Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin you have here. The definition of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2018-03/User:PseudoSkull for admin, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
In response to JohnC5: I have thought it over many times and found the arguments you presented in the past unconvincing. There is no issue. There is no way that, if this vote gets closed as all in favor, my condition gets applied. It does not get applied in that case, and no one would ever enforce my condition in that situation. Because it would not make any sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Then what is the point of saying it if it is completely devoid of force? I know you are doing it out of protest, but if you admit that the proposal has no effect, then it is a complaint, not a condition. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 22:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- It is not devoid of force. It comes into force if it is used by enough editors. It has no force when used by only one editor. And there must be a saying about a small stone setting off an avalanche, isn't it? There is also the beautiful American movie about twelve angry men. In that movie, a lone dissenter succeeds in turning the tide the other way around. There is hope. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @Dan Polansky Would you please elaborate on you condition? I can't recall votes to reaffirm the rights of a user who already had them ever taking place. If your point is that the threshold for removing rights should be the compliment of the threshold for giving rights in the first place, I tend to agree. If a vote to remove sysop rights had 50% of users in support, then a putative vote to give such rights would fail, so the rights should be removed. Or perhaps you have another meaning. - TheDaveRoss 15:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
- @TheDaveRoss: There were no reaffirm votes, only desysop votes. Some Wikipedias have reaffirm votes. My point is that the desysop votes should have been reaffirm votes, biased toward removal rather than keeping. For, the checks on power are via power removal, not via power granting. Your wording is correct but for "compliment" vs. "complement": "the threshold for removing rights should be the compliment of the threshold for giving rights in the first place". Thus, 1/3 should have the ability to desysop. Even 1/2 would be an improvement over what we currently have. --Dan Polansky (talk)