Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-04/Voting policy

Regulars

Let me start by saying I agree with the additions on point one. I wonder if, perhaps, we could simplify and clarify this by, instead of having a separate point two, the statement "on any Wiktionary" could simply be appended to the end of point one. That way we define what "regulars" of other Wiktionaries means. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the definition could be improved. I think perhaps replacing points 1 and 2 with:

1. Account must predate the start date of the vote by at least 1 week.
2. Account must meet at least one of the following:
   1. at least 50 edits in total to the content (main, Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance) namespaces on this Wiktionary.
   2. be recognised as an established or regular editor on at least one non-English Wiktionary, judged by the standards of that wiki
   3. have made at least 50 edits in total to the content namespace(s) of a non-English Wiktionary that does not have a standard for determining established or regular editors.

This is a little more complicated, but is hopefully both easy to understand and clearly defined. Thryduulf

The point 2 "Regulars from other language Wiktionaries can vote" should better be dropped altogether. It is already implied in the point 1; a regular from any Wiktionary can vote provided he or she satisfies the requirement 1. There is no need to explicitly single out regulars, as even non-regulars can vote provided they satisfy the requirement 1. --Dan Polansky 07:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry Thryduulf, but your point two is terrible. I rather doubt that any Wiktionary has an official definition of what a "regular" is. That point is just itching to turn into a flame war. It's so much simpler if we simply say 50 edits.....on any Wiktionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok that seems fair and simpler. Thryduulf 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Namespaces

I think the namespaces can be reduced to the main namespace, for the sake of simplicity, resulting in this formulation:

1. Account must predate start of vote by one week.

2. Account must have made at least 50 contributions in the main namespace.

3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

While I admit that contributions to the namespaces Citations, Appendix, Rhymes, Wikisaurus, or Concordance are also relevant in principle, no big loss ensues if we deny the voting right to those contributors who shun mainspace. The simplicity of the rule should be more important than apparent accuracy: the rule cannot avoid some arbitrary decisions such as the choice of the number "50", so the rule cannot avoid being a heuristic one, a good enough one. --Dan Polansky 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we just say non-user space? (i.e. user pages and user talk pages). I admit, it doesn't really matter, as almost everyone who is genuinely contributing is contributing to the main namespace, but consider that some of our best people spend a great deal of their time writing templates, javascript, or participating in discussion fora. Of course, all of the people I'm thinking of spend enough time in the main namespace that they'd easily pass the "50 in main namespace" rule. However, I really want to see this vote pass, and I'm concerned that some people might disagree over this trivial matter. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think that going only with the main namespace is the best option. I do not in the least want to diminish the value of contributions to templates and policy discussion, and I surely do not consider my Wikisaurus contributions worthless ;). But the case of a user who has contributed to templates and discussions yet not to mainspace seems rare or non-existent. --Dan Polansky 12:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tentativeness

The current first bullet of the voting policy says "No voting policies are in effect at this time. Tentative guidelines for voters:". This IMHO also needs replacement. I would phrase the vote as follows.

Replacing the following text of 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 the following text

• For a Wiktionary user to be eligible for voting, the following requirements must be satisfied.
  1. Account must predate start of vote by one week.
  2. Account must have made at least 50 contributions in the main namespace of this Wiktionary, meaning en.wiktionary.org.
  3. One vote per person. Sockpuppet voting results in a block on all related accounts.

The proposal may sound non-native, so fixes from native speakers are welcome. --Dan Polansky 08:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If we're gonna set rules on who can vote, we can't have the text immediately preceding those rules saying "there aren't any rules. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a clarification of which Wiktionary I meant. --Dan Polansky 05:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Which Wiktionary

Following up on the above comment ".... It's so much simpler if we simply say 50 edits.....on any Wiktionary. ...". My understanding was that the requirement was on 50 edits in English Wiktionary.

The votes that English Wiktionary holds regulate only English Wiktionary. By contrast, a matter that concerns several Wiktionaries gets handled on Meta. --Dan Polansky 12:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree: The current (revision link) criterion 2, requiring fifty edits to any Wikt, should be restricted to edits to our own. If it is kept, then it should be reworded, as it distinguishes between enwikt and the others with no practical difference. (Also, it specifies non-English. Does that exclude Simple? Old English?)​—msh210℠ 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now effected this change (and others).​—msh210℠ 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

See also the section #Regulars from other Wiktionaries? below. --Dan Polansky 07:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Autocreated accounts

How does this deal with unified accounts that may be created anytime a user views a Wiktionary page? I suggest that the date of the first edit, not the date of account creation, should be used. Though there are still issues with trans-wiki'd pages from Wikipedia, they can probably be ignored. Conrad.Irwin 12:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a quick and easy way to determine which edits are 'native' and which have been transwikied? Thryduulf 13:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so quick and easy, but if the edit appears in a page's history before a transwiki then it's been transwikied. Fortunately, this will come up infrequently enough and our pages' histories tend to be short enough that it shouldn't be too hard to check. If we do go with Conrad's idea — which I agree we should — then the rules should specify "first local edit" or something, to exclude transwikied ones.​—msh210℠ 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now effected this change (and others).​—msh210℠ 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

some more issues

(1) Creation of account or first edit (per Conrad, above) should predate start of the vote, or its creation? (2) Specify edits that were not reverted within 48 hours, or something?​—msh210℠ 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now effected this change (and others).​—msh210℠ 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First bullet point

In the current version, the first bullet is gone. But there should be at least one bullet, as there are several bullet points in Wiktionary:Votes/header.

The first bullet point can read as I proposed or as was proposed in the last vote on voting eligibility:

• My recent proposal: For a Wiktionary user to be eligible for voting, the following requirements must be satisfied.
• Previous proposal: Voting eligibility:[1]
• Another proposal: Policy for voting eligibility:

--Dan Polansky 18:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now effected this change (and others).​—msh210℠ 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking requirement

Re the fourth point "The account must not be that of a user another account of whose was blocked from editing at the time the vote was cast.":

I had hard time understanding the sentence. I think it says the following: The user who owns the account must not have another account that was blocked at the start time of the vote. --Dan Polansky 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except that time that the vote was cast by the user is used rather than the start time of the voting.​—msh210℠ 15:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, the vote in "the vote was cast" is the user's vote. --Dan Polansky 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

On another note, I would just drop this requirement. The requirements should be simple. If a user was blocked for a very serious misdeed, then indefinitely anyway. If it was a minor block, let the user vote regardless. Let us only add complexity as the actual need arises. --Dan Polansky 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's mostly meant to bar indefinitely blocked users. I've now worded it that way instead. Is that okay?​—msh210℠ 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would rather see the requirement removed altogether. But if the requirement stays, that is okay, good enough. --Dan Polansky 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Some edit, for my comprehension, yet I don't know about natives:

The account must not be that of a user whose another account of whose was indefinitely blocked from editing at the time the user has cast the votewas cast.

--Dan Polansky 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why on earth does the præposition of prædate the pronoun whose in the first part of the sentence? Why not: The account must not be that of a user whose another account was indefinitely ..., as Dan suggests? It is not wrong, is it? However, it is comprehensible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this criteria either, they should not be editing Wiktionary anyway, so there is no need to explicitly stop them from voting here. Conrad.Irwin 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this point is discardable in order to not jeopardise an outright consensus for the proposal. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Regulars from other Wiktionaries?

They seem to have become re-factored out, was that intentional? (i.e the second criterion should be "50 edits in the content namespaces of any wiktionary") Conrad.Irwin 10:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was quite accidental, as some find treating editors of other Wiktionaries on equal footing as our own. However, I think they should be. I second Conrad's parenthetical statement. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. I don't think people who don't want to contribute here should be given the opportunity to dictate how we are going to do things. The votes don't affect them - just us. For example, like all the people Ullmann recruited to vote against the Serbo-Croatian unification. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That was intentional. Regulars from other Wiktionaries can vote if they have made at least 50 content edits to English Wiktionary, which is a superficial and easy-to-achieve sign of interest in English Wiktionary. See also #Which Wiktionary. --Dan Polansky 09:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Also to avoid sockpuppeteering and vote recruiting, per below. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppeteers

Can we ban people who are clearly recruiting people to vote how they want? :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be prudent to not include such a thing in this vote, as it would just complicate things, and I think we have a good shot at getting some voting policy in place here, as opposed to the current none. However, meatpuppetry is an issue which should be addressed at some point. One of the biggest problems is proving that it has taken place. If someone that one of our editors knows comes and votes here, someone who rarely participates here otherwise, it does raise suspicions. However, it's perfectly possible that an innocent conversation about the vote took place, and the person felt strongly about the issue, and decided to vote of their own accord. I recall that my roommate came and voted on my admin vote, not because I was canvassing, but simply because it came up in random conversation, and he decided to vote. In my opinion, a possible start would simply have the vote policy page say that meat-puppetry/canvassing is prohibited, without explicating a penalty. I realize that this is kind of like getting a guard dog with no teeth, but....it'd at least clarify that it's wrong. Again, I think the issue is one worth addressing, but not with this vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As proving it happened goes, I think it was remarkably self-evident in the case I brought up. If it was an innocent conversation that took place there, it was likely from a soapbox to a small crowd in someone's mother's basement.

Of course one person voting in your admin vote isn't a huge deal, but in "some cases" the numbers have been significant. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• This vote itself is already exhibiting meatpuppetting. Just observe how within 1-2 day intervals certain individuals make a blip of activity, vote, and than vanish for good. --Ivan Štambuk 09:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• [2] - On Croatian Wikipedia Bugoslav (a suspicious sockpuppet of Kubura, methinks) openly invited the community to make at least 50 edits to English Wiktionary in order to circumvent limitations proposed by this vote, so that they can be given rights "to vote in case of future, much more important votes". Typical *sigh* --Ivan Štambuk 13:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

From the vote page

the following is in reference to User:Pepsi Lite, who interestingly hasn't edited since making this vote ;) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Someone we haven't seen since the second day of January? This seems like a remarkable coincidence! :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 12:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

   So far all of the opposers combined don't have 50 edits in the main namespace in 2010. --Ivan Štambuk 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

   Jesus, could you three (Robert, Ivan, Ric) just shut the hell up, please? I don't even remember what it's like to have a vote without you three shooting off your ludicrous vitriol all over it. — This unsigned comment was added by Atelaes (talk • contribs).

   This is false; Neskaya alone has more than 100 edits in the mainspace in 2010. It is also irrelevant. In particular, if this vote passes, Pepsi Lite will be eligible by the very rules proposed by this vote. --Dan Polansky 12:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

   I meant real, content edits, not inflected forms auto-generated by a click of mouse. It is not irrelevant because it demonstrates that these opposers are low-profile editors, brought together to vote here for a particular purpose. --Ivan Štambuk 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

   It does not matter what you mean; it matters what you say. What you have said has been refuted. The sentence "So far all of the opposers combined don't have 50 edits in the main namespace in 2010" is false. The sentence "all of the opposers combined don't have 50 real-content edits in the main namespace in 2010" could be true depending on how one reads "real-content". If you don't bother to insert such qualifications into your sentences, you might as well spare us these sentences altogether.

   Your claim that Pepsi Lite has been brought here by Robert Ullman in order to boost Robert Ullman's position lacks demonstration. You should avoid empty accusations that you cannot prove. --Dan Polansky 08:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

   It does not matter what exactly has been stated. The specific factoid that you have "refuted" bears no relevance to the connotation implied by the apparently dry and satirical tone of the remark. Natural language is not logically reducible sum of clauses that can be assigned states of binary T/F logic. If you don't bother to read in-between-the-lines, you might as well spare us these sentences altogether.

   Pepsi Lite is driven here only on exceptional occasions, and AFAIK he has no connections with Croatian pedia clique (due to his extremist views; they're such a nice bunch of complements together), which leaves only a single viable social connective to this rather obscure page. Regardless, I never really explicitly named anyone; that I referred to RU is your imagination: I merely stated that they apparently congregate in such obscure occasions, which is hardly coincidental.

   Look Polansky, I'm aware that my remark are oftentimes rather close to the bone, but the unwillingness to openly articulate them serves in my eyes as a tacit condoning of what I perceive as wrongful behavior. The deterring/motivational effect of any benevolent (and let's be honest - nobody would change their vote because of it) criticism is also not to be underestimated. As a result of it, at least one of those editors decided to intensify his contentful mainspace engagement, which in my eyes more than justified the remark ;)

   Real-world electoral algorithms of modern democracies are broken in many respects, leading to manipulations and interest groups disproportionately represented in the economic organism of the state but nevertheless often casting a decisive vote, and there is no reason not to optimize our own a bit in order to compensate for that. --Ivan Štambuk 18:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   (unindent) The way of thinking that you propose makes all sorts of fallacious statements irrefutable, as the author of the statement can always claim that the refuter has failed to read qualifying clauses in between the lines. Instead of admitting an error, you can always invent ad-hoc excuses that justify virtually anything that you say, never committing yourself to any of your statements. It is good to know that this is the way you want to lead discussion. --Dan Polansky 07:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

   What discussion? It was a bloody satirical statement intended to ridicule the opposing voters. People who contribute very little actual content, yet find themselves invited to oppose the vote that would exclude their ilk from content-related decision-making. This is the reason why democracy sucks in combination with socialism - the ever growing electoral base of statist leeches votes themselves ever-increasing number of privileges, benefits, entitlements... That you yourself actually went on to sum up the count of the voters' edits and compare it to the mentioned threshold, in an attempt to "refute it", as if it's some kind of binary-reducible Boolean logic expression, without even noticing supra-factual overtones in the comment (does it really matter that I said 50 or 150?!), is absolutely astonishing. --Ivan Štambuk 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

   To refresh context, we are discussing the statement "So far all of the opposers combined don't have 50 edits in the main namespace in 2010." You say that the statement is not a "binary-reducible Boolean logic expression", and that I should notice its "suprafactual overtones". I am not really sure I understand what you are saying with this (what is "suprafactual"?; “"suprafactual"”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.), other than that you want to exclude the statement from criticism as regards its accuracy and truth. The inaccuracy of the statement is conspicuous. I stand for another position: statements should be criticized for their accuracy and truth, especially inflammatory and accusatory statements. I do not feel obliged, as a reader of the statement, to search for "suprafactual overtones", and unstated and non-trivial selection criteria ("real-content"). --Dan Polansky 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   The word supra-factual is a transparent compound. If you're unable to cogitate its meaning by yourself, let me break it down for you to its constituents:

   1. supra-: "transcending"
   2. factual: "Of or characterised by or consisting of facts."

   Combined, it would mean "that which transcends the facts". In reference to the environment where it's used, it would denote that it's pretty much irrelevant whether it's 50 edits, a tad more or less, contentful or content-free. That you found it relevant or convenient to remark on the factual accuracy of the statement, and not what it intended to convey (the grand irony that folks who edit too little cast their vote against a vote that would exclude folks who edit too little from further votes), is almost as bizarre. I'm not really sure why do you persevere in this inane confabulation. If you're trying to say that you'll persist in ignoring metaphoric components of speech, and reducing every statement of mine through an approximate Boolean truthfulness matrix - I've got your point already. --Ivan Štambuk 19:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   Ivan, first of all, it did look like a factual statement, and until Dan commented otherwise, I assumed that it was accurate (i.e. that you were telling the truth). Apparently, either your command of the English language or your understanding of Anglophone culture is insufficient to properly convey the overtones you were going for; in future, I'd advise that you stick to accurate statements, because I can guarantee that you will be misunderstood otherwise. (Actually, even if your command of the one and understanding of the one were perfect, I'd advise against the overuse of such figures of speech, because our community has a lot of diversity, and such things are liable to be misunderstood by non-native speakers even if native speakers get them.) Second of all, you state that your statement did not need to be accurate because it "was a bloody satirical statement intended to ridicule the opposing voters". Just so you know: the next time you make one of those, I will block you from editing. —Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   You're going to block him for making a non-violent jest? You've undone a couple of my blocks... this should be interesting ;) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   Satirical ridicule (not jest) is not an appropriate use of the "edit" feature. I've given him a warning; next time, a block. I don't see the problem? —Ruakh_TALK 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   It just seems like a lot of us go around making not entirely wholesome remarks toward or about other editors, and I don't see why Ivan should be the one singled out for blocking. For example, why is it peachy for users directly on the main page to say "you should be blocked for saying that"? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

   Well, one reason to single him out is that he's consistently the worst offender. ;-)   And I don't see what's wrong with saying, "you should be blocked for saying that", as long as the commenter actually thinks the "that" in question is legitimately blockable. I think some discussion of what is (and is not) blockable is probably a good thing, since it seems that different editors have wildly different ideas about it; and if that discussion precedes actual blocks rather than following them, so much the better! (For the record, the comment that you mention was directed at me, and I was not at all offended by it. I didn't think it was rude, and it forced me to explain something that I really should have explained to begin with.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

   Just so you know: the next time you make one of those, I will block you from editing. - And I will unblock myself every time you do so. --Ivan Štambuk 08:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

   Then someone will go tattle on you to meta and they'll come and take your baby away! — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 11:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

   Ullmann already tried that. His puppet-troll Amgine blocked me for 1 day for some imaginary reason (I was "vandalizing"), I of course unblocked myself after I logged on, and later U tried to use that as an excuse to desysop me on meta, explicitly linking to my block log arguing that local blocks are inefficient, so "steward intervention is needed". Stewards by rules can't do anything if a local community is big enough. Almost every single time they desysoped somebody on the basis of their own personal estimate of the situation, it ended up as a gross mistake. Even if block is warranted, it ends up as a major clusterfuck (c.f. m:Requests for comment/Croatian Wikipedia-misuse of admin tools by User:Kubura). --Ivan Štambuk 11:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put this here for reference, you can keep arguing if you like, but the salient facts have already been over-analysed. Conrad.Irwin 13:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

outcome

Due to the considerable influx of editors with scarce activity on wiktionary (see this - last activity was back in September 2009 and ever since the user has shown interest only in this vote), their understandable opposition to the proposed changes and the resulting depreciation of the influence of the active users here I would consider it rather calamitous, if the outcome of the vote were not determined by a simple majority, id est 50% of all votes +1. It is not to be expected from users with exclusive propensity for voting pages and exiguous edits in the main space to support this kind of proposals. Given the sensible, straightforward and intently and coöperatively amended version of the new rules, seeking consensus with regard to the intermittently appearing users whose activity is concentrated on voting pages simply does not behove us and would turn out to be as onerous as desperate. Furthermore, the link Ivan provided about meatpuppeting on Croatian wikipedia could be counteracted by this simple and a bit defensive measure. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That user is a pretty clear meatpuppet of Ullmann. Their only voting history started with the Serbo-Croatian vote, which I'm pretty sure most Africans wouldn't give half a shit about. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another peculiar example - except 7 edits on 31st December 2009 and 13 days later the user has not been active since 5th September 2009 and reactivates himself on 29 April 2010, four days after this vote started. These cases are not inconsiderable in number anymore. The point is that we stick to simple majority for the outcome. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And this is the sheer epitome of the disruption the voting process here is facing - a user entirely and solely specialised in discovering and participating in certain votes. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Приметио си да само три или четири од људи који су гласали "против" то придонесу редовито? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Приметио сам, дабоме (наравно). Али Dtom доприноси врло редовито на странама за гласање ^_^ The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Probably quite a few additional meatpuppets will cast their vote as the deadline keeps drawing to its close. They cannot simply vote en masse; there has to be an illusion of all of them independently figuring out what they "want", acting not as a brainwashed collective but as individuals. They'll also probably make a few bogus edits in the process in order to camouflage their true, destructive intentions. --Ivan Štambuk 19:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

  quite a few additional meatpuppets will cast their vote as the deadline keeps drawing to its close. They cannot simply vote en masse : What do you think now, Ivan? 10 out of 19 opposing votes belong to regulars on Croatian Wikipedia. One of them even has links to Suradnik:frka and Razgovor sa suradnikom:frka and hardly realises what (and most importantly: where) is going on. Why on earth should English wiktionary suffer from the Gleichschaltung of those editors of Croatopedia? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of a tricky situation. I admit, I am also dismayed by the recent influx of non-contributors (since I last checked it, support votes have been added by Nadando and Equinox, and oppose votes have been added by......folks who do nothing but vote). However, the vote creator cannot simply decide that the rules have changed simply because they do not like the result. Currently, the vote still stands as passing under normal Wiktionary criteria, and it's possible it will remain that way to the end. If not, I think we'll need a more creative solution, perhaps a BP convo or something. But, again, it's not as simple as changing the rules when we like, but it's also not as simple as just lying down and taking it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We can either lie down and take it or we can say fuck this obvious meatpuppetry and counter it appropriately. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh? And what would that appropriate counter be? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Bogorm's suggestion was a fine one. He (=Ullmann) is working to throw the percentage off, so that can be taken away. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So a few people can simply change the standards if they don't like the way a vote is heading? Or is it only if they suspect one of their opponents of acting in a way not outlawed by any policy? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, whatever, you just roll over and allow Ullmann to pretend he controls Wiktionary. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the solution to the problem (note I do see it as a problem, one which I would like to see solved) is not as simple as thinking we can just unilaterally and arbitrarily change the standards for a vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be obvious that if the requirements for suffrage proposed in this vote were applied as a qualification for voting in it, that it would pass easily. The question is whether it is better to beg the question or to allow this vote to fail because of obvious manipulation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like nearly all the oppose voters would qualify for voting, even if we applied the decision of the vote to the vote itself. Most of them are borderline, and I didn't do an actual count, just skimmed and guessed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah; it looks like you're right. My mistake.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) This vote won't stop his meatpuppeting, he'll surely find a way around it... but it's not as if we can't add to the guidelines later. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 01:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But isn't that, essentially, the whole point of this vote; i.e., to prevent "meatpuppetry"? There must be some way to express in words the intention that only members of this editing community ought to be entitled to vote…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not easily. It's not exactly a black and white thing. I suspect we all have different opinions on who the community is. We could make really stringent standards like "more than 1,000 edits", which would be easily passed by most of those we're all thinking of, but of course that would lead down the road to an incestuous oligarchy. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a whitelisting requirement? Or is that too open to corruption?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The unfortunate problem with democracy is that the majority of people are not so bright, and generally not particularly logical. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, if we changed it to "50 edits to English Wiktionary or any B/C/S/M WMF project", we could probably get the meatpuppets to vote in support. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this vote should pass regardless and all the opposers who made less than 50 edits in 2010 at the time of voting should be banned for PoV-pushing. --Ivan Štambuk 07:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected the vote page, since the vote has ended and no further verbiage from regulars from hr.wiki, pl.wiki, nl.wikt with an infinitesimal number of contributions here is needed (it is not needed on any other accomplished vote either, but in my opinion this one is susceptible to their rants more than others). I suggest semi-protecting this vote page as well, if no objections arise. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

To Yair rand

I am responding here to keep the vote page uncluttered.

I for one find the stance that both editors and readers should be able to vote a valid stance in principle, and certainly not ridiculous or utterly absurd. But the stance seems unwise. Normally, anonymous IPs and non-editors do not bother to vote in English Wiktionary. For a mere reader to vote, he or she needs to find out about a vote somehow in the first place. And that is crucial. When some non-editors do come to vote, it is because they are coming to English Wiktionary with some particular agenda, and there is some channel through which they have been explicitly notified that a vote is taking place. When that happens, the external voters are not representative of all the external readers of Wiktionary; they are representative of the particular group that has an axe to grind and has been notified. Again, the particular problem that I am drawing attention to is not that non-editors vote but rather that a non-representative fraction of all non-editors come to vote. --Dan Polansky 11:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And if all of the non-editors were represented in the voting outcome proportionately, the voting effect of agenda-driven outsiders would be nullified in the overall count. But it's not since generally non-editors don't care for such things.

This irresistibly reminds me of the situation with various worker unions; all of them exert a political pressure in one specific direction (e.g. monopoly or tariffs affecting the price of product X), for which general populace cares very little (it doesn't make much of a difference if the price of something costing $5 goes up or down 10%), but for those who make their living of it, it makes whole lotta difference if they'd be out of business or not. And with their combined, channeled (e.g. payed lobbyists) effort, they can make a lot of legislative difference, despite representing a significant minority of electorate. Of course, this is a perfectly natural tendency, but one which every policy-maker should have in mind.

Yair rand's reasoning strikes me as a classical example of theory/practice mismatch. Every doctrine should be evaluated not on the basis of idealized principles it advocates, but on the basis of real-world outcomes it produces. There are always some unintended consequences, and they have to be taken into account. --Ivan Štambuk 12:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the ideas, policies, and concepts that go into wikis are things that sound like they wouldn't work well in practice, but over the course of time, turn out to be very helpful to the project. Note that the vote page itself is linked to from the top of every policy page there is, and most people reading those policies are people who are probably interested in helping, but not regular editors, and are probably able to give a very helpful perspective on things. I think that if WT:VOTE said quite simply at top of the page that anyone may vote so long as they log in, and everyone has equal say, there would be more people helping build policies and such. IMO, issues of possible meatpuppetry and suspected socks are trivial in comparison to maintaining a completely open community. (This entire thing would be simpler if users just didn't randomly link people to votes, but that would be a little hard to enforce.) --Yair rand 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your faith in people astounds Richard. (Open communities are what facebook and livejournal are for.) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is your name Richard? (Is that what "R·I·C" means?) —Ruakh_TALK 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

RICHARD ISN'T HERE RIGHT NOW, MRS. TORRENCE. Oh wait here he is

Ya, it's not like an acronym or anything. Lol... "Really irritating cunt". — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This hypothetical seems rather unlikely to me: if WT:VOTE said quite simply at top of the page that anyone may vote so long as they log in, and everyone has equal say, there would be more people helping build policies and such. In order to influence a policy and a vote, a person does not need to vote. For instance, my influence on the phrasing of this particular vote was exercised through my ability to comment on this talk page, regardless of my ability to cast a vote. Quite to the contrary, a person who brings powerful arguments into a discussion and does not vote can have greater influence than a person who merely casts a vote without taking part on the discussion.

Re "...are probably able to give a very helpful perspective on things." Being able to give perspective by raising points in the discussion is not equal to having the voting right. Anyone should be welcome to comment and take part on a discussion. --Dan Polansky 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The naïve ideal is for all decisions to be made by informal consensus, nemine contradicente. Where voting is needed, suffrage should be extended only as wide as the body of informed and responsible voters. How that is defined, of course, is the difficult part; however, I doubt sincerely that "the body of informed and responsible voters" = "everyone who registers an account".  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

indefinitely blocked users voting

One of the opposing votes was cast by a user who has subsequently resorted to vandalising main space pages and has been duly blocked indefinitely. I was just about to strike out his vote by referring to the current loose voting policy, but then I just could not find out the clause prohibiting indefinitely blocked users to influence the voting process which is active on all major wikipedia projects I can think of (at least en, fr, de). Whosoever formulated this loose voting policy back then, has committed a huge lapsus by not including it. I still think such kind of votes need to be revoked. Is there anyone disagreeing? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with striking votes that were valid when cast. And, as blocked users aren't allowed to edit at all, it is not a restriction that needs repeating. The problem with including such a restriction (though I hadn't thought about it until you brought this up) is that it increases the incentive to block people - and we really do not need more of that. Conrad.Irwin 10:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It’s a moot point, I don’t see how it can make the slightest difference. RU has far too many Serbo-Croat nationalists at his beck and call for us to pass this. There are plenty more of them in reserve that have not been brought in yet. —Stephen 11:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the plain number of votes, I think it's pretty clear that RU has been meatpuppeting again and it's very clear that the majority of the support voters are regular contributors who will actually continue to be doing something around here, whereas most of the oppose voters will vanish until the next time RU summons them. For all these reasons, if the vote were to end right now, I would call it a pass. We've given the non-contributors their opinion - but why would we give it equal weight if they're only here to manipulate the outcome of the vote? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be sensible to let the vote pass with 31-13 (without the indefinitely blocked user). An advice to anybody willing to repeat the vote in the future: never set the duration for more than one week, otherwise the meatpuppets will have the opportunity to convene there and organise their incursion again. This is how the vote should have ended, had I been prudent enough on 24 April 2010. I simply have not anticipated subversion of that extent. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh? A joke? --Dan Polansky 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vote rigging

Ooswesthoesbest is a user with a long track record on nl.wiktionary and a sysop (and main protagonist) of li.wiktionary. He voted against the proposal and his vote was immediately given the epitet "possible sockpuppet" by SemperBlotto. This whole procedure is far from democratic. We are not even free to vote no, because then we are immediately vilified. I propose to cancel the vote because no vote is better than a rigged vote performed under this kind of intimidation.

SemperBlotto needs to be reprimanded for his false accusation and needs to apologize for his outrageous behavior. Jcwf 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Is that all? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've taken a minute to look at the page... you clearly didn't take the time to notice that Semper has also pointed out a possible sockpuppet in the support section. So your claims that he's been acting outrageously is completely moronic. Thanks for your time. But find a better way to spend it. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a democracy (nor it pretends to be one). Democracy (representative democracy in particular) is a very stupid and manipulable political system and by all means it should not be a role model. And as far as the vote rigging is concerned: I see a bunch of people from Dutch wiktionay and Dutch natives harmoniously opposing. Now you haven't been doing some canvassing Jcwf, have you? --Ivan Štambuk 19:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reprimanded? Isn't this just a case of being 'wrong'? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You all need to calm down a bit. Jwcf, SemperBlotto explained exactly why he thought Ooswesthoesbest might be sockpuppet, and as Opiaterein notes, he also added such a comment to one of the support votes; so your accusations of vote-rigging and intimidation are mistaken. That doesn't mean that SemperBlotto should have added those comments — I think they're fine, but I see how you could feel otherwise — but ironically, you are unjustly vilifying him by accusing him of unjustly vilifying others. :-P
Opiaterein, terms like "completely moronic" are unproductive and uncalled for.
Ivan, … *sigh* I have no words for you. I'm starting to think you might be beyond hope. :-/
Mglovesfun, your comment is fine. Carry on. :-)
—Ruakh_TALK 19:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. OWTB makes one edit at en.wikt and a discussion begins :) --Ooswesthoesbes 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond hope" of what? --Ivan Štambuk 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* You know what? I need to calm down a bit, too. —Ruakh_TALK 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reading all this ... I do not know whether I should cry or be angry. What is wrong with the fact that there is discussion? What is wrong with several individual people who by accident vote similarly and have not this very wiki as their home wiki? So I want to stress that there is absolutely no coordinated voting in one way or another and all I want to see is just a little bit of respect for one another. Annabel 20:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and repræhensible is the way you ended up here - by being summoned from Dutch Beer Parlour. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's no accident at all: nl:WikiWoordenboek:De_Kroeg#Stemrecht. Evident case of canvassing, Ullmann-style (Just read the last sentence where English Wiktionary community is likened to Milošević). --Ivan Štambuk 20:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides canvassing, Jcwf is also meatpuppeting here at Dutch Wiktionary by summoning all editors to influence the vote in the same way Boguslav did on Croatian Wikipedia. One can clearly distinguish the subversive way Ooswesthoesbes ended up on the vote page (even though he has shown interest in main space editing). His comment De Engelse wiki in de rol van Milosevic?(The English Wiktionary in the role of Milosevic?) is an outrageous denigration of English Wiktionary and I suggest giving Jcwf some time off in order that he reconsider his approach here. There he also expresses his understanding for the well organised incursion of editors from Croatian Wikipedia whom Atelaes already proposed for an en masse block on BP. The only user in this case deserving reprimand is Jcwf. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ivan, we must have been reading his meatpuppeting exhortation simultaneously, as I went through two edit conflicts before posting this... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

hypocrisy: Moral self-contradiction whereby the behavior of one or more people belies their own claimed or implied possession of certain beliefs, standards or virtues. You know, like when you say someone should be reprimanded for "rigging the vote" while you're telling people to vote on your side. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Since when are long active users being insulted? Annabel 20:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Elucidating their actions does not æqual insulting! But an approximate answer to your quæstion would be: since they started contumeliously denigrating fellow Wiktionary projects (comparison with Milosevic) and meatpuppeting aimed at ganging up on their votes. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Thanks for clarifying. But in this case, blame Jcwf, and not anyone else. We are not meatpuppets but different people. Just look in our cross-wiki contribution lists and you'll notice. To summarise: they' and their' is not referring to multiple people. Regards, Annabel 20:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that someone doesn't know what is meant by 'meat puppet'. Could someone with better powers of description than my own explain? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Meatpuppets" are sockpuppets who are fat, because they eat a lot of meat. And since we're a very cosmetic and vain Wiktionary, we ban fat people. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Indeed some explanation of the definition for meatputtet is necesary for several people. Please show respect to your colleagues. Annabel 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Vahagn, your facetiæ managed to exhilarate me in these meatpuppets-ridden vespertine hours. I appreciate that. Спокойной ночи. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The current voting policy encourages visitors from other wikis, we are changing that, it's unsurprising that people from other wikis feel very strongly against this. Wording could have been more neutral in places, but you can never achieve utter blandness. Further accusations, valid or invalid, should be resolved between individual users instead of ganging up here - it'll be more productive, if much less fun. Conrad.Irwin 20:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

All they have to do is make 50 edits here. A lot of them have done that. How is that so controversial? If they want to directly influence our policies (instead of just commenting on vote talk pages) then they should be contributing here... England doesn't give voting rights to Americans who are just stopping in, do they? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself as a long time member of this community. I'm not just a visitor, but what is happening here, with several people badly joking on me and others, does not make me feel happy. Annabel 21:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also not happy that the sole reason why you're voting is due to your friend insinuating this vote's ideological alliance with one of the greatest 20th century butchers. --Ivan Štambuk 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Be fair, Ivan. This is an important issue and she has been contributing to the English Wiktionary since 2006. Although not as prolific as you, she certainly deserves being included without prejudice. Anyway, I suggest everybody be a bit more careful with the accusations. Also, I'm astounded that no one has yet created meat puppet or meatpuppet, considering its frequent use here of late. I believe it refers to persons gathered to a vote by someone who knows they will vote for what he wants. – Krun 21:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Any possible anti-canvassing measures?

I don't suppose there would be any way to slow the flow of meatpuppets? Maybe the vote page could be moved with a bot updating en.wikt links to it, to break off-wiki links that are part of canvassing attempts? --Yair rand (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, there is a fairly effectual way of resolving the issue of meatpuppets brought up here by Atelaes. Yes, moving the page is a good idea, let us see whether the last 42 hours will elapse smoothly. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting tally by numbers of contributions

This is a tally of the votes cast so far listed by the numbers of the voters' contributions, as gleaned hence:

1. Support = 36,587 (User:Razorflame) + 29,665 (User:Widsith) + 37,953 (User:Bequw) + 52,990 (User:Mglovesfun) + 9,429 (User:Ultimateria) + 23,222 (User:Atelaes) + 3,825 (User:Internoob) + 43,511 (User:Vahagn Petrosyan) + 28,163 (User:Msh210) + 7,166 (User:Nbarth) + 68,369 (User:Ivan Štambuk) + 12,727 (User:Thryduulf) + 68,829 (User:Dan Polansky) + 51,226 (User:Opiaterein) + 16,704 (User:Tooironic) + 17,845 (User:Makaokalani) + 16,261 (User:Krun) + 30,425 (User:Ruakh) + 9,883 (User:Bogorm) + 34,917 (User:Atitarev) + 8,077 (User:Prince Kassad) + 263 (User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf) + 9,394 (User:Jamesjiao) + 7,352 (User:Algrif) + 12,374 (User:Doremítzwr) + 60,754 (User:Equinox) + 30,324 (User:Nadando) + 17,435 (User:DAVilla) + 5,284 (User:Thrissel) + 100,819 (User:Stephen G. Brown) + 1,020 (User:Cdhaptomos) + 9,313 (User:Caladon) + 2,535 (User:Diuturno) + 47,998 (User:Panda10) + 2 (User:FriedrickMILBarbarossa) + 13,872 (User:PalkiaX50) + 78,580 (User:BD2412) + 20,192 (User:Leolaursen) + 12,255 (User:Maro) + 28,630 (User:Dijan) + 15,808 (User:Saltmarsh) + 42,084 (User:Barmar) + 9,329 (User:Jonathan Webley) + 1 (User:Јованвб) + 206,936 (User:SemperBlotto) + 3,201 (User:Karelklic) + 12,303 (User:Carl Daniels) + 4,092 (User:SPQRobin) + 28,316 (User:Visviva) + 3,795 (User:Flyax) + 8,414 (User:Tohru) + 1,731 (User:Jusjih) = 1,402,180
2. Oppose = 25,157 (User:Robert Ullmann) + 2,178 (User:Amgine) + 10,297 (User:Neskaya) + 133 (User:Kubura) + 923 (User:Pepsi Lite) + 65,176 (User:DCDuring) + 66 (User:Vhorvat) + 473 (User:Rose Waswa) + 153 (User:Roberta F.) + 66 (User:Sokac121) + 87 (User:SpeedyGonsales) + 7,215 (User:Yair rand) + 121 (User:Bugoslav) + 4 (User:Dtom) + 3 (User:Saxum) + 11,022 (User:CodeCat) + 3,540 (User:Lmaltier) + 1,565 (User:Jcwf) + 2 (User:Frka) + 1,619 (User:GerardM) + 23,568 (User:Goldenrowley) + 3 (User:Bracodbk) + 795 (User:Ooswesthoesbes) + 54 (User:Wikibelgiaan) + 19 (User:Cadfaell) + 351 (User:Annabel) + 3 (User:Zeljko) + 2 (User:Fraxinus) + 42,919 (User:AugPi) = 197,514
3. Abstain = 18,316 (User:Conrad.Irwin) + 99,247 (User:EncycloPetey) + 13,286 (User:TheDaveRoss) + 18,896 (User:Mike) + 39,572 (User:Mutante) + 10,373 (User:Carolina wren) = 199,690

Expressed in percentages, the voters' 1,799,384 contributions are divided 78%–11%–11% (S–O–A). Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined 1,599,694 contributions are divided 88%–12% (S–O). This entails that were votes to be weighted in direct proportion to voters' number of contributions, this current vote (in its present state) would pass even if the threshold for consensus were as high as a ⅞ supermajority.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to repeat using my preferred system (based on the logarithm of the number of edits) - 10 edits = 1 vote, 100 edits = 2 votes, 1000 edits = 3 votes, 10,000 edits = 4 votes and so on. SemperBlotto 08:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That makes the tally:

1. Support = 4 (User:Razorflame) + 4 (User:Widsith) + 4 (User:Bequw) + 4 (User:Mglovesfun) + 3 (User:Ultimateria) + 4 (User:Atelaes) + 3 (User:Internoob) + 4 (User:Vahagn Petrosyan) + 4 (User:Msh210) + 3 (User:Nbarth) + 4 (User:Ivan Štambuk) + 4 (User:Thryduulf) + 4 (User:Dan Polansky) + 4 (User:Opiaterein) + 4 (User:Tooironic) + 4 (User:Makaokalani) + 4 (User:Krun) + 4 (User:Ruakh) + 3 (User:Bogorm) + 4 (User:Atitarev) + 3 (User:Prince Kassad) + 2 (User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf) + 3 (User:Jamesjiao) + 3 (User:Algrif) + 4 (User:Doremítzwr) + 4 (User:Equinox) + 4 (User:Nadando) + 4 (User:DAVilla) + 3 (User:Thrissel) + 5 (User:Stephen G. Brown) + 3 (User:Cdhaptomos) + 3 (User:Caladon) + 3 (User:Diuturno) + 4 (User:Panda10) + 0 (User:FriedrickMILBarbarossa) + 4 (User:PalkiaX50) + 4 (User:BD2412) + 4 (User:Leolaursen) + 4 (User:Maro) + 4 (User:Dijan) + 4 (User:Saltmarsh) + 4 (User:Barmar) + 3 (User:Jonathan Webley) + 0 (User:Јованвб) + 5 (User:SemperBlotto) + 3 (User:Karelklic) + 4 (User:Carl Daniels) + 3 (User:SPQRobin) + 4 (User:Visviva) + 3 (User:Flyax) + 3 (User:Tohru) + 3 (User:Jusjih) = 183
2. Oppose = 4 (User:Robert Ullmann) + 3 (User:Amgine) + 4 (User:Neskaya) + 2 (User:Kubura) + 2 (User:Pepsi Lite) + 4 (User:DCDuring) + 1 (User:Vhorvat) + 2 (User:Rose Waswa) + 2 (User:Roberta F.) + 1 (User:Sokac121) + 1 (User:SpeedyGonsales) + 3 (User:Yair rand) + 2 (User:Bugoslav) + 0 (User:Dtom) + 0 (User:Saxum) + 4 (User:CodeCat) + 3 (User:Lmaltier) + 3 (User:Jcwf) + 0 (User:Frka) + 3 (User:GerardM) + 4 (User:Goldenrowley) + 0 (User:Bracodbk) + 2 (User:Ooswesthoesbes) + 1 (User:Wikibelgiaan) + 1 (User:Cadfaell) + 2 (User:Annabel) + 0 (User:Zeljko) + 0 (User:Fraxinus) + 4 (User:AugPi) = 59
3. Abstain = 4 (User:Conrad.Irwin) + 4 (User:EncycloPetey) + 4 (User:TheDaveRoss) + 4 (User:Mike) + 4 (User:Mutante) + 4 (User:Carolina wren) = 24

Expressed in percentages, the 266 votes are divided 69%–22%–9% (S–O–A). Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined 242 votes are divided 76%–24% (S–O). This entails that were votes to be weighted as you propose, this current vote (in its present state) would pass even if the threshold for consensus were as high as a ¾ supermajority.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - my method doesn't give outrageous numbers of votes to a few, long-term editors. SemperBlotto 10:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whilst you're more or less right about the excessive weighting of extremely prolific editors' votes where an editor's vote is weighted in direct proportion with the number of his contributions, I think that your logarithmic system still gives undue influence to voters with contributions in the two- and three-digit numbers.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You could try the square root of the number of edits, or the log of the square root ... SemperBlotto 11:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I return to the margin to show them.

1. √contribs. (rounding up) gives:
   1. Support = 192 (User:Razorflame) + 173 (User:Widsith) + 195 (User:Bequw) + 231 (User:Mglovesfun) + 98 (User:Ultimateria) + 153 (User:Atelaes) + 62 (User:Internoob) + 209 (User:Vahagn Petrosyan) + 168 (User:Msh210) + 85 (User:Nbarth) + 262 (User:Ivan Štambuk) + 113 (User:Thryduulf) + 263 (User:Dan Polansky) + 227 (User:Opiaterein) + 130 (User:Tooironic) + 134 (User:Makaokalani) + 128 (User:Krun) + 175 (User:Ruakh) + 100 (User:Bogorm) + 187 (User:Atitarev) + 90 (User:Prince Kassad) + 17 (User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf) + 97 (User:Jamesjiao) + 86 (User:Algrif) + 112 (User:Doremítzwr) + 247 (User:Equinox) + 175 (User:Nadando) + 133 (User:DAVilla) + 73 (User:Thrissel) + 318 (User:Stephen G. Brown) + 32 (User:Cdhaptomos) + 97 (User:Caladon) + 51 (User:Diuturno) + 220 (User:Panda10) + 2 (User:FriedrickMILBarbarossa) + 118 (User:PalkiaX50) + 281 (User:BD2412) + 143 (User:Leolaursen) + 111 (User:Maro) + 170 (User:Dijan) + 126 (User:Saltmarsh) + 206 (User:Barmar) + 97 (User:Jonathan Webley) + 1 (User:Јованвб) + 455 (User:SemperBlotto) + 57 (User:Karelklic) + 111 (User:Carl Daniels) + 64 (User:SPQRobin) + 169 (User:Visviva) + 62 (User:Flyax) + 92 (User:Tohru) + 42 (User:Jusjih) = 7,340
   2. Oppose = 159 (User:Robert Ullmann) + 47 (User:Amgine) + 102 (User:Neskaya) + 12 (User:Kubura) + 31 (User:Pepsi Lite) + 256 (User:DCDuring) + 9 (User:Vhorvat) + 22 (User:Rose Waswa) + 13 (User:Roberta F.) + 9 (User:Sokac121) + 10 (User:SpeedyGonsales) + 85 (User:Yair rand) + 11 (User:Bugoslav) + 2 (User:Dtom) + 2 (User:Saxum) + 105 (User:CodeCat) + 60 (User:Lmaltier) + 40 (User:Jcwf) + 2 (User:Frka) + 41 (User:GerardM) + 154 (User:Goldenrowley) + 2 (User:Bracodbk) + 29 (User:Ooswesthoesbes) + 8 (User:Wikibelgiaan) + 5 (User:Cadfaell) + 19 (User:Annabel) + 2 (User:Zeljko) + 2 (User:Fraxinus) + 208 (User:AugPi) = 1,447
   3. Abstain = 136 (User:Conrad.Irwin) + 316 (User:EncycloPetey) + 116 (User:TheDaveRoss) + 138 (User:Mike) + 199 (User:Mutante) + 102 (User:Carolina wren) = 1,007
2. log₁₀ √contribs. gives:
   1. Support = 2 (User:Razorflame) + 2 (User:Widsith) + 2 (User:Bequw) + 2 (User:Mglovesfun) + 1 (User:Ultimateria) + 2 (User:Atelaes) + 1 (User:Internoob) + 2 (User:Vahagn Petrosyan) + 2 (User:Msh210) + 1 (User:Nbarth) + 2 (User:Ivan Štambuk) + 2 (User:Thryduulf) + 2 (User:Dan Polansky) + 2 (User:Opiaterein) + 2 (User:Tooironic) + 2 (User:Makaokalani) + 2 (User:Krun) + 2 (User:Ruakh) + 2 (User:Bogorm) + 2 (User:Atitarev) + 1 (User:Prince Kassad) + 1 (User:Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf) + 1 (User:Jamesjiao) + 1 (User:Algrif) + 2 (User:Doremítzwr) + 2 (User:Equinox) + 2 (User:Nadando) + 2 (User:DAVilla) + 1 (User:Thrissel) + 2 (User:Stephen G. Brown) + 1 (User:Cdhaptomos) + 1 (User:Caladon) + 1 (User:Diuturno) + 2 (User:Panda10) + 0 (User:FriedrickMILBarbarossa) + 2 (User:PalkiaX50) + 2 (User:BD2412) + 2 (User:Leolaursen) + 2 (User:Maro) + 2 (User:Dijan) + 2 (User:Saltmarsh) + 2 (User:Barmar) + 1 (User:Jonathan Webley) + 0 (User:Јованвб) + 2 (User:SemperBlotto) + 1 (User:Karelklic) + 2 (User:Carl Daniels) + 1 (User:SPQRobin) + 2 (User:Visviva) + 1 (User:Flyax) + 1 (User:Tohru) + 1 (User:Jusjih) = 83
   2. Oppose = 2 (User:Robert Ullmann) + 1 (User:Amgine) + 2 (User:Neskaya) + 1 (User:Kubura) + 1 (User:Pepsi Lite) + 2 (User:DCDuring) + 0 (User:Vhorvat) + 1 (User:Rose Waswa) + 1 (User:Roberta F.) + 0 (User:Sokac121) + 1 (User:SpeedyGonsales) + 1 (User:Yair rand) + 1 (User:Bugoslav) + 0 (User:Dtom) + 0 (User:Saxum) + 2 (User:CodeCat) + 1 (User:Lmaltier) + 1 (User:Jcwf) + 0 (User:Frka) + 1 (User:GerardM) + 2 (User:Goldenrowley) + 0 (User:Bracodbk) + 1 (User:Ooswesthoesbes) + 0 (User:Wikibelgiaan) + 0 (User:Cadfaell) + 2 (User:Annabel) + 0 (User:Zeljko) + 0 (User:Fraxinus) + 2 (User:AugPi) = 26
   3. Abstain = 2 (User:Conrad.Irwin) + 2 (User:EncycloPetey) + 2 (User:TheDaveRoss) + 2 (User:Mike) + 2 (User:Mutante) + 2 (User:Carolina wren) = 12

For √contribs., expressed in percentages, the 9,794 votes are divided 75%–15%–10% (S–O–A). Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined 8,787 votes are divided 84%–16% (S–O). This entails that were each voter given a number votes equal to the square root of his number of contributions, this current vote (in its present state) would pass even if the threshold for consensus were as high as a ⅚ supermajority.
For log₁₀ √contribs., expressed in percentages, the 121 votes are divided 69%–21%–10% (S–O–A). Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined 109 votes are divided 76%–24% (S–O). This entails that were each voter given a number votes equal to the denary logarithm of the square root of his number of contributions, this current vote (in its present state) would pass even if the threshold for consensus were as high as a ¾ supermajority.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that all four of those methods for unequal vote-weighting yield supermajorities greater than Atelaes's proposed threshold of ⁷⁄₁₀. It seems that the only way this vote will fail is if we accept the absurd notion that everyone's vote should be weighted equally, which is equivalent to the notion that everyone's opinion has equal validity. Out of the four that I've demonstrated, I prefer √contribs. — IMO, it strikes the right balance between giving votes weight proportionate to their casters' expertise (assuming, reasonably, that there is a correlation between an editor's number of contributions and his expertise) and preventing "a few, long-term editors" from being "give[n] outrageous numbers of votes". № of votes = № of contribs., as you said, skews things too much in favour of the most prolific editors, rendering newbies virtually powerless (for example, SB, under that system you would be able to outvote all of the twenty-nine opposing voters by yourself). Neither № of votes = log₁₀ № of contribs. nor № of votes = log₁₀ √№ of contribs., IMO, give adequate weight proportionate to expertise; moreover, they both result in setting contribution minima before one may vote (10 for log₁₀ contribs. and 82 for log₁₀ √contribs.), whereas both the other methods extend the franchise universally (however weak that franchise may be in the case of voters with contributions in the single digits). Proportionate, rather than absolute, enfranchisement would put an end once and for all to external POV-pushers vetoing here. (The problem would still exist with absolute enfranchisement that sets a contribution minimum like 50; such a requirement is easy to satisfy.) The only problem I foresee is that it would be labour-intensive to check the square roots of every voter's number of contributions; hopefully, one of our technical bright sparks will be able to create a template which yields the square root of a user's contributions when told the username. I'll go bring this up in the Beer parlour.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt the math fest... but does anyone else love the fact that the 6 abstainers have more combined edits than the 29 opposers? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote, SB alone has more edits than all twenty-nine of the opposers.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice that....but that's obviously 10 times better :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Want to repeat, with only contributions in the main namespace counted? :P Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 18:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to without a hell of a lot of leg-work. The Edit Counter, which gives breakdowns by namespace, isn't accurate like the API is. Hopefully, the hypothetical template I talked about will be able to count only the contributions made in the appropriate namespaces.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Notate bene, I've posted this topic in the Beer parlour.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Voting tally by numbers of contributions in all Wikimedia projects:
Support

Razorflame: 110,151 (home= simple.wiki)
Widsith: 30,246 (S:1)
Bequw: 40,416 (S:1)
Mglovesfun: 102,018
Ultimateria: 9,818 (S:1)
Atelaes: 23,402 (S:1)
Internoob: 4,234 (S:1)
Vahagn Petrosyan: 44,441 (S:1)
Msh210: 32,499 (S:1)
Nbarth: 26,754 (S:1)
Ivan_Štambuk: 82,303 (S:1) (banned= hr.wiki)
Thryduulf: 51,125 (S:2)
Dan Polansky: 76,228
Opiaterein: 55,375 (S:1)
Tooironic: 16,860 (S:1)
Makaokalani: 17,939
Krun: 21,777 (S:3, B:1)
Ruakh: 38,373 (S:1)
Bogorm: 25,671 (S:1) (banned= en.wiki, nl.wikt)
Atitarev: 39,224 (S:1)
Prince Kassad: 15,096 (S:1)
Maria Sieglinda on Nudeldorf: 4,155 (S:1) (home=sh.wiki)
Jamesjiao: 9,856 (S:1)
Algrif: 7,556 (S:1)
Doremítzwr: 13,435 (S:1)
Equinox: 61,032 (S:1)
Nadando: 30,749 (S:1)
DAVilla: 17,559 (S:1)
Thrissel: 5,864
Stephen G. Brown: 110,493 (S:2, B:1)
Cdhaptomos: 3,454
Caladon: 10,593 (S:1)
Diuturno: 15,158 (S:2) (home=it.wikt)
Panda10: 49,857 (S:1)
FriedrickMILBarbarossa: 2,689 (banned=sr.wiki)
PalkiaX50: 13,919 (S:1)
BD2412: 333,729 (S:3) (home=en.wiki)
Leolaursen: 43,914 (S:2)
Maro: 12,300
Dijan: 33,583 (S:2, B:1)
Saltmarsh: 17,509 (S:1)
Barmar: 42,260
Jonathan Webley: 11,557 (S:2)
Јованвб: 36,614 (S:5, B:3) (home=sr.wiki)
SemperBlotto: 209,896 (S:1, B:1)
Karelklic: 3,805
Carl Daniels: 13,779
SPQRobin: 24,124 (S:2, B:1) (home=incubatorwiki)
Visviva: 53,043 (S:2)
Flyax: 37,912 (S:1) (home=el.wikt)
Tohru: 8,695 (S:1)
Jusjih: 99,823 (S:11, B:4, Chk:1, Stw:1) (home=zhwikisource)

SUM = 2,202,862 (S:67, B:12) (banned = 4)

SUM_OF_SQRT's = 9364.11515

Oppose

Robert Ullmann: 26,652 (S:1)
Amgine: 19,594 (S:2) (home=enwikinews)
Neskaya: 10,749 (S:1)
Kubura: 42,194 (home=hr.wiki) (banned=de.wiki, en.wikt)
Pepsi Lite: 4,086 (home=sr.wiki)
DCDuring: 69,356 (S:1)
Vhorvat: 3,857 (home=hr.wiki)
Rose Waswa: 9,919 (home=sw.wikt)
Roberta F.: 41,992 (S:1) (home=hr.wikt)
Sokac121: 8,034 (home=hr.wiki)
SpeedyGonsales: 19,218 (S:2, B:1) (home=hr.wiki)
Yair rand: 8,689 (S:1)
Bugoslav: 4,910 (home=hr.wiki) (banned=en.wiki)
Dtom: 17,741 (S:1, B:1) (home=hr.wiki)
Saxum: 9,209 (S:1) (home=hr.wiki) (banned=es.wiki)
CodeCat: 11,100 (S:1)
Lmaltier: 121,210 (S:2) (home=fr.wikt)
Jcwf: 74,138 (S:3) (home=nl.wikt)
Frka: 11,482 (home=hr.wiki)
GerardM: 68,516 (S:6, B:1) (home=nl.wikt)
Goldenrowley: 43,371 (S:1)
Bracodbk: 10,584 (S:1) (home=hr.wiki)
Ooswesthoesbes: 59,265 (S:2) (home=liwikiquote)
Wikibelgiaan: 10,241 (home=nl.wikt)
Cadfaell: 12,276 (home=de.wikt)
Annabel: 29,024 (S:1) (home=nl.wikt)
Zeljko: 66,311 (home=hr.wiki)
Fraxinus: 8,387 (S:1) (home=hr.wiki)
AugPi: 47,328 (S:1)

SUM = 869,433 (S:30, B:3) (banned = 4)

SUM_OF_SQRT's = 4525.20447

Abstain

Conrad.Irwin: 19,676 (S:1, coder)
EncycloPetey: 129,119 (S:2, B:1)
TheDaveRoss: 13,775 (S:1)
Mike: 53,674 (S:3, B:1) (home=sv.wikt)
Mutante: 40,524 (S:1)
Carolina wren: 10,856 (S:1)

SUM = 267,624 (S:9, B:2)

SUM_OF_SQRT's = 1154.1438

Expressed in percentages, the voters' total 3,339,919 Wikimedia-wide edits are percentage wise divided as 65.96%–26.03%–8.01%.
Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined Wikimedia-wide 3,072,295 edits are divided percentage wise as 71.7%–28.3%. Assuming a 70% consensus threshold, this is enough to achieve consensus.

When considering sums of square roots, the 15,043.46342 votes are percentage wise divided as 62.25%–30.08%–7.67%.

Ignoring abstentions, the supporting and opposing voters' combined 13,889.31962 votes are divided percentage wise as 67.42%–32.58%. Assuming a 70% consensus threshold, this is not enough to achieve consensus.   AugPi 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• And all this is meaningless, because editcount has absolutely nothing to do with voting, policy-wise. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Current policy? Right. I think people's point is that this may be a desirable change in policy. An idea no one's floated here yet (I haven't checked the BP discussion(s) yet) is to count local edits and WMF-wide edits, assigning weight to each.​—msh210℠ 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• This last analysis proves that many of the opposing votes were canvassed - just look at their home projects! What we need to is to value their votes here on the basis of the same criteria that their respective home projects value votes. --Ivan Štambuk

Argument: Getting opinion or input

One argument repeatedly stated in this vote is that we need to allow all editors of wikiprojects vote for the reason that we need to get their input or opinion. I have created this section as a central place for this argument, despite having addressed this argument already at several places.

I think this argument is flawed. Anyone should be allowed to voice an opinion and make his points, even an anonymous editor. But not everyone should be allowed to vote. In order to influence a policy and a vote, a person does not need to vote. Quite to the contrary, a person who brings powerful arguments into a discussion and does not vote can have greater influence than a person who merely casts a vote without taking part on the discussion. --Dan Polansky 10:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We could restrict voting on an issue to those who have discussed it?, (or open it up to who have made edits it will affect). Conrad.Irwin 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. 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.

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. —Stephen 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, almost none of us here are eligible to vote on the French, Dutch, or Croatian Wiktionaries. Their voting requirements forbid it. And if we manage enough edits over two months to finally vote, we will lose our eligibility if we do not maintain an active presence there. On English Wiktionary, RU comes with his army of Croatian, Dutch, French, and Swahili meatpuppets, and the active regulars here usually cannot overcome his regimented voting bloque. —Stephen 11:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "We could restrict voting on an issue to those who have discussed it?" That was not my point. My point was that even non-voters can freely discuss, and thereby influence the outcome of a vote. On the quoted sentence: that seems too restrictive to me. It is usual that only few people discuss a subject in Beer parlour, while many come to vote. That many regular editors actually often come to vote is one of the good features of votes, one that sets votes off from discussions in Beer parlour. I hope I have understood correctly what you meant. --Dan Polansky 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before, but there's a lot of text flying about, so I guess I'll repeat it. I (and I suspect many others) would have absolutely no problem with allowing anyone and everyone the option of an abstain vote. This would allow an official route to voicing concerns, while keeping the decision-making in the hands of those who have a stake in the project. As an aside, I think it rather odd that projects which have more stringent requirements than we would vote against our requirements. I suppose the viewpoint of the SC folks is understandable, as they just don't want anyone, anywhere to utter the obscenity which is "Serbo-Croatian," but the others....it confuses me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of directing non-voter comments and input into "Abstain" votes. I have overlooked it in the flood of previous discussion. Thanks. --Dan Polansky 11:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Eligibility policies on non-English Wiktionaries

On the comparision of the proposed eligibility policy with eligibility policies of non-English Wiktionaries:

Quoting Stephen from above: "Almost none of us here are eligible to vote on the French, Dutch, or Croatian Wiktionaries. Their voting requirements forbid it."

I am looking forward to reading more details without having to research the subject myself, so please, everyone who feels like to, post below what you have already found out on the subject. --Dan Polansky 11:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Italian Wiktionary - must have made first edit more than 60 days ago, must have made at least 500 edits, no ip-address votes - see it:Pagina principale/Votazione SemperBlotto 11:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find the specific rules on the French wiktionary, but they don't seem to be on the main vote page... and I'm not big on hunting. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dutch wiktionary - no voting policy. Rarely any (informal) voting, decision making based on discussions. Curious 17:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  The threshold on French Wiktionary, Wiktionnaire, is 100 contributions. This applies at least to granting bot status. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  Interesting that Lmaltier doesn't

• On Croatian Wiktionay the only votes so far are for new admins, and there voting rules' link redirects to Crotian pedia voting rules, which require >100 conributions and for the account to be active at least a month before the respective voting began. --Ivan Štambuk 18:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

  So really, the numbers we're working with on this vote are really pretty weak compared to some other wikis. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Spanish Wiktionary voting requirements: (i) 2-week prior registration in es.wikt, and (ii) at least 20 edits.

• Portuguese Wiktionary voting requirements: (i) 30-day prior registration, (ii) at least 200 edits, (iii) immediately consecutive edits by the same user in the same article are counted as a single edit.   AugPi 21:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement on non-English Wikiprojects

For future reference, this vote has been advertised on the following non-English Wikiprojects:

• Croatian Wikipedia, 2 May 2010
• Dutch Wiktionary, 22 May 2010

--Dan Polansky 11:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Serbian Wikipedia, the administrator from en.wiktionary, was canvassing on sr.wiki--Sokac121 14:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

I'm amazed to what extent this vote is being interpreted as a way to get a future Serbo-Croatian vote through with much less opposition. It's turning in to an absolute farce, Molière would have been proud. I wonder how many people opposing this would in other circumstances support it as a good idea. This is precisely why the proposition is such a good one, it avoids potential sock puppet or canvassing voting that we're getting now. Are votes just gonna turn into some contributors bribing/threatening complete no names into voting, while contributors with several thousand edits who vote honestly are basically ignored. If that's the case, why bother? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes are not a good way of doing anything. When did any (in what circumstances) "alien" come to this great project. Only in such cases when some ideas were not stopped on time.

This shouldn't have happened, it should not have been allowed.

Such deeds cannot be put under the consensus hat, and if the Community on en:wiktionary (possibly the biggest and most influential wiktionary) wants to be fair, it should have defended the ISO 639-1.

This with an explanation "lets make it explicit then" is regarded as a "policy" of some sort, and it has not been nor it should become one. This should be deleted.

Instead, it is allowed.

Bugoslav 16:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes are unfortunately the only way to forcibly provide a solution where one of the sides in a discussion is unable to compromise. Serbo-Croatian unification proposal was perfectly thought-out, and has served us well for more than a year now. The only dissenters are a tightly knit group of PoV fundamentalists from Croatian and Serbian pedia, who imagine that there is some kind of a difference among "Croatian language", "Bosnian language" and "Serbian language", but are apparently unable to defend their claims on linguistic grounds. --Ivan Štambuk 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

They know that if they stray from politics and get into actual science, they will fail. The only differences I've noticed between the Serbo-Croatian 'languages' are stylistic and superficial, like for instance the English dialects, the Armenian, Spanish and Portuguese dialects, etc. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is mine impression as well. But again, this vote has nothing to do with SC issues and I fail to understand why it has been disrupted in such a gross and insidious manner by the nationalistic clique from hr.wiki and by malignant Milošević comparisons on nl.wikt. I have virtually no activity on hr.wiki and do not intend any in the future. Who inspired them (before Boguslav) to gang up on this vote page? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It rarely happens that a vote that takes place on English Wiktionary is influenced by non-contributors. One of the votes in which it did happen was the vote on the unification of Serbo-Croatian in English Wiktionary. This vote on eligibility affects the ability to vote of the non-contributors who opposed in the vote on the union of Serbo-Croatian in English Wiktionary, so it is only natural that they come to this eligibility vote to oppose. No matter whether this is good or bad, I see no surprise at all. --Dan Polansky 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How many people from Croatian, for SC. 1, 2 maybe 3. Others are clearly told what they think, not SC. Opiaterein unfortunately, You're a big mistake. Bogorom I am not a nationalist, as you say. --Sokac121 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sokac, do not ſquander the ſpace of this page with a pointleſs third repetition of mine informative poſt on sr.wiki , which has nothing in common with the forthright and canvassing exhortation Boguſlav engaged in and with the denigration of this project on nl.wikt . In Bulgarian there is the phraſe с техните камъни по тяхната глава and I do not think it is neceſsary to translate it for other South Slavs (техен = њихов). This is not the place to discuſs for a third time (as you do) the activity of Wiktionarians on fellow wiki projects. I have already replied in the BP ſection, where you are expected to contribute, if you have ſomething ſensible and/or meaningful and/or new to utter on this matter. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do people come from, what are their ethnicities and mother tongues, and their political affiliations - is completely irrelevant. What matters is the arguments they expound, and the logic behind them. Even if we had entire Croatia and Serbia signed opposing the proposal, but offering no justification other than their signature, it wouldn't matter much. --Ivan Štambuk 18:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, But it is important, if someone knows the situation firsthand. Not just are you from Serbia or from Brazil, when the story of SC. We feel in their own skin. Bogorom Idem sist pa jist, bilog lipog mlika, iz bile lipe zdile :), kasnije ću ti odgovoriti--Sokac121 18:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian language, who has had 12 year of formal study of Croatian language with highest marks. Nothing relevant has been missed. The way the actual language has been changing in the past few decades is, if anything, for the common lexicographical treatment. --Ivan Štambuk 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is more this. Why don't they just support this vote, and make fifty quick edit (I can do that in 20 minutes, jeez). Opposing this vote on the grounds of a vote that hasn't happened yet and may never happen is a poor idea. And like I say, it's also not necessary, they can just make 50 edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

de facto

Am I correct in the sad impression that the only way that this vote will pass is if those who support it themselves engage in massive vote canvassing?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Raifʻhār, I myself was under that impression when I observed the diligently præpared vote being engulfed by meatpuppetry from hr.wiki . I was at a loss, but struggled to overcome my profound discontent, until I informed the sr.wiki about the ongoing vote and the overt incursion of the Croatian nationalists with less than 200 together (I have not mentioned that last information). I have not exhorted them what to do nor how to vote nor to make 50 contributions in case the vote fails in order to influence future more important votes (Boguslav on hr.wiki), I simply expounded the lamentable situation which betid English Wiktionary at the hands of the rabid Croatian nationalism. I apologise, if I have disappointed anyone by giving way to that discontent, but no canvassing has been committed by me, only apprising the people of the sombre events here! The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about that. Initially, I was disappointed by what seemed to be hypocrisy. By now though, my thinking is "well, why the Hell not?" By any sane standard, this vote passes, but we have this crazy equality of votes with no qualification. If it fails, it will be only by the least legitimate of means. Two wrongs may not make a right, but I'm sure we can all predict what will happen if we refuse to leave the moral high ground. Whatever brings about the legitimate outcome is surely to be embraced, despite its impalatability.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You know if anything, this vote has been a really good example of exactly why we need to have voting regulations - and I would argue that they should be even stricter than just 50 edits. A lot of these crazies have the 50, but only edit here once in a great while. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the opposers who gave comments in their votes seem to be confused about what the vote was even about. If I were to close the vote (which I won't) I would call it a pass... most of the people who voted oppose will never vote or edit here again. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also close it as a pass. Indeed, another user already closed it as such, due to a confusion (which I shared) about the distinction between "0:00" and "24:00". Per the main page, "no voting policies are in effect at this time" ... thus, it is up to the closer to exercise reasonable judgment regarding both the weight accorded to specific votes and the threshold required for consensus. -- Visviva 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Prolonging the vote

This vote has been prolonged to last until 23:59, 31 May 2010, with which I agree. --Dan Polansky 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• (Will this nightmare never end? Ƿidsiþ 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Dan, where are the additional supporters expected to come from? Perhaps if User:Curious canvasses on Turkish wiktionary/wikipedia, the opposers will have the chance to outnumber the supporters? It was my fault that I had not set the vote for two weeks in lieu of four, which I profoundly regret. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't. I have given my opinion, and that's all. Curious 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

While I don't suppose this does any harm, I can't really see the point. -- Visviva 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed my explicit support for the prolongation. I am now merely noting that a user has prolonger the vote. I am refraining from determining whether the prolongation is good or bad. --Dan Polansky 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone decided to "canvass" in English Wikipedia, a prolongation would make sense, wouldn't it? --Dan Polansky 19:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, although it could hardly become worse / horšie to už byť nemôže /, I am no adhærent of canvassing. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone should post a message there? Now that should be nice. To mask it as an innocent outcry against Balkanic narrow-mindedness, with stimulative justice-seeking undertones. --Ivan Štambuk 20:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ugh....I just want this to end. I am sorely tempted to simply undo Rising Sun's edit. More input is not what we need. I think we already have a good idea of where everyone stands. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Whose idea was this? I can’t find a discussion of it. If Rising Sun did it on his own for a lark, let’s revert it and be done with it. —Stephen 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Outcome 2

I am sorry to say that, but the outcome "passes" is untraceable to me. The vote has ended with the result 57–34–7, meaning 63% in support, believing the counting done by  Raifʻhār Doremítzwr. This vote is on a proposal that modifies the constitution, as it were, so it should require 75% support. While it could be reasonable to discount some of the votes, it is not clear which votes have been discounted. This lack of transparency seems troublesome. --Dan Polansky 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All canvassed votes should be ignored. These account for an overwhelming majority of the opposing votes. This vote is a clear pass IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk 10:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno about the "overwhelming majority", but yes. Sadly this has been interpreted as about Serbo-Croatian while I'm interpreting it, curiously enough, about exactly what it says in the description! I could probably go on Wikipedia and get 20 people to copy and paste {{subst:support}} without them even reading what the vote is about. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is election fraud, 63% is not 2/3 (75%), For this need to hear Wikimedia Foundation. The biggest fraud in the history of elections in wiktionary.--Sokac121 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to bring up the issue at meta. I'm sure that they will be delighted to hear your accusations of "fraud". It's a done deal here. --Ivan Štambuk 10:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop encouraging idiocy - the last thing we want is a gazillion do-gooders who have no idea about anything trying to "help". Conrad.Irwin 10:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Constitution is made with 75%, not with 63%. Here, democracy is dead. Lived totalitarian regime --Sokac121 10:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sokac121, this is a vote that has been held and passed in accordance with our current policy, and closed by one of the most respected members of the community in a manner that, I imagine, was the result of some careful thought. It brings our voting policy more in line with that of other major Wiktionaries, though we still require half, or less than half, of the conditions required by other places. Do you have evidence to suggest that the other Wiktionaries are totalitarian regimes? Conrad.Irwin 10:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sokac121, are you able to outgrow thinking in political dimensions at all? There is no politics in this vote, it is not about politics (en effet, no of the votes on this project are thereabout, there is pedia for that purpose where you can find much easier an outlet for your political zeal). This vote was about a purely technical issue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bogorom, No politics, call me Croatian nationalist, the Serbian Wikipedia.??--Sokac121 10:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Sokac121, this is an overt nationalistic harassment. And here you were harassing an established editor on hr.wiki denigrating him and calling him a vandal. Likewise, you yell here feigned exclamations about fraud after your ортаци/ortaci had flocked here together on this vote in order to suvert it. Sokac121, do the words cant and impertinence tell you something? And please desist from misspelling my name, since this is the fourth time yo do so and my patience is waning. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying "there is no politics" is total bollocks. There's shouldn't have been, but there was a tonne of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say that there are no politics in the text we were voting. The political issue has been imported from hr.wiki and nl.wikt , but it has never been conceived by the proposer of the vote. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

... (removed belligerent rants by Sokac121 (talk • contribs). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Not relevant. Any chance we can talk about this vote, or just nothing at all? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sokac121 was given time to calm down. I took the liberty of removing a belligerent comment which included copying links for the n-th time. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is election fraud, 63% is not 2/3 (75%), For this need to hear Wikimedia Foundation. The biggest fraud in the history of elections in wiktionary.--Sokac121 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As this user clearly does not know math, all accusations of fraud or anything else based on the math of the votes should probably be ignored. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. The joys of the public school system. On the other hand, what has gone unmentioned, is that the strictly democratic procedure does not require an overwhelming majority, but simply a majority (50%+1). So this is the democracy, the will of the people, and I ask Jcwf, Sokac121 and other malcontents to bear with its consequences. --Ivan Štambuk 14:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Which have probably been exaggerated. The rules aren't even that strict. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 17:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The errors made by the user Sokac212 do not in any way change the fact that the closing of this vote has been performed in an intransparent manner. It is unapparent in what way the threshold of 75% has been surpassed, if it has been surpassed at all. I do not know how to respond to this situation, but I am sure that I do not like it at all, and am disappointed. For some of the commenters above, let me explain that this vote changes the parameters of the voting procedure, so it would, in many democratic systems, require the majority of 75% to pass rather than mere 50%. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's very sad indeed. --Ivan Štambuk 13:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot think of any democratic system which requires 75% for making decisions - in Eastern Europe one barely manages to secure 50% of the seats in parliament by means of coalitions with 3, 4 or 5 parties, not to speak about 75%. It is only in the systems which do not qualify as democratic where 75% is easily achieved (PRC). From the democratic systems only in the Russian Fœderation the ruling party enjoys more than 70% of the seats, but it is supported by two of the remaining three parties. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the only way to obtain that kind of support.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

These photos depicting one MP voting for 4 or 5 of his colleagues are nil sub sole novum for an Eastern Europæan, believe me. The situation in Bulgaria is exactly the same. And yet, BBC emits scores of reports quæstioning the democracy in the Russian Fœderation whereas I have not noticed any interest in our absent MPs (up to 80% were absent now and again in the former parliament). However, Bulgaria is currently a docile NATO member, whereas Russia is not, of course. Nevertheless, let us desist from further political discussions please. My point was to show to Dan Polansky that a 75% consensus is a rare and unwonted event for any democratic system. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The link was intended as a bit of satire. The longer this discussion about democracy goes on, the more surreal and preposterous it seems. Why people care so much about this quantified measure of democratic legitimacy is beyond me. How democratic we are is in no way proportionate with the quality of our content.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, let us desist from further political discussions please. - No, this has to be put into a proper perspective. Repeatedly has the issue of the democracy, and the voting procedure being democratic, been brought up. It's ipso facto a political value judgement. Democracy is "good", because we think it's good, despite the fact that it does't really work in most of the world. Just point your finger in any random part of the globe - whatever patch of land you happen to pick, the chances are that for the better part of its history it was under the absolute rule of some untouchable sovereign, or some totalitarian regime, and even if it is a democratic system today, it's in all likelihood undisciplined Russian-style. In "rich" countries with educated citizenry and established personal freedoms and a tradition of political responsibility to the general public the behavior displayed by Duma deputies would be unthinkable. (Ren TV's report - obligatory ^_^). One might argue that, drawing on the history lessons, the best way of functioning for the Russian Wiktionary would not be all-user voting, but instead iron-fist rule of the Wise Leader, whose sockpuppets (in those rare occasions when they actually make appearance) would enthusiastically support all of his prudent decisions. For wiki communities the optimal solution would be something in between: democratic elections among the carefully chosen group of regulars, whose regularity of editing guarantees their stake in the outcome. --Ivan Štambuk 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Bogorm, let me emphasize the distinction between (a) changing the constitution on one hand and (b) changing a law that is not part of constitution on the other hand. It is this distinction that you seem to fail to make. A decision to change rules for voting eligibility is one that would typically mean changing the constitution, from what I understand. And it is changing the constitution--rather than changing any other law--that requires 75% rather than mere 50%. Quoting W:Supermajority, italics added by me: "The United States Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose a Congress-driven constitutional amendment; it also requires a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures for final adoption of any constitutional amendment, a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of Congress to pass a bill over the president's veto, a majority of the fixed membership to elect a President and Vice President (of Electors in the Electoral College, or if the election should pass to the Congress to decide, a majority of State delegations in the House to elect the President, and a majority of Senators to elect the Vice President), and a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate to ratify a treaty." --Dan Polansky 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"...a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress" - both of which are voted normally, democratically, requiring normal majority of at most 50%+1 (lower if there are more candidates) to get representatives elected. In practice you have 20-30% of electorate owning the game all the time, and the rest are told to try their luck in 4-5 years, in those 30 seconds it takes to cast a vote. The more levels of indirection, the bigger the hoax. At the top are central banksters, at the bottom "empowered" mindless mobs. --Ivan Štambuk 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress are required to propose an amendment, not for the final adoption. You should read more carefully. --Dan Polansky 05:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The remark is also valid in case of three-quarters super-majority. As long as you don't have a referendum where the majority of those eligible for voting actually vote in support of the change. On wiki-universe that would be of course impossible to implement. Is is erroneous to project the outcome of only those who have voted, as if they proportionally represent the general opinion of everyone who was eligible for voting before the regulation. English Wiktionary has 376,255 (as of now) registered usernames, and not even 1% of them voted. One has to make some sort of subjective assessment on where to draw the line in order to account for the canvassed and bad-faith votes. --Ivan Štambuk 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting a follow-up in #Outcome 3. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraud continues

Fraxinus ,

Jovan , FriedrickMILBarbarossa What with the voices --Sokac121 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite your very hard to understand English, I replied on my talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

N.B. glas in Serbo-Croatian means both "voice" and "vote", hence the confusion. --Ivan Štambuk 10:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hvala Ivane baš ste ljubazni, da to je poznata naša hrvatska ljubaznost--Sokac121 10:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your edits - they served no purpose other than to irritate other users (not that I blame you, I don't see why they are so irritated either). Conrad.Irwin 10:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suits me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Outcome 3

Following up on the section #Outcome 2:

I do not get which remark is valid in case of three-quarters (75%) supermajority. The key point is that the relevant threshold for changes in constitution is 75%.

He who has not voted does not get counted, just like in democratic elections. This vote has lasted for a month, as it should: that is a plenty of time for voters to notice that a vote is taking place. There should be no attempt made to represent those who have not voted; only those who have actually voted count. There is no point in trying to estimate the hypothetical votes of all registered users.

If a subjective assessment about canvassing and bad-faith votes is made, it should transparent. If some votes are classed as bad-faith--and I have not seen any such votes--it should be clear who has classed them as such and which votes have been so classed. This has not happened in this vote. As far as I am concerned, the closing of this vote as it has been done is illegitimate, and this vote has ended up with no consensus. --Dan Polansky 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

the relevant threshold for changes in constitution is 75%...where does it say that? Ƿidsiþ 08:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Under arbitrarily defined "laws" and "constitutions", any vote can be pronounced "illegitimate". --Ivan Štambuk 08:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Widsith, I can only repeat my quoting W:Supermajority, italics added by me: "The United States Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose a Congress-driven constitutional amendment; it also requires a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures for final adoption of any constitutional amendment, a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of Congress to pass a bill over the president's veto, a majority of the fixed membership to elect a President and Vice President (of Electors in the Electoral College, or if the election should pass to the Congress to decide, a majority of State delegations in the House to elect the President, and a majority of Senators to elect the Vice President), and a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate to ratify a treaty."

This rests on some assumptions: (a) changing of the rules of voting eligibility in English Wiktionary should be considered on par with changes in constitution, as Wiktionary does not have any document called constitution; (b) an analogy to real-world democratic processes in the English-speaking world should be sought, and applied on-wiki. The assumption (a) rests on the assumption (b) in that, if I understand correctly, changing the laws for voting eligibility in the U.S. would require a constitutional amendment. --Dan Polansky 09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Er...the obvious answer is that Wiktionary guidelines are not the United States Constitution. Ƿidsiþ 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Most Wiktionary guidelines and policies are not analogous to a constitution, but eligibility policy is analogous to a part of a constitution. That is my point. --Dan Polansky 09:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and our requirement of 60% is analogous to the US Constitution's requirement of 75%. What's the point here? Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the two numbers analogous? I don't understand. What does it mean for two numbers to be analogous?

The threshold of 70% has been applied in English Wiktionary in votes on issues that were not on par with a constitution, so I fail to grasp how the threshold of 60% can be applied to an issue that is on par with a constitution. --Dan Polansky 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Analogous means that they fulfil the same function. I have no idea what Wiktionary requirements are to pass a vote -- I don't think we've ever said -- but I do know that the US Constitution is of no relevance whatever to what we decide. Who cares what the US Constitution requires? You can say Wiktionary votes are analogous to Constitutional changes, you could also say they're analogous to the AGM of the Croydon Women's Institute. Who cares? Ƿidsiþ 09:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a repeated precedent of Wiktionary votes not passing because of their failure to surpass the threshold of 70%, so I don't have a clue where you are coming from with "I have no idea what Wiktionary requirements are to pass a vote". "Analogous", the way I intended to use the term, means "such that it bears an analogy, a significant similarity". I see no analogy between a Wiktionary vote and an annual general meeting. Of course, an analogy can be denied. I am asserting a particular analogy, one which I think is very meaningful. --Dan Polansky 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dan, I implore you to realise that English wiktionary is not and should never become an epigone of the US legislative system. There are countries on this Earth, such as Gabon, where victory is achieved by 42% of the vote. Of course I am not saying that the Gabonese system is præferable, but 60% are, in my humble opinion, some sort of aurea mediocritas between these two extremities. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you missed or misunderstood my remark above: for US constitutional changes to take effect, 3/4 of the state legislatures must ratify it, but each of which can be elected by normal 51% majority. So in the worst case you need 0.75*0.51=38% of properly distributed electorate for a constitutional changes to pass. In practice it's much less, since most people don't vote, and politicians often vote against what they officially endorsed during campaigning (thus not really representing their voters' opinions). So 60%+ directly (without representative indirection) is way better than 75% with representative indirection. --Ivan Štambuk 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  That is a strong point; thanks for making it so explicit and clear. However, it remains true that there is in the U.S. a difference between the percentage required to make a change in the constitution and the percentage required to make a change in non-constitutional laws. The percentage so far used in Wiktionary for non-constitutional changes has been 70%, which is significantly more than the mentioned 60%. I would expect that the percentage applied to constitutional changes would be greater, at least 75%—which we get on the model of the U.S. when we count the state legislatures as individuals and disregard their being plain majorities of votes of citizens—or even 80% given how high the non-constitutional threshold of 70% is. Otherwise, the non-passing of the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Add en: to English topical categories with its 63% gets inexplicable. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that the equivalent of "constitutional changes" should require extraordinary majority of supporters, but I don't really see this vote as a constitutional change: more like a constitutional inception. I see Wiktionary regulars as a sort of our Founding Fathers, and malignant outsiders voting oppose as rebellious representatives of the Crown monarchism. In order to secure basic electoral freedom from foreign influence, I find it justifiable to establish such policy, forcibly if necessary. --Ivan Štambuk 10:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)