Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

{{Wiktionary:Votes/2023-06/Title of vote}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2023-06/Title of vote}}

Note: add to this page and WT:A.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-06/User: for admin}}

Note: add to this page and WT:B.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/bc-2023-06/User: for bureaucrat}}

Note: add to this page and WT:C.
{{Wiktionary:Votes/cu-2023-06/User: for checkuser}}

{{Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2023-06/User: for bot status}}


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

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

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

Current and new votes

Planned, running, and recent votes [edit this list]
(see also: timeline, policy)
May 25Second vote to desysop Theknightwhofailed
Jun 13A couple of users for desysophood10 3 2
(=2)[Wiktionary:Table of votes](=49)

Second vote to desysop Theknightwho

This is the first time I've opened a vote, so please forgive any formatting errors.

User:Theknightwho recently faced a vote to remove admin privileges. I believe that the outcome may have been different if this nomination had centered on Theknightwho's conduct as an admin rather than being tied to the blocking of long-term problematic user User:Dan Polansky. Theknightwho has repeatedly shown difficulty remaining impartial and exercising restraint during conflicts in which they are personally involved. They have issued multiple unjustified and/or retaliatory blocks and threats of blocks in the two months since the previous desysop nomination closed on February 6.

  • Theknightwho implemented a retaliatory block against User:Huhu9001 and threatened a second. The dispute arose in mid-March in a Grease Pit thread concerning some technical modifications by TKW. Both parties were moderately distemperate at points. Nothing rose to an actionable level, I would say, until TKW called Huhu9001 an "arsehole."[1] Huhu9001 objected to this name-calling.[2][3] TKW blocked Huhu9001 just 10 minutes after the second objection.[4] TKW accused Huhu9000 of being "vindictive," "dishonest," and "manipulative" in response to Huhu9001's unblock request.[5] The consensus among other admins who weighed in was that TKW should not have issued a block as an involved party.[6][7][8][9][10] TKW threatened to block Huhu9001 a second time in April.[11] This was apparently in response to Huhu9001 pointing out (albeit sarcastically) problematic technical modifications by TKW.[12]
  • Theknightwho issued an unjustified block against User:LlywelynII on April 17. This stemmed from LlywelynII's removal of Běijīng as an English alternative form of Beijing.[13][14] In the ensuing talk page discussion, LII made some moderately peevish comments, including accusing User:Geographyinitiative of "gatekeeping/ownership, given that you took the time to get some cites."[15] GI clarified that they hadn't added the cites and expressing ambivalence over Běijīng's status as an English term.[16] GI launched an RfD calling for the deletion of Běijīng as an English term shortly thereafter.[17] Theknightwho swooped in several hours later, accusing LII of "edit warring" and "outrageous" behaviour.[18] They blocked LII for 24 hours with the stated rationale given as "edit warring."[19] LII had only made one reversion after User:J3133 restored the English section to Běijīng.[20][21] TKW's block seems unnecessary and punitive in light of how 1) LII did not "edit war" after being instructed to engage in the talk page discussion by J3133 and 2) the dispute had already reached a seemingly harmonious resolution by the time TKW interceded.
  • I first encountered Theknightwho's bellicose tendencies last year when they edit-warred to restore redundant and confusing non-standard formatting in the "Etymology" section of shitgibbon.[22][23][24] They entered this formatting dispute that emerged on cupsona on April 18. I'm not going to claim that I handled this situation with grace or perfect civility. But Theknightwho accused me of having "reverted 4 times in 24 hours" while having themself reverted four times in the same period.[25][26][27][28] This included repeatedly undoing unrelated edits (updating old-format categories to the new template) out of what seems to be haste or spite. TKW threatened to block me twice,[29][30] and then tried to tell me they hadn't.[31] Theknightwho subsequently accused me of being "vindictive,"[32] "manipulative",[33] and "deceptive"[34] as they previously accused Huhu9001. Is everyone who criticises TKW's edits and questions TKW's conduct as an admin vindictive, manipulative, and dishonest?

In isolation these incidents might be taken as examples of strong personalities clashing. Together they paint a picture of Theknightwho repeatedly overstepping their authority as an admin and using their admin privileges to further personal grievances. Admins should remain impartial and refrain from misusing their tools. That's a very bright line that needs to be drawn. TKW is not suited to fill the role of admin if they cannot use their tools impartially. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Vote starts: 00:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote created: WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



  1. Support For the reasons outlined in my nomination. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support This user has a long history of being generally emotional, uncooperative and arbitrary. This is actually okay for normal users, but an admin being so can cause destructive consequences.
    Here are 2 examples of this user making substantial bad edits and then used or threatened to use admin rights to keep them, both of them difficult to explain beyond being motivated by personal hatred.
    Besides, he uses vulgarity "arsehole" and "bullshit" against other users when arguing, a clear violation of Wiktionary:Civility. He also seems to lack some common senses by claiming "saying to someone they are ban-worthy is not a threat to ban". This further enhanced the necessity to remove him from the administration team.
    As I have said before: "While I absolutely admit the profound technical contributions this user has made on Wiktionary. I sincerely question the necessity of posing this user as an admin, since this user is generally unstable and confrontative. As we know editing modules or templates does not need admin rights and this user will do more benefit and less harm to the community if this user were to contribute as a normal user."
    That being said, I guess this vote will likely fail. But people just sometimes have to do something, even if knowing it is futile. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For context: both of the bulletpointed issues have been explained to Huhu9001 numerous times now - and not just by me - and not once has he engaged in a proper discussion about them. Instead, he repeatedly brings them up whenever he wants to attack me, and then ignores any and all responses from anyone else. Theknightwho (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks to who did not vote nay for whatever reason. It shows there is still some common sense left here. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support This issue was brought up during their nomination and has not been remedied. While it is the role of admins to handle problematic users, if an admin is involved in an ongoing editing dispute, they should step back and let an uninvolved admin handle it. It's problematic when a user is repeatedly reprimmanded by the same admin over and over again (and especially problematic when personal insults are used); to me this strongly suggests a feud/grudge and/or a potential conflict of interest. While I think Theknightwho is a fantastic editor, I don't think they have the temperament required of an admin. Megathonic (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support I have been on the receiving end. DonnanZ (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Donnanz I’ve never taken any action against you. You’re just annoyed that Dan Polansky doesn’t get to vote “keep” on everything anymore. Your grudge is obvious, and you’ve generally acted pretty unpleasantly towards me for a while. Theknightwho (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes indeed, but you are the one on trial here, not me. Other editors have found your behaviour undesirable. DonnanZ (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Donnanz I’m not “on trial”, and I’m merely pointing out your unfounded, obvious bias driven by your personal grudge. You also seem to be forgetting that Dan’s permanent block was supported by most of the community, too. The only genuine integrity I’ve seen here has been from LlywelynII and Megathonic. Theknightwho (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Irrespective of what you think I think, I did not create this vote, and I wish to support it. DonnanZ (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You already admitted it in the last comment. Theknightwho (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This geezer likes to have the last word. DonnanZ (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support I don't think he's well-suited to disciplining editors. Additionally, interactions in repairing the damage he's done in his editing make me nervous about advancing technical arguments. (Unfortunately, the changes he makes are so far-reaching that damage is probably inevitable.) RichardW57m (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support I support the desysoping of any admin. The impunity admins are given to abuse their power on the project is absolutely ridiculous. -- Sokkjō 05:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    100% agree. Furthermore I believe we should ideally desysop each and every admin so that there's no one managing this Tartarus of a project at all. Hythonia (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Me: Is it weird if I enjoy basking in the flames of Tartarus on a daily basis? Jesus Christ: Am I a joke to you? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't support that attitude. DonnanZ (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Oppose Great winds blow upon high hills. I’ve called Knight a hothead before and I’m perfectly happy to say it again. However: They never called User:Huhu9001 an arsehole, but said User:Huhu9001 is behaving like one, which is exactly my opinion as well. I do not see any threats for blocks, only impartial statements that such or such behavior is grounds for a block, which is exactly my opinion as well. I’m not going to waste my time investigating the other allegations. To be honest, I feel for Knight. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hate to say it but I often find some reasoning of TKW supporters quite absurd. "You are an arsehole" is an insult. So is "You act like an arsehole". What is the difference of incivility here? Also "I will kill you" is a threat. Naturally "You do not deserve to live" is one too. How does insults or threats change their nature by just rephrasing, like omitting an agent in the sentence? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I read what Knight wrote again, and apparently Knight didn’t even say you acted like an arsehole, but that you were “trying to justfy acting like an arsehole”. You were acting like an arsehole, though.
    Furthermore, saying something like, “If you jump off the Eiffel Tower, you’ll die,” is not a threat.
    And I’m not a “TKW supporter”. I think I’ve hurled more bad words Knight’s way than I’ve ever interacted with them. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is little difference between explicitly calling someone an "arsehole" and saying that someone is "being an arsehole" or "acting like an arsehole" (death threats vs. death wishes are a different matter). But let's not get sidetracked by semantic considerations. Name-calling is wrong but is probably forgivable as an isolated lapse in judgment from an otherwise productive contributor. What's indefensible is an admin blocking someone 10 minutes after being called out for name-calling. That's a blatant act of retaliation and an abuse of power. This is the basis of this nomination. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether the difference is big or little can be debated, but doing as if there’s no difference (which is what you’re doing) is dishonest, manipulative, and deceptive. The fact that Huhu called Knight out for name-calling doesn’t make Huhu’s behaviour any less arseholey. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. The Beer parlor thread is difficult to read, and does not reflect well on the proposer of this vote. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 05:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe have a look at the concise, chronlogical, meticulously-referenced breakdown above? This is a lot bigger than the BP thread. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of the related content reflects well on you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wasn't personally involved in the Huhu or LII incidents at all. I just summarised them for this nomination. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose. The affected parties have a history of being rather dramatic or conflict-oriented. Vininn126 (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. Above we read: "Theknightwho swooped in several hours later, accusing LII of "edit warring" and "outrageous" behaviour." In my view, I might correlate this in part to diff, where there was a claim that: "This is just gatekeeping/ownership, given that you took the time to get some cites." But in fact, I had not gotten those cites and hence the claim seems like a baseless accusation, or perhaps misworded. No clarification was provided after diff. Anyway, although I consider such things outrageous, I personally must be meek and avoid conflict in order to keep myself on track with my goal of just doing productive edits on the mainspace. I will not respond to any pings here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And for further context, straight after seeing LlywelynII's comments on these diffs of Beijing (no diacritics): [35] (date doesn't belong in etymology, let alone SO FUCKING BOLD and distracting; rfv entirely specious: everything about it is clearly handled by Wiki) and [36] (the tonal form isn't English in any sense: it's just the pinyin. Are we doing ANY other pinyin entries that way? I haven't seen it). Needlessly aggressive, both deleting relevant info, and the second lead me straight to the dispute over Běijīng, as it was the edit where LlywelynII deleted the link to it from Beijing. I then saw that they had not only speedy deleted it out of process, but they did it again even while there was an active discussion over it. I stand by what I said: it was outrageous, and they are experienced enough to knew better, so it was edit warring because they had no justifiable motive for doing it. Theknightwho (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was to the situation and not you personally, although I was obviously annoyed and not speaking carefully enough. You weren't the one reverting, though, were you? My memory was it was the other guy.
    In any case, the issue under discussion is TKW's ban over a single edit and the pattern with the other people. I obviously wouldn't've been right if I had started edit warring instead of doing the AfD, but there was no 'further discussion' because I was nearly immediately banned. Some of the other cases—particularly cursing at editors—seem much worse than my own issue, howevermuch they should treat any bans with more seriousness as a general matter. — LlywelynII 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @LlywelynII See the recent thread on the Beer Parlour where someone was blocked for 2 days for doing exactly the same thing you did. Note that two other admins support the decision in the thread, and give exactly the same reasoning I gave to you. Feel free to keep misrepresenting the problem as “a single edit”, but I (or another admin) will block you again the next time you do it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (PS: I have said in diff: "Please don't let any mistake I make or someone else makes turn you off to making edits here! Thank you for being here." And I mean it sincerely, and I hope the temperature can be turned down on this and similar affairs generally. This is a volunteer for-fun website dictionary, no need to get up in arms.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose TKW has his flaws (as do we all), but this vote is clearly born out of a personal spat, not a genuine desire to improve this project. The fact that the two users mentioned in the vote rationale were specifically pinged I see further illustrates how this vote was created in bad faith. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose Belligerent confrontations justly provoke the display of “bellicose tendencies”. I am not sure they got bollocked enough. It is a whole weltanschauung to lack a sense of proportion! I am sorry for anyone attempting to disentangle the pettifoggeries underlying this vote. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. OpposeFenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 23:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose, yawn...not this again. Congrats, this vote has swayed me to vote "oppose" this time instead of "abstain". --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose He tells you to leave him alone, and what do you do? You keep pestering him, of course! A dozen years ago I would have expected sympathy after I misbehaved like that, but I know better now. In any case… we’re allowed to lose our patience. We aren’t customer service agents; we’re volunteers, and you get what you paid for. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 08:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose, some of the actions are not very edifying, but the block measures that did happen were not draconian even if questionable and this vote comes too soon after a previous proposal. The supposed threats of blocks either aren't or are not exactly imminent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose Come on. I have had my share of arguments with User:Theknightwho but I have hardly seen them behave in ways that rise to de-sysopping, and they have generally been very cooperative when called out. Benwing2 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have my respect. The user in question doesn't. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. OpposeFish bowl (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Hythonia (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose I think vindictive, manipulative, and deceptive votes like this should lead to some consequences for the initiator. They result in wasted time and effort on the part of community members to disentangle the lies from the truth (though over time it will become more apparent that these votes are malicious). It also cannot be true that a Wiktionary user is allowed to be effectively harassed and slandered using the voting mechanism. It's the responsibility of an admin to take disruptive users to task, and there's always going to be some amount of resentment as a result of that, but this is just ridiculous. --Veikk0.ma (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose Would 'bruh' be a sufficient comment? Bruh. Nicodene (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Oppose Generally share similar views with Surjection. TKW has flaws, and I do have my own personal arguments with him, but he is nevertheless a constructive and cooperative admin. Arguably, the three users involved in the incidents were all displaying non-constructive behaviour (or as some would put it, "acting like arseholes"). Afterall, there has to be someone be doing the "dirty" adminwork, though I think TKW might be too harsh on this sometimes.
    In fact seeing that the concerned users are messaged on their respective talkpages specifically about this vote with the exact same wording: User talk:Huhu9001#Vote and User talk:LlywelynII#Vote open, I believe that Votestacking may be appropriate for describing the situation here. – Wpi (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Abstain Obviously support but, as an interested party in one of the recent abuses of power, my vote shouldn't count for much over something this serious. It's about the pattern and lack of judgment rather than any specific fight, especially one where I was speaking so ineptly GeoIni took something so much to heart. I still do think the other admins should—at minimum—pull TKW aside and talk them down off the ledge where everyone they dislike is 'edit warring' over a single revert or actually cursing at people as an admin (apparently). If they do keep the power and authority, they should wield it better before some newbies get bit and turned off contributing. — LlywelynII 11:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You still haven't really explained your actions - you knew you didn't have any justification to revert from the start, so why did you? If this really was an abuse of power, then it would be good to address my explanation of why I think it wasn't. Simply saying it was only one revert, completely divorced from context, isn't good enough. Theknightwho (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Abstain Not getting into this. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Abstain The description describes "recently faced a vote" as "recently". Desysop votes should not occur ad nauseam. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Daniel.z.tg, Overlordnat1: The previous vote was closed prematurely. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The first vote was closed by the person who initially proposed it.--Ioe bidome (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Abstain For the same reasons as the two editors who've voted above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Abstain If the community had had an insight into how much conflict TKW was going to generate around his persona, he wouldn't have gotten the powers. I'm not voting for desysopping this time, because the suitors themselves are an unknown clique to me. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Abstain. Weak abstain. I really do think that Theknightwho has been warned multiple times to cool it down when issues like this come up, yet he keeps doing so. The issues with modules as well continue to frustrate me as Koreanic entries were broken for weeks on end, but I'm not sure yet if that rises to the level of staff removal, considering that I've seen much worse from other staff and Theknightwho was finally the person who brought Dan Polansky's issues to light. Maybe if there was a higher standard across the board, I'd vote in support of this, but for now, I must abstain. AG202 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Abstain Roger.M.Williams (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Abstain The sysop's way of approaching users and making threats (as shown in the arguments of the vote) is not good, but I'm abstaining considering all the comments here. Jesielt (user talk) 22:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For the sake of providing a full response to the vote rationale, which has been edited numerous times now:

