Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Vote requirements for policy changes

• Voting on:

  What the requirements for editing CFI and ELE are.

  Option 1:

  "It should not be modified without a VOTE."

  Option 2:

  "It should not be modified without discussion and consensus. Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE."

• Vote starts: 00:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23.59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Vote created: --Daniel 23:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2009/March#Revising Template:policy

  Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes

  WT:BP#Removing Interwicket from ELE

  Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix

  WT:RFDO#Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/Minor ELE fix

  Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-03/Vote requirements for policy changes

1. Support --Daniel 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Creating votes is easy and a good way to show consensus if uncontroversial minor proposals have unanimous or near-unanimous approval in a few (maybe seven) days. It is only one step further from creating a discussion and waiting for the replies. After all, even the option 2 requires "discussion and consensus"; so, technically, you can't just change the policy without warning, no matter what option passes, if any. --Daniel 16:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Support. Believe it or not, I'd rather do it the long, laborious way. The other option is potentially open to abuse, and to cause edit wars. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Neither way is particularly "long and laborious", actually, in my book. --Daniel 20:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Support -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC) It still bothers me that one disruptive editor would be able to contest almost everything and thus force every little issue to a vote, as if this policy didn't exist, but I guess that's pretty unlikely anyway. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Support EncycloPetey (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Equinox ◑ 16:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Support —Ruakh_TALK 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Support --Vahag (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. DAVilla 01:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Support Yair rand (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
9. Support --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
10. Support —CodeCat 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
12. Support Circeus (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Circeus (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Oppose Dan Polansky (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC). I actually support option 1, but as option 1 is status quo, oppose does what I need. My points:
   • Complexity with close to no gain: In summary, the current status quo regarding modification is simple and without gray areas: no modification without a vote. The proposal of option 2 increases the complexity while bringing close to benefits.
   • Getting outdated remains unsolved: Some supporters of option 2 seem to say that policies get outdated because of the voting requirement, and that this vote can change this. My response is that the proposal of option 2 does not solve this problem, as only minor changes with no impact on the application of the policy (not "substantial" ones) are sped up by the proposal.
   • Contention about "substantial": The proposal of option 2 introduces a potential point of contention about which changes are "substantial".
   • Votes need not be tedious: If a vote is obviously about a minor matter and supported by apparent consensus, it can be very quickly created, scheduled to start one day after a discussion showed apparent consensus, and last for only 7 days. If people stop vilifying votes, editors can feel more free to create new votes and get things done in a formally clean way.
   • Unharmed reputation of Wiktionary processes: I do not see that making minor changes to policy pages via votes creates bad reputation for Wiktionary among Wikimedia projects. Some claim otherwise. I have seen Wikipedians complain about some aspects of Wiktionary culture, but not about voting in Wiktionary.

   --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure that option #1 is the status quo. Certainly we have template-text that claims that all modifications require a vote, but in fact we have often made modifications, both to that template and to the pages that include it, with no vote. —Ruakh_TALK 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed, a vote isn't needed to modify Template:policy as it itself is not a policy. It is just used on policy pages, the same as {{l}}, {{term}}, {{temp}}, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I am not sure either, but at least upon one reading of how things are, option 1 is the status quo. It is the state of affairs that has been left unchallenged for several years now. It is the state of affairs that has been brought about by a single assertive person without a vote, unchallenged at the time AFAIK. This state of affairs was implicitly challenged in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Removing vote requirements for policy changes, but that has not lead to change of practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I don't understand how your comment is a reply to mine. What I'm saying is, the current state of affairs has actually been that we don't require votes for minor/uncontroversial changes; when people make minor/uncontroversial edits (as does happen), or edits to pages that are wrongly tagged with {{policy}} (as also happens), these changes are rarely reverted. (More so before the vote that you link to, but since then as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I hate to say that but I do see your point. People actually have been making minor changes to WT:CFI without a vote such that the changes were left unopposed and unreverted. Some minor changes have been reverted as requiring a vote, though. Now it comes down to what status quo refers to, whether to the actual practice or to the unchallenged text on the policy page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure, but I think it refers to both: the status quo is for {{policy}} to say one thing while we do another. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 20:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Then, actually, Support option 1 and Oppose may not be synonyms and the reasoning "I actually support option 1, but as option 1 is status quo, oppose does what I need." may be flawed to some extent. :p

   On the other hand, the notion that CFI and ELE can't be modified without a VOTE — and, similarly, the line of thought "OK, so we'll do this change to a policy; then we'll have to create a vote first." — has been defended regularly over the years. Other times, people just don't seem to care. (recent example: "User:Interwicket" -> "bots") --Daniel 10:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

   Substantial would include a proposed change to policy or a complete rewriting of an explanation. Cosmetic changes are not substantial, but as stated they still need discussion. Everything inbetween that might be considered subjective is not a problem because if someone wants a vote, they will ask for it.

   Uncontested means you're confident that the changes will not be rolled back by a stubborn admin. If the changes are rolled back, then you probably should have called a vote. DAVilla 01:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Abstain – As with all decision-making on Wikimedia projects, this change should be made by means of discussion and consensus-building, not by means of a vote. —Angr 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

   meta! - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

   Yes? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   So... The decision of making decisions by discussing, rather than voting, should be done by discussing, rather than voting? --Daniel 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

   That's what I said. In fact, all decisions should be made by discussing rather than voting. It has long annoyed me that Wiktionary tends to make decisions by voting, in contradiction to m:Polls are evil and general Wikimedia practice. —Angr 08:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

   That's exactly the practice we're trying to get away from. A vote for option 2 would help us move in that direction. Like it or not, the only way we're going to get out of the bad habit of deciding everything with votes, is by deciding to do so.....with a vote. No, the irony does not escape me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

   Well, at the moment it looks like option two is going to carry without my having to bite the bullet and vote for it. —Angr 14:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Option One: 2 (14,28%)
• Option Two: 11 (78,57%)
• Oppose: 1 (7,14%)
• (Abstain: 1)

Option Two passed. --Daniel 11:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)