Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-07/Blocking of Luciferwildcat

How does this work?
In most votes, well over a 50% majority is required to overturn the status quo; but in this case, I don't think it would be reasonable to say that Luciferwildcat should remain blocked if only (say) 40% of voters support that. On the contrary, I think that we should require a consensus to permablock in order to do so. Right?

Also, would it make sense to have a "ban for one year" option as well? (With the understanding, presumably, that anyone who votes for the permablock also implicitly supports a one-year block.)

—Ruakh TALK 00:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there seemed to be consensus in the BP that in a vote, a majority should be required for either instituting or retaining a block. I tried to set up this vote in such a way that status-quo-bias was done away with, but if you want to rework it, feel free. :) I don't know if it's worthwhile to add a one-year or other non-indef block option. - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't perceive such a consensus — in fact, I don't see anything in that discussion that suggests that, unless by "majority" you mean something like "consensus" or "supermajority". Am I missing or misunderstanding something? —Ruakh TALK 02:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I should clarify: I think there is agreement that in a vote, a majority (of the kind votes usually require to pass) should exist for there to be a block of any established editor in the general case. I draw that conclusion from Stephen's comments, CodeCat's and Atelaes' subdiscussion about the possibility of voting "with the burden of consensus on retaining the block", and Razorflame's comments, as well as the absence of opposition to the idea (that if a vote is held, a majority should be required in order to uphold a block). Fewer editors expressed support for holding votes in the first place, but few editors expressed opposition to the idea: many were simply silent on that issue. And in the specific case, there isn't consensus about whether to block Lucifer or not. That's my reading of that discussion. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * O.K., yes, I think we're on the same page. (To me "majority" means "simple majority" unless explicitly qualified otherwise, which is why I was confused.) Thanks for clarifying. —Ruakh TALK 03:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording of the vote slightly, so that it makes it more obvious we're voting for or against retaining the block. That way, a separate 'unblock' is no longer necessary, just 'oppose'. 14:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Re Ruakh's first comment.) I'm not sure. Generally, admins are trusted to block — and to unblock, but AFAICT Wiktionary culture is that one admin does not undo another admin's block without a compelling reason to do so. So an unblock in this case would seem to require that "compelling reason": i.e., a majority, or perhaps a supermajority. However, OTOH, a permablock is severe. So I think a reasonable vote structure is: A supermajority is required to drop the block altogether, but a supermajority is required to keep it permanent. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...or fairly reasonable anyway. It certainly has its drawbacks, chief among them that it penalizes the two extreme options. I'd appreciate if people planning to vote for those extremes would weigh in on whether mine seems like a reasonable solution. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins should be able to be trusted but they're not perfect. Everyone has bad days. It doesn't seem reasonable for a vindictive admin to be able to set a block and think 'let's see you find a majority opposing that one!'. That goes against the spirit of consensus. Admins act in the name of consensus, so if it turns out there was no consensus for their action, it ought to be undone. 17:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. (Well, except with the part about vindictive admins; I mean, you're right that that wouldn't be reasonable, but I also don't think it's likely to happen!) —Ruakh TALK 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I would support a one-year option, but not necessarily an indef option. It should definitely be added.nWould one-year win if the sum of voters in support of indef and one-year formed the needed supermajority? If so, that needs to be made explicit in the vote. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If one third of voters supported each of three hierarchical options in a majority-wins vote, then the middle one would win, yes: that makes sense. But see above discussion re how this vote should be structured. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Voting for oneself
Before this gets too far, are we allowing Lucifer to vote for himself? It think it has always been the practice to do so, at least in desysoping and removal of other powers. Recently there was a vote about removing checkuser powers from Connel MacKenzie, and Connel was invited to comment and vote. —Stephen (Talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Suppose so. I don't know of any reason why we wouldn't let someone participate in a vote, even if it's about them. Equinox ◑ 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * However, he's blocked currently, and IPs can't vote per our vote guidelines. -- Liliana • 21:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems odd to let people vote in votes about themselves. However, we could ask on his talk page which way he'd like to vote. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't usually let permablocked users vote (e.g. via sockpuppets), but this does seem like a sensible time to make an exception. —Ruakh TALK 22:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Lucifer has declared his wish to vote on his talk page. I’ll add a proxy vote for him opposing his block (unless someone can think of a better way to do it). —Stephen (Talk) 04:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, seems fair. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

An opinion
The problem is not in users such as "Luciferwildcat" but the really close-knit and exceedingly technically competent Wiktionary community, and the resulting attitude which fosters this kind of elitism requiring everyone to know/memorize countless written and unwritten rules and practices. Too many benevolent editors are driven away before they even had the time mature and hone their skills. Even established editors are often harangued for petty excuses. There is nothing wrong with having thousands of junk edits pending verification/rectification in the backlog - all the sister projects already have it! No one is obliged to monitor particular user's edits - if you want to add content instead, just do it! Not everyone is so experienced, literate or anally retentive. Some of you perceive this block as a necessary evil "for the greater good" of the project, when on the other hand it's exactly this attitude that's holding the project back and is responsible for not attracting more regular editors of various skillsets and abilities over the years. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well put. This is my view as well. —Stephen (Talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)