  1. WordyAndNerdy started this vote as a form of retaliation during an editing dispute, originally on the grounds that I had apparently threatened to block her. She has produced nothing that shows that to be true. What actually happened was that I said Frankly, that's grounds for a block. [37] after she edit warred against consensus at cupsona, and I have no tolerance for the kind of egotistical bullying that you're currently engaging in, so when you're done with trying to goad me into blocking you, I suggest that you take some time out for a day or two. [38], after she tried to take ownership of the page while making various personal attacks against me ([39]). To describe either of my statements as “threats” is simply not credible, and WordyAndNerdy fails to explain herself in the lengthy thread below, despite me asking her to justify herself numerous times. It could not have been a threat, because WordyAndNerdy had (by the second) reverted six times in the face of consensus to get her way, and her version of the page was live ([40][41][42][43][44][45]), so I wasn’t placing her in a position where she could revert me again; I stated her actions were block-worthy because they were; especially after she had already tried to make things personal ([46]); and the fact she made more serious personal attacks after I said her behaviour was block-worthy suggests she either had this in mind - so was premeditatively trying to trick me into an abusive block - or that she's made up the concern about a "threat" after the fact because it's convenient to her position. Her response to me pulling her up on that was to start this vote ([47]), which was quite clearly done as an abuse of process - very much unlike the vote started by Lingo Bingo Dingo, who was otherwise uninvolved. WordyAndNerdy has spent the last 2 days doing everything she can to drum up support against me on the basis that I "abused" my admin powers against her, when she has totally failed to substantiate this. Irrespective of whether people think I was edit warring at cupsona (when I felt I was trying to enforce consensus), that has nothing to do with me being an admin. It's the accusation that I abused my position in that discussion which is relevant here, which is simply not true.
  2. The accusation that LlywelynII's block was abusive is based on the idea that they weren't edit warring, when they only reverted once. However, I'll repeat what I put on the BP: They speedy deleted an entry out of process twice, and once after being reverted and being told it was out of process. Given that, it is certainly edit warring to remove it again, as there's just no excuse for it. If we're using Wikipedia's edit warring policy (as we seem to be), note that the three revert rule is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. LlywelynII is a long-time, experienced editor who absolutely knows better; and they are also an editor who is frequently involved in edit wars (both on here and Wikipedia). It was not unreasonable to hand them a block, because they were ignoring RFD while trying to bully another editor into getting their own way, in full knowledge that it's not how things work here. I consider that to be sanction-worthy behaviour.
  3. The accusation against me relating to Huhu9001 is the only one which has some merit, as I agree another admin should have been the one to issue a block. However, that doesn't mean it wasn't deserved, and several other usrs agreed that Huhu9001 had behaved unacceptably: You were completely out of line in that thread ([48]), I read the whole thread and the term "arsehole" is a very accurate and justified term in light of your behavior. ... When I see your username in the future, I'm likely to associate it with dishonesty, manipulation, and bad faith. (emphasis mine) ([49]), for what it's worth I don't really disagree with him about your attitude in that discussion ([50]). However, I took on board what was said, despite the fact Huhu9001's behaviour has been, at times, pretty appalling: calling me unstable ([51]), pinging large numbers of other users to try to punish me over content disagreements ([52]), and making various passive agressive comments which I'm sure you've all seen (which I'll provide on request, as there are lots).

