Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-09/User:DTLHS for admin

User:DTLHS for admin

 * Nomination: I hereby nominate as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. Used to be called User:Nadando. Zo3rWer (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Acceptance: I accept the nomination.
 * Languages: en
 * Timezone: Mountain Time
 * DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  --Zo3rWer (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Vahag (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  — JohnC5 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Leasnam (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7)  DCDuring TALK  02:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 8)  —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 9)  — Ungoliant (falai) 17:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 10)  — Panda10 (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 11)  — Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 12)  on the condition that the nominated editor will lose admin rights if, in future, someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm him in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights; oppose to the extent the condition is not met. This is nothing personal; it is as a matter of general useful principle. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you change your vote to oppose per Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-07/User:Benwing for admin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since then, I have reacquainted myself with the fact that conditional voting is a long-standing practice of the English Wiktionary. Since I myself feel conditional voting to be okay, since it is also a long-standing practice apparently supported by the editors who practice it, and since I.S.M.E.T.A. himself has used conditional voting in, I think the issue is moot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are different kinds of voting conditionality. In the case of mine, its conditionality is resolved before the voting is closed: if the template prescribed by the vote is, the vote is in support; if the template prescribed by the vote is , the vote is in opposition — i.e., the way the vote is written unambiguously makes my vote one in opposition. In the case of your conditional vote, its conditionality isn't resolved until, some hypothetical day in the future, "someone creates a vote that seeks to confirm &#91;DTLHS&#93; in the adminship and the vote does not achieve consensus for keeping admin rights"; consequently, it is impossible to determine whether your vote is one in support or one in opposition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. If the closing admin cannot determine whether your vote is in support or opposition at the time of closing (being ignorant of what might occur if DTLHS were ever to be subjected to a desysop vote in the future), your condition presents a problem. Given that this is not part of the vote description, I think it would be eminently reasonable for the closing admin to count this as an oppose vote in the support section. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will know I support ensysopping. They will also know that my ensysopping vote guides the manner of closure of a future possible desysopping vote in a certain way. They will also notice that I was the only one to have this condition in the vote. I think I explained this before. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And so is revealed the Trojan-horse character of your condition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To state the obvious: A Trojan horse is something that hides something else within. By contrast, my condition does not hide anything. It lays bare that I oppose every and any adminship for life, where "for life" is a hyperbole. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. My point is that you are hereby trying to sneak a condition into this vote that has no express consensual support. It is an illegitimate strategy and one which the vote-closer ought to thwart by counting your vote as an oppose. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the stategy legitimate and your comments disconcerting. And no, you don't get to decide whether my vote is "oppose", especially not after you have made an inapplicable analogy (Trojan horse), and when that was refuted, did not admit a mistake and instead moved on to another unfair attack. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the same claim. I was just ignoring your nitpicking of my analogy (which I believe still holds, because of the "sneaking in" character). DTLHS doesn't become subject to your condition just because your vote gets counted in support, you know. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what "condition" is placed on the vote. There is no provision for conditional votes. When people express conditional support IMO it is merely precatory, indicating a wish. It is sometimes taken into account if the condition is easily met and has no or minimal opposition. To simplify things would could have yet another vote on voting procedure to make this matter clear. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer analogies like “poison pill” or “pork barrel”. I have for a little while been considering a vote to prevent the insertion of conditions without due process. It would say that any condition proposed after the vote has started would require either no objection or a separate by-vote to implement the change. — JohnC5 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support such a proposal were it put to a vote. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I were the closing admin and felt unable to tell whether someone supported or opposed because of a condition on the future, I would count that vote as an "abstain", not as an "oppose". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to DCDuring's statement above, the editor-specific conditions in posted votes are binding and not merely expressing a "wish". Their being binding is likely to be supported by those editors who post such conditions, since otherwise these conditions would be idle and toothless. I mean for instance "Support, with the condition that pages must be nominated for verification or deletion before they are deleted, rather than being deleted outright" from Votes/2013-10/Reconstructions need references. If DCDuring would claim in all sincerity that the requirement of nomination before deletion of reconstructions is a mere non-binding wish (as a consequence of being a condition added by the voter), that would be outrageous. In the present vote, DCDuring's position is relatively harmless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us imagine a situation in the future:
 * You support DTLHS with your condition.
 * I support DTLHS under the original terms of the vote without alteration (i.e. I implicitly and explicitly reject your condition not because I disagree with the concept of such a reconfirmation vote but because I believe that it was inserted illegally into the conditions of the original vote)
 * DTLHS becomes an administrator, as seems very likely
 * Later, some person tries to implement the type of reconfirmation vote you have proposed for DTLHS.
 * What happens? We can both have equal amounts of standing in this matter, and I interpret my original vote to directly countervail the condition of your vote. If conditional voting is permissible for events that have not taken place, who wins this standoff?
 * English Wiktionary's rules concerning conditional voting are poor. Unless there is no objection or an additional condition, conditions should not be allowed. I really couldn't care less if there is a precedent. The current system just creates ambiguity when additional conditions are not specifically outlined and accepted. Too often, I see people in votes say “Oh, well I like this idea, but I think we should really …”, and then, at the end of the vote, there is a great confusion about the actual implementation of the change and, in some cases, still direct disagreement. That is not good voting practice in any world.
 * Furthermore, this condition still falls outside of the purview of this vote. You are asking for a policy change, which must be made in separate policy vote. I know you will say that this not a policy change but instead some ad hoc addendum that you will attempt to apply every new admin going forward (because there are too many, they are too tyrannical, we need to curb their power, etc.), but this still is an attempt to sneak in a policy change through a perversion of the voting system. It is unfair to add conditions on a admin-by-admin basis, and in this unfairness lies the direct purpose of policies: the fair distribution of a rule across users/pages/etc.. You don't want to make a policy vote because you think it will fail, which it may well (though I could imagine supporting reconfirmation votes), but I can say with great certainty that I will countervail your condition every time you make it from here to eternity. — JohnC5 05:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)    — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  Vorziblix (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  — As a former administrator on another account, this one's a no-brainer. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  — Aryamanarora (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain
-- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Decision
Passes 17–0–1 or 16–1–1 depending on Dan P.'s condition, but a clear pass either way. (A coupla hours early, but SNOW and all that.) We need a b'rat. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. —Stephen (Talk) 05:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this manner of closure. I think it is perfectly consistent with my condition, and alleviates concerns that my condition could actually apply even in the absence of other supporters of the condition. My position is that my condition would only apply if passing of the vote depended on support of editors who used this condition. Since the passing obviously does not depend on votes having this condition, the condition does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)