Wiktionary:Votes/2021-09/Sore-loser rule

Sore-loser rule
Voting on: A moratorium on the creation of re-votes and vote reversals for a given period after a vote has ended, with the exclusion of sysop votes.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote created:  18:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/2020-12/Bringing back wynn entries
 * "I think we need a policy that no proposals to undo previous passing votes can be made for a certain period of time (e.g. 6 months) after the vote has passed, otherwise anyone who doesn't like the outcome of a vote can just immediately create another vote to try to undo it, wasting everyone's time."
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * "I think it is a very bad idea to create votes to nullify previous votes so soon after the previous vote. Should we just keep on having votes until your side wins one? Should we then stop or should we then allow more votes? An interval of a year seems like the bare minimum between a vote and a vote to reverse it."
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] 
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-09/Sore-loser rule

Option #1: 1 year

 * 1)  --  18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 07:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  DCDuring (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Option #2: 6 months

 * 1)  --  18:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck as double-vote. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Unstruck., these are different options. In the future, leave it to the admins to strike votes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One of their votes is for a 1-year moratorium, the other for a 6-month moratorium; the two are mutually exclusive. As no more than one of the two can possibly come true, they're effectively voting twice. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The vote isn't particularly well structured, so I understand why you may have misinterpreted it. If both were to pass, the one with more support would be enacted. Again, leave vote-striking to admins. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  I think in at least 99% of cases this will be an acceptable period of time to wait to restart a vote. 1.) Without a cap, people could theoretically rehash votes forever as many times as they want after votes end. My support was influenced by the handful of examples where having no rule on it at all has apparently been abused. It's reasonable to think that consensus will change on an issue in six months, while completely unreasonable in any case I can think of to restart the same vote immediately after the previous is closed. 2.) Please keep in mind that votes last a quite considerable amount of time for opinions to be gathered. Look at this one for example (meta much?): if you count the time that the vote was initially drafted, this vote will span over a month. And if you count the previous discussions on the issue, potentially much longer than that. And votes appear at the top of all watchlists. The active community has plenty of time to see and respond to issues with one vote in most circumstances. 3.) The opposition to my opinion might point out some really rare edge case where restarting a vote immediately is necessary, and to that I will go ahead and say that overwhelming consensus can just override the rule if there is some urgent and immediate need for a revote, in some particularly creative situation that I can't quite imagine at the moment. Most of us I'd think have common sense. 4.) If a previous vote is found to have problematic or fraudulent results, for example due to evidence of sockpuppeteering or vote canvassing, then that vote can be reassessed and the actors in that bad voter behavior can be dealt with accordingly. No immediate revote will probably be needed in that circumstance. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  —Svārtava2 • 02:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As I interpret this, it will apply to actual votes only not on any decision reached from BP or any other vote like Beer parlour/2021/February. Neither to RFD. Svārtava2 • 03:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Svartava2 This is something that should be expressively stipulated as it's been asked multiple times, as unclear interpretations are what got us here in the first place. AG202 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  It's sad this has become necessary. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 07:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  DTLHS (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Masonthelime (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  — SGconlaw (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * : There are still way too many questions that have been unanswered, like a major very basic one of "Where would this be set in stone?" that I personally asked when this vote was first proposed that has yet to be answered, or the question of "Will there be an appeals process?" that has also not been answered. There are more questions in Wiktionary_talk:Votes/2021-09/Sore-loser_rule and Beer Parlour (such the specifics of which votes this would apply to) that still need to be addressed. Thus, the vote seems very rushed and a knee-jerk reaction to the other vote on nullifying the templates vote, and it doesn't seem to be created in good faith considering the situation. The concept behind this policy is a good one, but there are way too many specifics that haven't been given, and overall it makes me very uncomfortable with how it's being presented. AG202 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1.) I don't know that there's really need for an appeals process; that just makes everything more complicated. Let there be a rule and let that be the end of it. 2.) I will say I agree that it should be determined where this would be set in stone, as in where in Wiktionary's documentation will the rule be written. 3.) As for the bad faith argument, I admit I don't know all of the background drama behind this vote, but as for what has been presented here, whether our reasons differ or not, I share the same sentiment as the OP. Even if I were to disagree with the OP's behavior in that past situation, that has no bearing on my opinion on the proposed rule itself. For an analogy, it's like if a user were to use a sockpuppet account to commit fraudulent votes, but also sometimes revert IP vandalism. I'd agree with one action but not the other. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there could easily be an appeals process or something similar like you said yourself, "overwhelming consensus can just override the rule if there is some urgent and immediate need for a revote, in some particularly creative situation that I can't quite imagine at the moment." which could easily be an appeal. Either way, there needs to be more details on that front. Yes, it's extraordinarily pertinent that the policy be proposed to be set somewhere otherwise it's unclear how it'll be applied. I mean, we don't even know what exactly what votes this applies to besides the exclusion of sysop votes after the comment I made about them a while back. Someone could easily use this policy to apply anywhere else like in Beer Parlour or RFV if it's not specific enough. And so, that's why I feel uncomfortable voting for it, let alone the drama. You can choose to separate the policy from the policymaker, but whether you like it or not, it's a part of why this vote was created in the first place. AG202 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * : This would prevent us from being able to immediately overturn wrong decisions. Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  (all the options). The wiki-political atmosphere is less charged now due to the recent templates stipulation, so I wouldn't argue against this vote with the same passion I would have before. Nevertheless, the major points I made on this vote's talk page still hold, and I have to vote against.  Imetsia (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm afraid this could led to successful, but ambiguous or badly structured votes, can't be reversed or amended. Even this vote is not clear if partial reversals or amendments could or not be allowed. I do agree the general sentiment of the vote, but I don't think tying our hands with this vote just to quell tribalism among some Wiktionarians (would it even work?) is the way to go. - Sarilho1 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  It is very strange, but I do not know if there is a quorum in these votes? Gnosandes (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  per Sariho1's comments above.  – Guitarmankev1 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I wouldn't have brought myself to participate in a vote that, in my personal opinion, may have been created in such an atmosphere where the best of faith may have evaded us. However, since abstention might be construed, plausibility notwithstanding, as tacit support for the normalcy of such an atmosphere, I have to vote against in spite of myself. --Frigoris (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  the proposal as worded (all options), as apparently it would make it impossible in any way to overturn a vote (within the time period), even if it became very clear that the decision was wrong, say after new information or evidence or arguments arose, bad consequences that no one foresaw, clearly inadequate or unrepresentative participation, etc. While I agree that people should not be free to continually re-run votes until they get the right answer, there should be some kind of administrator override allowing a decision to be reconsidered or re-run, and a process whereby people with a genuine concern can ask for this to be allowed. Mihia (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) . For one, an ill-advised, divisive name for a rule. Now the principle isn't bad, but I'm afraid any laid-down rule will prove to be impractical if not unworkable. If a failed vote inspires a new proposal that is a great improvement and well-liked, it would be mad not to allow an immediate rerun. I've been thinking about a requirement for a co-sponsor who is eligible to vote, but in my experience there is always one who is willing to support whatever idea for a take two. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  11:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) .  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) . I'm going to oppose this although I argued in a totally different context for a rule specifically applying to immediate attempts to undo a passing vote. In that case, there was a passing vote to delete variants of Old English words that have a wynn in them in place of a w, followed by an attempt to overturn it from the editor who had created all the wynn variants and didn't like the vote outcome. This situation is completely different. In this case, (a) the whole issue has gotten politicized, and Victar was IMO the worst offender at politicizing this; (b) the original vote in question was a travesty that should never have been created, as there is simply no need to have a vote to approve the use of templates (on the contrary, templates are freely creatable and you need a vote to delete a template if there's controversy over whether it belongs); (c) Imetsia's "nullify" vote was not even an attempt to undo a previous vote, much less an attempt to undo a passing vote, but rather a (maybe ill-advised) attempt to clean up the mess created by the original vote; (d) it is arguable whether the original vote even passed or failed. I will also note that the creator of this "sore-loser" vote (Victar) stated explicitly with regards to the wynn vote that he would submit a re-vote if that vote didn't pass; as I read this vote, that re-vote would have been disallowed. Finally, many others have brought up all sorts of problems with the vote as written, which I agree with. Benwing2 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How boringly predictable. -- 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per Benwing. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  13:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Wiktionary's most active Proto-Norse editor ᛭ Ask me anything 09:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) . 1) If this passes we will have endless and bitter discussions whether a vote is the reversal of a previous one. 2) The option to reverse a vote after a short period of time could be useful. 3) The community of editors can be trusted to handle this problem with discretion (if disruptive editors are sanctioned appropriately). --Akletos (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  This would be a punitive and unnecessary obstruction of the community's consensus-building processes. Reaching a durable and representative consensus sometimes means re-opening a closed discussion. Tendentious proposals are an unconstructive use of time and energy, but there are valid reasons for tabling a vote a second time. E.g. if the outcome of the initial vote was shaped by low participation or insufficient information. Something like a snowball clause might be a better approach to handling genuinely bad-faith attempts at re-litigating settled matters. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I do not support the wording of this vote. What's basically outlined here is to "disallow overturning previous vote outcomes within a certain timespan." For me, this is way too black-and-white. 1) First and foremost, we should probably explicitly define whether or not nuancing and elaborating on and partially changing the specifics set by previous votes is allowed. I'd personally like this vote to apply only to votes that apply completely to every change stipulated in the original vote. i.e. "re-votes and vote reversals" is too broad in terms of area of effect for me. 2) Is this really what we're trying to stop? The way I see it, we're trying to make sure no vote is created that tries to sway voters through knowledge of what the outcome of the original vote was; we're trying to prevent tactical voting and voting based on dissatisfaction with the current situation, regardless of whether or not you support the proposed alternative. We're not actually trying to ban complete revisions of past votes. Should we reconsider? 3) What kind of "re-votes and vote reversals" are we targeting? The way it's currently phrased leaves a lot up to interpretation. Specifically, do we allow nullifications, non-nullifications, both, or neither? A non-nullifying re-vote would propose the same status quo post as the original vote, and would start from the same status quo ante as the original vote, where the original vote did not have an effect on the status quo. Effectively, it proposes to turn a failed vote. A non-nullifying vote reversal would propose the status quo ante of the original vote as the status quo post, and would start from the status quo post of the original vote, where the original vote had an effect on the status quo. A nullifying vote should be separate from each of the previous categories, since it doesn't matter what the outcome of the original vote was and what the current status quo is. A nullifying vote simply labels the original vote invalid, effectively stating that there isn't consensus and there isn't no consensus: the original vote is rendered null and void and we can't use it as an indication of the community's opinion. After a nullifying vote, an objective, possibly expanded upon and rephrased rerun of the original vote may take place in place of the original. I believe introducing a nullification mechanic and disallowing complete re-votes and complete vote reversals without an intermittent nullification could solve the problem we're facing, while simultaneously creating a clear process for appealing votes. We might, however, want to look into whether "re-votes" even qualify for this, as a failed vote, per definition, doesn't change the status quo. 4) lastly, we might want to limit the scope of this vote to direct Wiktionary:Votes re-votes and vote reversals. Other sections of wiktionary shouldn't be affected in the slightest. in conclusion: I believe disallowing specific complete reversals and exact repeats of previous votes without nullification of their original vote is a good idea. However, I think we should rigorously phrase the proposed plan, instead of just banning two ambiguous types of vote without elaboration, and I think we should implement a way to then nullify votes with clear rules and guidelines on how and when to do so and the exact effects of such nullification. 110521sgl (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  What if a vote was poorly designed or vague, and a revote is going to be necessary on more concrete proposals? The current proposal doesn't take this into consideration. I would support this in some form, but not in this form. I'd like to be able to vote on a different version of this proposal sooner than someone would be able to vote on a vote that just didn't go their way. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 7)  I think placing a limit on a user that incessantly creating votes is a much more appropriate measure — Fredrick Campbell (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Grammatical correction: that is incessantly — Fredrick Campbell (talk)
 * 1)  Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * : I believe members of our community are reasonable enough not to vote support to a prematurely re-created vote. Setting this in stone is unnecesary. Thadh (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It wastes time and energy to have to vote twice, only for someone's selfish (given the wording "sore loser") and redundant motive, whether in opposition or support. We need to type less on things that waste our time. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should use common sense on creations of votes: If a vote is premature, that should be mentioned in the discussion and, if it is generally agreed, the vote should be abandoned or postponed. If a user still keeps on creating vote after vote on the same issue, that user is making disruptive edits and should therefore be blocked (at least partially); It isn't much different than, say, changing a "Cognates include" to "Cognate to" in etymologies: If you keep on doing that, and only that, despite being told not to, you're clearly not acting out of good faith. Thadh (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  per above. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) .  I hope enough editors will vote for stability if a matter is brought up for a second vote too quickly.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  per the above. I don't really see a need for this, and I don't think we should rigidify the voting process too much. PUC – 08:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , per PUC. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Decision

 * Failed: 8-19-5 for the most popular option (2). Imetsia (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)