Wiktionary:Votes

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:VOTE)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Votes

The page Wiktionary:Votes consolidates policy votes and procedural votes that take place on Wiktionary. It formalizes and documents the consensus building and voting policy. For an archive of previous votes, see Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline and Wiktionary:Votes/. This header is at Wiktionary:Votes/header.

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

Current and new votes

Allowing well-attested romanizations of Sanskrit

  • Voting on: That whenever citations can be provided showing that a romanization of a Sanskrit word is well-attested in a string of transliterated Sanskrit text (used to convey meaning in permanently recorded media in at least three independent instances, spanning at least three years; see, e.g. [1], [2]), we allow an entry for that romanization consisting of the modicum of information needed to allow readers to get to the native-script entry.
  • Rationale: This differs from the previous vote, which would have allowed romanizations of all attested Sanskrit words, irrespective of whether the romanizations themselves were attested. This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word. This will allow definitions to be created for words (or things that a reader would reasonably expect to be words) that an English-speaking reader might reasonably be expected to encounter while reading English-language materials containing strings of romanized Sanskrit text, while preventing the creation of definitions for unattested romanizations.
  • Vote starts: 00:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Vote extended to 23:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. bd2412 T 20:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support (conditionally) Bowing to pressure and evidence provided that Sanskrit romanisation is used. My condition: only IAST romanisation and only as soft redirects to Devanagari entries, all entry info (definitions, pronunciations, synonyms, example sentences, etc.) should be in the Devanagari entries, just like Mandarin pinyin and Japanese rōmaji entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I am fine with everything you have said. bd2412 T 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
      • OK. I want to stress that it should be standard IAST, e.g. "ṃ", not "ṁ" for anusvāra and one transliteration per entry with possible hard redirects. Details to be worked out, including the use of hyphens (for etymological word splits) and stress marks (only for pronunciation in Devanagari entries, which should not be in IAST entries). I don't see dedicated editors to create and check IAST entries, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I consider words with different accents to be different words. I wonder how likely we are to find three independent citations in running strings of transliterated Sanskrit text using the wrong diacritics. That said, I have no objection at all to an IAST limitation. bd2412 T 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe we should use ISO 15919 as either the standard or an alternative. It covers more basis (letters that IAST ignores) and is also used by google translate. Also, since both IAST and ISO 15919 are 1 to 1 transliterations (digaṃbara/digaṁbara will always be दिगंबर) we could even just do hard-redirects. This makes sense if the purpose is simply to get the user to the Devanagari-script page. DerekWinters (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support Other than for the "modicum" part, this is our current CFI (WT:CFI#Attestation) as I understand it. I see no added value for the user of the dictionary in disallowing attestation of transliterations beyond the current CFI.

    I am slightly confused by the following: "This, by contrast, will apply only to those words for which attestation is demonstrated prior to the creation of an entry for the word." I do not support that attesting quotations must be in the entry before the entry is created; attestation of transliterated text should work the same way as attestation of native-script text.

    On yet another note, this vote proposes to explicitly allow modicum entries; I do not see the vote anywhere disallowing non-modicum entries. I surmise it to be the current CFI to allow even fuller entries than modicum ones, for attested transliterations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support having Rōmaji-style entries for all attested transliterations of Sanskrit. (@Atitarev: How about tagging non-IAST transliterations {{lb|sa|nonstandard}}?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    If we decide to start allowing entries for romanizations, then it will make sense to tag the nonstandard ones, yes — but probably with a dedicated tag like {{lb|sa|nonstandard romanization}} (which could display "nonstandard") or better yet a dedicated template like {{nonstandard romanization of}}, so that the entries can be categorized differently from terms that are nonstandard in the 'usual' way. Templates would presumably also be needed for e.g. Hunterian transliterations and other non-IAST standards. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: That seems sensible. I'd support such a practice. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol support vote.svg Support As these transliterated forms are attested, it's not so much a question of whether they should be included, but how, and that shouldn't come into consideration for this vote. None of the objections so far have said anything except to defer to previous votes. Previous objections were that there might be development of "reverse transliteration modules" to aid search -- this is irrelevant for this vote, as it ignores the change in this poll, namely that is only for attested forms. It also assumes future technology, when in reality Wiktionary code development is particularly slow (e.g. you still can't even search by language). Another previous objection was that there would be an explosion of entries with transliterations for Sanskrit in multiple scripts: "Sanskrit is written in a hell of a lot of scripts". Again this is rendered irrelevant by the requirement for attestation. Another objection was against bot-generated transliterations. Again, not relevant. So, the objectors who are simply deferring to previous votes really need to expand their arguments. I've only gone through Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization_of_Sanskrit, but none of the objections made there appear to be relevant for this vote, so please point to specific arguments if you object. Pengo (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Are you sure you've read the talkpages? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seriously? I've gone to the effort of going through one page of voting and found nothing relevant there. If you want to point out specific arguments, you're going to have to meet me half way. Pengo (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as this is the English Wiktionary, and we assume that most of our contributors can't read other scripts and only have access to Latin input tools, it makes sense for usability's sake to be pretty liberal with romanizations. The RFV of maha/mahā found plenty of unglossed quotations of Sanskrit written in the Latin alphabet, so it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that a user will come across Sanksrit words and want to know what they mean. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol support vote.svg Support See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-07/Allowing_well-attested_romanizations_of_Sanskrit#Software_alternative?. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol support vote.svg Support It may also be prudent to add Thai-cizations, Tamilicizations, Balicizations, etc. Especially for the Thai-script Sanskrit entries, pronunciation should be added to reflect the special usage of Thai Sanskrit. "In Thailand, Sanskrit is read out using the Thai values for all the consonants (so ค is read as kha and not [ga]), which makes Thai spoken Sanskrit incomprehensible to sanskritists not trained in Thailand" (from w:Thai_alphabet#Sanskrit_and_Pali). DerekWinters (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    Also Tibetan, Javanese, Grantha (used only for Sanskrit), Sarada, and Siddham (still somewhat used in Japan). DerekWinters (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol support vote.svg Support. And I would similarly support the inclusion of romanizations of Greek, Russian etc if used similarly. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol support vote.svg Support, based on the arguments made at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2014-06/Romanization of Sanskrit#Rationale. Inclusion should be based on attestation in Latin-script Sanskrit-only text (whether or not it matches any standard, such as IAST), and not in the running text of any other language. As of now, I only support this for Sanskrit; any other language we want to do this for has to be considered separately. --WikiTiki89 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  11. Symbol support vote.svg Support   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the previous vote. Wyang (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wyang. --Vahag (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Vahag. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dijan (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeUngoliant (falai) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several scripts used for writing Sanskrit, but the Latin script is not one of them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: People may have all sort of reasons; yours is demonstrably factually wrong: Sanskript is written in Latin, among other scripts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: You appear to confuse Sanskrit with Pāli. Among Indo-Aryan languages Pāli texts have been published in Latin script, not Sanskrit ones. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: Actually, I have that information from someone else, so maybe it is wrong, and if it is, I apologize. W:Devanagari_transliteration tells me that "Contemporary Western editions of Sanskrit texts appear mostly in IAST"; don't know whether that unreferenced claim is true - can you comment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    I found it. User:Angr said "There are whole books of Sanskrit written in Latin script, so I see no reason to exclude Sanskrit in Latin from the dictionary.". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: I should have written published by a reputable publisher (not by Samizdat or yoga amateurs). Reputable here may be defined thus: a publishing house that has published writings of eminent Indologists (such as Geiger, Liebert, H. Smith and so forth). In Pāli this is the PTS, but as regards Sanskrit, hardly any corresponding publication society is discernible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Bogorm: Referring back to the quoted Wikipedia sentence: do you mean that "Contemporary Western editions" mentioned are published by publishers that are not reputable? Do you have any such particular publisher that is not reputable in mind? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    Why does it matter whether words are found in books published by a reputable publisher? We are not a dictionary restricted to including words found in such works. bd2412 T 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain I like this idea from the perspective of users who are trying to find a romanized Sanskrit word found in either a religious text or dictionary but who are not familiar with or are incapable of typing in Devanagiri. On the other hand, even the IAST cannot be easily typed into a search bar, which defeats the purpose of that argument. JohnC5 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    You type maha, and at the top, on the "See also:" row, you'll find mahā. So ease of typing should not be an issue for a person who can type Latin letters used in English. (Works for Czech as well; if a person can only type kocka, they can click kočka at the top of the entry.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    That only works though if the page without diacritics already exists and has a See also, neither of which is always the case. Regardless I can understand both arguments quite well and cannot make up my mind. JohnC5 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    Even assuming the diacritic-free pages will not eventually exist, learning to enter these diacritics is much easier than to enter a script with which one is entirely unfamiliar. And the search for the non-existing diacritic-free page would presumably turn up the page with diacritics near the top of the search results. Or even, when I enter "tuzka" into the search box and press "Go", Wiktionary takes me to "tužka"; similary for "muska" and "muška". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I still feel too strongly in both directions to choose. Thanks for the clarification, though. JohnC5 21:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Decision


Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Daniel 01:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Languages with different sort ordering from default will greatly benefit. Already used in Module:zh-cat, which sorts by radicals, rather than characters themselves. Japanese would be greatly simplified (there would be no need to pass hiragana spelling for each category, if implemented (requires work but the logic is already used in other Japanese modules). Besides, it's simpler - multiple categories can be added as parameters in one template. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    How many languages are there of such kind?--Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know how many apart from Chinese and Japanese (Korean hangeul entries used to have them but it's no longer necessary) but you can try checking how often |sort= is used in the {{context}}/{{cx}} or what is used by {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Korean and Vietnamese entries in hanja and Hán tự also use some logic to sort by the modern scripts. Sorting order for many languages could be improved with a module. E.g., I'm annoyed to see Russian letter Ё appearing before any other letter in categories when it should be between letters Е and Ж. It also effects other Cyrillic letters in other languages. You have much more control over categories and their behaviour when you have a program than when you just use square brackets - [[Category:Blah]].--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Anatoli T.: Is the sorting order for Russian for "ё" okay at Category:Russian lemmas, from letter Е? If so, is this because the category is created by templates and modules that contain dedicated code to support this? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Dan Polansky: Yes, it seems OK there but if you look at the very first page of the category, words starting with the archaic Cyrillic letter "і" still come first (probably this hasn't been addressed yet). In Category:Russian_adjectives words starting with the Cyrillic letter "ё" (BTW, the first two of them are vulgar, which is annoying) come before other letters. There are other examples I've come across before in other languages as well. Yes, I think some modules/templates help the sorting order but I don't know the details.
    A categories module would make sure that languages are sorted as they should be - alphabetically, as the order may differ for Roman-based languages as well, e.g. Czech letter ch should come after h, shouldn't it? But Czech lemmas are sorted by letter c, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Anatoli T.: Czech sorting in Czech categories is kind of broken (non-conventional), as you say. Should not the sorting order be first fixed in a category generated by templates (Category:Russian_adjectives) before the sorting order is used as a selling point? What I would actually prefer is that each category is assigned the sorting order on the Mediawiki software level, regardless of the means by which the items are added to the category (direct markup, template, etc.). Are you sure there is no extension or software in Mediawiki that supports that? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not selling it, just voting with my reasons. Yes, PoS categories need to be fixed as well. I don't know what Mediawiki can offer but I remember we had issues with Arabic diacritics display order before Benwing has created a module to address this - after many complaints about how MediaWiki does it. Editors will have more control over things, not just sorting order, when the code is here, at Wiktionary. I don't see why not either. Apart from HotCat, I don't see other reasons to oppose and HotCat can be taught to work with the module, I'm sure. I've seen the benefits of Module:zh-cat -> {{zh-cat}} and the sorting order was changed quickly for Chinese entries when a decision was made. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    My reason for opposing would be, don't complicate or templatize anything unless there is a tangible (not hypothetical) benefit in doing so; but I guess I am myself guilty of excessive complicating or templatizing. The template name {{catlangcode}} is pretty bad too, but that could be changed to {{cat}} or {{topiccat}}; the template is only intended for topical categories, from what I understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'd say opposition to templates is a weak reason. Templates are supposed to help, not to complicate. The idea is already implemented with Chinese topical categories with tangible benefits, so it's not entirely hypothetical. Compare old [[Category:zh-tw:Beginning Mandarin|止12歷史]] (an editor needed to know the character radicals and stroke counts to add to categories) with the new {{zh-cat|Beginning}}. I have given examples of what could be done with Japanese entries, which also have a complicated sorting order. Agreed about the length of the template name but the vote says ... "{{catlangcode|nl|Mammals}}" or similar. I prefer {{cat}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Templates increase the learning curve for newcomers; that is why they should only be introduced when the tangible benefit exceeds this downside. You are right: the vote does not require that the template name is specifically {{catlangcode}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    {{cat|en|People}} is not more complicated than [[Category:en:People]], besides, curly brackets and pipes are a second nature at Wiktionary, newcomers learn this fast. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    FYI, Daniel Carrero pointed out there is {{topics}}, at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2015-03/Templatizing topical categories in the mainspace#catlangcode. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support if and only if the template be called {{C}} instead of {{catlangcode}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    The dating template currently coded at {{C}} should be deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    {{C}} is now a redirect to {{catlangcode}} (the dating template has been moved to {{C.}}). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support —Stephen (Talk) 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless and until CodeCat gives a rationale for the change. This, that and the other (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Now neutral, per Anatoli's justification. I'd like a better name than "catlangcode" though. What a waste of valuable letters and precious keystrokes! This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the name "catlangcode". --Daniel 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equinox 01:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HotCat will be affected --Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    This could be addressed, I'm sure and made better. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in general but support for languages that need it. Not all languages have a different sort order from default and it would mess up HotCat for the ones that don't. —Internoob 19:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    @CodeCat: Will the templatising of categories really mess with HotCat? Do you wish to address this or tell us your thoughts because this seems to be a concern. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

  • I went to ruwiki being sure they have done something about it, and I was right. See this to see how Russian wikiprojects addressed this problem. So, now they sort like this

АБВГДЕ
Ё
ЖЗИЙКЛМНОПРСТУФХЦЧШЩЬЫЪЭЮЯабвгде
ё
жзийклмнопрстуфхцчшщьыъэюя

We can request the same for all languages.--Dixtosa (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


User:Caladon for de-sysop

User inactive since 2012. User:Caladon is the userpage

  • Vote starts: 15 May 2015
  • Vote ends: 29 May 2015

Support removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing sysop rights

#: Oppose No value added in desysopping editors who have not done anything wrong. The actual number of active admins needs to be based on activity statistics, not on the number of admins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. I know he voted Abstain, but his reasons are good enough for me to oppose. --Daniel 06:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 105 admins. There is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. Last edit was 21 June 2012, so almost three years passed. Okay with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


User:Jun-Dai for de-sysop

User inactive since 2010. User:Jun-Dai is the userpage

  • Vote starts: 15 May 2015
  • Vote ends: 29 May 2015

Support removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. I know he voted Abstain, but his reasons are good enough for me to oppose. --Daniel 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 105 admins. There is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. Last edit was 14 February 2010, so more than 5 years passed. Okay with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


User:Celestianpower for de-sysop

User inactive since 2010. User:Celestianpower is the userpage

  • Vote starts: 15 May 2015
  • Vote ends: 29 May 2015

Support removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support. No administrative actions executed since October 2010 either. He did make a Wikipedia edit in February, 2015, so he’s probably not dead. He’s still quite inactive, though. --Romanophile (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Clearly inactive here. bd2412 T 17:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. I know he voted Abstain, but his reasons are good enough for me to oppose. --Daniel 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 105 admins. There is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. Last edit was 21 October 2010, so close to 5 years passed. Okay with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


User:EivindJ for de-sysop

User inactive since 2013. User:EivindJ is the userpage

  • Vote starts: 15 May 2015
  • Vote ends: 29 May 2015

Support removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. --Type56op9 (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dan Polansky. I know he voted Abstain, but his reasons are good enough for me to oppose. --Daniel 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain removing sysop rights

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The magic keyword {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} gives 105 admins. There is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. Last edit was on 23 April 2013 but there are only 4 edits in 2013, the previous other edit being from 28 March 2011, from which 4 years passed. Okay with me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


User:Kephir for de-sysop

  • Vote starts: 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rationale

I believe this user lacks the competence to adequately serve as an administrator. He clearly holds a grudge against a number of editors (User:Purplebackpack89 being chief among them, and User:Dan Polansky to a lesser extent). That grudge manifests itself in the HOUNDing of those users' edits, a form of harassment that gets in the way of their right to edit. He has misused his administrator privileges on a number of occasions; other times he has edited in ways that would have gotten other editors blocked. There are several ways that Kephir's actions are particularly inappropriate:

  1. Using his administrator tools against edits with whom he disagree (particularly blocking those editors without giving them talk page access, generally a no-no on most unilateral blocks, but a particular issue with people he disagrees with).
  2. Taking excessive administrative actions that have to be undone by other administrators.
  3. Having inappropriate rationale he uses for taking admin actions (for example, deleting a talk page edit using an mainspace rationale), or trumped-up (for example, claiming a user was edit-warring with a single edit, deleting good-faith edits as vandalism, or claiming a clearly-labelled non-secure connection alternate account as sockpuppetry).
  4. Making excessive and controversial changes to protected and high-profile pages
  5. Failure to be responsive to criticisms on talk pages

Here are a number of edits I believe to be inappropriate and/or misuse of tools.

I also believe the user does not listen to other editors. As noted, a number of inappropriate comments were deletion of talk page threads as vandalism. Other times, he has deleted talk page comments using rationale that are supposed to be only used for entries. If this user considers talk page comments vandalism, it's clear he is not listening to concerns of other editors. This is not appropriate. He has deleted everything one user has posted on his talk since August (usually tagging it as vandalism), while leaving things other users say intact. While deleting comments is technically not a policy violation, it is highly discouraged, particularly since admins are supposed to listen.

