Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility

What about a change in username? If the requisite number of votes can have been done by either username, then this should be made clear in the proposal. &#x200b;— msh210  ℠  19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the username change by the "rename" function committed by a bureaucrat? If so, the edits are merged too, so there is no problem with that..
 * As for the username change by user registering another account - well that doesn't happen too often but I guess an exception could be made. --Ivan Štambuk 01:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

request
I join Mglovesfun in his suggestion that the voting page be semi-protected. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Restarting the vote
I don't feel like waiting for 2 more weeks to see how this'll end. How about restarting the vote with the edit limit of 50 edits 2 weeks prior tot he beginning of the vote, and in two variants: one that would require the total of 50 edits, and one that would require 50 edits in the last 6 months.

Or should I simply start another vote, Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2 ? --Ivan Štambuk 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Either one sounds find to me. —Stephen 03:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a Serbo-Croatian translation to puzzle (sense 2) - zagonetka/загонетка. I just felt like adding a translation in as many Slavic languages as I could and didn't want to duplicate. I hope this is not a violation or something, as the current policy on S-H vs B, C, M, S is not clear to me, neither is the outcome of these votes and discussions. In my opinion, some kind of concession should still be made, Ivan. The feelings against "Serbo-Croatian" are too strong in some opponents. So the problem is more in the name, not the linguistics. Consider again my suggestion to add (B. C. M. S) to Serbo-Croatian to appease your opponents and perhaps getting more support votes. Although, I personally prefer "Serbo-Croatian", it's not everyone's feelings. Anatoli 05:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 50 edits, 14 days, no time limit. No requirement to explain the vote. No limits on asking questions and replying to them. Preferably, this vote should be restarted. --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, the threshold is seemingly not enjoying wide support, so let's restart the vote with a decreased number of votes (50). I beg thereby some of the more experienced users to close it, as I am afraid that I could perform something amiss. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

About French Wikipedia criteria
A few comments about the link provided, because the text of the proposal may be very misleading: This policy seems very reasonable to me, and I don't undertand why this link is provided as an example and the proposal is so much different from this example. Why should Wiktionary be less open than Wikipedia? Why discouraging people willing to propose original and constructive arguments using a new point of view? Lmaltier 05:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this Wikipedia policy is only about RfD votes.
 * the 50 threshold means ''The vote of users under this threshold may be considered as invalid (but they may be considered as valid, it all depends on the specific case)
 * the rule about the account creation is acount created before the creation of the vote.
 * a reason for the vote must be given. The reason is that arguments are much more important than votes themselves when taking the decision.
 * the objective is to reach a consensus. If there are strong disagreements, the page is kept, whatever the number of support or oppose votes (unless there are legal, etc. concerns, or the page contradicts Wikipedia basic principles). The bias is always towards keep, and it's quite normal on a wiki.


 * It’s just the opposite here. If there are five votes to keep and one to delete, it gets deleted. If Equinox can get one vote to delete, he takes it as a mandate. —Stephen 06:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deletion of someone's work lightly is the most discouraging thing in the English Wiktionary. Anatoli 06:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That’s true. It’s why I don’t create new entries very often. —Stephen 06:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

New vote
I've started Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2, scheduled to start tomorrow. It's a bit against the rules (no 1-week buffer period), but I hope that somebody doesn't have a formal problem with that.. I advise everyone to recast their votes there. --Ivan Štambuk 11:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ivan, why did you drop the line made during the last six months from the new draft? This is important, as it præcludes the possibility of inactive users (with no contributions in that period) casting votes. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you said it's against the rules not to keep a buffer period, I cannot understand the reasons of such a rush. It seems as though a "threat" is pending that I am unaware of. A new vote should start IMO when a consensus is achieved, something that Bogorm's note shows there is not. --flyax 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the buffer period is needed only in order to to make sure that the community members make notice of the vote. Here we simply restart the ongoing vote which everyone interested is pretty much already aware of. Consensus exists on vote as it is reproposed, and the 6 month timelimit will be added alternatively, as I've explained above (just didn't manage to add it quite yet, I'm looking how to add 2 sub-votes simultaneously on one page). If the opposers actually expressed their disagreement in the related BP thread with the 400-edit threshold, this wouldn't have been needed at all and we would've have 50 edit threshold from the start, but since (as usual) everyone starts to raise no-go objections only after the vote starts, here we go.. :)
 * Why exactly do you perceive this as a "rush"? The vote lasts for 2 weeks, which should be enough for everyone. --Ivan Štambuk 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ivan on this. The "buffering" (?) is accomplished by the existence of the previous vote and discussion on the BP. I would have had the second vote open later, myself, had I been the one starting it, but in no way fault Ivan for not having done so. Just MHO FWIW. &#x200b;—  msh210  ℠  21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Word. (Personally, I'd've waited till this vote failed, but thinking about it, I guess there's no reason to.) —Ruakh TALK 22:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)