Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2016-04/User:Romanophile for admin

User:Romanophile for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 04:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Beer parlour/2016/April
 * User talk:Romanophile
 * Acceptance: yes.
 * Languages: en, fr-3, es-3, pt-3
 * Timezone: -05:00

Support

 * 1)  (thus breaking my personal rule not to support self-made requests, but I was thinking of nomming him anyway). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  --WikiTiki89 14:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, he has proven willing and capable of discussing, correcting, and learning from his mistakes. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Romanophile does top-notch admin work over at es.wikt. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Courteous, eager to discuss issues and always lends a helping hand when needed – I'm convinced Romanophile is going to do excellent work as an administrator. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  1) Has a silly signature. 2) Will chat with me in Latin. 3) Has always been respectful and helpful. — JohnC5 17:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) . This is ending on the 13th. Really? -Xbony2 (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is also going to be a Friday... --WikiTiki89 18:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ki ki ki, ma ma ma! -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Cool guy, long time editor, I'm sure he will make good use of the tools. As noted in the BP discussion, some people seemed to think he was already an admin, which I think is always a good sign when someone is nominated to become one. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * +Comment: The list of Seth's deleted contributions in the main namespace contains 1,000+ pages, starting from 2011. Many are requests for speedy deletion using . If he becomes an admin through this vote, then he'll be able to delete pages like those by himself in the future. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Very polite and considerate editor. I am sure he will be a good admin. Yurivict (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Good behavior on the sister project I've patrolled him, so he can represent with dignity. JackPotte (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Well duh —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  — The vituperative tirade against Dan Polansky was unbecoming of an administrator, but it occurred over eighteen months ago, and I believe it is something that Romanophile would be unlikely to do today. Opposition to self-nomination for administratorship is a good principle, but one I feel to be best waived in this case. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , despite being a fat troll. --Vahag (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)   – Jberkel (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Lots of admins have railed against other contributors. Rob Ullmann said I was committing genocide for supporting the idea that Serbo-Croatian was a language. Ivan Štambuk had harsh words for several contributors. WF has been on the receiving end of ill wishes. Dick Laurent was cross with Razorflame. Liliana and CodeCat. I've seen a lot of it over the years. I don’t see that Romanophile’s case is anything unusual. —Stephen (Talk) 10:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The complaint is not of "railing against" but rather "expressing a wish of death", a more specific and severe thing, IMHO. That said, some of the above mentioned admins should not be admins. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying “I’ll kill you” is a common exaggerative statement that many people utter in the heat of the moment. It really is not a death threat, or a threat at all. Wishing death on someone is even less offensive, and certainly not a threat (unless you believe in voodoo). It is an immature way of saying “I hate you.” All these words mean is that the user is very upset. The words say nothing good or bad about the person addressed. Calling someone a moron is much worse, since it slanders the targeted person and calls his competence into question. —Stephen (Talk) 20:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I’ve recently been questioning the concept of intelligence, and the way how it’s always used to explain the inexplicable, so (at least now) I don’t think that D.P. (or anybody else) is a ‘moron.’ -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Calling someone a moron is much worse": Absolutly not, by my assessment. By my assessment, calling someone a moron is a common lexicalized or "conventionalized" insult, used very often as an expression of anger at someone's actions regardless of inteligence. By my lights, it is much more harmless, and it certainly does not feel much worse. The discussed Romanophile attack leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, as it were, whereas when Romanophile called me "moron" and "god-damn fucking idiot" in 2011, I felt nothing of the sort. Also, when he called me these names, he was not blocked, as he should not have, whereas for the discussed attack he was blocked for one month, whereas I expected he would be banned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Romanophile himself wrote in that attack that he knew he was going to be blocked for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the polemic still disgusts you so much, why don’t you just petition for my permanent removal? Do you expect to lose? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the above question is not worthy an admin. A good admin would not ask the question. It does not serve information gathering; it serves to annoy and provoke an undue response. Since, the answer is obvious to anyone looking at this vote: I don't stand a chance getting Romanophile permablocked; and if I thought back in 2014 when the incident occurred that permanent block were necessary, I would have tried my chance back then. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But surely a reasonable individual like yourself can convince the others to remove me, can’t you? You could attempt to persuade them, or call their support into question. That way, you or somebody else might learn something new. The point is, you want me gone right now, so you need to figure out the fastest way to remove me. Are you going to do anything about my presence, other than keeping track of my misbehaviour? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the last two years' behavior, permanent block is uncalled for. The above speculation about my motives and wishes is uncalled for as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Everybody deserves a second chance. As long as he understands what is expected, I believe Romanophile has the potential (and then some) to make an excellent admin. Leasnam (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Perhaps this is a bit late but I agree with Leasnam, and IMO anything that encourages further good-faith contribution to Wiktionary is to be desired. Benwing2 (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  seems to have personal issues with me? -- Liliana • 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Liliana has been globally banned since this vote, does it still count? Donnanz (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think it doesn't count, but I can't find a guideline which states that. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The best guess about the cause of the ban is that it relates to the trouble recently discussed in Beer parlour. In Beer parlour/2016/March, the English Wiktionary editors expressed no wish to desysop Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be standard practice to strike the vote of a permablocked user, but I am somewhat uncomfortable doing so in a case in which our wiki had no say in the permablocking. As it stands, her vote makes no difference, so I will let it stay. Also, I am annoyed that I cannot easily find the discussion leading to this block on Meta or elsewhere. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  An editor who expressed a wish on-wiki that another editor dies cannot be an admin. Evidence is in the history of my talk page; if wished, I can post a diff. Also a note on self-nomination: the English Wiktionary has the interesting tradition of avoiding it. The only other self-nomination I remember is the one of Razorflame. By contrast, self-nomination is usual in Czech wikiprojects. I find the English Wiktionary reluctance to self-nominate a really interesting cultural trait, one that is worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) * Actually, Wonderfool managed a couple of successful self-noms, and one nom by his own sockpuppet. --S03f0i3 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You guys are hella dramatic :/ -Xbony2 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) * I guess you are referring to . Thank you for pointing this out, but I am not going to change my vote. --WikiTiki89 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I already e‐mailed that to you, but I guess that you didn’t check your box. I rarely become enraged like that, but it’s a combination of long‐term abuse and him insulting me. D.P.’s modus operandi is to bring up irrelevant relics in order to shut people up, which he did in the link in my topic and he did again here. I guarantee you that he did not even feel a micron of guilt over my polemic. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am most definitely not shutting people up; that is plain wrong.
 * I only brought forward one verifiable salient incident; it is my testimony that I saw a long-term pattern of problematic behavior on part of the candidate, and I am certain multiple editors recall that pattern. Whether the recent remission of that problematic behavior is temporary we do not know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not silencing, but discrediting. Like I said, your tactic is to bring up irrelevant relics that most people don’t care about. If you had improved since then, I would regret my polemic, but you obviously haven’t improved since the day I met you. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and perhaps you’d like to revoke Equinox’s privileges because of this comment? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would. Especially since his rant of Daniel Carrero's harmless, good-faith action. Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Romanophile: Can you please clarify which users, if any, have you sent an off-wiki email in relation to this vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, have we decided that e‐mailing users about elections is against common practice and policy? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Romanophile: Can you? Or can anyone else report any emails they have received in relation to this vote? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting to watch you evade uncomfortable questions. Here’s similar instance and another. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reader may, like myself, like to know to what extent (if any) is this vote driven by an email campaign. As to who evades important questions pertinent to this vote, I will leave the judgment to the kind reader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I mailed one user,, about it, asking ‘Would you like to cast a vote?’ That was it. Now tell me why you need to know. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , and why don’t you tell us why Equinox can wish death on others (I can’t), delete his talk page (I can’t), why I need to be accountable (you don’t, right?), why a certain administrator can insert an unattested Latin translation (I can’t, as my link above showed), and why certain users can ‘threaten to leave the project’ (I can’t)? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why I need to know should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with problems of fairness of voting and campaigning: a campaign can skew the results as long as the emailer notifies people who are likely to support him and not those who are likely to oppose him. But one email is not a campaign. That email should better have not been sent, but does not pose a serious problem as long as it is only a single email. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he evaded my questions again. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 22:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how Romanophile would get ahold of my email address since I don't give it away. But, anyway, stay civil please, the both of you. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have an email address registered with your account and have the option to receive emails enabled in your preferences, then other users can email you from the Special:EmailUser page (without finding out your email address). --WikiTiki89 16:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yerp, I don't have an email registered here :D On the wikis I do it's usually disabled. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer at least one of Romanophile's questions, about the mentioned Equinox diff: yes, that diff is a ground for considering desysopping. I would probably not support such a desysopping since Equinox is a great lexicographer and proven admin, and the mentioned unfortunate block summary was targetted at Wonderfool, a banned user who is intermittently tolerated since no one came up with anything better to do. If Equinox made such comments before he became an admin and proved to be an excellent one, I would probably oppose his adminship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So by being an established admin, he's beyond the law? (I'm not saying he should be desysopped, but I require a bit more explanation) -Xbony2 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which law? I don't know what you mean by "established admin"; I said "proven admin", by which I mean, an editor proven to be good in the capacity of admin. I also highlighted that the Equinox target was a banned editor that gets on multiple editors' nerves, an editor against whom Equinox is entirely powerless. I have learned that I am powerless against Romanophile, who trolled me also in, in User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2013 (where he complained of me creating Votes/pl-2013-10/Removing SAMPA and X-SAMPA) and on multiple previous occassions. He even apologized to me once, but then went on to troll me more. He also trolled SemperBlotto and Equinox (search "Geequinox" on en wikt), which may be a causal explanation of why certain humans on this vote page are a little less forgiving, being merely humans. You do realize Æ&Œ and Pilcrow is Romanophile, right? My plan is to largely avoid interacting with the user lest I get into trouble. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, by law you mean the principle that I stated at the outset. The principle needs to be amended thus: "An editor who expressed a wish on-wiki that another editor dies cannot be an admin unless there are extenuating circumstances ." In my view, the fact that the Equinox text was short, appears unpremeditated and was targetted at a banned user who stays here by sheer force of creating new users as fit is an extenuating circumstance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I guess. I consider Equinox's actions inappropriate, but not worthy of desysoping. Maybe of a short ban, 1-7 days according to policy? But, of course, it's too late for action now.
 * Many of Romanophile's actions (which you've linked) have also been inappropriate, but, they're all actions that took place a fairly significant time ago. This is where our opinions differ- I think these actions are historical, and should be forgiven, whereas you don't. Both are respectable. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize desysopping practically requires a 2/3 supermajority, right? And that once Romanophile becomes an admin, it will be really hard to desysop him even if trouble ensues? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I don't think there will be trouble. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will disclose that Romaniphile's email to me had to do with Dan's comment and had nothing directly to do with the vote itself. Furthermore, I did not read the email until after he pinged me above; thus, neither my vote, nor my previous comments were affected by it. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Dan Polansky. Romanophile seems competent overall, but that talk page comment is too serious to overlook. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  as above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3)  Equinox ◑ 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  largely per my comments below. What pushed me to change my vote is largely that I have noticed evidence of clear-cut POV pushing (1 2, 3) which does constitute in my view a definite problem wrt utility, in addition to the concerns I have cited over behavior as well as this user's mainspace contributions. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is misleading to call those POV-pushing, although the first one would be hell to cite (it seems to have been removed by an anon without due process). They're real terms, and we have a job to document all words, including the racist and sexist ones. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  The combination of self-nomination, 3 usernames in 5 years and that harangue is enough to prevent me from supporting, but not enough to make me oppose. Droigheann (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with having 3 usernames in 5 years? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also don't see any problem with him having changed his username a few times. --WikiTiki89 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, pick a username dude, but I won't consider it a negative factor in a vote. -Xbony2 (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was a teenager when I first commenced editing, and I was still figuring out my tastes and my identity. This might be the last time that I switch names, but I’m not going to promise anything. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your username changes per se, but together with the other things I mentioned (and the "I'm depressed" on your userpage, and now what I've seen on Donnanz' talkpage) they indicate to me somebody who isn't well-adjusted (well-balanced, composed, mature, call it what you like) enough for adminship. Again: the impression isn't so strong as to make me oppose your nomination, but I can't with clear conscience support it. --Droigheann (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * so wait, do you think that depression is a valid disqualification? And asking ‘What’s your name from? Does it mean something?’ and ‘So Donna is your given name?’ are distasteful? Or extremely annoying? I don’t get it. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that depression is a valid disqualification. For the talkpage questions I'd sooner use 'a wee bit infantile' than the epithets you propose. --Droigheann (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have never had any policies or rules against infantility, depression, or otherwise not being well-adjusted. We’ve seen lots of infantile behavior here, hissy fits, signs of depression, autism, OCD, anal retentiveness, and so on. The questions are: (1) does the candidate have need of the tools (that is, have you looked at his work, is the work worthwhile, is it well done), and would the candidate be likely to misuse the tools (for instance, by vandalizing pages, by doing shoddy work, by blocking others inappropriately, and so on). I have seen lots of Romanophile’s work (including on es.wiktionary), and it is very professional in my opinion. I don’t believe Romanophile would ever stoop to vandalism, and I think he would be unlikely to abuse blocking (although misuse of blocking is something we never know about until the power has been granted). I think that you are holding Romanophile to a higher standard than we have ever held our admins to before (on en.wiktionary), and I don’t think it is appropriate. —Stephen (Talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don’t understand how I was being infantile. People ask each other about their pseudonyms all the time and it’s rarely ever considered offensive or ‘infantile.’ I can only assume that this phenomenon is stigmatized in your culture, because otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  I have no plans to change my user name, despite Romanophile's nosiness. Donnanz (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Donnanz: I don't understand. Is this in reference to Romanophile's post somewhere? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, on my talk page. Donnanz (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstain for now : On the one hand, I want to oppose per Dan Polansky (and, honestly, Droigheann). On the other hand, the title of admin on Wiktionary (besides being a status symbol?) really only has the effect of (1) allowing one to fight vandalism, basically at all, and (2) allowing one to edit important pages; meaning it's harmful if you (1) are a POV-pusher or (2) intend to vandalize. An editor who is undesirable for the sole reason of being caustic (and this is evident) therefore needs not be prevented from adminship on those grounds alone. Trouble is, (a) I am hesitant to allow a caustic person to gain any title of importance, regardless of actual utility, and (b) while this user is not apparently known as being a POV-pusher, a review of their contributions page yields a lot of what look like neologisms, none of which are apparently cited. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I look for potential citations before including terms, particularly on Google Groups and Google Books. The reason why I rarely add citations is because it’s tedious to copy the text and apply all of the extra information. I am prepared to cite my works in any case. As for the other reason… exactly how long do you people need to hold the sins against others before they become irrelevant? Five years? Ten years? Thirty? Are you going to keep bringing up the time I made when it’s 2094? -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 17:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is required to not only look for citations, but also put them in the entry proper. I recommend that you do so from now on. I'm not speaking about holding past "sins" against people and if I was, then the accidental creation of a page with a ligature wouldn't belong on a list of sins, it'd belong on a list of hilarious gaffes. I have such a list. I'm on it several times. I'm talking about current behaviour. I don't know about your past interactions with other editors, having not seen any—but simply looking at the way you interact with people on this very page is enough to show me that you are a caustic person. Polansky's comment is 1.5 years old, it is true, and I am easily willing to accept that a person has changed in that time, but your behaviour largely seems to suggest otherwise. Droigheann's comments are all made about your current behavior (with the exception of name-changing, which practice you immediately afterward stated you were not necessarily going to cease.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reflecting on my past behaviour, I remember a lot of melodrama, pettiness, excessive seriousness, obstinance… I doubt that anybody here would prefer a revision to that state of mind. Yes, I become very frustrated and impatient, but when I have to deal with people who are being persistently uncooperative, that’s exactly what happens. When did you people decide that asking about somebody’s pseudonym was infantile? Why does having three different usernames disqualify me? Better yet, why not formally prohibit them from the project if they annoy you so much in the first place? Have we decided that they’re ‘obvious’ (just like everything else)? Perhaps responding to the comments here was a fruitless endeavour. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Newt: You said "It is required to not only look for citations, but also put them in the entry proper.", which is patently untrue. It is better not to make up rules to criticise another editor adding new, correct entries that pass CFI to Wiktionary, which is how the dictionary is expanded and is thus one of the single most valuable tasks that can be done around here. (And if any user is caustic, DP has driven multiple hardworking editors off this project for good, which is certainly a title that Romanophile can't claim.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "DP has driven multiple hardworking editors off this project for good": A statement of this sort requires a proof. Those editors should be mentioned. Then, it should be clarified in what manner I have driven them off and what, if any, were obvious problems in the contributions of these hardworking editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I will help you. I played a role in ReidAA leaving and Speednat leaving. ReidAA did not have to leave if he did not take the stance of "my way or highway"; one editor said "good riddance" in relation to ReidAA. ReidAA was not blocked and was not prevented from useful and non-controversial editing. The talk page of ReidAA contains misgivings some other editors had with ReidAA. Speednat did not have to leave either. I repeatly pointed out to Speednat that the simple manner in which he is transferring content from a certain dictionary into Wiktionary is copyright violation. Speednat was not prevented from productive editing either. I do not remember any other cases from the top of my head; some of the last interactions with Razorflame were by Metaknowledge rather than me, AFAIR, and Pass the Method was ultimately blocked after multiple editors posted multiple misgiving to his talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On a purely logical note, whether DP has driven someone off is entirely irrelevant since this is not a vote for ensysopping DP and DP is not an admin. This irrelevance is especially clear in relation to the statement made above: " I am hesitant to allow a caustic person to gain any title of importance". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * CFI states "For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary." I don't really understand what else this is supposed to mean, unless it's "we don't need a citation unless someone challenges the term at RfV", in which case I would be willing to do so. With respect to causticity—I find that, while I have disagreed with DP on numerous occasions (exhibit 1), he does not speak aggressively the way that, say, PB89 does. Romanophile is hardly as bad as PB89 in my opinion, but is definitely too caustic for me to vote 'yes' here. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a sysop already, and although I don't see you at RFV much, I think you already know how this works. Please feel free to submit any entry Romanophile has created to RFV, but iff you really can't cite it yourself, which I find unlikely in the extreme. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ObsequiousNewt: At RFV, your policy quote is traditionally interpreted as a requirement for citations to exist, but not necessarily to be added to the entry or citations page; although it is encouraged that if you have already done the work of finding citations, that you should copy them to the entry or citations page for ease of future reference, but is common for RFVs to pass with as little as "I checked Google Books and there seem to be a lot of relevant results". --WikiTiki89 15:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  &emsp; — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 05:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ƿidsiþ 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passes 15-6-5 (71%). (If we count Benwing2's vote, despite it having been cast after the end time of the vote, it would be 16-6-5 (73%).) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. —Stephen (Talk) 09:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)