Fundamentally, this vote has all the hallmarks of a grudge. At the end of the day, someone has to step in to deal with difficult, problematic editors, and this is not the first time an editor has tried to abuse process because of a personal vendetta they've developed against the person dealing. We simply should not be rewarding it, because the only message it sends is that editors can escape accountability by harassing those who try to hold them accountable with bad faith complaints. Theknightwho (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Update 2: WordyAndNerdy is edit warring to remove part of my comment below, on the basis that there is a “mutual avoidance request” (translation: I told her to stop harassing me several times). She also tried to get the thread moved to the talk page. Seems like a self-evident attempt to remove my ability to respond by intentionally misinterpreting my anti-harassment request, which is yet another instance of harassment. Theknightwho (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update, after WordyAndNerdy added bunch of things to the rationale: it is very clear that this vote was started for retaliatory reasons, because WordyAndNerdy didn't like the fact I asked her to stop insulting other users ([53]), in response to which she made a bunch of unwarranted personal attacks ([54]). I then pointed out she was clearly trying to goad me into blocking her ([55]), in response to which she started this vote, and clearly relished in the idea of hauling me over the coals ([56]). It's nothing more than a personal crusade in response to being called out for bad behaviour, and all this rubbish about threatening to block her is manufactured outrage. WAN evaded explaining herself in the long thread below, despite having the time to write many thousands of words. Note that all of this was before she knew anything about Huhu9001 or LlywellynII. Even with those, the situations have been grossly misrepresented, but I'm utterly sick of this whole thing by this point. If this vote were successful, it would only make it impossible for anyone to hold WordyAndNerdy accountable for anything ever again, because they'd know she might do all this with them, too. That is not something we should allow. She is simply throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks because she is incapable of accepting that she was in the wrong. It is disgraceful behaviour. Theknightwho (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am commenting here to say that the accusation that I threatened to block WordyAndNerdy twice is an outright lie: I said that they were clearly trying to goad me into blocking them (they were), and that their behaviour was block-worthy (it was, and still is). However, in pointing that out, I also made it clear that I wasn't going to be the one to do it. This vote is simply a retaliation to that, borne out of what seems to be a personal grudge.
WordyAndNerdy's behaviour has been nothing short of disgraceful throughout our interactions: they have escalated at every turn, and made things personal despite being explicitly asked to stop doing exactly that. It is deeply manipulative behaviour, and completely at odds with a collaborative project. Theknightwho (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Frankly, that's grounds for a block." - You posted this nearly ten minutes before the "trying to goad me into blocking you" comment you claim wasn't a threat. I'm not trying to assert that I handled this situation with perfect decorum. I own that in my rationale post above. But there's a difference between a lapse in judgment from a general editor and a lapse in judgment from an admin. Admins need to be held to a higher standard of conduct for obvious reasons. Wielding one's admin status to gain an upper hand in dispute in which one is directly involved is a huge no-no. Presenting a counterfactual account when your statements are clearly observable in the diffs I posted does not reflect well on you. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't a threat: it was a statement of what I believe about your behaviour, and I stand by it. What you are saying here is that it's inappropriate for an admin to advocate for a block, or to point out manipulative behaviour when they see it. That's not a reasonable position. The fact that you then reacted as though I had blocked you actually suggests that my suspicion was correct, and that you were trying to goad me into blocking you because you wanted to start a big public fight. Whatever this is about, it's certainly not a complaint made in good faith.
I also disagree that you "own" anything about your actions in the original post. Most people are "not perfect", but your actions go well beyond that: you kept escalating despite being repeatedly asked to stop, you made numerous unwarranted/unprovoked personal attacks, you repeatedly edit-warred in the face of consensus against you, and now you're trying to get me desysopped because I had the temerity to ask you to stop insulting other users. None of that reflects well on you. 04:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC) Theknightwho (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have received no blocks or disciplinary sanctions in 13 years on this project.[57][58] This is your second desysop nomination since you were made an admin last November. The record is clear on this front. I'll refrain from further comment. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is of no relevance to anything, because we're talking about what happened today. It seems very clear to me that you are using this vote as a weapon, because you want to punish me due to your personal grudge. I find that abhorrent, as it's a form of harassment. Theknightwho (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not User:Dan Polansky, who had a checkered history. (Speaking from personal experience I had both positive and negative interactions with him over the years.) If I was carrying some kind of grudge against you, I would've raised it during the last desysop nomination. Instead I refrained from comment because I didn't feel sufficiently familiar with the situation. This a far less ambiguous example of overstepping one's remit as an admin. Also: stop editing your comments after the fact. It's one thing to correct typos or make uncontroversial clarifications. It's another to add entire sentences and paragraphs. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't edited anything which you had responded to, so please don't imply that I have. I also find this comment disingenuous: you've brought up the argument about shitgibbon twice, despite the fact it happened months ago, and it only happened in the first place because you misunderstood something. Let's not pretend that this is the first time you've got into a spat, because I've seen your hotheadedness in quite a lot of other discussions, too.
Continually saying that your record is clean and that mine is terrible only makes it looks like you want to distract from the fact that your behaviour today was awful. Manufacturing a lie that I threatened to use admin tools, after I explicitly made it clear that I wasn't rising to the bait, suggests the only person you're fooling here is yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've acknowledged that I did not handle the cupsona situation ideally. But your overstepping as an admin here isn't an isolated incident. @Lingo Bingo Dingo levelled the same charge in the previous dysysop nom: "abuse of administrator privileges" and "abuse of admin powers." You have repeatedly declined to acknowledge responsibility for your actions in this scenario, including that you reverted as many times as I did, and clearly threatened to misuse your admin powers. The evidence in the diffs is plain for anyone to see. Repeatedly characterising that readily-observable evidence as a "lie" raises this to a whole new level of malfeasance. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't overstep anything here, no matter how many times you say it. Your behaviour then was block-worthy, and your attempt to manipulate the community like this is - in all honesty - indef block-worthy. It is a gross breach of the Universal Code of Conduct, as it's a clear case of harassment in pusuit of a personal agenda, and you seem to have no comprehension of just how disruptive your original behaviour was either.
It is extremely telling that you have made no attempt to argue against my point that your argument simply doesn't make sense, because I said you were trying to bait me. It completely undermines your point, and you keep ignoring it because I think you know that. The only way in which your actions do make any sense is if I was correct about what you were trying to do in the first place, and you decided that me calling you out was enough of an excuse to go through with it. If I'm right about that, then you should be ashamed of yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction: I actually voted in support of you in the last nomination, but retracted it when I realised the vote had already closed. It's extremely rich for you to decry alleged "harassment" given the blantant personal attacks ("full of shit", "an utter thickwit", "a complete pseud") you reportedly directed at Dan Polanksy. In contrast, I accused you of "pointless pedanticism", engaging in an "obsessive quest to be the grammar police," and throwing a "tantrum" that left shitgibbon "look[ing] like shit" (a failed pun). Not the height of civility but I remained focused on your edits and comments. Now, I clearly recall calling out Dan for misgendering someone as far back as 2013, but calling someone a "thickwit" – an unambiguous ad-hominem attack – is very different than accusing someone of being the "grammar police." Pot, meet kettle. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop removing things from context: I explicitly asked you to stop insulting other users, and your response was to direct a bunch of personal insults at me. That crosses a line, whether or not I insulted someone several months ago (and subequently apologised for it). Trying to play it off as just a joke is an obvious lie: you were being vindictive, and you know it. It's playground behaviour, and it is not acceptable, whether it's me who tells you that or anyone else.
Let me make it clear to you: this became harassment at the point that you decided to drag me over the coals for daring to challenge you on your unacceptable behaviour. This never had anything to do with the content dispute: I said you should be blocked for edit warring, and subsequently accused you of baiting me on a thread where you had directed several insults at me (which were very clearly not in good humour). You are obviously intelligent enough to understand that. Given that your preferred version of the page is currently live, your accusation that I'm abusing admin tools to enforce what I want rings extremely hollow, too. Theknightwho (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've directed several sweeping and totally unsubstantiated accusations at me just in the course of this situation:
  • "egotistical bullying" and "trying to goad me into blocking you"[59]
  • "an outright lie", "they were clearly trying to goad me into blocking them", "this vote is simply a retaliation to that, borne out of a personal grudge", "deeply manipulative behaviour"[60]
  • "trying to goad me into blocking you because you wanted to start a big public fight"[61]
  • "you are using this vote as a weapon", "you want to punish me due to your personal grudge", "a form of harassment"[62][63]
  • "your attempt to manipulate the community like this is - in all honesty - indef block-worthy", "a gross breach of the Universal Code of Conduct", "a clear case of harassment in pusuit of a personal agenda", "you were trying to bait me"[64]
  • "you were being vindictive" and "this became harassment at the point that you decided to drag me over the coals"[65]
In contrast, I have laid out diffs as evidence in this nomination, and have restricted my commentary to observable conduct with limited inferences. This situation is something of a control to the Dan Polansky situation. You reportedly had a history of conflict with Dan but Dan had a decade-long problematic history and that made it difficult to disentangle conflicts that arose between him and other users. On the other hand, we do not have a history of butting heads. I walked away from our one prior dispute even though you were clearly in the wrong (the etymology section of shitgibbon literally says "shitgibbon of shit + gibbon" with "shitgibbon" being a self-link). I voted in support of you in the last dysop vote, demonstrating that I'm not acting out of a grudge. And yet you quickly escalated to threatening to block me – an editor in good standing of over a decade – during a content dispute.[66][67] Let's be clear that I wasn't "insulting other users" as you claim. Every distemperate comment I made was in response to a reversion or comment you made and was mild in contrast to the incivility you levelled at Dan.[68][69][70][71] You weren't defending anyone else involved in the Beer Parlour thread. You were threatening to wield your admin powers against someone who ruffled your feathers during a dispute in which you were personally involved.
You've repeatedly shown difficulty in exercising restraint in your capacity as an admin. You've threatened to wield your authority as an admin to further a personal conflict. Your defense when presented with evidenced criticism seems to be to throw accusations back at the critic rather than address the criticism and its supporting evidence. At this very moment, you are butting heads with DCDuring in an unrelated dispute, levelling more personalised accusations ("your Anglocentric intuition"). Like I'm pretty sure we've all butted heads with DCDuring at some point. But the picture that's being painted here is one of a repeating pattern of escalation and personalisation of conflicts on your part. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The diffs don’t show what you’re claiming they show. It’s as simple as that. I did not threaten to block you, or even imply that I would. Theknightwho (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Frankly, that's grounds for a block."[72]." Not sure how you expected that to be interpreted. It's pretty clear to me. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a statement that you behaved in a way which was block-worthy. I didn’t revert you after I said it, so you weren’t placed in a position where you could have reverted me again, which means it cannot have been a threat. You also followed up 2 minutes later with a bunch of personal insults, effectively saying that you don’t give a shit about anything I have to say, on a thread where I was explicitly trying to engage with you about how that kind of thing was inappropriate: [73]. Your outrage seems to be at the fact I was holding you accountable for being a bully, quite frankly. Theknightwho (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's lay every somewhat salty thing I wrote on the table so it's clear precisely what you're characterising as "block-worthy" and "being a bully":
