Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2020-02/De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

De-sysop votes to pass by simple majority

The status quo: De-sysop votes require a supermajority to remove an admin's powers. This means that if 50% of voters had opposed me gaining admin powers back in 2012, I wouldn't have received them, but if 50% of voters were to oppose me keeping those powers in 2020, I would still get to keep them.

The proposal: All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 50%+1 (a simple majority) to pass. For instance, a de-sysop vote with 11 supports, 10 opposes and 20 abstains shall be closed as passed, while a de-sysop vote with 10 supports, 10 opposes and 20 abstains shall be closed failed.

The rationale: Admins should not be given carte blanche, and this vote would increase accountability. With a more effective voting policy, we could rely less on bureaucrats to keep order and have the community pass judgement instead.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support

  1. Support Per the last vote. --{{victar|talk}} 05:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  2. Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  3. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  4. Support again — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  5. Support - TheDaveRoss 13:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  6. Support. If most people think someone shouldn't be a sysop, they shouldn't be a sysop. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  7. Support ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  8. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  9. Support — Imetsia (talk · contribs) 18:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
  10. Support — NativeNames (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  11. Support – Although I preferred the previous attempt at this vote. Too bad the unfortunate wording stood in the way. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 04:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    If the only problem were the "wording" and the "confirmation", the proposal addressing that would be as follows:
    "All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 1/3+1 to pass."
    It is very uncertain that the above proposal would pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I liked it better. As I said in the previous vote, I think that if de-sysopping were easier, then there would be much less opposition to new admins. I've seen too many good editors failing their nominations, and I think that's because most people feel like electing someone is irreversible. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    I missed it when I first read Dan's comment, but he's bringing up a wholly different proposal (to use 1/3 as the cutoff), which I would oppose. It seems like a complete non sequitur when Tom is talking about my previous vote, which employed the same cutoff as this one but differed in wording. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    The wording posted by me above achieves the same behavior as Wiktionary:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes, without using the "confirmation" wording. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, my mistake. Yes, if people voted logically that would be the case. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  12. Support —Internoob 04:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
  13. Support — Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  14. Support This is a significant check on power and a welcome improvement over the status quo. I prefer the following, but it is very uncertain to pass:
    "All votes require a 2/3 supermajority to pass (source), except for de-sysop votes, which shall only require 1/3+1 to pass."
    On the upside of the current proposal, using the plain majority threshold removes the power from superminorities, whether the power to keep sysop or the power to remove sysop, which has some charm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  15. Support — Eru·tuon 19:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  16. Support * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  17. Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  18. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  19. Support — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 16:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Equinox ◑ 20:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

Decision

Passes 19–1–0. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia