Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-07/User:Polomo for admin

Nomination: I hereby nominate Polomo (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. I think he is ready to be an admin now as he has been editing from a decent amount of time and has a good number of edits and under his belt. He regularly contributes to areas where he could make use of admin tools like RFD and monitoring Portuguese-related edits and frequently makes requests for admin actions such as speedy deletions. It would also be helpful to have another active Portuguese-native admin as the other pt-N admins are currently inactive.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 03:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 00:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Vote created: – Svārtava (tɕ) 03:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Acceptance:

• Languages: pt-N, en-4
• Timezone: UTC-3

Polomo (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see my my reply to Svartava on my talk page for my thoughts.

1. Support as nominator. – Svārtava (tɕ) 03:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Support because he's an active, contributive Portuguese editor and a good enforcer of Wiktionary policies, as well as being so humble to ask a fellow user to do a type of edit they're better at and thank them for good edits. Davi6596 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
3. Support: very active and definitely has a clue. Their experience at RfD exemplifies this, as does their contributions to our Portuguese entries. Having them become an administrator will be a net positive for Wiktionary. Tenure is not that important but rather knowledge and accountability is, which this user certainly has. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Weak oppose: While boasting a large number of productive edits, Polomo has only been here for a year a five months. I do not think that that's enough time to become an admin as I've mentioned before: Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2023-11/User:Ioaxxere for admin. It's also not clear why this user was nominated or needs to be an admin. I did read the linked page, but it is not clear. All these recent nominations by the same user " me continue to question if adminship is simply supposed to be an expected destination for unproblematic active users", as I said in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2025-02/User:Mellohi! for admin. The difference was that mellohi! has been here for much much longer, which is why I'm voting oppose now. We do need more active administrators to enforce the policies that we have in place in a productive manner; however, just nominating anyone active is not surefire way to do so, considering that it's much harder to remove admin once they've been elevated. AG202 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

   To be frank, at this point your opposition to candidates proposed by me feels as if motivated by spite or attempts to take cheap shots. The reasons for why it would be helpful to get Polomo as an admin are quite clearly documented at both my nomination statement and the pre-nomination discussion - I fail to see how you find that insufficient by your standards. Finally, you are free to have your criteria for how long a candidate should ideally have edited before obtaining adminship, but let me note that we have had notable users who became admins with even less than 1.5 years of editing, so I personally don't think that point is too meritorious either. – Svārtava (tɕ) 16:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

   It is not motivated by spite or cheap shots; I have tried to be consistent with the criteria that I have applied for the years that I have been here as seen with my other votes. Admin tools should not just be requested for RFD or monitoring when we already have over 80 active or semi-active administrators. That's 10% of Wikipedia's number, but yet we don't have 10% of Wikipedia's active user base, nor do we actively enforce our policies. This is something that we need to address at the source (such as in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2023/July § How to report a user?, which led to 0 action), but once people become admin, the appetite for action significantly drops, especially against other admin. We should not just be nominating people over and over again.

   We should be more careful with who we nominate and make sure that they will remain active and also use the tools properly, as seen by the constant admin-to-admin conflicts on Discord and on-wiki. Being here for less than 2 years does not give me enough confidence. AFAIK, I have never voted for someone to become admin with that little time editing. And yes, it is my own personal criteria, which is why I'm not forcing or replying to anyone that voted in support. AG202 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

   You’re certainly wrong: , .

   The lack of active pt-N administrators and the candidate being active in RFDs and frequently making deletion requests is solid reason for this vote, so It's also not clear why this user was nominated or needs to be an admin is plainly false. – Svārtava (tɕ) 02:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

   @Svartava: Vinnin's first edit was in 2016 if we're going to get technical, and while you're right that Theknightwho had only been editing in Wiktionary for a year, he also had thousands of edits to Wikipedia prior to editing here. And even if they hadn't been, I have learned over the past 3-4 years (from when I first started editing) that it's much more important to be cautious with admin votes because of the conflicts that keep coming up. And it's not clear to me why making deletion requests and being active in RFD is a necessary enough reason to become an administrator. Being an admin is much more than just deleting entries. You have significant power, from blocking users to setting protection on entries to revision deletion and more. We shouldn't just hand it to whoever is active in RFDs & makes deletion requests (I can't access that link btw). And also, being a native editor can really apply to anyone that doesn't speak the languages of the most active admin, which is fewer than 10 languages, I'm sure. That rationale kinda makes sense but doesn't override the rest.

   Obviously I can't stop you from nominating people, and Polomo is a great editor, but I also have just as much reason as everyone else to be more cautious when it comes to admin elevation due to the problems that we've seen recently. AG202 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I agree with AG202 - Polomo is a relatively new kid on the block. Many of us, including myself, have to make do without adminship. The nomination by Svartava, the king of deletions, doesn't surprise me, and Polomo is that user's disciple. DonnanZ (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Abstain. I do not know this user. I agree with AG that adminship should not be a sign of status or of being "unproblematic", but I can't judge whether this is the case here. Thadh (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Abstain. I do not know this user but I also noticed the problem that AG raised. Abstain without prejudice. Chihunglu83 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)