Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2023-02/Vote creation eligibility

I'm in strong of this policy, and almost proposed it myself, but I have to ask why specifically permablocks vs temp blocks? Should folks that are temp blocked be allowed to vote as well? I'd assume not. AG202 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wondered the same, but concluded that the vote would have a higher chance of passing when specifying permablocked accounts. --{{victar|talk}} 06:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Folks that are temporarily blocked may be so only to have a time off to improve themselves, not actually because we believe they don’t matter to us anymore: if a large part of their previous or future work, not by itself or in principle rejected by us, is affected, of course they have to be considered. In some cases they even demanded it for I assume that reason; Geographyinitiative currently in effect. So maybe bans have to include an exception for the Wiktionary namespace more often, but whether a user should be emburdened with the ability to vote in the Wiktionary namespace may also be more reasonably decided on a case by case basis by the blocking administrator. If something is decided about Polish entries, it may afford more legitimacy if Shumkichi has been heard despite being banned (another reason why there should be a high bar for utterances on vote pages leading to ban, as if one was banned for alleged personal attacks on vote pages one can’t allow him access to them specifically). Fay Freak (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, I noticed, despite commenting here, you still haven't voted. Did you have any thoughts you wanted to discuss? – Sokkjō 06:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo: I have only referred to temporary bans here, it seems. I did not think about this vote by reason that it is anti-thinking (legitimately, there are too many things on the internet to pay attention to, but less in attention can also come from within yourself if you see the patterns quick enough). Fay Freak (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Checkuser and the like can be evaded if someone knows what they're doing. What happens if someone who is permanently blocked creates a vote, this fact is not realized at the time, the vote passes, and then only afterwards it's discovered that the vote creator was ineligible to create that vote? Does the vote stand since it already passed, or does it become automatically invalidated? Megathonic (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is a good question. However, votes should be about ideas, not people: if we are all in agreement with an idea, then who cares who created the vote? And if someone created the vote to troll us, and it passes because we all agreed with it, then we still wanted it. See play the ball, not the man. Equinox ◑ 03:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Megathonic: Let me make it even clearer. Suppose that Troll T proposes Vote V, and we all vote for it, and it passes. Then we discover that T was a Troll all along (oh no!) and then what? Do we go back and undo every edit that obeyed the vote? Clearly this is impossible. I would personally be inclined to say: "You voted for it. You wanted it. Now I, Equinox, will make a vote for the same thing. Vote the same way and it will be official and nothing has to change." (Then people vote in the opposite direction.) See also: Scottish devolution. Equinox ◑ 03:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

WF created my admin vote, which passed unanimously. Any reason to disallow WF from doing this? This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

As someone who Wonderfool wanted to nominate as well, I don’t think that we should be elevating permabanned users as much as we currently do. How does it look for us if we’re not only allowing that user to continue making new accounts and making tons of edits, but also allowing them to nominate the admin that control the project? AG202 (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a user is blocked, or a sockpuppet, they have already forfeited their right to participate in the project. We don't need to mention that specifically in other documentation: they shouldn't be allowed to start votes, to create appendices, to edit entries, to talk on Beer Parlour, on Tea Room... The only reason we don't stop WF in the long term is because we can't. Equinox ◑ 18:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I maybe understand not stopping WF edits, but at the very least the votes are very public, so why haven't admin stopped them immediately? In fact, admin have voted multiple times in those votes, so it really just seems to me that people aren't even trying anymore. New people don't even know the history of WF and take their nominations at face value. Seriously, at the very least, votes to quite literally add another admin should be the first thing that people stop WF from doing. AG202 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

If admins aren't bothering to stop him before this vote passes, why would they suddenly start bothering afterwards? Equinox ◑ 19:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, this will be something that people can point to directly, and as such, people who aren't admin will be able to respond and delete votes on their own with an official written policy to back them up. AG202 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox, in regards to permablocked users, I don't see the argument against making an already existing rule explicitly clear on the voting policy page. --Sokkjo (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox, any further thoughts? – Sokkjō 06:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo: I believe it's actually potentially a bad thing to state an implied rule explicitly. Remember the "exception that proves the rule". Equinox ◑ 10:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Equinox: If the hang up for you was stating an "implied rule explicitly", I would have done away with the first rule. Oh well. --– Sokkjō 08:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply