catonif (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   @Catonif: If Graearms were "running" on a "platform" for better enforcement of our rules and promising to take action against other admin if they do things like Equinox did, then I would switch to support, but I can't support giving all admin powers to someone just because they want to delete pages. That's also why I think we should have a "deleter" permission. And again, it's because the scandal went unaddressed that put a very sour taste in my mouth. But that's just but one of the reasons I'm opposing new admin nominations, especially made by WF who shouldn't have been unbanned and un-globally-locked in the first place (which was another sign that it was a "club" that folks aren't a part of). AG202 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   If another admin ever used hate speech, I would support the removal of their admin privileges. Since I am not "running" to be a Bureaucrat, I wouldn't be able to immediately do anything about it myself, but I would still support the removal of such an admin. Also, if you feel that the current group of admins is too cliquey, wouldn't letting in new users be a good way to ameliorate that situation? Graearms (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   I appreciate the clarification, and yes, new admin could ameliorate the situation, but in all due respect, I don’t think being nominated by WF is the right way about it. AG202 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   Pretend I nominated him instead. I would have, if I had known. Catonif (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   I agree with Catonif that this comment is out of place and entirely vague. Vininn126 (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

2.  Oppose. Chihunglu83 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
3.  Oppose. As I have a problem with them as an editor, not necessarily as an admin: I have seen too many mistakes in their editing popping up on just my watchlist over the time they've been here, mistakes associated with a language they seem to have been the most concerned about, and will be, these ought not to be an admin's, for their kind and for their being so numerous. Saumache (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply
4.  Oppose for reasons that would take too much space to explain. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply

   Many years ago, I was also nominated by WF. It was violently opposed by User:Metaknowledge, inactive since 2022 and probably dead. I never became an admin as a result, and now with advancing years I don't want adminship. The moral here is that WF should refrain from making admin noms, as there is a stigma attached to them by other users. DonnanZ (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

5.  Oppose. It is great that Graearms wants to help close deletion and verification discussions, but they can do that without admin status. Cnilep (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
6.  Oppose. Administrators are completely unnecessary. Lerman (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
7.  Oppose. — BABR・kurwa? 05:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

1.  Abstain Lurker 320698738032 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
2.  Abstain. Though I have not interacted much with Graearms, I have no doubt they are a clueful user. But I’m not eager to give admin tools to someone who doesn’t plan to use them to their fullest. Closing RfDs is important, but it’s not an admin task – plus, RfD makes up only a small portion of the WT:CSD backlog, and Graearms has only participated in WT:RFDE since August (hence our lack of interaction). I will gladly welcome Graearms as an admin if this vote passes, and I’m sure we have many admins who make much less use of their tools, but I would appreciate at least a commitment to do other tasks, especially ones that actually require the sysop hat. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 10:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
3.  Abstain. I considering voting support to offset the 3 irrelevant or dishonest votes I see in the oppose section, but that'd be dishonest of me as well. I don't know this user. MedK1 (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2026 (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.