Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-12/User:JackBot

< Wiktionary:Votes

User:JackBot for bot status edit

The gibberish of some categories forced me to propose the previous BP debates, which must be concluded by a vote here (or for another bot).

I could already planned around 1,000 needed modifications. JackPotte 11:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vote ends: 23:59 13 December 2009 (UTC) 20 December 2009
  • Vote started: 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Support edit

  1.   Support Yair rand 17:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Late voting, though I don't think anyone will mind. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support cautiously. Jack needs to make sure he follows the rules at WT:BOT and act on a community consensus, not his own wishes. But I don't wanna condemn him before he even starts, ergo support. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support: I didn't know that we could vote as a proposer. JackPotte 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose edit

  1.   Oppose I don't want Category:English compound words renamed to Category:English compound terms. —RuakhTALK 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this statement, this vote only concerns the User:JackBot/Requests entries. JackPotte 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose allowing a bot to perform a task not even agreed upon by the community!​—msh210℠ 23:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain edit

  1.   Abstain I still don't completely understand the scope of this bot's task. —RuakhTALK 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I inferred (and supported by the bot's request page) that the scope is any category move where the original category's name was ambiguously titled with "word" (where entries in the category could have spaces and therefor renaming the category with "term" is a bit clearer). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. —RuakhTALK 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decision edit

Looks like this vote ended two days ago, but I was the only one who voted. Does it pass if there's only one vote? --Yair rand 17:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we make it two then. Seems odd Jack didn't vote at least. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and fail this at 1–0, even though it's 100% in favor.​—msh210℠ 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no quorum requirement that I'm aware of, so 1-0 is still pass. If the worry is it was too little commented on, then extend the deadline for a bit (maybe a week is too short during the holidays), answer people's questions (Jack's English isn't 100%) and post a notice on the section in the BP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I extended 7 days, see above. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those seven days are now over, and the vote is 4–2. Looks like a failure to me, unless someone wants to argue that the extension was invalid and the original vote, 1–0, is a pass.​—msh210℠ 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC) ←See comments below: this decision was struck.​—msh210℠ 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? 4-2 is a fail? Sorry if I sound like an idiot here, but why is 4-2 a fail? There seems to be a majority in favor of the bot. --Yair rand 17:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. In pl-2009-08/Add en: to English topical categories, 12–7 (63%) was deemed a failure. In a dictum in pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2, Ruakh said 67.6% would fail, as "we generally require 70–75%". Sy-2008-03/User:Amgine for admin seems to indicate 75% is the threshold. However: In pl-2009-03/Removing_vote_requirements_for_policy_changes, DAVilla noted that most votes would pass at two thirds, which is what we have here. (Atelaes there thought 70 to 75%). Due to that comment of DAVilla's, I perhaps should not have closed this as failure, especially since I have an opinion on the vote (I voted): but I hadn't (recently) seen that comment when I did so. I hereby strike my closure, and wait for someone else to decide instead.​—msh210℠ 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome is no consensus :p — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if someone else would complete the modifications I've made consequently to the BP, would it change the vote? JackPotte 20:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For god's sake, who can take the decision to unify Category:English words spelled with ligatures & Category:English terms spelled with ligatures, knowing that à contrecœur isn't a word as a unit but as a discussion? JackPotte 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't consensus in the BP to do all the categories, so it is being discussed piecemeal at RFDO. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Category:English words spelled with ligatures. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly no consensus, whether or not we have a quorum requirement. If someone wants to get a vote passed, it behooves them to get enough participants to make it resemble a community process. Do you want to extend the vote again? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's mandatory to avoid a grammatical error. JackPotte 12:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JackPotte, quite a bit of time has passed since this, and since I would have supported the bot had I been around, my additional vote would have swayed the vote to 5-2 which is 71.4% and would have resulted in a pass even with a 70% minimum. Since consensus can change, if you would like to start a new proposal, I'd certainly be interested. If you're no longer interested in running the bot, that would be okay too. 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) - Technical 13 (talk)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-12/User:JackBot&oldid=75498848"