Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility

• Voting on: introducing the threshold of 400 contributions to the main, Appendix or Citations namespaces, made during the last six months, but at least 14 days prior to the beginning of the vote in order to acquire eligibility for voting on Wiktionary. The proposal is aimed at enabling the Wiktionary community, id est our regular users, to have a decisive say in shaping Wiktionary and to prevent influx and interference of users from other projects due to conflicts of interests or purely ideological motives and other predicaments brought on by the current loose rules on voting. This practice is not novel — on the French Wikipedia the threshold is 50 contributions, but an additional explanation together with the vote is obligatory.Bogorm, 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Vote starts: 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Vote created: Bogorm, 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour#threshold for voting

1. Support The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support 400 edits in 6 months is 2.2 edits a day. Hardly too restrictive, given how easy is to edit here. --Ivan Štambuk 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support I don't think 400 is too much. But given the opposition, I think the limit could be reduced to 50 edits (keeping 14 day period) and the vote reset. --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support —Stephen 21:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 400 edits is is a breeze for anyone who has an interest in the project. —Stephen 21:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Anatoli 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) The eligibility description sounds reasonable to me. --Anatoli 06:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support --Dijan 07:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I don't oppose the concept of an eligibility requirement, but this one seems a bit extreme. I'd rather err on the side of welcoming too many votes than that of welcoming too few. —Ruakh_TALK 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose.. Exactly as Ruakh, 400 in the last six months is way too much. I could potentially support a much lower number (like 50, as above). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

   400 in the last six months should prevent users who have not been active for 6 months from voting. 14 days should equally prevent users who are contributing solely with regard to the vote, while it is being worked out and not yet initiated. Bogorm 16:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose way too restrictive. -- Prince Kassad 16:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Yes, per Ruakh; while I totally agree with auto-exemption of votes submitted by fools blinded by conflicts of interest and whatnot that seems like too much to me. Perhaps, consider proposing this or something similar: (IMHO this could be a very effective policy) Let there be no contribution limit. However, to be eligible the account must have been created before the voting page was (and to be fair I guess have been seen to be performing some constructive activity before said time). Oh and by the way Bogorm please correct the text of the proposal it says the French have a threshold of 50 votes but it should be contributions. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

   must have been created before the voting page was - That's what the restriction of 14 days stands for - it is unlikely that someone would create a vote more than 14 before its start. Nonetheless, I do not object this restriction. If it had been proposed in the BP thread, I would perhaps have added it. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

6. I reluctantly oppose. It's a good idea, but I think 400 is too large a number (per Ruakh), six (the number of months) too small, and, least importantly, 14 occasionally too small. Perhaps a threshold of 200 edits to the appropriate namespaces in the year preceding the date fourteen days before the creation of the vote? I'd even probably vote in support of a threshold of 200 edits to the appropriate namespaces in the six months preceding that date, or 300 in the year, though less happily. (Current indication of future votes comes without warranty, of course.  :-) ) (Also, the issue I raised on the talkpage was not dealt with and I think ought to be, as it is bound to come up.)​—msh210℠ 00:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose, some 50 or 100 edits in ns0 seems enough to filter people who would come here just for voting purposes, and I like additional criteria of French wiki - explanation is obligatory. To this I would add - explanation should be short but meaningful, and users who ask questions related to explanation are limited to maximum twice as letters as explanation is long. That would spare us of personal attacks as violent user would use his precious characters to ask real questions, not to harass anybody or write just anything that happens on his/her mind. SpeedyGonsales 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

   That seems unenforceable. If someone's question is too long, we'll what — delete it? Block them? Annul their vote? —Ruakh_TALK 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

   Tell them to stop trolling :-). Yup, I know that enforcement of such rule is almost impossible, but there is a place for discussion - BP and talk pages, voting explanations and questions should be short and polite. Take a look on steward voting process guidelines on meta, I would prefer something along their policy, maybe we need not to be so strict, but something alike would be prudent to have, to avoid above mess. As every wiki project grows, it needs to develop new policies to adapt for growing number of users & sparks between them. This policy generally is good idea, but it should be better crafted, both in number of edits required, and rules of behaviour on voting pages should be defined. SpeedyGonsales 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

   The abovelinked BP thread was created 11 days ago, and you were perfectly free to comment... --Ivan Štambuk 03:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

   And what exactly would you like to "avoid" in the vote you linked? Everyone has a right to reply on anybody's vote comments, esp. if they contain maliciously crafted inaccuracies, or other deliberately misleading type of information that would otherwise be silently approved if not immediately refuted our explained upon. Many a casual voter is simply too lazy to open up the accompanying talk page (and, in the very case you link above, to actually read what is being voted on). However, although it is safe to assume that the eligibility rules that are hereon being decided would for the most part eliminate such voters, nevertheless the democratic right of the freedom of expression must ultimately be cherished and promoted. Restricting the comments by the number of letters is just a fancy name for censorship and mind control. --Ivan Štambuk 03:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose Robert Ullmann 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 14 days and 50 edits (total, no time limit) should be plenty. (The obvious intent and bias of the vote proponent needs no further comment.) Note that this rule as stated would prevent EC, Dvortygirl, Connel, etc, etc from voting! Robert Ullmann 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose for personal reasons as well: I've made some 230 edits from the 10th of Feb to the 10th of Aug and some of them are in talk and Wiktionary pages. If the proposed limits had already been implemented, I wouldn't be eligible for this vote, which would be - in my opinion - ridiculous. I would say that anyone has made 50 or 100 edits on this project should have full voting rights. --flyax 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Krun 10:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I can't support this proposal as it stands. Even if 2.2 edits a day isn't very much, some long-time contributors (even ones with thousands of prior edits) might be ineligible, just because they took a wikibreak recently. 50 edits in such a period might be reasonable, and it might be a good idea to have a slightly higher total number (perhaps 100 or conceivably 200; still counting only certain namespaces). One should beware making the threshold too high at the moment, so that some eligibility rules at least will be passed sometime soon. Also, I think it's only right to include Rhymes among the namespaces counted. Obliging people to comment might also be a good idea, but should be proposed separately in my opinion, as it's not really quite the same issue and could possibly prolong the eligibility decision further. – Krun 10:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose Equinox ◑ 11:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) For basically the same reasons as Msh210.

No consensus discernible, voting retracted prematurely, refer to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2 promulgating significantly loosened requirements. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)