Wiktionary:Votes/2021-03/Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rule

Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rule
Voting on: Polarity of voting proposals and application of supermajority rule: proposed additional wording.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote created: Mihia (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Previous vote: Votes/2019-03/Defining_a_supermajority_for_passing_votes

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-03/Clarification of supermajority rule
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer_parlour/2021/March

Existing wording of supermajority rule
A vote passes if the ratio of supports to the sum of supports and opposes reaches 2/3 or more. A vote where that ratio does not reach 50% should be closed as "failed"; a vote that has at least 50% but less than 2/3 should be closed as "no consensus". Abstentions, votes by ineligible users, and votes cast after closure do not count toward these ratios. This concerns votes proper and does not apply to straw polls, RFD and RFV discussions, and anything not on a vote page.

Proposed additional wording
Voting proposals must be worded so that a "support" vote is a vote to change the status quo, while an "oppose" vote is a vote to leave things unchanged. The nature of the status quo will often be obvious, but if editors cannot agree on this, then, as a last resort, an uninvolved administrator may determine it. Editors may also agree, or as a last resort an administrator may determine, that there is no clear or viable status quo, in which case the supermajority rule will not apply and a vote will be carried by a simple 50%+ majority. This must be decided and stated before the vote starts.

Support

 * 1)  Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , it closes some obvious if hypothetical loopholes. Admins are trusted users who have been granted special administrative powers by the community, not jackbooted skinheads out to break as many things as possible. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  10:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  emphatically. There's a lot to like about the proposal. But, for me, its most appealing aspect is quickening the passage of new policy in cases where there is no "clear or viable status quo." Imetsia (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  this disproportionately ostracised vote. In the best-case scenario we fill an actual loophole in our policy, in the worst-case scenario nothing actually happens. We are not surreptitiously granting admins excessive powers they don't already have or deserve having, and saying otherwise only goes to show how polarised we've become. With that said I can, however, see how a solution as presented by Colin M might work, but it's still too premature to my taste. With further elaboration, it might've been worth debating but Mihia has earned my support in this question. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  This gives too much power to administrators and utilizes too much vague language that makes the interpretations unclear. The supermajority rule exists for a reason. Languageseeker (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per Languageseeker's comment; and the current system is fine and no changes are needed. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 07:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  The vote's name was changed a few times (which worries me about whether there is clarity in the aim). The wording is fuzzy. It empowers some at the expense of others. The problem is speculative at best. In all the years that Wiktionary has been around, this has never been a problem. The one instance when it could have become a potential problem, it was spotted, flagged, and removed by the community. This vote is unnecessary and creates more problems than it solves. &mdash; Dentonius 07:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  I think Mihia has identified a legitimate potential issue, but I disagree with the proposed solution (particularly the part where the 2/3 support threshold is weakened to 1/2 in certain less-than-rigorously defined situations). As I mentioned on the talk page, I think the hypothetical problematic scenarios identified by Mihia could be avoided by a one-line addition like: A vote closed as "failed" or "no consensus" has no effect. Colin M (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , unnecessary rule creep. Plus, in the case there is no “clear or viable status quo”, this should remain so until there is a 2/3 majority to introduce a clear and viable status quo. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I would, of course, support adding the first sentence of the proposal. But: A vote to change the status quo either changes an existing codified rule or introduces a new rule; in the first case it has to state explicitly which rule is about to be changed, the second case should in itself be obvious. If there's no consensus about the status quo in question the wording of the proposed vote should be changed; no admin action needed. --Akletos (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  per above --DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment

 * A vote with insufficient backing is not consensus, regardless of status quo. DAVilla 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * : It's doomed to failure. DonnanZ (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Decision
Fails 4-7-1 Yellow is the colour (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)