Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-05/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)

• Vote created: Purplebackpack89 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/April#Anybody_should_be_allowed_to_nominate_people_for_whitelist

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

1. 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
2. per Metaknowledge. —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The only people who would benefit from this are hat collectors. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Metaknowledge and Ungoliant. And notice I'm not a sysop. --Makaokalani (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fails, 1-4-0. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)