  • "You're swooping in and demanding to impose prose text formatting conventions on context labels over all other considerations solely to satisfy your own fixation with enforcing specific grammar/formatting. This is both unwelcome and not a constructive use of time."[74]
  • "This is pointless pedanticism serves no one."[75]
  • "Coming onto an entry in a topic area you don't normally edit so you can flex your pointless pedanticism is the textbook definition of 'edit-warring.' Seriously, knock it off."[76]
  • "JFC, you're literally tossing out multiple unrelated edits in your obsessive quest to be the grammar police. Get a hobby."[77]
  • "You've got a history of being unnecessarily combative. This isn't the first time I've seen you pointlessly dig your heels in and edit war over an apparent attachment to idiosyncratic formatting (shitgibbon, which incidentally still looks like shit because of your tantrum). Other users have had similar run-ins, given you recently faced a dysop vote. So spare me the homilies. I was contributing to Wiktionary 11 years before you showed up."[78]
Yeah, not exactly the height of civility. The last comment – the worst, I'd say – was made after you threatened to use your admin privileges against me.[79][80] You still haven't explained what justification you had for repeatedly undoing unrelated good-faith edits in the lead-up to that exchange.[81][82][83] Perhaps because this would require acknowledging that you engaged in transparently petty edit-warring. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. How could I have been threatening to block you if I didn’t place you in a position where you could revert me?
  2. You didn’t claim I was threatening to block you until I accused you of trying to goad me, which was later on. If you did interpret me saying your behaviour was block-worthy as a threat, then why did you respond with lots of insults if you weren’t trying to bait me into doing it?
  3. Why didn’t you say anything about this perceived abuse of power until after I called you out for that?
  4. How was it a threat to call that out, anyway?
Theknightwho (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You bombarded me with messages on two fronts (Beer Parlour and my talk page) in a short timeframe as I was making dinner, pinging me each time and repeatedly editing your comments so that I got a new notification with every edit. I meant to address the initial threat in the Beer Parlour thread where you made it but lost a reply to an edit conflict or in the flurry of notifications. Anyway, I don't really owe you this kind of granular examination of my response. This isn't about my conduct as a rank-and-file editor in a content dispute. It's about your conduct as an admin in a dispute in which you were personally involved. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I pointed out some fundamental flaws in your argument that also strongly suggest you were being deceptive. You can choose to answer them or not, but the way you’ve repeatedly avoided them only suggests you don’t have good response to them. I can’t help but think you’re just a crybully at this point.
I also know you’re lying about getting a ping with every edit, as that isn’t how pings work. Stop embellishing. It’s bad enough that you keep linking the same few comments over and over, to give the impression there’s way more evidence than there actually is lol. Theknightwho (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's add some more to the list of unsubstantiated accusations you've made: "you were being deceptive", "you're just a crybully", "I also know you're lying."[84] I got at least seven notifications from you in the space of one to two hours. I can clearly see them in my notification history. Maybe you've got your preferences set so that you receive less notifications. I haven't changed my preferences from the default. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those aren't unsubstantiated - I've substantiated them on this thread extensively, and your response was... to say you don't owe me a response, while continuing to bring up lots and lots of things that just aren't relevant - like pings. If that isn't avoidance, I don't know what is.
And yes, you would have various pings, because I pinged you when I added a new comment. That's normal in discussions. That doesn't mean you got one with every edit, and it certainly doesn't mean (as you are obviously trying to imply) that it was excessive. It's just (yet another) attempt to scrape the bottom of the barrel, because you really don't want to talk about the fact your accusations don't make any sense. Theknightwho (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue at hand isn't the crux of the cupsona dispute (should prose text formatting be applied to context labels?) or anything I did or didn't do. The issue is your conduct as an admin. You haven't explained why you repeatedly edit-warred and removed unrelated good-faith edits ([85][86][87]) in an apparent fit of pettiness, nor have you acknowledged the transparent abuse of power in threatening to block a contributor with whom you were involved in an active dispute, beyond repeatedly trying to claim ([88][89][90][91][92][93]) that didn't say what you very evidently did ([94]). Focus on the issue at hand: your conduct as an admin. Shifting away from this looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny of your conduct. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where did I threaten to block you? Frankly, that's grounds for a block. This is not a threat, and you have failed to respond to my very straightforward explanation, so unless you can show where I threatened you, it is self-evidently clear that you are lying.
I also find it absurd that you are chiding me not to "shift away", after you explicitly avoided my questions about that very accusation, preferring to moan about pings. You are being transparently deceptive at this point. Theknightwho (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Arguing at suuuch length and with personal dings (especially in this context) seems like very poor judgement in an admin. Be right, make the valid points, step back, take action as necessary. It doesn't seem likely you're going to win W&N over this way or that anyone else is reading through all of that. — LlywelynII 13:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your links to the Discussion pages are broken. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was this comment directed at me? If so, I'm sorry I missed it. I've been trying to hang back from this discussion until it officially begins, plus my watchlist has been dominated by by the AutoDooz bot for the last few days since I add a lot of quotes (not complaining). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. However, the issue had been resolved. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


6-18-8 TKW remains admin Wonderfool69 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • For the record, it was actually 23:58 when I closed this, but I stamped it as 23:59, in a blatant case of electoral fraud. Wonderfool69 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of users for desysophood

Nomination: I hereby nominate Maro and MaEr to be de-sysopped. No activity since 2014 an 2015 respectively. Skisckis (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Vote starts: 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Vote created: Skisckis (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Support. I provisionally support the desysopping of these users as they've been inactive for 5 or more years. I will immediately change my vote to 'oppose' if they make edits between now and the final vote deadline. Of course someone with the power to do so is well within their rights to remove their privileges immediately. Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support. Additionally in my opinion, 5 years is quite long compared to other sites' policies on inactivity. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support, routine housekeeping measure. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support * Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support. They didn't edit for 6 years at least. It's time to desysop. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support, although as Megathonic wrote below, this vote is unnecessary as policy already allows for their removal without the need for a vote. – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support ɶLerman (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support Makes perfect sense. GKØN (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Not using the tools for an extended period of time shows that there is no need for the user to hold such privileged tools. Minorax (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Oppose purely on principle: I think permablocked users should not be allowed to create votes. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We tried a vote to stop that, but unfoturnately it failed Wonderfool69 (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm aware, and I don't expect to change the outcome of this vote, but I'd still like to use my vote how I see fit. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Of course, I'm just jealous because I am not allowed to vote Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. Jesielt (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. Moved to oppose I would like to see a formalized procedure for this rather than mere voting, perhaps including attempts to contact these editors (so I tend to oppose on those grounds). But it does seem like there should ultimately be a way to remove someone who is no longer editing from this position, especially if it has been several years (so I tend to support on these grounds). Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is a procedure: Wiktionary:Administrators#Removal_for_inactivity. This vote is actually unnecessary: Both of these editors are already eligible to be immediately desyopped "without further ado". Megathonic (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah yes, that's the procedure I was looking for. I knew it was somewhere out there Skisckis (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. This should not be a vote, there is already a policy in place. - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TheDaveRoss If this should not be a vote, then an admin should cancel/delete it already. Everyone saying that it shouldn't be a vote doesn't do anything until someone actually acts on it. AG202 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only bureaucrats can desysop users. @Chuck Entz: Do you think the users should be desysopped, per policy, and this vote be cancelled? J3133 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Abstain. As mentioned above, the vote is unnecessary. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Abstain I also believe that this vote is unnecessary: a policy exists for desysopping, not requiring a vote. J3133 (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Proposed votes

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: