Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/RFD voting policies

RFD voting policies

Voting on: A package of voting reforms for WT:RFDE, WT:RFDN, and WT:RFDO, voted on separately. Proposals that pass will be added under a new heading titled “RFD Votes” at Wiktionary:Voting policy. Each proposal below has the suggested text to be added.

(Note: In the proposals with multiple options, if more than one pass, the one with more support votes will be implemented).

Schedule:

Vote starts: 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Vote ends: 15:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Vote created: Imetsia (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions:

Proposal 1: IPs/anonymous editors cannot vote

Editors must be logged in to Wiktionary to be eligible to vote. Votes from IPs or anonymous editors should be stricken, although everyone (including IPs/anonymous editors) is free to contribute to the discussions.

Support

Support as half-proposer. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Numberguy6 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enfranchizing anons potentially allows a single person or three to cast dozens of votes by hopping from IP to IP (school wifi; home wifi; work wifi; other home wifi; library wifi; cellular data; cellular data on the other phone; bus-station wifi; iPad cellular data; neighbor-who-never-changed-their-router's-default-settings' wifi; etc., etc., etc....). The potential for catastrophe should anons continue to be allowed to vote should be blindingly obvious. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 05:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Whoop whoop. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late Support: our RFDs are predominantly based on vote counting as evidenced by the way we conduct the discussions: 1) we post boldface keeps and deletes; 2) we post "keeps" and "deletes" even when they provide no additional arguments to those already made; 3) the closers sometimes indicate a tally in the closure. IP votes should not count in the tallies, while IPs should be welcome to post arguments to influence those who can vote. IPs cannot vote in our formal votes and there is no reason to allow them to vote in RFDs. It takes a registration to have a force. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose: We have had some very productive IPs, including those that participated in RFDs and RFVs and did not create an account. Of course I'd prefer everyone make an account, but we should not exclude productive editors from important discussions solely because they don't want to create an accound for some personal or ideological reason. Thadh (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this doesn't exclude IP's from contributing, just from having their votes counted. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much equivalent in RFDs, because admins are free to only count votes with an explanation and/or sound logic (that is, unless the following subvote passes). If an IP's contribution is useful to the discussion, it should be counted as a vote imho. Thadh (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thadh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, I agree with the point raised by Thadh. Secondly, to me, this seems like excessive politics for a problem that just isn't there. I could only see it being a problem if RFDs were solved by a simple vote (in which case IPs probably shouldn't vote for the same reasons they currently don't participate in formal votes). Now, in a system like that of Wikipedia, which I much prefer, low-quality votes are a nonissue. Also, this ban would in no way improve the fact that RFD votes could already benefit from a wider community input.^[1] Finally, I'll quote Metaknowledge: "I challenge you to find even a single time that an IP has ever swayed an RFD discussion".^[2] brittletheories (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is rare that IPs vote. There are occasions when a registered user may not want to disclose their identity, which annoys other editors, of course. DonnanZ (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some people don't want to have a user name. I was pretty much bullied into it in 2008 because I kept getting banned as Wonderfool. There may be other reasons, e.g. political repercussions. Wikis are supposed to be open and free. Let the anon have a voice. Equinox ◑ 17:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vininn126 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Akletos (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that there's no evidence that IP voters have been consistently making decisions that are in any way less informed than those of users, I'm left mystified as to what this is purportedly solving. The lack of provided justification for this proposal appears rather inadvertently revealing; it ends up seeming more insensible than common-sense. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP voters, almost by definition, do make "decisions that are... less informed than those of users." Editors who do not bother to make an account and instead edit anonymously will, on the whole, be much less familiar with our policies. That's because those who are committed to working on this dictionary will create accounts. So, in general, anons do not have the sufficient knowledge, experience, and judgment to decide the fate of entries nominated for deletion. Of course whether or not one has an account is not a perfect metric of their understanding of our rules and principles: Some logged-in editors are new or come from sister projects, and some well-established contributors sometimes work as anons. But it is quite a good indicator even if not a flawless one, and the proposal is certainly a good step forward in weeding out unmeritorious votes at RFD.

Alternatively, I previously had the idea of creating a "voter role" for those whom we trust to vote at RFV/D. This would achieve the same purpose of eliminating meritless votes. But from the failure of the deleter-role idea, I assume that there isn't much appetite for that. I'm sure the Metaknowledges of the world would scramble to cry "bureaucracy," although I've always considered that argument opportunistic. Imetsia (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you've provided me with is a rapid-fire series of unevidenced assertions. I am not claiming that evidence has to be proffered for every single claim that you make, but some level of factual backing is necessary if you'd like me to seriously consider your claims, especially when I have reason to doubt them. And I do have reason to doubt them; making a account here at Wiktionary is hardly a significant barrier for the neophyte Wiktionarian to overcome. So while you are right to claim that many IP editors lack the requisite "knowledge, experience and judgement" to vote on RFDs, many of our users are no better. You acknowledge this, but you fail to realise the sheer number of users who do not know our ways.

Furthermore, those who cannot be bothered to create a account will probably not be bothered to vote; making a reasonably-argued, valid vote probably presents a greater difficulty to many novice contributors than account creation. Therefore, those who neglect to use a account are probably doing so for other reasons. Perhaps they are "testing the waters" before they decide to commit to Wiktionary. Perhaps they have some sort of dedication to anonymity or privacy. Perhaps they're reasonably acquainted with Wiktionary, but haven't felt the need to enter the muck until now. There's probably plenty of other reasons that don't come to mind right now, but in any case, the assumption that IP voters are mostly those who can't lift their bootstraps high enough is unmeritorious and unmerited. Finally, it is hardly like we have a Noachian deluge of IP voters who need to be put into place; if anything, the problem which requires our attention is account-having voters who make ill-considered and ill-informed votes; your proposal will do absolutely nothing to stop them.

As for your voter-role idea, I will merely state that I am unconvinced that it will operate as designed. I see no need to criticise it in any more depth, given that it is not the subject of this vote. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My statements about IPs not having the prerequisites for RFD voting are self-evident or axiomatic. Of course someone who cannot be bothered to make an account — which, as you concede, "is hardly a significant barrier" — cannot be expected to dedicate the time to learn our policies and vote accordingly. They are simply unqualified to weigh in about the fate of an entry. This is a pure logical assertion. There are myriad reasons for which users prefer not to create accounts. Whatever they are, my argument stands: if you, for whatever reason, fail to create an account, then by dint of not having an account, you have not presented the sort of dedication and active work on the site that is required to be able to vote at RFD.

Nor is this a novel requirement that I'm trying to impose on anons. We do the exact same thing for votes proper, and you could attach the exact same arguments against that practice. Has there been an instance where an IP has swung the result of a vote? Can we prove with scientific exactness that all IPs are unqualified to vote? etc. It is revealing that no one in the opposition is against the IP-ban for full-fledged votes, but only for RFD votes, which determine the standing of thousands of entries and get to the very core of what building a dictionary is about.

Some of the requests to produce evidence you and others have made are unreasonable. How would someone be able to "prove" my arguments — by polling every anonymous user and asking if they have read through our RFD guidelines? You surely have seen over the years a number of IPs cast RFD votes based on reasoning completely unmoored from our guidelines. Finding and cataloguing each of those instances is a tall order: I'd have to go through each article talk page and find examples of bad IP votes. Considering that thousands (if not more) article talk pages exist, that would be quite the task. Same thing goes for Metaknowledge's ask for us to find examples where IPs have swung a vote in one direction. Again, my arguments are purely logical/axiomatic in nature; with some influence from my prior experience as an editor at RFD.

I've never claimed that my system prevents every single meritless vote; only that it's a very good strainer that sifts out a good portion of bad votes. If we wanted to come up with a more precise exclusion mechanism that is neither over- or under-inclusive, I'd be fully in support of it. Until then, this is a good first step. The voter-role idea is, I think, the perfect solution. But, because of the obstinacy and obstruction of certain users in prior similar proposals, I'm unconvinced that it would pass. (I honestly thought this idea would pass in a landslide considering our general suspicion of IP activity anyways. Evidently, that hasn't been the case). Imetsia (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are IP editors who have put in a lot of dedication and work. You don't need to demean us to make your argument. Now, it could be true that a randomly selected IP editor has less dedication to Wiktionary than a randomly selected logged-in editor, and therefore it could serve as a useful heuristic (not passing judgement on the policy proposal itself), but it would be nice if you could not make sweeping negative generalizations about other users, devaluing their effort, as you did in the last sentence of your first paragraph. 70.175.192.217 18:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to demean anyone, and I recognize that there are many IP editors who have many contributions under their name. Read the last sentence of my first paragraph closely. I don't say that IP editors are not dedicated or active, but simply not to the requisite extent to have the power to vote. Deciding the destiny of possibly thousands of entries (these entries, as I've said above, being the "very core" of our project) requires at least the dedication to the site to create an account. This is the criterion I propose as simply another indicator of "dedication" or "activity," and in my view an essential one. Of course edit counts, value of contributions, etc. are very worthy as well, but they are simply not enough to have the franchise. That's all I'm saying. I also find that, in general, IP editors are casual editors, although that's not the case uniformly. Imetsia (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Abstain. I have not seen a problem to be solved by this proposal. If admins are allowed to use their own judgment the rule doesn't matter. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. RFD isn’t a vote to begin with, so without further changes AFAICT this means nothing one way or the other. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The issue with voting is that in my experience there usually aren't enough participants for the voting to be meaningful." Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January § Codifying certain rules for RFD (Benwing2 06:44, 4 January 2022)
^ Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January § Codifying certain rules for RFD (Μετάknowledges 20:09, 1 January 2022)

Proposal 2: Defining consensus

A page/entry/sense may be deleted based on x supermajority consensus for deleting it. To determine consensus, the closing editor should count only keep and delete votes, counting the nomination itself as a presumptive delete vote unless otherwise stated. Votes should be tallied after at least 30 days from the start date of the RFD in order to close. (Analogously, an entry or sense may be undeleted only under the same conditions).

NOTE: This proposal should not be read to imply that we should count all of the votes mechanically to gauge consensus. Our current practice is to sometimes ignore RFD votes when they are unmeritorious; this proposal would in no way change that. Which votes to include and exclude would remain at the discretion of the closer, just as it is today.

Support: 3/5

Support —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the entire page to make my votes and missed the fact that there were two options here. I meant only to support a supermajority, not a 3/5 supermajority. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In multiple conversations with mods and other folks, this is the de facto rule anyways, regardless of whether or not it's a "vote". Also, to folks that state it's not a vote: sure, it's officially a "discussion", but at least for the time that I've been here and from archiving a ton of discussions, they definitely sure look more like votes than anything else, with more "controversial" nominations having back-and-forths. I don't feel like there's a need to avoid calling it as it is anymore. AG202 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202 See my above comment. I just want to make sure you didn't make the same mistake I did, and I thought you might have, given the wording of your comment. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind. I see you supported the other option as well. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "this is the de facto rule anyways": For a late record: this does not match my memory. My memory says the common practice was to use 2/3-supermajority. In Talk:less-than-stellar, I said as much and no one objected; that is a bit of evidence, even if a weak one; I presented no evidence to support my claim. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Support, just for the record. The proposal is actually flexible: "Our current practice is to sometimes ignore RFD votes when they are unmeritorious; this proposal would in no way change that." I prefer 2/3-supermajority (66.6%) but am willing to concede to those who prefer 3/5 (60%) that our RFD seems very pro-keeping biased and that it should serve not only me (an inclusionist) but also deletionists. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 2/3

Support: This is a tricky one, and I may yet change my vote. There are some very contentious RFDs, and some closers need their wings clipped, and not make controversial decisions. Anything less than this should be closed "no consensus". Too many good entries have been lost. DonnanZ (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this should be more a guideline than anything, but it'd be nice to see some movement on some RFD's, especially in the case of a supermajority. I still think judgement should be used, but I think it might be being overused at the moment. Vininn126 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AG202 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as a hard minimum threshold for deletion. Unless at least two-thirds of the users taking part in an RfD agree that deletion is the best option, the page must not be deleted. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 05:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rishabhbhat (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late Support, just for the record. The proposal is actually flexible: "Our current practice is to sometimes ignore RFD votes when they are unmeritorious; this proposal would in no way change that." I prefer 2/3-supermajority (66.6%). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (both options)

Oppose. I prefer to let admins use more judgment. I prefer to let clear cases be closed earlier. I also observe that the total number of votes tends to be small and numeric thresholds work better for large numbers of votes. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Metaknowledge in the discussion preceding the vote and Vox above. Thadh (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, same as Thadh. brittletheories (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for much the same reasons. As it stands RFD is a discussion, not a vote, and changing it to be a vote seems like a solution in search of a problem. I’d prefer that more be left up to individual discretion and judgement. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late: That does not match my recollection of our closing practice. RFD is up to individual discretion and judgment, of the participants, not the closer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Akletos (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of the stipulations and reassurances that have been provided, the most likely result of this being acceded to is the substitution of any sort of judgement with overly-literal adherence to the rules. In that case, the rules will be eventually gave so much credence that they'll be adhered to even when they are obviously inappropriate; the rationale will be twofold:
- Some will point out that the wording of this proposal doesn't in itself contain any provision for overriding percentage-based determination of a vote's outcome. They will cheerfully acknowledge that it had a little note below it allowing for exceptions, but it will be seen as a unauthoritative suggestion that wasn't part of the actual proposal, meaning that it can and should be ignored.
- Alternatively, they will laud the peaceableness produced by sticking to percentage-based determination. In their view, allowing absolutely any exceptions to it will lead to potential disputes about when and how exceptions should be sanctioned. This will be unacceptable to them, as this proposal has been and will be justified on the grounds that it (purportedly) avoids disputes.
I believe that neither of these reasons is sufficient to justify this kind of inflexibility. In a effort to justify this proposal, some users have pointed to the acrimony that has surrounded the current judgement-based means of RFD closure, but acrimony can surround the implementation and operation of this proposal too. I predicted that a stringent, inflexible interpretation of it will take hold, but that won't happen overnight; its implementation and interpretation will no doubt be subject to much dispute. Alternatively, if a looser interpretation takes hold, the exact grounds for admitting flexibility will be the subject of continual dispute. After all, you cannot succeed in legislating away the human tendency for contention. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never in my life heard anyone argue in favor of more discretion and less objectivity. Most of the time, people argue for the exact opposite because it fosters predictable, fair, and even-handed administration of the rules. Nevertheless, the entire opposition has gone for this argument. It's a rather odd choice. I would love to discount the votes of Semper and Donnanz because they're usually unmeritorious. But I've never done that because it comes rather close to simply rejecting votes because you disagree with them — is the opposition now coming in support of doing this? I would love to do such a thing, but it does seem like the wrong thing to do.

As for bullet 1, I don't forecast the situation as you do. There have been countless instances in which we have not read our rules to the letter, instead preferring more flexible interpretations. It's a common practice (although I disagree with it because it "exceed[s] the limits of judicial authority"). Users would be quick to apply this exception in case after case. In fact, the more likely and worrisome scenario is that the rule will have no force as editors will seize on every chance to apply its exception. Imetsia (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal does not foster objectivity, but the dangerous illusion of false objectivity. As I have attempted to point out, any system of rules that we devise is subject to the vicissitudes of fallible human interpretation. In fact, excessive rules can actually prevent "predictable, fair, and even-handed" judgements as those who make the rules cannot anticipate every possible scenario that emerges or every possible behaviour that the rules encourage. Additionally, the sheer volume of rules becomes a burden to remember, litigate, and manage; soon, more time is spent dealing with conflicts and issues that emerge from the rules than with the system the rules are designed to protect. The end result is a millstone that gives false salvation to its bearers.

I am not advocating a Wild West situation where no rules are in force and where votes can be abrogated with impunity. I am in favour of a rule-based system, but I am not in favour of a system where every minor matter is treated regulatorily. I see our rules as providing basic expectations for behaviour, not comprehensive, infallible diktats that are subject to the least interpretation possible. It will eventually become apparent that any system based on the latter expectation is too rigid and inflexible to serve the needs of users who want to work on a free dictionary.

I am aware that our rules have not always been subject to literal interpretation. However, the promulgation, codification and ratification of this proposal will encourage the spread of a literalist mentality and dishearten those with a more flexible, consequentialist outlook. I am not merely looking at this proposal in isolation; while this proposal is not likely to consequentially affect the prevalent mentality by itself, it has the potential to play a role in changing the ideological composition of Wiktionary in combination with other proposals. If the proposal will end up having "no force", it vindicates me and amounts to a instinctive recognition of the deleterious effects of this proposal. Additionally, if it will most likely not function as intended, why advocate for it at all when its presence will mislead users about the operation of Wiktionary? This kind of misdirection has the potential to scare off new editors as they will feel that they've fell for a promise founded in falsity. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"[A]ny system of rules that we devise is subject to the vicissitudes of fallible human interpretation" is an argument against your case. If you're worried about "over-literal" attachment to the rules, then you've just found a great rebuttal to that concern. As I tried to point out, the great trend in our interpretation of policies has not been a purely textualist one, and I don't anticipate that that would be different in this case.

"[E]xcessive rules... prevent 'predictable, fair, and even-handed' judgements as those who make the rules cannot anticipate every possible scenario that emerges or every possible behaviour that the rules encourage." For the most part, the rules outlined above should be followed to the tee. There would be little interpretation involved, as 3/5 or 2/3 are fixed mathematical constants. For those exceptional cases where adherence to the rule is undesirable, users can use their own common sense and discretion (as we're always advised to do) to depart from the standard. If people disagree, we can have a discussion about it, just as we do for any dispute over application of the rules. It would be, in any case, much better than the standardless reality of RFD right now, where any user can disagree on any closing of an RFD based on their own subjective understanding of what counts as "consensus." Disagreements will still exist, but in much lesser quantity.

Once again, the opposition brings up these arguments here, but does not apply them in the case of votes proper. We decided long ago to fix the definition of consensus at 2/3 for real votes, and little controversy has followed. We've had occasional disagreements about applying that standard (the plus-templates situation is a prime example), but it's a great deal better than having no standard at all and opening the doors to all sorts of subjective closings of votes.

"If the proposal will end up having 'no force', it vindicates me and amounts to a[n] instinctive recognition of the deleterious effects of this proposal." I'm simply saying that between the two extremes (complete inflexibility versus complete laxity in application of the rule), the more likely scenario is (sadly) that users will be tempted to take an activist approach to interpreting this policy. This is both a forewarning and a reflection of what I see as a dangerous current in the administration of our rules. The most likely scenario is that the rule will be followed to the letter in most cases, with a good amount of flexibility in exceptional circumstances. Imetsia (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late:"[A]ny system of rules that we devise is subject to the vicissitudes of fallible human interpretation": This is blatantly factually incorrect (talks of "any system of rules", a very strong claim indeed). And this is an argument for having no rules, which is just inane; for a long time, the RFD header said RFD can be closed as RFD deleted only when there is consensus for doing so and that is a rule, and there are alternative rules, such as "The RFD closer should close the RFD discussion based on the strength of the presented arguments in accordance with our policies", and that is a rule markedly different from consensus.

Re: "the sheer volume of rules becomes a burden to remember, litigate, and manage": The short rule proposed does not contribute to "sheer volume"; it is very short to read and remember. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No need to define consensus. Cases can be closed based on precedence or admins’ discretion. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The precedence should be judged by the RFD participants, not the closer. And precedence has no policy force; people are not obliged to align themselves with previous decisions on individual entries. It is dangerous to let the closers claim "precedence" and disregard the votes in the RFD discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain (both options)

Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I prefer we continue working by admin discretion, which is why I’ll also not vote for proposal 1. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: No consensus/objection

If consensus for deletion cannot be achieved over a period of n, the RFD should be closed and the page/entry/sense should be kept.
If there have been no keep or delete votes over the period of n (apart from the nomination itself), the page/entry/sense should be deleted by no objection.

(This is also analogous for undeletions).

Support: 1 month

Support —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for point 1 ONLY. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 05:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 2 months

Support —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Imetsia (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can you support both 1 and 2 months? DonnanZ (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is precedence for supporting both options: “If both were to pass, the one with more support would be enacted.” Now do not ask me what will happen if no more votes are cast, LOL. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 month is too little and 3 months is too long. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for point 1 ONLY, as a fallback option in case the 1-month option fails. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 05:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: 3 months

Support. I think we should let things be for a while, so that users who contribute irregularly or who only infrequently check the pages have a chance to contribute. Sometimes the word under discussion is in a language with few editors or is a term that most users are not qualified to assess (or don't know how to cite), which makes it undesirable to close discussions too quickly, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is partial support - only for point 1, not for point 2. DonnanZ (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for point 1 ONLY, as a fallback option in case the 1-month and 2-month options fail. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 05:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (all options)

Oppose. I do not support specific numeric rules here. A 1-0 vote does count as a supermajority, though, so the second part is redundant in a sense. An editor who does not speak up during a long RFD should not object if an admin goes along with the proposal. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: I see how it's desirable to have a specific deadline for activity (which I would support in itself), but once we write it down we won't be able to ignore it in difficult situations. I propose making this a custom rather than a rule. Thadh (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a discussion is going on after that time also then it may just be continued. Our current rule is 1 months, and the RFD discussion for {{bor+}} lasted much longer. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 03:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is that it's not a rule, it's a custom (although a weak one). Once we write it down, it can become something one could potentially exploit. Thadh (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so your concern is that if we codify, say, 2 months, it could be exploited in case of no-consensus and anyone could prematurely close an ongoing discussion? Would the same concern apply, if 2 months or anything were to be made a non-binding custom? —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 12:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you fully understood my point. And no, I think an non-binding rule cannot be exploited. Thadh (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thadh: Is this addressed by the dictum that "the rules are principles"? All of our rules establish general ideas that we can apply in future circumstances. We give specifics only to give more concrete guidance in how to apply them, but exceptions always exist. In especially concerning cases, we can always depart from the 1/2/3-month standard. As the essay page linked above states: "Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some common sense and discretion." Imetsia (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imetsia: I see your point, but I still think it's safer not to write these down wherever possible. Luckily, we are much smaller than Wikipedia and customs can still be followed - it's mainly admins who close discussions anyway, we don't have too many of them. Thadh (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: While I support three months as an absolute maximum, I object to point 2. I feel that while there may be no voting and no objections, the RFD should be a keep by default, closed, and would need to be submitted again. DonnanZ (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donnanz: That makes no sense. Suppose I nominate an entry in an LDL that nobody else works in, does that mean this entry isn't going to be deleted unless someone reads all the appropriate literature and forms an independent opinion on the topic? Thadh (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Again I’m in broadly in favor of individual discretion, and tend to agree with Thadh above, though I’m also sympathetic to Imetsia’s response. Beyond this, though, what sways me is that the framing in terms of keep/delete votes seems wrongheaded to me; RFD isn’t a simple count of votes, and discussion may be ongoing regardless of whether someone posts a vote or not. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why again are we having this vote? Akletos (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Akletos: Just look at RFDN, which has been beleaguered by two phenomena. (1) Entries are discussed and voted on, a result is clear, but no one actually strikes the entry for months and months after it should have been kept/deleted. (2) Someone nominates an entry for deletion, but no one else votes on it, forcing the entry to hang around at RFDN for an unreasonably long time. These are two real issues that would be solved by this policy. Imetsia (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that more regulations would result in a faster handling of rfvs and rfds. Akletos (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This will most likely result in many entries that should remain being deleted and many deletion-worthy entries being kept. It seems rather unrealistic to assume that all RFDs that garner no attention are valid. Conversely, a RFD may be valid but fail to achieve consensus due to inactivity or effort expended on peripheral discussion. As a result, it seems like a inappropriate way to solve the "phenomena" that Imetsia mentions; a solution to a backlog that imperils the content of the dictionary it solves is no solution at all (remember; the aim of Wiktionary is supposed to be a orderly dictionary, not a orderly RFD queue). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If no one votes on an entry, it is safe to delete it. Lack of participation would indicate that no one is interested in the RFD anyways, so it wouldn't cause much issue. If no consensus is reached after 1/2/3 months, it is safe to keep it. Another 1/2/3 months is unlikely to generate a clearer result. As Chuck has said before, "Entries can always be undeleted, if anyone objects. It's more important to refrain from archiving too fast, so people have a chance to see what's happened and raise an objection, if necessary." This is the mechanism that prevents your nightmare scenario from coming true. Imetsia (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that lack of participation signals lack of interest is regrettably myopic. It fails to consider the various reasons why interested parties may neglect to notice or act on a RFD. For instance, the only editor with enough expertise in a particular LDL to determine whether something is SoP or not may be indisposed for a period of several months; when they finally return to Wiktionary, the RFD would've came and went and the editor would be none the wiser. Sure, they wouldn't object, but Wiktionary would be worse off for it if the entry wasn't deletion-worthy after all. Undeletion is not a sufficient remedy here, as your proposal will result in entries being deleted without anyone to speak up for them For instance, it wouldn't help the example I gave at all unless somebody decides to comb through random RFDs for whatever reason. This doesn't even get into the abuse of the RFD system that your proposal makes possible.

Similarly, your assumption that discussions always achieve a rigidity after a one-to-three month period (is it one, two, or three months? Who knows?) does not seem true. As there is always room for a torpid discussion to acquire new vitality, prematurely shutting down discussions is worse than having a bloated RFD backlog. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for point 2 (I support point 1), per the excellent points raised by Donnanz and Hazarasp. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 06:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No need for any hard and fast rules. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain (all options)

Abstain Numberguy6 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I agree with Thadh's reasoning here as well but not strongly enough to vote against the proposal. brittletheories (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain In agreeance with what I said above, I think some better guideline for movement forward would be nice, but I don't think this is the right one for discussions without resolution. Vininn126 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I agree with the spirit as those pesky backlogs can be hugely bothersome, but some languages have too few editors to allow consensus to be reached in three months. For languages with a wide editor base I’d support 1 month, but never as a blanket rule. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Per MuDavid. I still think we ought to bring in more communities of editors before making sweeping changes. AG202 (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

Proposal 1: Failed 6 - 8 - 2.
Proposal 2: Failed 3/6 - 7 - 2.
Proposal 3: Failed 3/4/3 - 8 - 5.
— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would close proposal 2 as no consensus (8-7-2), though it really makes no difference here. And I would consider proposal 3 as 5-8-5, but the result there is the same regardless. Imetsia (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late: For ease of reference, there is Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/August#Consensus threshold in RFD discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late: Ironically enough, were I allowed to close this vote based on the strength of the arguments together with votes, I would dismiss the opposes as incredibly poorly argued and close this vote as passed for closer-overridable 2/3 supermajority. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "The issue with voting is that in my experience there usually aren't enough participants for the voting to be meaningful." Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January § Codifying certain rules for RFD (Benwing2 06:44, 4 January 2022)

[2] Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/January § Codifying certain rules for RFD (Μετάknowledges 20:09, 1 January 2022)

[1]

[2]