Wiktionary talk:Votes/sy-2016-08/User:Dan Polansky for admin

Driving away Speednat
I am alleged to have driven away Speednat. For the reader, this I would have done via the following communications: From the above, it follows: I have learned that multiple editors dislike notes like my "Unattested Acanthasitta" referenced above and consider them impolite. I do not know why that is, but have learned that reducing the volume of these kinds of notes is probably good for me, although not so much for Wiktionary, IMHO.
 * User_talk:Speednat/2012, 15 July 2012
 * User_talk:Speednat/2012, 27 August 2012
 * User_talk:Speednat/2012, 27 August 2012
 * User_talk:Speednat/2012, 28 August 2012
 * User_talk:Speednat/2012, 28 August 2012
 * User talk:Speednat, 4 January 2013
 * User talk:Speednat, 4 January 2013
 * User talk:Speednat, 5 January 2013
 * User talk:Speednat, 7 December 2013
 * Other?
 * The user has been adding definitions and other information from a single source to Wiktionary, either bordering on or engaging in copyright violation. Being prolific in that way is not a good thing.
 * The user has repeatedly entered unattested terms despite being pointed out that entries need to be attested.
 * In User talk:Speednat, the user appears to be less than entirely frank about the source of quotation.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the information above, and having in mind, I don't see any case against . If Speednat was engaging or bordering on copyright violation, and if Dan had said nothing about it and ignored them, presumably another editor would have to step in and ask questions about it, and ask Speednat to stop. So what Dan said to Speednat looked pretty standard to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Driving away Kephir
I don't believe the Kephir claim can be substantiated or that it is probable. I was a target of a long-term stream of attacks by Kephir, including that I somehow veto things and that I oppose things with no reasoning; yet I did not let myself be "driven away" by Kephir. In fact Kephir indef blocked me which I to this day consider to be gross harassment. Kephir was still a Wiktionary admin when he left.

We do not know why Kephir quit but my guess is that he wanted to for some personal reasons; this would fit the fact that he managed to get himself indeffed on Commons after being accused of repeated non-consensual deletion nominations. I feel the Commons indef was a bit harsh but the tendency toward non-consensual behavior was there on Commons. And I criticized Kephir for non-consensual behavior on Wiktionary. If Kephir felt prevented by me from productively contributing to Wiktionary (I do not know how, but anyway), and if he wanted to participate on expanding MediaWiki wikis, he could have done so on any wiki where I am not very active; instead, he appears to have ceased editing on all wikis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Certain backgrounds
In 2014, I made the following statement:


 * I oppose "Definitions" header in Chinese entries, now as before. Nothing to do with "bureaucracy"; it has to do with civilized methods of government with which people of certain backgrounds are obviously not acquainted.

After that, I was accused of being racist. The statement was unfortunate but not for being racist (it would rather be "culturist") but rather by emphasizing a cultural group to which a particular editor belongs rather than considering the editor as an individual to be judged by their actions alone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also remember you calling the Anglo-Saxon culture superior to others. --Vahag (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are multiple elements of multiple cultures, especially elements with moral significance, in which I hold the Anglo-Saxon culture to be superior. To wit, apostasy (giving up one's religion) being a crime to be punished by death is a point of moral inferiority of those cultures that support that punishment. But you probably have something specific in mind, unrelated to apostasy. More related to Wiktionary, the British and American histories of democratic government are a point of superiority which most continental European countries and China cannot match, as is the American free speech. However, I certainly do not hold the view that Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American culture is superior in all regards to all other cultures. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with you. Your lack of cultural relativism is refreshing. --Vahag (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize to anyone, including perhaps User:Wyang, who felt offended by the problematic quoted statement. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Majority support
From the vote page: "... and subject changes which may have majority support to higher thresholds and procedural hurdles in an effort not dissimilar to the way a filibuster vs cloture works."

If we are to decide by consensus, "majority support" mentioned above is not enough. Creating a vote that needs 2/3 to pass indeed does lead to a higher threshold: 2/3 > 1/2. That said, I think that, for many purposes, 2/3 is too high a threshold for a change. To address that, I came up with the idea of amplification vote. It works like this: someone creates a vote on an issue that is more of a matter of taste than anything else, and the vote ends up in, say, 55% for one option, with ample participation. Then, another vote is created for the same proposal, in which the previously opposing editors are asked to consider abstaining, thereby recognizing that for matters of taste, the 55% should be enough for the proposal to pass. The subsequent vote is the amplification vote. The mechanism succeeds if the amplification vote passes, that is, achieves 2/3. For the record, at least one editor considers 2/3 to be too low threshold for votes to pass.

It is to be noted that before a vote is created and run, we do not really know what the consensus is, and even where the plain majority is. I am often surprised by vote results. I do not have a crystal ball, and I submit that neither do other Wiktionarians.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Limiting interaction with some users
This is a continuation of a talk from the main vote page.

If I know that my interactions with a particular user are all too likely to lead to his rude behavior toward me, which in its turn is going to tempt me to rude behavior, then I think it sound for me to limit, not block but limit, interaction with that user.

That idea seems to be embedded in interaction ban. When Kephir was an admin, editors decided to make an interaction ban between Kephir and Purplebackpack, without Kephir losing admin right.

What I did is impose a weak form of interaction ban from myself to Romanophile. Given that Romanophile wished me death, I do not see how that could be seen as improper. I do not see this weak form of interaction ban as a weakness but rather as a strength on my part.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Wiktionary actually needs arbcom I'm going to do something absurdly humorous. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 01:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)