Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2022-10/User:Theknightwho for admin
Latest comment: 1 year ago by GreyishWorm in topic Striking out Dan Polansky's vote
Striking out Dan Polansky's vote
editI struck out one vote by a permanently blocked user, as they aren't allowed to vote. At least, I think that's the rules... GreyishWorm (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WT:VP, there's no requirement that anyone who becomes blocked after voting must have their vote stricken. There's not even a requirement that anyone who's blocked on any namespace be barred from voting (though I'd highly support this requirement being added). AG202 (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- It would be adding insult to injury to strike out the vote of someone who’s been wrongly blocked. How would it even be possible for someone who’s been blocked to vote in the future after a blocking though? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Overlordnat1 By being blocked on, for example, the Module namespace but not other ones. This happened with this vote in particular with Skiulinamo who was blocked at the time of voting from the Module namespace. Nothing against them in particular, but I do find that a bit weird. AG202 (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- It would be adding insult to injury to strike out the vote of someone who’s been wrongly blocked. How would it even be possible for someone who’s been blocked to vote in the future after a blocking though? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, in that case, I reinstate my own vote. GreyishWorm (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- WF has been repeatedly blocked for more than a decade so I don't think so. Equinox ◑ 02:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WT:VP. I even added a clause saying something like "Wonderfool is not allowed to vote", but it got reverted! GreyishWorm (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I shouldn't even engage with this, but I will, once: bear in mind you're only here on sufferance, because it's technically impossible to get rid of you without blocking too many other people. Clearly we are not gonna generate formal rules based on individuals ("if you are Wonderfool..."), but if we can clearly identify you as a banned person, you don't get a vote, just like people in prison. We are also still (just about) small enough to permit "common sense" actions without being a dictatorship. Mate why
can'tcouldn't you behave? Anyway, "that's enough tries" as NetHack says. Equinox ◑ 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I shouldn't even engage with this, but I will, once: bear in mind you're only here on sufferance, because it's technically impossible to get rid of you without blocking too many other people. Clearly we are not gonna generate formal rules based on individuals ("if you are Wonderfool..."), but if we can clearly identify you as a banned person, you don't get a vote, just like people in prison. We are also still (just about) small enough to permit "common sense" actions without being a dictatorship. Mate why
- Sorry, I was editing drunk last night. Got a bit overcheeky. It won't happen again in exactly the same way. GreyishWorm (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)