Wiktionary:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy

Voting policy

Voting on: Replacing the current voting policy (atop [[Wiktionary:Votes]],

  • 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 the following text:

  • For a Wiktionary user to be eligible for voting, the following requirements must be satisfied:
    1. Their account's first edit to English Wiktionary (made locally rather than transwikied from another project) must predate the start time of the vote by at least 1 week.
    2. Their account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote.
    3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

and enforcing the latter.

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 24:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


  1.   Support Razorflame 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I think that this is a great change to policy that would help our cause greatly.
  2.   Support Ƿidsiþ 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Support Bequw τ 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  4.   Support Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC). MUCH better. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  5.   Support Ultimateria 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  6.   Support I think this could still bear some tweaking, but is, in any case, a distinct improvement to existing policy. Props to Bogorm. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  7.   SupportInternoob (DiscCont) 03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Singular "their" FTW.
    Oops, that's my illeducation showing through again. (It used to be "the account" which sounded too impersonal, and what harm can two extra letters cause anyway :p). Conrad.Irwin 14:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  8.   Support --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  9.   Support.​—msh210 15:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  10.   Support —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks Bogorm!
  11.   Support Ivan Štambuk 05:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  12.   Support Thryduulf 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  13.   Support --Dan Polansky 07:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  14.   Support I'm supporting this to counteract RU's vote. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    This cruel, evil, malicious jest brought to you by Richard.
  15.   Support ---> Tooironic 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  16.   Support --Makaokalani 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  17.   Support Very reasonable. – Krun 19:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  18.   Support. I was pretty torn about this, but you know, if we're voting about something related to our treatment of Spanish, then most of us will be happy to listen to the opinions of es.wikt editors. If a bunch of es.wikt editors all come in to comment one way, and we all still vote a different way, that means that something funky has happened — either some sort of canvassing for votes (or even outright meatpuppetry), or some sort of major difference between the projects' philosophies, or something. And in any sort of situation like that, enfranchising the es.wikt editors seems like exactly the wrong solution for us. So while I don't particularly like disenfranchising them, I don't dislike it enough to make me not vote "support" on the proposal as a whole. —RuakhTALK 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  19.   Support as proposer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  20.   Support. --Anatoli 07:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      Support   AugPi 13:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC) (1) Allowing anons to vote? I don't think so! In order to vote one should first demonstrate "citizenship." (2) a 50 edit threshold seems reasonable: after all, bogus accounts are created every day. (3) There was a local vote in en.wikt to decide on whether to accept the proposed new logo, as well as local votes in other wikts. It wouldn't make sense for a user of one wikt to meddle with the local vote of another wikt, unless (s)he is already also a contributing member of the other wikt. Votes about en.wikt open to all wikts should occur in meta. (4) Having said that, and assuming that this vote passes, in the future a new vote could be set up which proposes a fourth clause which would allow users with global accounts to vote in this wikt, as long as, say, the first three clauses are satisfied in their home wikt.   AugPi 13:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  21.   Support but only in Vahag's version -- Prince Kassad 23:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  22.   Support Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 09:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  23.   Support JamesjiaoTC 11:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Those from other wikts are most welcome to voice their thoughts and opinion on the discussion page. Voting should be limited to local administrators and established editors only. Allowing voting from other wikis is like allowing French MP's to vote in the British Parliament. I especially like the second criterion, which sifts out newbies who have not yet established themselves on this wikt and thus haven't got the understanding necessary to assert themselves on certain votes. Besides, fifty is simply an arbitrary number. It can always be dialed up or down later on.
  24.   Support I see this as a useful step forward in the right direction. I must admit that after reading everything, I am at a loss to understand the opposer's reasonings. This proposed wording seems to keep the voting "in house" where it should be, while allowing outside opinion to be stated, but the outsider not enfranchised simply because of having an opinion. -- ALGRIF talk 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  25.   Support if requirement 1 is changed to "Their His or her account’s first edit to the English Wiktionary (made locally rather than transwikied from another project) must predate the start time of the vote by at least 1 week." and requirement 2 is changed to "Their His or her account must have at least 50 edits in total to the main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance namespaces on English Wiktionary by the start time of the vote."  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hmmm.....I don't know if you get to make demands like that. "Their" is perfectly valid English. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's not a demand, it's an "if". With 26 other votes in support, it's not as if that makes a difference, anyway. We both know that singular "they" is and has been a contested bit of English for centuries. Generic "he" or "she" also lack consensus. However, "he or she", whilst an undesirable locution if it occurs frequently, has no detractors in the way I suggested that it be used.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Apparently, I have to clarify that my vote isn't conditional. Of course I don't oppose a substantive regulation merely because of what I regard as a grammatical error. FWIW, if I'd really meant this to be conditional, I'd've used (deprecated template usage) iff.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  26.   Support Equinox 18:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  27.   Support Nadando 19:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  28.   Support DAVilla 08:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  29.   Support. --Thrissel 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  30.   Support —Stephen 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I usually don’t bother to vote because the Yugoslavian outsiders always make my vote meaningless on important issues. I decided to make an exception this time on the off chance that this could finally reduce their strangle hold on us if it should pass (which is extremely unlikely, given their numbers).
    Although, it's pretty clear where the support of the majority of the actual community is. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  31.   Support Cdhaptomos talkcontribs 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I don't see why people are opposing this. It's a perfectly reasonable addition, the 50 contribs. thing, and nothing else has changed.
  32.   Support Caladon 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  33.   Support --Diuturno 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) English Wiktionary represents a guiding light for all the wiktionaries, and I think it's very important for every lang.wikt user to share his opinions here. Share opinions is slightly different to vote a policy, because for the latter it's important to know what really is en.wikt. If one is interested in en.wikt it's almost sure that it has 50 edits here; it's a loose constraint that can make no harm to anyone --Diuturno 18:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  34.   Support Panda10 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  35.   Support --FriedrickMILBarbarossa 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  36.   Support Yes...because to put it bluntly the last thing we need is another vote getting gangraped by trolls, blind nationalists and sockpuppets. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  37.   Strong support. Anyone wishing to vote on this project should be expected to have at least contributed enough to evince a sense of how things work here. bd2412 T 20:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  38.   Support Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  39.   Support Maro 20:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  40.   Support --Dijan 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  41.   SupportSaltmarshαπάντηση 04:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      Support Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC). 50 edits is nothing. We should have some kind of restriction. I value established users' opinions greatly over noobs'. Of course, meat- and sock-puppetry still may occur, but at a lesser rate. --Rising Sun talk?contributions 09:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    This vote is bullshit. There's no way that 90 people give a damn about en.wiktionary --Rising Sun talk? contributions 00:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Please, Rising Sun, do not back out. 80% of the people from the section below are those who do not give a damn about en.wiktionary and revoking a support vote looks like surrendering to them, like justifying (or at least not countering) their malignant intentions. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  42.   Support --Barmar 11:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  43.   Support --Jonathan Webley 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  44.   Support --Јованвб 15:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) (note: May be a sockpuppet, no previous edits)
  45.   Support SemperBlotto 15:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  46.   Support Karelklic 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  47.   Support --Carl Daniels 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  48.   Support - SPQRobin 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  49.   Support. We should not be using voting to decide policy, but since the behavior appears to be ineradicable, there should at least be some coherent eligibility criteria. -- Visviva 17:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  50.   Support. I haven't changed my mind since last time. I'd welcome, though, a discussion about when we vote and for what reasons. I wish we had a consensus, at last, about this issue. Counting votes is definitely not the best way to solve problems. But in some cases it seems it is the only one available. So, let us have at least some clear rules. --flyax 18:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  51.   SupportTohru 21:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  52.   Support Jusjih 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC) This is a good way to improve the eligibility to vote.
  53.   Support PierreAbbat 01:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  54.   Support Connel MacKenzie 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) This seems like a reasonable way to force other Wiktionaries to have more autonomy, albeit backhandedly.
  55.   Support  Doesn't hurt, I guess. Michael Z. 2010-05-24 13:05 z
      Support per two points made by Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs) in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2010-04/Voting_policy#Argument:_Getting_opinion_or_input : (1) (quote:) << I gladly give my opinion when I think it might be helpful on the Korean Wiktionary, the Russian Wiktionary, Russian Wikipedia, Chuvash Wikipedia, Khmer Wiktionary, Khmer Wikipedia, and other wikis where I contribute a little...but since I am not really active on any but three wikis, I realize that I don’t have a profound knowledge of their problems and plans, and I would consider it unethical to vote. I have contributed a little here and there over the years, and I have shared my opinions when I could, but I never have voted in those wikis and I would never vote unless I became more active and therefore more familiar with their issues. >> (2) (quote:) <<The French, Dutch, Croatian, and all the other wiktionaries and wikipedias have requirements that one must meet to get voting eligibility, and the main reasons for the requirements are to avoid the nonsense that comes from a lack of understanding of the issues, and especially to avoid meat puppets. Everybody has these restrictions but us. The SC bunch, and the Dutch and French who voted against us having any requirements whatsoever all have and enjoy much more stringent requirements on their home wikis. It is hypocritical and unethical for them to force their will on those of us who are actually developing and building this wiki. They are welcome to give an opinion and to participate in discussions, but they should not vote unless they are active enough here to understand the issues and to care about our plans>>   AugPi 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  56.   Support Seems reasonable to have a defined standard and these criteria for suffrage seem simple enough. RJFJR 16:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  57.   Support Daniel. 22:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


  1.   Oppose Robert Ullmann 07:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) The original version(s) of this vote, requiring 50 edits in NS:0 on any wiktionary might have been acceptable. This clearly is not. (It looks like a rather blatant attempt to manipulate the voting policy to ram through one particular odious proposal). Robert Ullmann 07:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • To ram it through....by voting for it? Ƿidsiþ 07:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not sure which odious proposal you have in mind, RU, but I was the one who changed the text of this proposal from allowing any wikt's editors to allowing only ours, and I assure you that I had no particular other proposal in mind when I did so. I just thought it a reasonable criterion for voters. I suggested the change at the talkpage before I made it, and mentioned it there when I made it. Nearly three days passed between those two points in time, with no objection on the talkpage.​—msh210 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose - Amgine/talk 13:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Oppose Neskaya contribstalk? 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I tend to agree with Ullmann here. --Neskaya contribstalk? 21:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  4.   Oppose Kubura 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Pepsi Lite 12:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose Too much of a barrier to outside views, without other means of getting user views. OTOH, if en.wikt is to be just for us, then this reflects that PoV. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    50 edits is too much of a "barrier" for you? Don't be silly. --Ivan Štambuk 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    Well, some might argue that requiring even one logged-in edit is a barrier, given that there are many more users than active registered editors. (At least, one would hope so. I've put way too much effort into this project to be satisfied with the idea that we're the only ones using it!) Unfortunately, we don't have a good way to restrict voting so that only our actual users can vote. —RuakhTALK 22:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    For information, I already met somebody not active at all but familiar with my name nonetheless, as a user interested in internal proceedings. It seems to be a good indication that many more users are interested in discussions and recent changes than we might have guessed. Lmaltier 05:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose --Vhorvat 03:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose Rose Waswa 13:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose --Roberta F. 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  10.   Oppose--Sokac121 10:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    I guess this means I should have left you indef-blocked. ;-)   —RuakhTALK 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Am I only one who thinks you should be blocked for writing such abusive comments? :-) SpeedyGonsales 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yes... you are. Because you clearly don't know who you're talking to :) And if you think that was abusive... you must have a really low tolerance for pain.
    User:SpeedyGonsales hasn't made an edit until now since October 15, 2009.[ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    @SpeedyGonsales: Sorry, I was too terse. I imagine that Sokac121 understood what I meant, but to clarify for everyone else's benefit: he was indef-blocked for POV pushing. At the time, it seemed premature — he'd made only a single edit, it seemed to me that you couldn't adjudge POV pushing that quickly. But I think this vote of his demonstrates that he is indeed part of the Serbo-Croatian cabal, and that he really was POV pushing. I hate to admit it, but Opiaterein seems to have been right. I don't think it's "abusive" of me to point that out. —RuakhTALK 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Funny, I thought he was part of the Supreme Cabal of Wiktionary Users Who are Out to Get You. Maybe the SCC is a sub-conspiracy. :) --Yair rand 22:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    I'm a bit like Kevorkian. Some said "right message, wrong messenger". I may be a dick, but I tend to have good points :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Why I should have been left indef-blocked? Because of my first and only edit (that was constructive!)? That's explicitly opposite to 5 pillars of Wikipedia. Opiaterein's action was against the wiki-spirit. It was unfair.--Sokac121 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    Because it now appears that you are here to push your own point of view. (Even Wikipedia doesn't allow that; see w:Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#POV pushing.) —RuakhTALK 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  11.   Oppose SpeedyGonsales 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  12.   Oppose, though I know full well everyone here will think my views are completely ridiculous. I think that any differentiation between the "regulars" and everyone else is a problem, and that ever mentioning edit count, counting people who are helpful as more important than anyone else, or anything along these lines is dangerous. (I'd even support abolishing the "Administrator" title if there were any way at all for the project to get along without it.) Maybe I'm just a little extreme when it comes to keeping things wiki-ish. --Yair rand 22:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    FWIW, I don't think that view is ridiculous at all. The important distinction is not that between contributors and non-contributors, but that between users and non-users (or at least, between potential users and not-even-potential-users). Or, perhaps, it is that between people who care about the project for good reasons (they want it to succeed) and those who either care about it for bad reasons (they want to use it as a platform to spread their views) or don't actually care about it at all. The question is, what is the best implementable approximation to those distinctions? I hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone's views to infer that you and DCDuring think the best implementable approximation is to let anyone vote who wants to (presumably in the hope that someone who doesn't use or care about the project would never want to bother voting, anyway), whereas most of the "support" votes think that an approximation based on edit-counts is a better one. —RuakhTALK 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    I don't think there should be any distinction between users and non-users. So long as they have a working mind and can think, that's good enough for me. --Yair rand 23:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    Fair enough. To me, a working mind and an ability to think are simply not enough — someone with no knowledge of the problem domain cannot provide an informed opinion, even if they can provide an intelligent one; and someone with no investment in the result of a vote is liable to be swayed by an "idealistic" bias (preferring ideal solutions to practicable ones) — but I accept that you feel differently. It's good to have some idealists on-wiki, even if I don't always agree with y'all. :-)   —RuakhTALK 00:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    I've picked on this thread in Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy#To Yair rand. --Dan Polansky 11:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  13.   Oppose, per Ullmann. -- Bugoslav 23:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    This user is a known sockpuppet. Make of this what you will. —Internoob (DiscCont) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    The user has received an answer on his talk page. -- Bugoslav 18:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    Now here. —Internoob (DiscCont) 04:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  14.   Oppose--Dtom 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
    This user's only edits are to this page and Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian. Hmm. —Internoob (DiscCont) 03:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    Most of the users who voted support are at least semi-regularly editors. Perhaps not the most prolific, but I recognize almost all of them. However only about 4 of the users who have voted oppose actually do anything around here. Most of them I've only seen before at the Unified SC vote. I think it's pretty clear which side more of our contributors support. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  15.  --Saxum 12:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    Special:Contributions/Saxum - This user has three edits. Such clear meatpuppety canvassing it hurts. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps one should consider a different approach, a new vote such as: users who vote on more votes than is the number of their main space edits are to be blocked from editing. Do you think this could achieve formal consensus? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    No...I'm sure Ullmann would get his meatpuppets to cockblock that, aswell. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    Also a known sockpuppet. Hmmmm.... curious. —Internoob (DiscCont) 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  16.   Oppose The idea is good, but I think 50 edits is too much. We should not discard people's opinions just because they haven't made as many edits. It reeks of aristocracy. —CodeCat 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    We are not discarding their opinions but their votes. If their opinions are rational, they will undoubtedly be taken into account by the majority actually eligible for voting. If they are not rational - they'll much more likely to be ignored, and nothing is lost. Comparison with aristocracy is very bad - voting right is something earned by relatively painless effort of making 50 edits (can be done under an hour), and not something immutable, inherited along bloodlines. The purpose of this regulation would be to disable vote obstruction by canvassed individuals who have really no interest into this project, and are pursuing some irrelevant ideological principle - in fact, you can see that happening on this very vote. --Ivan Štambuk 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  17.   Oppose: I think that these criteria are reasonable when real votes are justified, i.e. when it's a question of taste or personal feeling (e.g. logo, elections...). But in many votes, the important thing is to discuss and to get a consensus, and the more new arguments are expressed (wherever they come from), the better. I'm afraid that these criteria would tend to reduce the number of new arguments from other projects. Lmaltier 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    If they don't feel strongly enough to opine without voting, then maybe they don't really feel that strongly at all. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    What I mean is that some people with good new arguments would feel that they are not allowed to interfere, that some would feel they are not welcome, and that their arguments are considered as of no interest. They might have a strong feeling or not, this is irrelevant, what is important is not their feelings, it's the input they might provide, and to get as many relevant arguments as possible. This is why I would exclude some votes from the proposal, those where arguments and getting a consensus are the main objective. Lmaltier 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Then what we do is we encourage discussion and input by "outsiders" on a vote's talk page. This vote is not limiting anyone's opportunity to share their opinion, you just seem to be assuming that they'll think that if they can't vote we think their opinion is unimportant. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  18.   Oppose-- I agree with Lmaltier. Jcwf 20:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  19.   Oppose --frk@ 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    This is another user with only one other edit. 2 guesses where it was :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    He even does not seem to realise that he is no more on Croatian Wikipedia ^_^ Look at the links of his signature. They will lead you to Suradnik:frka and Razgovor sa suradnikom:frka. I suggest launching a Suradnik and Razgovor sa suradnikom namespace so that our already permanent voting contributors with inextirpable regularity on voting pages can feel comfortable, whenever they deign to catch a glimpse at the brand-new votes on English wiktionary deserving their attention. What do you think? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  20.   GerardM 12:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  21.   Oppose Goldenrowley 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I agree to the idea, but think 50 is set too high. I'd approve 25. I just remember how slow it was for me to make even one edit as a newbie, with an Explorer browser, before I knew enough to use Mozilla Firefox instead.Goldenrowley 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Things have changed since then; we now have assisted translation-adding, which allows one to add a translation within a matter of seconds without the need for him to be proficient in any technical formatting.   — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  22.   Oppose--Bracodbk 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC) - appears to be a sockpuppet (no previous edits)
    Do not point finger. There are CU to check my account.--Bracodbk 12:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  23.   Oppose --Ooswesthoesbes 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC) - possible sockpuppet (this entry seconds after previous)
    The latter blatant attempt at vote rigging was added by SemperBlotto. The fact that somebody has a different opinion does not automatically mean he/she must be a fraud. This whole voting procedure is downright dishonest Jcwf 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Do your homework. Semper also pointed out a possible sockpuppet in the support section, so he has no agenda here. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    May I please note I've done over 35.000 edits at li.wikt and six hundred or so here?? --Ooswesthoesbes 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, Wiktionary has an annoying history of wrongly accusing one person of being another. Equinox 18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    I'll have my proofs one day, “Paul”. Give me time :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  24.   Oppose --Wikibelgiaan 18:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) - I agree with Lmaltier and Jcwf. It is still possible to make interesting contributions if you haven't been working on the English-language project.
  25.   Oppose -- Cadfaell 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  26.   Strongly opposed Annabel 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) We now have unified logins for this kind of things.
  27.   Oppose --Zeljko 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Yet another with only one other edit... one guess where. (Not counting creation of their own userpage.) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)^
  28.   Oppose --Fraxinus 21:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    I think a trained chimp could spot the crooked voting going on here. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Indeed... I'm striking the vote because the account was just made. Even by our current rules, this 'account' isn't eligible for voting. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    @Mglovesfun: Please, read the following sentence "No voting policies are in effect at this time.", so there are no rules, and tentative guidelines are not official policy. The user had every right of voting. -- Bugoslav 23:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    "Tentative guidelines for voters: 1. Account must predate start of vote by one week." With all the manipulation going on I'm not going to allow any account that does not meet this standard - regardless of which side they're voting on - to vote. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    Quite right. We've enforced that in the past.​—msh210 15:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      Oppose per Jcwf in De Kroeg, e.g. "Om iets over onze eigen taal te mogen zeggen moeten we dus al daar actief zijn want onze edits hier gelden niet." ; "Op het Engelse net is er besloten dat alles maar Servo-Kroatisch moet heten en nu mogen Kroaten die het Engelse net mijden en zich voornamelijk op hun eigen stek verdienstelijk maken niet meer meestemmen. De Engelse wiki in de rol van Milosevic? Een griezelige zaak." ; English Wikipedia lists "Croatian" as the language of Croatia, not "Serbo-Croatian". WT:ASH is forcing consolidation of Serbian and Croatian languages into Serbo-Croatian, when the last vote for that yielded no consensus. Go to www.google.com, click on "Advanced Search", click on "any language" list, and voila! There's "Croatian". Look further down and there is "Serbian". There is no "Serbo-Croatian" in that listbox. On a Mac computer: click on "System Preferences," click on "Language & Text," click on "Input Sources" tab: there's a listbox... scroll down that listbox and you find "Croatian" and right under it "Croatian - PC," scroll down further to find "Serbian" and under it "Serbian - Latin." No "Serbo-Croatian" anywhere to be found, and that old communist cobbled-up language was de facto separated into Eastern and Western variants, which are now called Serbian and Croatian, respectively.   AugPi 05:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Er, interesting, I guess, but ... what does this have to do with voting policy? Further, what does this vote have to do with nlwikt? What in the world is going on? --Yair rand (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Look at the the last section of the vote’s talk page, but to put it in nuce - meatpuppeting on two projects (hr.wiki and nl.wikt) is going on. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  29.   Oppose In language specific cases, the opinion of native speakers could be very valuable, and I really believe it shouldn't matter whether these native speakers are primarily active at en.wiktionary or at XX.wiktionary. When discussing or voting, it should be about facts and arguments, not about the number of edits of a person. Especially when knowlegde of a certain language is required to make a judgement, it is important that people from that particular XX.wiktionary should be able to express their opinion and to vote. It is sad to see that because of one issue with Serbo-Croatian (about which I have no opinion, because I don't know the facts to be able to make a judgement), people at en.wiktionary seem to completely distrust people from other wiktionaries. This is the wrong way. :-( Curious 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    You may want to read Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2010-04/Voting_policy#Argument: Getting opinion or input. --Dan Polansky 10:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  30.   Oppose --Croq 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC) - no other edits (apart from Serbo-Croat vote)
  31.   Oppose--MAN_USK recider 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC) (no other edits Mglovesfun (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
    This kind of labeling is not ok. We all have the right to vote, voting is not related to edit counts. Also this method of labeling has been used only for the opposition, but not for the position. -- Bugoslav 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    I wouldn't expect many edits from someone who only created an en-wikt account less than an hour ago. --Thrissel 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    We have non-contributors voting. I wonder how many of them can even read or write in English, or are they just typing {{subst:opposed}} then logging off, probably forever. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  32.   Oppose   AugPi 22:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  33.   Oppose I have to agree with some opinions above. Herr Kriss 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  34.   Oppose I share Lmaltier's and Annabel's points of view. Żbiczek 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


  1.   Abstain Conrad.Irwin 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I don't like the drastic change to #2, but I didn't notice it until too late. Conrad.Irwin 22:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    Funny, that's the bit I liked most. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    Same. My reasoning is that I don't like that idea that someone from es.wikt can come and say we have to do things a certain way, and then go back and have the outcome never affect them. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
    If a vote were to concern the treatment of Spanish, it would be very important to include the contributors to the es.wikt in the voting. Robert Ullmann 11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    Native speakers of Spanish are not the same thing as contributors to es.wikt. I'm all for hearing the opinions of es.wikt editors, but without such rules, it makes it too easy for you to meatpuppet. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    Your logic reminds of how certain Croatian party has been stealing elections for almost two decades. The trick: 30% of votes coming from diaspora, which of course do not pay criminally high taxes (nor have the benefits of making ends meet in this soon-to-bankrupt banana state), but are nevertheless eligible for voting, which always turns out in absolute majority in favor of the same particular party. --Ivan Štambuk 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    Thank you for illustrating the point. The results are not what you like or want, so your solution is to dis-enfranchise those that disagree with you. (Not that you are alone in this tactic; the Republican Party in the US knows they can't win elections with universal suffrage, and therefore spends enormous time and effort in dis-enfranchising minorities. It is a well established method of electoral manipulation.) Robert Ullmann 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    Not a good analogy at all. In the US only citizens are allowed to vote. Analogous here, es.wikt users are not en.wikt "citizens". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    No, my solution is not to disenfranchise those that disagree with me, but only those that could influence the vote outcome whose result couldn't even in theory influence them, because they don't contribute to this project, and don't have a stake in editing or using it. If they have reasonable arguments why a particular vote should fail - regardless of being ineligible to vote - I'm sure that their arguments would be recognized as prudential and relevant as they could be by th general Wiktionary community. On the other hands, if their arguments are not recognized as such, and are generally perceived as detrimental or immaterial to this project's goal, then they shouldn't be allowed to influence the vote outcome, since in all likelihood their opinions are detrimental or immaterial.
    Parallels with the Republican party are preposterous. Fortunately, we're not as gridlocked into immoral democratic method of the "tyranny of the majority" as modern-day political systems of representative democracy, since we require general, overwhelming consensus, and situations such as 51% of congress outvoting 49% passing an extremely controversial bill costing trillions of dollars cannot happen. This vote doesn't really have parallels in real-world politics: rough approximation would be a system where the only people who'd be eligible to vote are active workers, those not employed by the government, and those in retirement or unemployed whose net account with respect to sucking the state teat is still positive.
    The whole point is: one should be creating something first if he wants his voice to be heard and taken into account. 50 edits is not some hard-to-get threshold, and could be easily achieved in at most a few hours. Once should think of it as an intiation into "permanent citizenship". It could also serve as an activitiy-booster. --Ivan Štambuk 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    Conrad: if you don't like it, vote oppose and we can set a new vote properly. You can make it clear that you agree in principle to a new policy (as I do), but it has to be better. (same comment for EP ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    I did think before abstaining. Conrad.Irwin 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  2.   Abstain EncycloPetey 23:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I don't oppose any of the new requirements, but like Conrad I feel there ought to be some provision for allowing editors on other Wiktionary projects to voice an opinion. Our local decisions sometimes do affect the other Wiktionaries. --EncycloPetey 23:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
    Anyone should be allowed to voice an opinion and make his points, even an anonymous editor. But not everyone should be allowed to vote, IMHO anyway. --Dan Polansky 20:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    Everyone IS allowed to voice an opinion. Nobody has ever been stopped from giving his opinion. The notion that this would stop anyone from giving an opinion is ridiculous. —Stephen 23:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      Abstain materinski is Croatian whereas maternjem is Bosnian/Serbian. Those two words don't sound too much like they are the same language. The Advanced Search feature of the Google search engine has separate Croatian and Serbian options, no Serbo-Croatian, so maybe the outsiders have something to tell us...   AugPi 05:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    materinski is Slovenian? http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materinski_dan ( =Maternal day ?) ... Croatian? http://www.eudict.com/?lang=croeng&word=materinski ... though it sounds like the Russian word материнский... Isn't the Croatian word majčin? http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majčin_dan ... No, "majčin" = "mother's", "majčinski" = "maternal".
    "majčinski" = "materinski"?
    What does that make of maternjem?   AugPi 05:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    materinski, majčinski, and maternji are all used for “maternal” in the context of a maternal language. Maternjem is the dative or locative of maternji. Materinski seems to be the most common in Croatia, although maternji is also used. Maternji is much more common in Serbia (in this particular context). All three are used, to varying degrees, in the whole Serbo-Croatian area. There are many different ways to phrase the text in the Babel boxes, and many versions exist; they are not standardized. Look, e.g., at w:Template:User sr-4 and our Template:User hr-4, which both have the same text, then at w:Template:User sh-4, which has a different text, then at w:Template:User hr-4, which has a totally different text, and then at our Template:User sr-4, which has yet another version. This does not, however, make any of it less valid in other standard varieties (as you can see, the main difference is not along a hr vs sr line, but simply in user preference as to phrasing). – Krun 11:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hey wait a minute? What's it got to do with this vote anyway? This is the voting page on voting policy, not on treatment of Serbo-Croatian. – Krun 11:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Don't assume that the text of the vote is what we're voting on :p, about 80% of the opposers are involved in that issue, presumably under the impression that this vote is merely to stop results like that of the the SC one from happening again. Conrad.Irwin 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    I wonder if they realize that if we were to have that vote again, a few of them would be eligible to vote. Or they could just make 50 edits right now and be done with it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Why waste half an hour making 50 edits when you can simply waste 1 minute voting "no" ? If you allow people to behave irresponsibly and immorally, that is exactly what they will do so. If you allow them to act like that on the back of other people's hard work, they will do it with a smile on their face. --Ivan Štambuk 18:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    All correct, except that (deprecated template usage) maternji is IMHO simply a synocpated version of (deprecated template usage) materinji (post-accented /i/ and /u/ are often dropped or turned to schwa in colloquial speech). Google's "page search" proves nothing. Google detects "language" of a page based on several factor: domain, script used, and HTML metadata. In fact, in case of B/C/S, it regularly yields results from all three (.ba, .rs, .hr) domains in search results, even if you use customized (google.hr, google.rs, google.ba) search, and are geographically located in those countries. I just searched for the word politika "politics" on google.hr, and on the first page of 10 results 4 are non-Croatian (2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th). Incidentally, there is also Serbo-Croatian Google search page ^_^. Google translate is an interesting example: it uses the same translation matrix for bot S and C, and S is simply Croatian version printed in Cyrillic script, with certian Croatian-only words substituted with their usual Serbian counterparts. --Ivan Štambuk 18:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  3.   Abstain [The]DaveRoss 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) This vote doesn't know what it is doing, hence all the in-vote discussion. Voting pages should have zero discussion because all of the discussion should be done before a vote takes place. This vote in particular is a great example of how we shouldn't use voting on Wiktionary; we should only use a vote to either quantify the results of a discussion or to approve/deny something which didn't have a clear consensus in discussion. If I have to vote for something on this page it is that we stop this vote now (a moot point since this is clearly a no decision currently) and form a more coherent idea of what we want our voting policy to accomplish before we vote on major changes to it. Is the purpose of our voting policy to allow users with a vested contributory interest in en.wiktionary to express the direction they want the project to take? Is it to restrict certain types of vote manipulation? Is it merely to let people know that anyone who wants to can vote? I don't think we all have a good idea of what we want in big picture terms so we will always squabble over the minute stuff. - [The]DaveRoss 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    all of the discussion should be done before a vote takes place: This vote started on 25 April and this is how the discussion page looked on 24 April 2010. This means that there were 12 k of discussion before the start of the vote, which I find more than sufficient. Judging from the discussion the vote had achieved complete consensus by the time of its launch except for whether to allow regulars from other Wiktionaries to vote. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Claim: <<Voting pages should have zero discussion because all of the discussion should be done before a vote takes place.>>
    Refutation: <<Voting procedure: 3. Debate is welcome on these pages.>>   AugPi 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    In fact, if Abstain votes didn't include the voicing of some kind of opinion, they would be pointless, because numerically they don't count.   AugPi 23:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    The issue about participants from other language versions is a minor one, since it can easily be resolved with a second vote amending the already accepted (provided that it is accepted by then). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    12k which was between five or six people, but that is not the point. The point is that we are going about this the wrong way, voting on Wiktionary is not being used sensibly or in a way which promotes overall health of the project. We use votes most often to force other people into doing things the way we want them done. Other than voting to express confidence in changing user status Wiktionary votes should be vanishingly rare. We should have active, vibrant discussion which allow people to convey their opinions and then allow the community to take from those opinions a course of action which best suits the project. Votes right now are counterproductive and consist mostly of random bickering. Read this page with some objectivity and then tell me that the vote taking place is helping to accomplish the goals of Wiktionary. - [The]DaveRoss 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    Ok, then may I ask what is to be done? It seems to me like there was plenty of discussion beforehand, and any reasonable person would interpret the overall discussion to mean that the community is in favor of the policy this vote is proposing. We can't force anyone to enter into a conversation, and yet when an issue is raised, very few do. Yet, when a vote is started, everyone and their mom comes out decrying the issue. Can you offer an alternative route that Bogorm could have followed? Just to be clear, in principle I agree with you, that a vote should not be the place for discussion, but rather a documentation of an already resolved discussion. However, it seems to me like that lofty ideal is impossible to generate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    That is a very big question, but I think the nature of this project and other similar projects, as well as the nature of community in general show that democratization is not the best practice for decision making. I know absolutely nothing about whatever this Croatian language issue is, I don't know about the root problems and I don't know what the nature of the conflict within the community is. Does it make any sense for me to cast a vote on the matter? I don't have time nor do I have desire to educate myself about it, and even if I did we are working with all words in all languages, and each of those words and languages has an indeterminate number of nuances and divisive aspects which means that even if I had the desire I could not become familiar enough with all of them to cast a meaningful vote for each one. What we need to do is trust one another to have the best interest of the project in mind when we make a decision. If Bogorm and Opiaterein have a good idea about how some particular subject should be treated and I am ignorant about it, I will thank them for taking care of it so I can get something else done. This is the route I see one of our most prolific editors taking time and time again, and we can all learn a lot from Mr. Blotto. There will of course be many issues which lend themselves to conflicting opinions on treatment, and the thing to do there is to start a conversation between interested parties to find out who thinks what and why, and then resolve the issue within that discussion. Will that work every time? No. Do we do it pretty often? Yes. Should we do it more often? Yes. There are so few decisions about the project which lend themselves to a blanket community vote that we do ourselves and the project a disservice by having one. It creates and promotes factions and cliques, and there is no set of criteria for voters which will prevent that or cause only people with knowledge and interest to participate. We are attempting a whole new thing here. In the past scholarly works were all created by either very small groups, or groups with a rigid hierarchy which made decision making very straightforward. I am not sure I am right about how things should be done here, but reading through what people are saying to one another on the wiki these days tells me that something is going wrong and something needs to be done to set it right again. For the things which do require a vote, I would prefer if voting pages had simple support/oppose/abstain statements, without qualification if possible. Any discussion taking place on the voting page will be counterproductive as those who have voted have already made up their minds. - [The]DaveRoss 00:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hmmm....that seems a sensible approach. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    Re "Voting pages should have zero discussion because all of the discussion should be done before a vote takes place." I do not agree with this. It is impractical for all the discussion to take place before the vote. There is nothing wrong per se with having some discussion during the vote. Many people take a serious note of a discussed subject only after someone creates a vote. There are cases in which people have changed their votes as a consequence of points raised in the discussion during the vote. Also, the discussion that takes place in the vote can influence the undecided voters who come to vote at a later time. --Dan Polansky 11:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  4.   Abstain \Mike 07:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) First, I don't get what this vote has to do with any language of the Balkans. Secondly, I have a feeling that some people slightly might overestimate the influence of the English wiktionary. Whoever, from xy.wiktionary, finds that the way English wiktionary decides doesn't work over at xy, will simply disregard the vote here and do whatever they feel is better. That said, I don't understand what prevents non-eligible to add their comments here - or how we make it clear that we do welcome input even if we (maybe) don't explicitly count the votes. That said, I'm not up-to-date enough with policies and habits surrounding voting to have much of an opinion about the actual proposal. \Mike 07:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    The vote is not about prohibiting comments from any user. It is destined to fend off organised disruption of the voting process, as you can see on this vote page - 10 out of 19 opposers were summoned from minor wikipediae here and 9 out of those 10 have not provided any input apart from the {{subst:oppose}} text (the input of the 10th is per Ullmann). In fact, adopting the proposal of this vote would encourage contributors to provide reasonable comments which could really influence the outcome of the vote, the more sensible they are, and to eradicate the practice of cluttering voting pages with tacit, but well organised votes from outsiders. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  5.   Abstain Tend to agree to Dave Ross and Conrad Irwin. Mutante 08:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  6.   Abstain I haven't been too active here the past few months, so unless I felt strongly one way or another about a proposal, I wouldn't vote. I do expect that if this passes, the end result of this will be that a number of anti-Serbo-Croatian unifcationsts will quickly act to make certain they have the requisite 50 edits. If what I expect happens does happen, I do hope Wiktionary doesn't endure an effort to make the voting requirements tougher to meet in an effort to stack the deck once more. While these voting requirements aren't exactly what I'd prefer, my preference would in the nature of some minor tweaks, and absent the obvious reason they are being pushed for, not odious. — Carolina wren discussió 22:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      Abstain The "Input Sources" list also includes "Belgian", "Austrian", "British", "Brazilian", "Swiss French", "Swiss German", etc.   AugPi 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  7.   Abstain H. (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Per TheDaveRoss.


  • Passes. —Stephen 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    The result of 57–34–7 (S–O–A), expressed in percentages, is 58%–35%–7%. Ignoring abstentions, the vote is split 63%–37% (S–O). Those are the statistics, in case anyone's interested.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)