  • Purplebackpack89 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Verify that your "E-mail this user" link works, and uncomment this section. -->

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Purplebackpack89 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 14:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support and have CodeCat be next. -- Liliana 14:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support The granting of admin privileges is, at its core, an act of trust. It means we are giving someone greater power because we trust them to use it wisely. We hold admins to a higher standard for a reason. Tools are meant to help one enforce Wiktionary's policies and protect it from vandalism. They are not meant to help one gain an upper hand in a personal dispute with another user. When admins cross that line, they need to be held accountable. Otherwise the trust we place in admins is meaningless. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dan Polansky (talk) His recent deletion of posts to his talk page and the entirely inappropriate block of Purplebackpack for 6 months on 20 May 2015 (block log) is part of a long-term pattern, as documented on this vote page. His indef against me from 2014 was clear harassment in gross violation of WT:BLOCK. His open declarations of stances against the principle of consensus (e.g. diff) are inappropriate for an admin. If he needs to edit some module pages, their protection level should be lowered; since CodeCat (an admin) can edit them, they are exposed to untested changes anyway, and their protection to be editable only by admins serves no useful purpose. I opposed his nomination at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2013-12/User:Kephir for admin, and he turned out to be much worse than I imagined. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad faith nomination. It seems that Purplebackpack has some kind of personal vendetta against Kephir, singling him out and treating everything he does as some kind of personal attack on him. —CodeCat 14:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Daniel 14:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just quit pestering him already. And don’t subtract CodeCat’s privileges either. --Romanophile (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The only thing that's a major issue is that Kephir really shouldn't be blocking people he's in a dispute with, but otherwise this looks like the regular witch-hunt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I see, so Kephir grossly abuses his admin privileges by blocking people he is in dispute with for rigiculous amounts of time, but otherwise the vote intended to limit that looks like a witch-hunt. Can anyone clarify the logic of the above statement to me, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    I echo what Dan said. People have talked to Kephir about this in the past and yet he continues to make poor use of his tools. We have a limited number of tools available to us on this project for dealing with this problem. If talking to him doesn't get him to stop and we're not willing to take away his tools, what's going to prevent him from doing this again, to me, Dan or anybody else? Purplebackpack89 21:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    Personally, I think some of the stuff other admins here have done is far worse, and yet nobody suggests desysopping them, so yeah, that makes this a witch-hunt. And I wish you guys would stop pretending that you're innocent. PBP, you've been blocked by five different admins by my count, and Dan, it seems you've been blocked by six. These are for disruptive edits and other documented offences going back years, and Dan has also fallen afoul of the admins on Czech Wiktionary. So it seems that you both have a history of getting yourselves blocked, but instead want to remove Kephir's rights by making him seem like a rogue sysop who's out to get you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    You've left a lot of questions unanswered, User:Metaknowledge. If Kephir isn't out to get me, why do his blocks always occur after he and I interact? Also, if I'm such a bad editor, why is it that I have never been blocked for a duration of longer than 3 days? And why has Kephir been the only person since last June to block me? If Kephir's blocks are appropriate, why are they undone within a few hours? What made them appropriate in the first place? Since you're a mop, why didn't you block me or Dan? What about the other stuff Kephir has done other than bad blocks? And why do other editors' misdeeds matter at all to this discussion? Just because they've done wrong things doesn't mean Kephir gets a free pass. Purplebackpack89 23:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    (responding to Metaknowledge post) It would be fair to say that, before the Kephir block, there were four blocks against me, of which one was legitimate, the Ruakh's one, for a mistake my AWB regex made when I was using AWB. Three of the four blocks were very short; the long one lasted week and its summary included "Violating WT:AGF+WT:BLOCK", which is an obvious nonsense since I am not an admin, have no blocking tools and thus cannot violate WT:BLOCK; this -sche block was questioned by multiple editors. Kephir set the precedent for ridiculous vendetta blocks that helped set the tone for further blocks that followed. His action has a lasting impact; one editor in the Czech Wiktionary keeps on repeating that I was indef blocked in the English Wiktionary, not caring about the details. Obviously, this is very personal to me. I feel grossly abused by that indef block, and I wish the abuser to have the sysop tools removed as the least measure; if someone proposed banning Kephir from this wiki, I would not oppose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Vahag (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  7. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This isn't the auto-opposition to anything that Purple does; I really think Kephir mostly makes good decisions, and it would be a loss to the project to "de-sysop" him. Equinox 23:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    The thing is is that he's made a number of ridiculously poor decisions as far as I and Dan are concerned. What's going to prevent him from making more, if you don't want either the de-sysop or the interaction ban? Purplebackpack89 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Hopefully the fact that this vote has been raised at all, and some users are supporting it, will raise a red flag...? I still hope it won't pass. Equinox 23:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  8. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose de-sysopping, but I'd support an interaction ban of the kind proposed by bd2412 in his post in #Abstain (timestamped: 20:27, 20 May 2015). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    @I.S.M.E.T.A., thanks - I have proposed this solution at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/May#Proposed six month interaction ban between User:Purplebackpack89 and User:Kephir. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  9. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looking at the actions that Purplebackpack89 links to, I feel that many of them are largely or entirely justified; and most of the rest are very understandable, at least. —RuakhTALK 06:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Ruakh: Let's consider the blocks at User:Purplebackpackonthetrail: are they justified or are they understandable? To me, they appear to be neither. They seem to be pure harassment, with false blocking rationale "Abusing multiple accounts". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    I believe that PBP is a troll here, and Purplebackpackonthetrail (talkcontribs) is a prime example of that. (Did you notice that its user-page is carefully crafted to pretend that this is Wikipedia? That is not an isolated thing; rather, PBP has a long history of linking to Wikipedia policy pages, accusing other editors of violating Wikipedia policies, referring to Wiktionary pages by the names of their Wikipedia analogues, and so on. (S)he has certainly observed that Wiktionarians find this annoying — we've made no secret of it — but (s)he declines to care.) And the trolling has not been harmless. So, frankly, I find harassment of PBP to be pretty understandable, as long as it's not taken to extremes. (But unfortunately, the harassment does not seem to have been effective, since PBP is still here, and (naturally) still trolling.) —RuakhTALK 07:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    If he bothers you lot so much—and I’m quite sure that he does—why not get rid of him? His workload is usually small anyway. --Romanophile (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    But unfortunately, the harassment does not seem to have been effective - What's next? Death threats? Murder? -- Liliana 15:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Ruakh: The reason my alt account uses a Wikipedia template is that no Wiktionary template exists for that purpose. As for the trolling claim,
    a) I'm pretty clearly not a troll.
    b) It's not polite to call people trolls.
    c) It's not acceptable to harass other editors, even trolls.
    d) Kephir has clearly taken things "to extremes"
    As for the claim that I care nothing for Wiktionary policy and only for Wikipedia policy; if you look at my edits over the last 6-9 months, you'll find virtually all of them compliant with Wiktionary policy. But I do believe that it would be beneficial for Wiktionary's policies to be closer to Wikipedia's. There's nothing inherently wrong with that belief. And you act like I take that position solely to piss off other editors; I take it because I believe the differences to be confusing, and the rationales for the differences to be weak. You shouldn't block somebody on belief. And you shouldn't call me a troll. Purplebackpack89 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Ruakh:: Perhaps you need to elaborate which you think are largely and entirely justified, because I'm not seeing any. What's the justification in blocking Dan or I without talk page access, especially when done unilaterally and because of comments directed at the talk page? Those blocks were clearly over-the-line; why do you think they were undone within 24 hours? What's the justification in being wholly uncooperative on your talk page for almost a year; tagging every comment as vandalism? Admins need to be able to be communicated with? And what's the justification in reverting comments made on a third user's talk page (i.e. not Kephir's; not Dan's or mine)? There's no reason whatsoever for doing that, as the comments clearly weren't vandalism. Kephir has made no secret that one of his primary goals here is to get me and Dan indeffed, and he's been bending and breaking rules left and right to try and make that a reality. Since his bending and breaking of rules have included misusing his tools, so he should forfeit them. Purplebackpack89 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Not to mention that you left Wiktionary because of CodeCat's complete ignorance of basic rules of interaction. Why is it a breach of rules in that case, but perfectly okay when Purplebackpack89 is involved? Double standards much? -- Liliana 16:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    I . . . what? What are you referring to? I'm pretty sure I've never voted to de-sysop CodeCat? —RuakhTALK 07:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    You were clearly upset that CodeCat was harassing you. Is it not acceptable for me and Dan to be upset that Kephir is harassing us? And how would you have reacted if an admin tagged all comments you made on their page as vandalism, then slapped a block with no talk page access on you? Purplebackpack89 16:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    I could never replace Ruakh, but I’d still like to add this: Even if I didn’t respect his boundaries, I would understand that I am causing him annoyance by continually pestering him, since he has already made his sentiments clear. If anything, that constitutes harassment. This vote is only going to increase animosity, not just between you two but also between you and the community. If I were you, I’d try to stay out of the site politics for a while (but I wouldn’t be surprised if you ignored my suggestion). --Romanophile (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  10. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DCDuring TALK 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain Kephir is a valuable admin and taking away his ability to edit protected pages will hurt Wiktionary. However, although I sympathized at first with his intolerance of a particular editor (who should not have been the one to create this vote), deleting comments and issuing blocks for starting discussions is immature and unacceptable behavior for an admin. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain, and alternately propose an interaction ban between them. bd2412 T 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. From glancing through the history I'm bound to agree that Kephir's behaviour is not acceptable. Nevertheless votes of this kind are not very helpful either except when the nominator is a disinterested party, which is clearly not the case here. Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  4. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. This vote has no legitimacy as it was started prematurely and by a nondisinterested party. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    I see no problem with a party repeatedly abused by Kephir starting this vote. If someone robs my house, and I file a complaint, I don't expect the police to tell me off as a "nondisinterested party". You should have complained to Kephir when he was the "nondisinterested" party issuing grossly unjust blocks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    I'd also contest "prematurely". This wasn't some whim vote. It was months in the making and done only after other methods of redress had failed. Purplebackpack89 18:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  5. Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain. I am unimpressed with the behavior of several different parties in this issue. This line of discussion, however, does not seem fruitful. —JohnC5 22:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I would suggest that this proposal is counterproductive, in that a voting page is hardly ever a good place to undertake dispute resolution. We don't have an arbitration committee, but perhaps an ad hoc group could be formed for the purposes of looking into the dispute between Kephir and Purplebackpack89 and then proposing an informed and impartial resolution to the community. - TheDaveRoss 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    There is no evidence to support the above claims, AFAIK. An admin who frivolously deletes posts from his talk page should not even be taken to a dispute resolution; they should be desysopped on sight. This vote is the best mechanism that we have, so far as I know. I do not see what makes this vote "counterproductive", meaning producing the opposite of its intended effect; do you suggest that, as a result of this vote, Kephir behavior gets even worse? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    That is exactly what I am saying. The evidence is in all other similar votes which I can recall, this isn't the first instance where a request for de-sysop has been made due to claims of harassment. I have been out of Wiktionary politics for too long to dredge up the specifics, but I am sure Connel had a similar vote against him at least once, possibly even SemperBlotto, although that might not have gotten to a vote. I say these are counterproductive because there is no chance of positive outcome. One possible outcome is that the vote passes. In that case Kephir will not be able to delete pages or block people, which you think is a win. It doesn't resolve the interpersonal dispute, and very likely it will just lead to more acrimony between those who already think Kephir is misbehaving and those who think this is a witch hunt. If the vote fails (which they always have) then those who support the vote are likely to add those who oppose to the list of people they think are out to get them. This vote is divisive, and it is not a good forum for building consensus or resolution. You may be right that Kephir shouldn't be an admin, they may be misusing the tools in a way which is deleterious to the project. You may also be wrong. I don't think a popular vote is a practical method of arriving at a decision in these sorts of matters. - TheDaveRoss 12:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    I know of Wiktionary:Votes/2008-02/Reprimand of User:Connel MacKenzie, and, from what I can see, the reprimand vote suggesting a block for one day, although it did not pass, achieved what it intended to achieve: reduce certain behavior on the part of Connel. It did so at a cost of losing Connel, which is to be admitted. Thus, as for efficacy, this is one piece of evidence that votes can limit undesirable behaviors, especially if they are full of discussion as the reprimand vote was. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    User:TheDaveRoss, This goes back to the question, "what are you going to do to stop Kephir's behavior?" Even if the vote fails, it's possible that a majority of people will still find his actions unacceptable. If this is a bad move, what is the better move to stop Kephir making bad blocks and deleting comments? Purplebackpack89 13:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What am I going to do? Nothing. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I am merely suggesting that this course of action is not of use. I also proposed what I think would be a better course of action, that is some form of arbitration. The results of arbitration are less subject to popularity and personal bias, assuming the arbitrators are well chosen. - TheDaveRoss 18:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • People have tried talking to Kephir, and he hasn't listened. You can try it again if you want, but it won't do any good. Purplebackpack89 21:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: If you leave Kephir alone, he will leave you alone. It's always you that starts these incidents by posting on multiple talk pages as soon as you don't like something. You are not an admin (and for good reason) and 99% of the times that you started a dispute with an admin, they were right and you were wrong. When someone reverts you, just take the message and stop complaining. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    @Wikitiki89: "Complaining" is too loaded a word; a better word would be "commenting". Commenting on Kephir's talk page, or on any other talk page or Wiktionary-space page, does no harm, and it is still ridiculous for Kephir (or anybody else) to block me (or anybody else) for it. Neither I nor anybody else should be bullied by Kephir into not commenting just because he throws around bullshit blocks on the slimmest of pretences. The problem is not my comments, the problem here is Kephir's bullshit blocks. My commenting on Kephir's page doesn't prevent his editing of knickerbocker glory or cheese curl or any other pages; his bullshit blocks do. Purplebackpack89 16:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    I was actually referring to these sorts of complaints that you post on as many talk pages as you can think of. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    What is a comment in your mind might be continued harassment to Kephir's. You can't assume that your point of view of this situation is the only valid one. That's why this vote isn't getting the support you might have expected; other editors are seeing perspectives that you don't. From Kephir's point of view, a block for ongoing harassment might be perfectly reasonable, even if you don't see it that way. —CodeCat 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    It's not reasonable, CodeCat. Full stop. Kephir himself shouldn't have done the block. Especially since there shouldn't be a block. I don't think you're considering the inverse of the situation. If you consider my comments to be harassment (which they clearly aren't, FWIW), what's to stop any editor from unilaterallly declaring any other editor's comments on his page harassment? And then, if he's an admin, blocking that person? Purplebackpack89 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Nothing is stopping any editor from doing anything the software allows them to. Only consensus among editors can decide if those actions are appropriate or not, and what to do if they aren't. You haven't actually sought out such a consensus at all; what you've done is unilaterally decide that Kephir must be in the wrong and you must be right, and that he must therefore be desysopped without question. And you see the result: there is no consensus for your proposed action. But you skipped the first step here: finding out whether his actions were appropriate or not by consensus, and only then should you have considered possible measures such as a vote. Votes don't make consensus, they only codify it. —CodeCat 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    If you think this is a unilateral process, @CodeCat:, then you are much mistaken. I have been exploring this for months, and not alone. Dan has been consulted on it for awhile, and I've literally have people pop out of the woodwork and beg me to start this vote. As for putting the cart before the horse, a) if Kephir was right to block me, he wouldn't have been undone so quickly, and b) if I'd started a BP thread about it, you and others would have ignored it and accused me of drama-mongering. Purplebackpack89 17:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Re: "Votes don't make consensus, they only codify it.": Not really. Consensus (general agreement) is a factual state of affairs; votes help detect its presence. There is no better and more reliable method for the detection of consensus than votes. There was no need to take this to Beer parlour; the misbehavior of Kephir was generally known, and multiple people raised their objections to it at User_talk:Kephir#PB.3Cs.3E.26_J.3C.2Fs.3EP89_5304 (a discussion from December 2014). This vote will help clarify how many people confirm that Kephir's behavior is objectionable, and how much. Those who vote support probably see it as rather severe; those who abstain probably acknowledge that there is some problem but not all that serious one. We would never know what editors think about the matter for so many editors if it were not for the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Decision


Revise nominating criteria for whitelist

  • Voting on: Replacing the language of Wiktionary:Whitelist, specificially regarding procedures point 1 and 2 (text being changed is in bold).
    • Procedure 1 currently reads: "One sysop nominates a name for auto-whitelisting."
    • Procedure 1 would read: "Any auto-confirmed user may nominate a name for auto-whitelisting."
    • Procedure 2 currently reads: "A second sysop approves the nomination."
    • Procedure 2 would read: "A sysop approves the nomination."

This proposal still requires the approval of a sysop to receive whitelist rights, and will continue to allow sysops to defer whitelist rights. However, it would allow non-admins to nominate themselves or other non-admins for the rights.

Rationale: At present, nominations for the whitelist are supposed to be only done by administrators. That seems:

  1. excessive (why should we need so many hoops to jump through with whitelist? It's harder to be whitelisted here than many other projects; to say nothing of the fact that many projects don't even bother with whitelisting)
  2. unfair (it grants too much power to sysops and not enough power to Joe users), and
  3. time-consuming (it'd be so much easier for people to self-nom).


  • Vote started: 00:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom Purplebackpack89 01:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as this is something that only affects patrollers (which on this wiki, is essentially equivalent to sysops) and has absolutely no bearing on the editor in question. Some sysops will approve just about any nomination, so the current system ensures that some other sysop has looked at the user in question first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Metaknowledge. —Stephen (Talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The only people who would benefit from this are hat collectors. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision


Normalization of entries

  • Voting on:
    • Promoting the revision (insert final revision here once vote starts) of Wiktionary:Normalization of entries (WT:NORM) to a policy, like WT:CFI and WT:ELE. Its purpose is described as follows, quoted from the page:
      "This is a list of aspects of formatting which usually make no or little difference to how a user sees the page, but does make the pages conform more to a standard format reflecting what we think of as best when editing a page. Issues such as where to put blank lines and how many, whether to put spaces inside the == ==, or after asterisks in lists."
    • Adding the same policy box from CFI and ELE, which reads:
      This is a Wiktionary policy, guideline or common practices page.
      It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE.
    • If, at some point in the future, an editable version of the page becomes available, the policy box can link to it like it does for CFI and ELE:
      An editable version of this page is available at Wiktionary:Normalization of entries/Editable


  • Vote started: 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Decision


Recently ended votes

Votes that have recently ended, to be ultimately moved to /Timeline:

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: