Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2

< Wiktionary:Votes

Voting eligibility edit

Voting on: replacing this text in Wiktionary:Votes/header:

  • No voting policies are in effect at this time. Tentative guidelines for voters:
    1. Account must predate start of vote by one week.
    2. Anyone can vote, especially regulars from other language Wiktionaries.
    3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

with either this text, referred to as option 1:

  • Voting eligibility:
    1. Voter must have contributed at least 50 edits to English Wiktionary content proper (that is, to pages in the main, Appendix, Citations, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces) in the last six months, as of two weeks before the vote page was created.
    2. Vote must come from a registered, non-bot account.
    3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

or this text, referred to as option 2:

  • Voting eligibility:
    1. Voter must have contributed at least 50 edits to English Wiktionary content proper (that is, to pages in the main, Appendix, Citations, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces), as of two weeks before the vote page was created.
    2. Vote must come from a registered, non-bot account.
    3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

(which is the same, but for the phrase "in the last six months").

Users can vote for either or both of the proposed options; the one with more support will pass, provided it gets a sufficient majority of non-abstaining votes.

  • Vote starts: 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Support option 1 edit

The 50 edits must be in the last 6 months (as of two weeks before vote creation).

  1.   Support - Dijan 06:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Ivan Štambuk 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support, though option #2 is better. (I don't think long-inactive people should come back just to vote, but if they want to do so, I don't want an actual policy stopping them — etiquette shouldn't be enforced that way. But, I'd rather have the restriction apply to them, than not have any restriction at all.) —RuakhTALK 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Stephen 20:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Very weak. It’s only barely better than nothing at all.[reply]
  5.   Support --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Krun 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) People who have hardly edited at all in recent months needn't participate in policy making, although I don't consider it wrong to allow it. – Krun 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support. Either option is a lesser evil than the current text. --Duncan 17:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support. --Anatoli 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Late support; first choice. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support as the best option. In my opinion, even an administrator who has been on hiatus for, what, half a year!? would need to seriously consider whether they are up to speed sufficiently enough to give weight on an issue. I feel like I should be barely eligible to vote even here, and if this rule were in place, I barely would be! DAVilla 03:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 2 edit

The 50 edits need not be in the last 6 months (but still must be two weeks before vote creation).

  2.   Support SpeedyGonsales 11:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC) What about Votes should last about a month, usually, or two weeks for bots? This is important vote, and it should not be made in hurried way (although this is 2nd try, and this time proposal is better crafted). SpeedyGonsales 11:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Yes, this seems much less restrictive yet not too much so. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support this is the better of the two choices. -- Prince Kassad 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Ƿidsiþ 11:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support, although the first one is okay, I slightly prefer this one. Someone who makes 10 000 edits and stops for six months then loses the right to vote. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you consider the first one O.K., then you should vote for both. This is an approval vote; by not voting for option #1, you express your disapproval of it (and hurt the chances that either one will pass).
  7.   Support. —RuakhTALK 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support , though I don't agree with the namespace restrictions and I think that more time should have been given to discussion. --flyax 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Krun 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) This would also be fine, and has the advantage of not excluding potentially very knowledgeable contributors who are just returning from a long wikibreak. – Krun 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Felonia 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support, seems reasonable enough. The above is a bit too restrictive. –blurpeace (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15.   Support L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC) It doesn't matter if the contributor has made any of the required contributions in the last 6 months, does it? I mean, their opinion is still a good and valid opinion, isn't it? Or are we "prejudiced" (putting it in quotes because I couldn't think of a softer word) against inactive contributors? I don't strongly oppose the other option, but what is the reasoning behind it? L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the idea is that someone who edited back in 2002 and has not been seen since doesn't really know that much any longer about Wiktionary norms and so should be considered like a new user.​—msh210℠ 21:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16.   Support. Either option is a lesser evil than the current text. --Duncan 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Rising Sun 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC) this is not so restrictive.[reply]
    Changing vote to oppose --Rising Sun 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17.   Support Ivan Štambuk 13:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18.   Support The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19.   Late support; second choice, if option 1 fails. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20.   Support --Dijan 18:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21.   Support —Saltmarshαπάντηση 09:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22.   Support —AugPi 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23.   Support although I would prefer to say 2 weeks before the vote started. DAVilla 03:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both edit

  1.   Oppose Robert Ullmann 11:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC) mind you, I would support, but the text still needs work: it should (must) refer to the time the vote was started, not the time "the vote page was created", which might be weeks earlier. Can we work out one consensus text before starting this vote? It should not be hard at all. Robert Ullmann 11:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    It would be much easier to achieve consensus if people would raise their concerns before the vote started.. --Ivan Štambuk 12:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People raise concerns when they see proposal. That is reason why hurried vote is a bad thing, give people ample time to discuss proposal, to vote on it, and then all will be happy. As I see, voting is still 2 weeks, not 1 month, why? SpeedyGonsales 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant discussion was raised 2 weeks ago in the BP, and I didn't see either of you participating. Looking back at all the previous votes in the last year's period we had, I don't see how 2 more weeks would make any difference: the consensus (or the lack of it) is usually reached in a far less period, esp. in the case of relatively controversial votes. --Ivan Štambuk 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I wasn't here 2 weeks ago, I am now. I don't see why some argument should weigh more if it is written 2 weeks ago compared to if it is written now? And contrary, if some vote is controversial, shouldn't we stick more to the rules (e.g. vote should last 4 weeks), as opposite to rushing things and do the vote twice. SpeedyGonsales 22:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it's fairly pointless to raise objections now if you missed the relevant discussion in the central community discussion board. Votes are not meant do discuss anything at all, but merely to formally codify what has been abundantly discussed elsewhere. Sadly, often the users completely ignore the discussion and wait for the vote itself to obstruct the consensus-reaching process, by raising sudden objections on points which could've been easily handled before the vote started.
    As for the timing: If the consensus is not reached within 2 weeks, it is extremely doubtful that it will be reached in the extended period of one month. This vote is completely uncontroversial, and the only effect it could have, if passed in either of the proposed variants, would be on the controversial votes themselves. --Ivan Štambuk 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just my opinion but anyway, I think using "the time the vote page was created" is better because then it would filter out people who are just going to (if the time the vote starts and the time the page was created have enough of a gap between them) , well to put it bluntly, rack up enough (or even more than enough in order to look unsuspicious) contributions to vote and then run off never to return. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct.[1] - I've made that change it order to handle that exact scenario. --Ivan Štambuk 12:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why "must"? I can see why your approach could be preferable, but why "must" it be that way? --RuakhTALK 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has to have it timed from the start of the vote rather than the creation in order to have enough time to drag in enough ringers from the 'pedias to prepare their eligibility. Otherwise he might not be able to control the outcome of the vote. If we give in on this point, it will be the last time I vote on anything. --Stephen 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, there are 6 new Serbo-Croatian contributors which suddenly started contributing in the last 2-3 days, all of which had no activity at all prior to that. It would be naive to think that Robert Ullmann and this vote have nothing to do with it. --Ivan Štambuk 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, just curious Stephen (because I want to ensure I'm not misunderstanding you) but are you referring to Ivan or RU? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RU. --Stephen 17:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just as it seemed to me then :) (as I said though I wanted to be 100% sure that I was right about it) 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose Conrad.Irwin 23:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC) per my comments in WT:BP#threshold for voting. This is a very blunt solution to a very specific problem.[reply]
    Blunt problems often require blunt solutions. Sooner or later we'd have that type of vote on an entirely unrelated issue, and would want to mitigate the voting impact of the "outsiders" by measures such as these. --Ivan Štambuk 11:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Oppose. The problem is votes that were clearly canvassed for, not simply that new or non-en.wikt voters participated. What we need is a policy that actually addresses meatpuppetry. This plan is a poor solution to that problem, because it needlessly punishes potentially thoughtful and well-meaning people, especially ones who are established, trustworthy editors on other Wiktionaries, and it doesn't actually prohibit or discourage the recruiting of votes (as long as the recruiter targets accounts with the necessary edits, or is able to plan ahead). Dominic*t 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think that meat-puppetry is not sth that can be solved by a policy. As long as you give everyone a write to vote (regardless whether there is or there is not a voting eligibility threshold), in contentious issues it will be abused. The best that we can do is to increase the threshold so that that it doesn't get abused that much as it would if there were none. All the larger wiki-projects have this kind of threshold for voting, and the more serious the vote - the stricter the eligibility criteria are. Yes it "punishes" potentially thoughtful and well-meaning people, but in this particular case finis santificat media; by disallowing both potentially good-faith and bad-faith voters, not passing the edit-number threshold, we greatly facilitate consensus-reaching process, because it takes much less for a vote to not pass than to pass (according to the WP rules, as I've been told, 75% of votes must be "for", which means that for every vote cast "against" you must have 3 votes cast "for"). --Ivan Štambuk 11:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But I believe that there was no policy giving everyone a right to vote previously, as you assume. It would be better to allow uninvolved administrators the discretion to strike the votes of meatpuppets and people editing in bad faith, rather than to invent an eligibility policy whereby meatpuppets that pass would essentially be given the right to vote. Dominic*t 04:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we had no policy at all, only "tentative guidelines" which were pointless anyway with the introduction of SUL. Why didn't you raise your proposals in the BP? --Ivan Štambuk 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Oppose -- Carolina wren discussió 02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Option 1 is way too Draconian. Option 2, while better still makes the assumption that people who contribute via suggestions on the talk pages aren't really Wiktionarians. I'm opposed to considering only those of us who make the entries as being the target group of users. I'm not opposed to the idea of voting requirements, but neither of the two options presented suit me. -- Carolina wren discussió 02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please elaborate on what kind of voting requirements would suit you? It would make the process of reaching consensus much easier if we knew it before the vote started. --Ivan Štambuk 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    50 (or increasing the tally to 100 would be fine with me since more edits are being counted) edits in any namespace except User of the English Wikipedia in the period ending two weeks before the vote is begun would suit me. Also to keep flame wars from counting too heavily, I wouldn't be adverse to only counting 1 edit per talk page. As for your complaint -- I don't have the time to haunt the discussion pages full time, as I do have things other than the Wiktionary that interest me. The Beer Parlor is fairly low on my list of places to frequent, while actual votes that can change things are much higher. -- Carolina wren discussió 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Oppose DCDuring TALK 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Had we a culture that showed overall responsiveness to the needs of the "imbeciles" like myself whom I thought WMF projects were trying to serve, then I might find it desirable to limit the votes to Solons who could be safely entrusted with how to serve "imbeciles" best. Since that ain't so, I must vote no. DCDuring TALK 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is your point DCDuring? Do you think that there should be no voting threshold, that even the IPs should be allowed to vote, or that there should be some but the current proposal is too strict in some way? --Ivan Štambuk 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Oppose Rose Waswa 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies
    Wow Robert, you just couldn't resist could you? --Ivan Štambuk 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is really Robert, it is grossly unethical and something should be done to stop him and his Yugoslavian meatpuppets from doing further damage to our project. --Stephen 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a formal complaint of sockpuppetry, there should be a request at WT:CU. If not, this is slander or libel, a form of harassment which is not acceptable in this community. - Amgine/talk 18:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you defending obvious abuse of voting privilege by your #wiktionary colleague Robert Ullmann? Rose Waswa (talk • contribs) is provably Ullmann's meat-puppet, person who he knows in person, and who's activity started and ceased in the moment of SC vote, suddenly resurfacing a few days before this vote would expire (prob. after RU calculated how many opposing votes it would need for this vote to fail - but he miscalculated!). What is not acceptable is playing dumb against such gross unethical abuse of votes. Why should we be silent? No. --Ivan Štambuk 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This global account has been active on sw.wt long in advance of your discussions regarding SC, as well as active on en.wt in Swahili translations. As you are no doubt aware, canvassing is not easily manageable by policy, and is not currently prohibited on en.wt. You have no basis for a claim of "abuse of voting privilege." Furthermore, you have yourself engaged in exactly the behaviour you are so decrying on user Ullman's half. Sockpuppetry, on the other hand, is specifically prohibited. If you have a complaint of sockpuppetry, make it at WT:CU. If you do not, you are attempting to harrass members of this community, acting to intimidate the community, and I am asking you to stop doing so immediately. - Amgine/talk 19:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was active long enough, but you're really naive if you think that its sudden burst of activity (together with other 2 Swahili Wiktionary users who also voted for oppose on that SC vote - all of which RU's personal acquaintances) after that SC vote started, and again being dormant until this vote - is a matter of coincidence. It's plain meat-puppetry. --Ivan Štambuk 08:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I, for one, am pleased that Robert has got two more people contributing to Wiktionary. It helps us to have more editors, and Rose has made plenty of seemingly decent edits to the project. --Rising Sun 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User Štambuk appears to have engaged in canvassing (or, as xe describes it, attempted "meat-puppetry") at the following edits on this project: [2], [3], [4]. For me it's not worth the effort to track down if xe had done so earlier in the votes, or has done so on other WMF sites, but it does seem to make the vitriolic comments directed at User Ullman disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst. - Amgine/talk 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please stop trolling Amgine? If you cannot understand why voting for option 2 is redundant if you also voted for option 1, i.e. how the brain-damaged scheme of "independent counting" makes it impossible for a person to simultaneously both prefer #1 but support both, that's your problem. --Ivan Štambuk 02:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if you've mistaken me for someone else, but I have not commented yet on the merits or lack thereof of this poll, or how it is being conducted. I have only commented on the poll about your behaviour, attempting to follow Wiktionary:Civility's guideline that incivility be confronted on every occasion, bringing it to the attention of the user and the community. I should like to point out that, in response to following that guideline, you have called me a troll. - Amgine/talk 20:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amgine: No, Ivan's edits that you link to weren't canvassing, nor "meat-puppetry"; they were attempting to resolve a technical issue with a vote, whereby some editors may have voted in a way that they did not intend to. I think it was 100% appropriate. —RuakhTALK 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider voting also for option 2, if you are supportive of it (not that you cannot vote against it)." - Amgine/talk 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly by way of explanation of the complex set up, and nothing to do with canvassing. —Stephen 23:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    canvass: 1. a solicitation of voters or opinions - Amgine/talk 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't soliciting voters; these editors had already voted, and Ivan was concerned that they may have voted in a way that they did not mean to. (Specifically, he contacted the editors who implicitly voted oppose option 2 by explicitly voting support option 1 without explicitly voting support option 2. If you read the comments here and on the talk-page, it's obvious that many voters thought they were supposed to vote for their most preferred option, when in fact, they were supposed to vote for whatever option(s) they approved of. By notifying these voters of their possible confusion, he was performing a public service.) —RuakhTALK 03:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does that change that it's a solicitation to vote? In particular, a solicitation to vote in a *specific* manner, to the subset of voters xe believed would vote that way? Did xe also canvass those opposed voters who might also have been mistaken regarding the technical issues (really only opposed to one, but selecting to oppose both as the most preferred option?) All of which is mooted by the reason I posted this information in the first place: User Štambuk was being uncivil about an alleged activity which is not prohibited. - Amgine/talk 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, being uncivil isn't "prohibited", either, so if "not prohibited" means "acceptable", then I'm not sure what you're going on about. (Actually, more generally, I'm not sure what you're going on about. Your first comment in this thread — "If there is a formal complaint of sockpuppetry, there should be a request at WT:CU. If not, this is slander or libel, a form of harassment which is not acceptable in this community" — borders on nonsense. Do you seriously contend both (1) that meatpuppetry is acceptable and (2) that pointing-out of meatpuppetry is libel? Because those two contentions are mutually contradictory: if it's acceptable, then how can it be libelous to point it out? I swear, of all of Ivan's comments, I have no idea how you decided that this is the one that bothers you.) —RuakhTALK 17:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted a response to this debate to Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting_eligibility_2#Accusation. The discussion can continue there, if you agree. --Dan Polansky 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My sister, who has been working on the Wiktionaries for most of a year, is not allowed to vote? She (and our friends working with us on Swahili and tribal languages) are "meatpuppets" because I know them personally? Now that is utterly ridiculous! And it is long, long, long past time for Štambuk to be permanently banned for his constant, relentless abuse and personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with him. Robert Ullmann 18:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Amgine/talk 02:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Oppose Elephantus 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) The basic rule for any vote should be that all those who are potentially affected by the outcome should have the right to vote, if at all practicable. A reasonable and strictly tailored limit to ensure that there are no flagrant abuses of the process (no sockpuppets and such) should be in place, but this appears to be going a bit too far, and could have serious consequences down the line. It is all too tempting to declare one's opponents in a discussion unimportant noise-makers and try to exclude them from participating, but in the long run it is much wiser to listen to what people have to say.[reply]
    Every single major Wikimedia project has this kind of limitation because it's the easiest way to prevent massive abuse such as the one that happened at that SC vote. How exactly are the nationalists from Croatian Wikipedia affected by the end result of that vote? All of them combined haven't made 10 edits before the vote started (and interestingly, the moment this very vote initated they displayed sudden burst of activity, until they surpassed the 50-edit threshold). We listened quite carefully what they had to say - and it was pretty much all noise. Even what you said was for the most part either irrelevant or false (the thing on Serbian and Croatian intellectuals "independently" choosing Ijekavian Neoštokavian dialect for their common literary language idiom). In the long run, it's better to have this pretty much harmless threshold (anyone can make 50 edits in an hour), than nothing at all. --Ivan Štambuk 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Opppose Option one would prohibit a significant number of administrators and several beaurocrats as well as users in good standing from voting, just because they had gone on wikibreak. Option two is simply not worth the effort, and I see no reason to be imposing these sort of restrictions now. I thought about it for a while, and no matter which way I put it in my mind, I can't support this. --Neskaya kanetsv? 08:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please me more explicit, why exactly is not "worth the effort"? It deals very efficiently with a specific problem (not completely [which it doesn't aim to] but for the most part - very effectively). --Ivan Štambuk 08:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not worth the effort was perhaps not the best phrasing. However, except in cases where people are being deliberately arseish about the way a vote is handled, we have never had to deal with some sort of problem in voting eligibility before. I find the fact that this comes up right after the Serbo-Croation vote unsettling and am disinclined to support something that only became a problem because of a few users being hotheaded. --Neskaya kanetsv? 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Oppose \Mike 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC) per Ivan's post on the talk: "Everyone who voted for more restrictive option 1 automatically supports less restrictive option 1.". If such rules for counting the votes are not published until after most people have already voted, the whole vote is irredeemably skewed and should be discarded. (I *would* however support some kind of requirements for suffrage, if only the required vote can be set up and counted properly). \Mike 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivan was mistaken. What he describes should have been the case IMO, but wasn't. The vote will be counted according to the rules specified above, which have been there since before the vote started. Please don't let his comment skew your vote. --RuakhTALK 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me Ruakh, where exactly was I mistaken? I gave the proper algorithm for counting at the talkpage. The way Msh210 counted the vote is logically wrong, with those voting for option 1 not voting also for option 2 unless saying so explicitly. The above rules that users can vote for both of the options and the votes are counted independently cannot function unless the the options are completely separate, which they are not neither in their semantic not voting sphere (after the "merger" of the opposing votes). --Ivan Štambuk 01:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You were mistaken when you thought that your talk-page comment was binding. On this page, there is an algorithm given for counting. I don't think it's the best algorithm, but since the counting algorithm determines what a vote actually means, and since people have already cast their votes, it's way too late to change it. Therefore, not only is it the algorithm that msh210 followed, but it is also the algorithm that will be followed when the vote is re-closed. —RuakhTALK 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Oppose Rising Sun 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to listen to the voices of other-language Wiktionaries and newbies, and also, after Ivan Stambuk's take on the vote counting (this isn't a personal thing, IS, it just skewed the whole voting and maybe I'm not intelligent enough to understand your reasoning) I think the vote should already have failed (after these steps: 1) he add to option 2 after the end date, 2) I striked out the vote because it was late, 3) I changed the end date, 4) he reverted that). I'm afraid that we'll need another vote to sort this out with clear wording and voting rules (or just give up?) Again, this is nothing personal against anyone. --Rising Sun 08:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain —Angr 06:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Voting is the worst possible form of decision making. We shouldn't be holding votes on Wiktionary in the first place, let alone be voting about who is allowed to vote. —Angr 06:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision 1 edit

  • No consensus (15 voters for most-desired option out of 25 total is but 60%); retain status quo ante bellum.​—msh210℠ 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the problems with this vote's structure (noted on the talk), I think people who voted only for option 1 should be given a chance to add their vote to option 2. (Or, I guess, we could start "Voting eligibility 3", but this is getting a bit ridiculous.) —RuakhTALK 11:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      And how is not supporting the more restrictive option 1 not automatically supporting option 2? --Ivan Štambuk 11:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it's an approval vote (-ish). It was set up wrong. If you do support option 2, then please vote for it now, because as it stands, you're voting against it. (Note that, according to his comment on this vote's talk-page, Stephen G. Brown genuinely opposes option 2.) —RuakhTALK 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've originally had it set up so that you can vote for either of options, and be opposed to the other option, but according to your and Prince Kassad's suggestion on the talkpage it was set up this way so that you can be only be supportive of both or option 2, and vote against both. --Ivan Štambuk 13:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That's 20 for and 6 against which is 77% for option 2, which is enough for it to pass. --Ivan Štambuk 11:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe, annoyingly, a third vote is necessary, if this one is not cleared up. But we can wait, for the option-1-supporters who might want to change allegiance to option-2-support or oppose. --Rising Sun 14:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no need for that torture once it becomes evident that option 1 has > 75% of support of all of those who voted. --Ivan Štambuk 15:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      People have been doing so. We can debate the legality of this, but I, for one, am okay with it provided every voter is informed of what's going on, the vote is re-posted to WT:V, and the vote end date is changed to at least two weeks after both those actions have been completed.​—msh210℠ 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Why prolong the vote for two more painful weeks, I don't understand? You closed the vote counting the wrong way, and now people are simply being explicit so that we can close it properly. We already now have 18:6 which is 75% for option 2 (discounting all those votes cast after the vote expired, and not counting Stephen which hasn't expressed his opinion on support of option 2 yet). --Ivan Štambuk 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No I haven't. But seeing how this vote evolves, it would eventually fail. In the 2 week-period when this vote already expired it succeeded. --Ivan Štambuk 19:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you please use italics for emphasis instead of boldface? I would appreciate it. --Dan Polansky 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This vote is unluckily setup. During the vote, voters differed in their understanding of what their cast votes meant. A new vote should be started in which only one option is offered for support or opposition. Changing voting policy is too important to result from an unclearly setup vote whose structure and setup were discussed and unclear not only before the beginning of the vote but also after it has ended. --Dan Polansky 05:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This vote was set up perfectly logically valid. What was invalid was the way Msh210 counted it. I gave the proper algorithm for counting at the talkpage. --Ivan Štambuk 18:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      You have given what you consider to be the proper algorithm after the vote has ended, on the talk page of the vote. The counting algorithm would have to be clear from the very beginning. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyway, this dispute here and also those on the talk page of the vote about whether the counting algorithm is disputed reminds of the story about mathematicians who, after arguing for more than an hour about whether a statement was obvious, ultimately settled on the conclusion that it was obvious. --Dan Polansky 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      One more aftethought: the possibilities of support and preference are in fact five-fold:
      1. support both options, prefer option 1
      2. support both options, prefer option 2
      3. support option 1, oppose option 2
      4. support option 2, oppose option 1
      5. oppose both options
      --Dan Polansky 11:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Dan, you are quite correct, there are at least those preferences, and more. The problem is that there are in fact rules for approval voting, and Štambuk got some bad advice. There isn't any way to "fix" this vote. The options must be independent. It doesn't work if one is a "subset" of another, or if one opposes two others. Properly set, the options would be
      1. option 1
      2. option 2
      3. no change (status quo pro ante)
      abstain (null vote)
      Together with a clear instruction to vote for one, two, all three, or abstain. (All 3 adds to the number to reach a majority, abstaining adds to the majority that needs to be reached!)
      The vote was simply set up in too much haste, without sufficient discussion. If there had been sufficient discussion and a consensus reached, as is the requirement before voting to document that consensus, (do read meta:Polls are evil) there wouldn't be any problem with a simple support/oppose vote. (I think from what I've seen, that "Voters must have 50 content-space edits at any time before the vote is started." would pass pretty much overwhelmingly; it wouldn't be enough for some people and more than needed for others, but would easily get supermajority support. Robert Ullmann 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision 2 edit

Vote counts:

support option 1 oppose option 1 total
support option 2 9 12 21
oppose option 2 2 11 13
total 11 23 34
  • Option 1 fails badly, with 32.4% supporting (11–23–1).
  • Option 2 does not achieve consensus, with 61.8% supporting (21–13–1).
    If it makes you feel better, Ivan, even if we had counted Stephen and Anatoli as supporting supporting option 2, it wouldn't have achieved consensus; 23–11–1 is 67.6%, and we generally require 70–75%.

—RuakhTALK 21:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting_eligibility_2&oldid=75498822"