Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll

This poll is now CLOSED. Please add any comments to the talk page.

English: A poll to determine suffrage eligibility guidelines to vote on Commons elections, and for what standards our local 'crats should try to adhere to if scrutiny is needed for any elections in the future. If there is consensus support for an option from both classes—last two months' activity, AND past years' activity, there is no reason both cannot be applied as policy, and overlap for a double/tiered requirement, if we wanted to make things extra-ungameable and some folks supported that level of restriction. This poll is intended to gauge what normal, regular, day-to-day Commons users want for this aspect of the local project. Votes by non-regular Commons users are welcome here (i.e., a user who spends 95%-99% of their time on English Wikipedia or Polish Wikiquote may participate on this poll). However, precedence of weight is given to normal/routine Commons users that are more familiar with this project, when this poll is closed and evaluated by our local 'crats. This is an internal, local project matter, and precedent, circumstances, or views from other Wikimedia projects may carry reduced to no weight on this one (and vice versa). The poll has ended (right?) Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: for purposes of "edits", admin actions and uploads count as edits. This will be open 31 days and advertised on ~~MediaWiki:Watchlist-details~~ (Later upgraded full Site Notice rootology (T I was acting of my own accord, not on behalf of any others. Giggy (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)) so no one will miss it. The 'crats will close it after 31 days and tally it up to decide consensus. Prior votes and polls leading up to this were held in February 2008 and March 2008. Some useful templates you can use: {{Support}}, {{Oppose}}.[reply]

Note: The edit count requirements will not be 'set in stone' and can and will be disregarded by 'crats in the cases of long-term users and similar cases.

Option 1: Two months of activity

English: This option would mean that to vote in any Commons election such as RFA, RFB, or RFCU, you need x number of edits in each of the preceding two months before the vote. The intention is to prevent sudden inappropriate canvassing or importing of disputes from another project.

Example scenario: User:Bob runs for RFA in December 2008, vote starting any day from the 1st to 31st. To vote in that election, a Commons user needs x number of edits in both October 2008 and November 2008. In extraordinary circumstances the closing 'crats can make special decisions in light of this—for example, a long time Commons user just "missing the count".

You may select more than one—indicate 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice. If you oppose any change from the current status quo of 100% bureaucrat discretion, do not edit this section, and note this in the Option #3 "No Change" section below.

20 per month

Support:

Support 2nd choice. rootology (T) 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support equal choice with 30. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Second choice naerii 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2nd choice. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support no representation without taxation. TimVickers (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the understanding that on specific request, we can ignore this rule. RfXs aren't a pure numbers game. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficient activity. More is too much. --Bduke (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (1st choice) I put more edits in on talk pages a month. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(+) Logical arguements are more important than votes. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月14號 (星期Thu), 00:42:13 || =|| 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support though not a first choice maybe. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC). I've read a number of thought provoking comments on this vote. For a number of reasons I no longer feel comfortable with leaving my votes to stand. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak support — only support this in favor of the no change option. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) this is a change from my former opposition[reply]
Support 2nd choice. --Túrelio (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 22:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm comfortable with a requirement for some level activity, this equates to 5 edits per week and gives 260 edits pa to maintain this minimum. Gnan garra 13:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
extremely low Support bordering on Oppose while recognising some level of activity/community participation is necessary, after further consideration this isnt the way in which to encourage community participation as Commons is a supportive resource and the sole place for many projects where images can be uploaded edit limits excludes people who are genuinely affect by our actions. I'd rather a first edit user highlighting at RFA another editors actions on a smaller project that people arent aware of rather. Gnan garra 01:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ragimiri (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dani ^(vita) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good threshold. --Ilikepie2221 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support First choice; it is a nice and simple threshold that encourages people to build the Commons. A hour or two each month is all it takes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lower the better. -- Felipe Aira 12:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reasonable rules. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reasonable rules and practical. --Judgefloro (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Oppose I'm an administrator and I wouldn't pass this criteria. You're going to ban administrators from voting at RFA etc? --Durin (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather desysop them. With less than 20 edits a month you're not administering anything. Rocket000(talk) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that possession of the tools of adminship requires their frequent use? Ford MF (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is not much point in providing people with tools that they do not use. If an RfA said "please grant me the tools but I may well not make much use of them".... I doubt the community would be interested in the offer. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons also, like mete.wikimedia, has fixed minimum activity requirements for use of 'crat and admin tools. If not used, they're lost. rootology (T) 13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; bar should be higher. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) struck in lieu of weak support. Jack Merridew 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh contributions in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jack. Rocket000(talk) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Abstaining on these per month ones. Rocket000(talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I consider myself a pretty active participant here, and most of the year, I wouldn't meet the qualifications. For several months out of the year, I did not make any edits (though I still kept and eye on things, checked for messages, etc.). Several months I made just two edits in a month. Then there are months like this and last month where I make a couple hundred, including adding new media content. Month-to-month requirements are just too onerous for a project like Commons, where it is (for most people) an adjunct project to their main project. It doesn't mean we don't care nor that we don't follow things (like this poll), but it's not a place where we constantly edit. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and my average edit count is right around 20 per month. However, it all is in spurts of activity followed by long lulls. If something came up for a vote during a lull, I should have every right to have my vote count even if I haven't edited anything recently. All of these monthly options are completely unworkable and I strongly oppose ALL of them. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Will. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and the other "per month" choices—The majority of my edits are uploads of self-created photos, and they tend to come in batches, with less activity between. If the intent is to disenfranchise those of us who don't do much besides contribute images, mission accomplished.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everyone. This measure seems to specifically disenfranchise all editors who don't treat Commons as their primary project. Which, as stated above, is a lot of editors, if not the vast majority of them. Ford MF (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the undemocratic nature of the idea in principle and in practise. Hiding (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many exceptions, where good contributors have just taken a break. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --AFBorchert (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC) I am a regular at Commons since 2005 but I do not work fulltime for Commons.[reply]
Oppose Those of us who take breaks for lengths of time would be excluded for at least two months after becoming "active" again after a period of inactivity. Making seasoned and trusted users go through the hoops that a new account would have to go through just because they took a break is crazy. -Fcb981 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be too much over a shot period of time. Pabouk (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Banning people from voting is nonsense. Bureaucrats can use their discretion for obvious drive-by votes. Majorly ^talk 13:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough activity. Lycaon (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is to much, activity in wikicommons comes in bursts (say after a photoshoot on a trip) and not on a month to month basis ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per month is too short. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - but weakly. I'd say more factors need to be aken into account than just edit count. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many real contributors that deserve voting are prohibited voting with this rule. Barcex (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs) and Barcex (talk · contribs). BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Promoting edits for the sake of edits and to get to vote will only promote meaningless edits, waste bandwidth, and waste storage space. I would suggest something more like 1 edit in the previous 3 cumulative months as opposed to a per-month limit.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most semi-regular editors edit in bursts of activity, so an editor with hundreds of contributions per year could be permanently disenfranchised if they only edit every second month. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would mean I would have to contibute new photos every month, instead of hundreds of photos once every year. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per statistical analysis, this is very restrictive; as others have said, by month rules restrict lumpy contributors. Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no possibility of holiday or disease ?--GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the idea of preventing someone from voting because of edit counts. Captain panda 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs). --Till (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to very strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every 2-month period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal is also highly sexist and masculine and it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not to put too fine a point on things, but there is a vast difference between edits and contributions. There are many who have wracked up thousands of edits, but have never (or rarely) contributed any media to Commons. Yet, by this proposed system, they would be granted a voice. While members like myself, who have contributed their time and talent to create media for Commons (but rarely or never edit) would be ignored.--Seedfeeder (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (1) Any determined puppeteer can raise 20 or 200 edits in a short time, why bother. (2) I make and upload photographs in summer; winters are dark and dull and anyway I've got a daytime job that goes overtime exactly from November to April... does this make me good in summer and bad in winter? nonsense! I reckon these points were already made, but they do matter. NVO (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Editcountitis is a dangerous illness notafish }<';> 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though it's not as bad as some of the other options. Stratford490 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jeroencommons (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No way a student can meet that requirement, even if they care about Commons! Leujohn (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Elmondo21st (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two months of (semi-)inactivity shouldn't bar someone from voting. Pruneau^talk 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That would mean people like me, occasionally here to add a pic, hunt a pic, and do some organising while I go would almost certainly be ineligible. Sandpiper (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 20 edits per month is a lot under any circumstances. One month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? --gildemax (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this poll for english speaking people only? --ST ○ 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong opposition -- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lilyu (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brunodesacacias (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC) As it has already been noticed here : "That would mean people like me, occasionally here to add a pic, hunt a pic, and do some organising while I go would almost certainly be ineligible." I'sorry but, even if, I am not very active on Commons, I will not let my own work for free without having any rights on Commons life. I would like a rather different organsiation. I would like any one thanks me for the smallest contribution I have done and thus let me vote in any case. Best regards.[reply]
Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HB (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (cf Brunodesacacias)[reply]
Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)
Oppose Per Willscrlt. Ceedjee (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Pixeltoo (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Esby (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]
Oppose pas trop compris la question --P@d@w@ne 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 per month

Support:

Support an edit a day sounds reasonable. Deathgleaner (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st choice. rootology (T) 13:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; second choice. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support equal choice with 20. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support First choice naerii 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st choice. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC) ~~After thinking more on this, I'm changing my vote on this. --Kanonkas_(talk) 11:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support Acceptable. Rocket000(talk) 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC) On second thought, I'm not sure about going on a per month basis. Rocket000(talk) 16:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(+) Logical arguements are more important than votes. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月14號 (星期Thu), 00:42:13 || =|| 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice, though still very low. Lycaon (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dani ^(vita) 23:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also third choice. It's a bit steep, but I would prefer this than having outside influences politicising Commons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~
Oppose I'm an administrator and I wouldn't pass this criteria. You're going to ban administrators from voting at RFA etc? --Durin (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh contributions in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - An even worse option than 20/month where I already commented. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Will. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much. --Bduke (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In the end although I like the idea this does really seem to have the possibility to penalise people who are active but somewhat intermittent in their activity. I can think of a number of extremely good users who may miss a month or two. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many exceptions, where good contributors have just taken a break. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --AFBorchert (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Why shall people penalized who have longer breaks that are used for taking photographs for Commons?[reply]

Oppose Those of us who take breaks for lengths of time would be excluded for at least two months after becoming "active" again after a period of inactivity. Making seasoned and trusted users go through the hoops that a new account would have to go through just because they took a break is crazy. -Fcb981 (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose After more thought about this I'm opposing this. --Kanonkas_(talk) 11:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Could be too much over a shot period of time. Pabouk (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See my reasoning for 20 per month. Also, this can be easily abused. Majorly ^talk 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high, too great a limit on suffrage.- J Logan ^t: 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is to much, activity in wikicommons comes in bursts (say after a photoshoot on a trip) and not on a month to month basis ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per month is too short. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 30 per month equates to one per day and 365pa that exceeds the requirements for annual edits. I'm not comfortable with such an inbalance. Gnan garra 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I consider the 20 edits choice innapropiate, also this one. Barcex (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs) and Barcex (talk · contribs). BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Promoting edits for the sake of edits and to get to vote will only promote meaningless edits, waste bandwidth, and waste storage space. I would suggest something more like 1 edit in the previous 3 cumulative months as opposed to a per-month limit.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most semi-regular editors edit in bursts of activity, so an editor with hundreds of contributions per year could be permanently disenfranchised if they only edit every second month. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per statistical analysis, this is very restrictive; as others have said, by month rules restrict lumpy contributors. Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too strong --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the idea of preventing someone from voting because of edit counts. Captain panda 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to very strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every 2-month period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal is also highly sexist and masculine and it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just as bad as 20 (I put my objections there at #39). NVO (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Editcountitis is a dangerous illness notafish }<';> 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Genuine contributors might not always have 30 votes per month in preceding months, and shouldn't be disqualified from voting. Stratford490 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jeroencommons (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is to much!--Elmondo21st (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two months of (semi-)inactivity shouldn't bar someone from voting. Pruneau^talk 11:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((oppose}} as above: I don't come here regularly enough to qualify. I'm a serious wikipedia editor who is just here sometimes, and I imagine that applies to most of the serious editors who come here. Surely the idea is to distinguish serious editors from vote-riggers, and this doesn't do it. Sandpiper (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 30 edits per month is a lot under any circumstances. One month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? --gildemax (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Um was geht es denn hier? Zur Sicherheit bin ich mal dagegen, dann nicht schaden. --ST ○ 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. -- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Lilyu (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Brunodesacacias (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Strong opposition As it has already been noticed here : "That would mean people like me, occasionally here to add a pic, hunt a pic, and do some organising while I go would almost certainly be ineligible." I'sorry but, even if, I am not very active on Commons, I will not let my own work for free without having any rights on Commons life. I would like a rather different organsiation. I would like any one thanks me for the smallest contribution I have done and thus let me vote in any case. Best regards.[reply]

Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose HB (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (cf Brunodesacacias)[reply]

Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Oppose. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.--Pixeltoo (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Esby (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]

Oppose pas réellement compris la question, dans le doute... --P@d@w@ne 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~50 per month~~
~~Support:~~
Support; first choice. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support less preferred than 20 or 30... 50 is a lot in my view, actually, but I'm OK with it. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. I don't mind being penalized if my contributions are not high enough, then I'd rather not vote at such time. Lycaon (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~
Oppose I'm an administrator and I wouldn't pass this criteria. You're going to ban administrators from voting at RFA etc? --Durin (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh contributions in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too high. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - An vastly worse option than 20/month where I already commented. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Will.

Oppose Too much. --Bduke (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In the end although I like the idea this does really seem to have the possibility to penalise people who are active but somewhat intermittent in their activity. I can think of a number of extremely good users who may miss a month or two. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 20/30 a month should be enough in my opinion. --Kanonkas_(talk) 07:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose encourages editcountitis. It's possible to contribute several featured pictures in a month without meeting this threshold. Our suffrage standards should be flexible enough to accommodate dedicated contributors who go for quality instead of quantity. Durova (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the undemocratic nature of the idea in principle and in practise. Hiding (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too many exceptions, where good contributors have just taken a break. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --AFBorchert (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Voting for Commons addicts only who take no breaks?[reply]

Oppose Those of us who take breaks for lengths of time would be excluded for at least two months after becoming "active" again after a period of inactivity. Making seasoned and trusted users go through the hoops that a new account would have to go through just because they took a break is crazy. -Fcb981 (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too much Pabouk (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One word ... stupid. Majorly ^talk 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too high. -- Cecil (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way to high, too great a limit.- J Logan ^t: 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is to much, activity in wikicommons comes in bursts (say after a photoshoot on a trip) and not on a month to month basis ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per month is too short. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think everyone up there has already given the reasons. Enforcing this criteria is going to result in a cabal where only the guys with a high number of edits can vote. Chenzw (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 50 per month equates to 12.5 per week and 650 pa that exceeds the requirements for annual edits. I'm not comfortable with such an inbalance. Gnan garra 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I consider the 20 edits choice innapropiate, also this one. Barcex (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high; I would fail this threshold occasionally (and I'm an administrator:-). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs) and Barcex (talk · contribs). BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Promoting edits for the sake of edits and to get to vote will only promote meaningless edits, waste bandwidth, and waste storage space. I would suggest something more like 1 edit in the previous 3 cumulative months as opposed to a per-month limit.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most semi-regular editors edit in bursts of activity, so an editor with hundreds of contributions per year could be permanently disenfranchised if they only edit every second month. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too high..--Kwj2772 (d) 13:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per statistical analysis, this is very restrictive; as others have said, by month rules restrict lumpy contributors. Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too strong --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't like the idea of preventing someone from voting because of edit counts. Captain panda 02:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to very strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every 2-month period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal is also highly sexist and masculine and it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just as bad as 20 (I put my objections there at #39). NVO (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Editcountitis is a dangerous illness notafish }<';> 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. Stratford490 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jeroencommons (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Elmondo21st (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Two months of (semi-)inactivity shouldn't prevent someone from voting. Pruneau^talk 11:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 50 edits per month is a lot under any circumstances. This would start cutting out even dedicated editors. Sandpiper (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 50 edits per month is a lot under any circumstances. One month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? --gildemax (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. -- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Lilyu (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Brunodesacacias (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Strong opposition As it has already been noticed here : "That would mean people like me, occasionally here to add a pic, hunt a pic, and do some organising while I go would almost certainly be ineligible." I'sorry but, even if, I am not very active on Commons, I will not let my own work for free without having any rights on Commons life. I would like a rather different organsiation. I would like any one thanks me for the smallest contribution I have done and thus let me vote in any case. Best regards.[reply]

Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose HB (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (cf Brunodesacacias)[reply]

Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Oppose. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.--Pixeltoo (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Esby (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]

Oppose pas réellement compris la question, dans le doute... --P@d@w@ne 12:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option 2: Edits in the past year~~
English: Similar to option #1, but broader in nature: edits in the year preceding the election's start time. This does not imply that a user must have been active for a full year to vote. You may select more than one—indicate 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice. If you "oppose" suffrage changes from the current status quo of 100% 'crat discretion, do not edit this section, and note your Support/Oppose in the Option #3 "No Change" section below.
~~50 in the past year~~
Works out to an average of 4.1 edits/month to qualify.
Support:
Support third choice, this isn't much activity at all. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ensures some activity on the project. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support third choice of this set. rootology (T) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support weakly - An reasonable requirement for policy changes, but overkill for other things. People who occasionally edit here but do not consider this their primary project should be permitted to vote, and this accommodates that. My only concern is that if all the edits fall in the days immediately prior to the poll, then are they just active new users to the project or are they just trying to bump their edit count to vote? If it could be the year prior to the week before the poll, then that would be terrific. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC). Revised on 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Support—This is a reasonable level for a contributor of primarily self-made content.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC) But it is my second choice ("no change" is first).--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice. Ingolfson (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sufficient. --Bduke (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As someone with few edits here, I see no reason why I should get as much weight as I do on Wikiquote or Wikisource. On the other hand, if I became a regular contributor I would not wish to lose my franchise because I lapsed for a few weeks. (I realise that if this option passes, my vote won't count!)--Poetlister 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. Cirt (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not unreasonable, maybe first choice. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC), I've read a number of thought provoking comments on this vote. For a number of reasons I no longer feel comfortable with leaving my votes to stand. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak support — only support this in favor of the no change option. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) this is a change from my former opposition[reply]

Support looks reasonable. Durova (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very low value, and in suitable cases can be ignored anyway under the rule, above, that the count "can and will be disregarded by 'crats in the cases of long-term users and similar cases." But I don't expect there will be many cases where a previously-valued contributor has been almost completely inactive for over a year and then comes along to vote. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, second choice. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice --AFBorchert (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Some minimal amount is needed, not that I vote for anything on Commons though. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Second choice - it shows some activity which means they're not inactive. Royalbroil 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I prefer loose limits. Pabouk (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - I'd prefer any number of edits in the past year, than an arbitrary number. Majorly ^talk 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Don't like limiting suffrage but can understand the reasons for this coming forward. As the lowest number, I think this is a good start, if it is still a major problem we can come back to it.- J Logan ^t: 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --:bdk: 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find the arguments finely balanced, and support for this approach risks confusing quantity of contribution with quality of contribution. But it does nonetheless provide some protection against giving too much influence to those likely to have insufficient knowledge of the commons side of things to be able to judge issues that arise. Charles01 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cecil (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~very weak Support Prefer an amount of edits without the year requirement. Just like was used in the Request for checkuser which started this. Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak Support 'crats should know what they are doing. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 07:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Hm, thought about it, all edits should count, not only the ones in the past year, --birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is reasonable. Anyone can quickly reach this through any combination of uploads and contribution to various cleanup efforts. As noted above, bureaucrats should have final discretion in edge cases. Superm401 - Talk 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the best option on offer. We need some minimal metric of activity; edits are not ideal but are better than nothing. I don't think we want to set the bar too high.--Londoneye (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indented; sockpuppet of Poetlister. Giggy (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reasonable, I think. Jonathunder (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Chaddy (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice. quite low, but better than a monthly requirement. --20percent (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rfsjim (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC) This is about 1 edit a week, I think that this is a reasonable amount of expectation to call yourself active in a project.[reply]

Support 1st choice. There needs to be some kind of activity and this shows that the person is active somehow and not any Tom, Dick and Harry can vote ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd Choice to 150 / year --Benjicharlton (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This should be a sufficient level of activity to qualify, in my opinion. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even 50 can represent a significant contribution if it includes uploads.Dejvid (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support providing that a prorata recognition for newer editors is part of crats considerations. Gnan garra 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like the best choice. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support that should e fine and enough NobbiP 18:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dani ^(vita) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems a reasonable compromise Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Euku:^⇄ 09:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --karstenkascais (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Al Lemos (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- seems fair. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support third choice; this is sufficient to keep the most silly of canvassing away from the wiki. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Guffi (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is better than the per month quotas which do not account for surges and lulls but is still my second choice to maintaining the status quo. BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support sounds good. abf /talk to me/ 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm only supporting this because it's the most reasonable of the options provided to vote on. 12/year and not all in the last month leading up to the vote is what I'd like to vote on.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems like a reasonable enough level. MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support KGGucwa (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First choice, although I wouldn't meet this criterion myself. Xymmax (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support My favorite of the choises presented in here, although I think the bar could be even lower. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support weakly but #1 out of all 6; without supporting anything my vote counts for nothing. See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Till (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Misterjack (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sargoth (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. -- Zef 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1er choice Shii (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support definitely my best choice, a softer criterion which however requires a minimum recent activity in the Commons. --Angelo (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jcornelius (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice - Jeroencommons (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If someone has been on Commons for a year and they contribute just alittle, I think that is enoughLeujohn (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Church of emacs (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I prefer no change, but if some activity is demanded, this is sufficient -- Avi (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Das würde ich für am Vernünftigsten halten. --Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Imz (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The threshold is reasonable. --Л.П. Джепко (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is reasonable not too low, not too high. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 12:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Second choice, please see my comment below. Thousands of editors participate at various levels on Commons without increasing their edit counts. Risker (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Second choice overall, first choice within this category Jade Knight (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First choice. A low limit should be enough to keep away ill-intentioned users and there's no point in being too elitist. Pruneau^talk 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snek01 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I only go to Commons in connection with my editing at the mothership and easily clear this threshold. Hard for me to imagine that anyone even mildly aware of the norms of commons could have less edits than this. --JayHenry (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is reasonable. --gildemax (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 50 (or 75... 100) edits in the past year is sufficient. -- Stephane8888 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--RudolfSimon (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like the most reasonable solution to me. 82.234.74.142 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amerique (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Comet styles 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Leyo 02:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~
Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh votes in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; bar should be higher. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC) struck in lieu of weak support. Jack Merridew 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (and moved down as I was first in ordered list and indenting 1st no-work)[reply]

Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Far to low activity. Lycaon (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose JukoFF (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This option is the least restrictive, but still don't agree with the year requirement. I prefer simply an amount of edits without the year requirement. Just like was used in the Request for checkuser which started this. Garion96 (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what this one is--50 edits at any point in the year leading up to the start of a given election. So, if you registered in January 2008, did 50 edits in January, you could vote in an election that began today. The only effect this restriction would have is to prevent drive-by voting by people coming from other projects, who have never really participated on Commons before. rootology (T) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, but that does not seem what I prefer. I prefer simply a minimum of xx edits (20 would work for me, which is double to what was used in that checkuser request). Even if they were all made 13 months before the election the editor wants to vote on. For the rest I trust the bureaucrats to take drive-by-voting into account, like they did in that checkuser. I voted oppose myself, but agreed with the bureaucrats decision. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change from support, while I recognise that some level of activity/community participation is required I think hard number barriers creates a them & us system, ignores the fact that many projects actually require their images to be uploaded here and gives no consideration to the opinion of new editors. We are meant to be a community were every one can contribute. Gnan garra 01:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A contributor that uploads two pictures per month deserves to be considered member of the community and having right to vote. Barcex (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Encourages edit-count padding. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hogne (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Edit counts are a useless measure to evaluate the skill and knowledge of an editor whose primary projects are most likely elsewhere. --Durin (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Least restrictive (and these are all quite restrictive), hence best of a bad lot. This restriction selects for active editors, and against quiet uploaders – if you quietly upload 1 quality image or sound per week and take a couple weeks off, you would be disqualified, despite contributing significantly. I think quiet contributors should be included, so any restriction should qualify people if they meet a low bar in terms of upload count. From the statistical analysis, I’d guess 5–20% of authors (5+ edits) would qualify, depending on how lumpy typical edit counts are. Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every year-long period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal may also create problems for women, as it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child, and as such I suspect the proposal as bordering on sexism. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very soft rule, I think --Packa (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would disqualify some genuine contributors, but is not as bad as some of the other options. Stratford490 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too low --Nerzhal | ?! 17:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Schnecken gehören keinesfalls in den Salat! --ST ○ 17:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Lilyu (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It makes no sense for less active wikis to have more stringent suffrage rules than more active wikis. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - HB (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC). Je contribue principalement sur fr et je dépose mes images ici. J'ai le droit de voter sur ce qui se passe ici, où sont déposées les images utilisées sur fr, même si mes contributions sur commons deviennent inférieures à 50 par an. My contributions are on fr, my pictures are on commons. I have the right to vote even I have no contribution on commons in this past year.[reply]

Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Oppose. In the previous poll I have supported some minimum number of edits to get a suffrage (in fact more than 50). I shall not support any requirements of type x edits in time y to maintain it. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Esby (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rhadamante (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- much too less. 50 Edits in on year brings nobody in a position to decide important things for the project. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]

Oppose pas réellement compris la question, dans le doute... --P@d@w@ne 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~150 in the past year~~
Works out to an average of 12.5 edits/month to qualify.
Support:
Support Deathgleaner (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. rootology (T) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; second choice. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support naerii 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rocket000(talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I prefer the 50/year option above. —Giggy 00:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (2nd choice) - Using monthly edits is flawed because sometimes LIFE prevents us from being active at any given time. Some of us may then be more active in other months than a person who was particularly active in the two months prior to an election, and that just wouldn't be fair. A yearly assessment would be a better judge of how active a person is on average, I'd say. However, I do agree that the number of edits as a criteria is dubious in general, since anyone can make a bunch 50-150 small edits in a day if they were so inclined.Godheval (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~support - Weak second choice~~ - I think that you risk losing a lot of people who could have good input by setting the bar too high. I don't know why it jumped from 50 to 150. 100 sounds like a good middle ground, but it's not an option here. Also the same concern about boosting the edits the week prior to election just to gain suffrage. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I suppose I could be less discriminating about the photos I upload, and spend more edits on things like this.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I now support "no change".--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. Ingolfson (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(+) Logical arguements are more important than votes. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月14號 (星期Thu), 00:42:13 || =|| 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not unreasonable, 2nd choice I think. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC). I've read a number of thought provoking comments on this vote. For a number of reasons I no longer feel comfortable with leaving my votes to stand. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 150 edits in a year to me demonstrates at least a minimal ongoing commitment - many edits only take a few seconds. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 150 seems too low, but 300 is way too high... so 150 it is. Villy (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support One year is obviously enough time to do something at Wikimedia Commons. And without any edits this won't work ;) But I think that editnumbers are not that significant that they should be the only criterion. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ziko-C (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. --Túrelio (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as second choice. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. --Telim tor (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems to be the most reasonable requirement. Ruslik (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. --FP (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. Requires a fair amount of activity, but spreads it out over a whole year because I think a lot of people upload in spurts. Royalbroil 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice but could be too high Pabouk (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support second choice, though low for active contributors. Lycaon (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice, seems reasonable to me --20percent (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support first choice. miranda 06:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice. There needs to be some kind of activity and this shows that the person is active somehow and not any Tom, Dick and Harry can vote ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support1st Choice --Benjicharlton (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support providing that a prorata recognition for newer editors is part of crats considerations. Gnan garra

Support Kameraad Pjotr 15:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dani ^(vita) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Oren neu dag (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Finavon (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --B.navez (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Euku:^⇄ 09:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Second choice. I would prefer a "75 in the last six months", but 150 is pretty easy to reach in a single night if someone wants to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice.--atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think this strikes a good balance. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 150 is an easy to reach goal, IMO. JB82 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice. -- Zef 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice - Jeroencommons (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbdortmund (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Elmondo21st (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Daniel Case I don't think everyone eligible at this level will vote, but this is about where I'm at and I would feel comfortable with holding others to this standard. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. --Anarkangel (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support For edits fine (for commons, one may also think of a measure of uploads?) Sebastian Nizan 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Weak support A bit too high. Pruneau^talk 11:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Brynn (talk!) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~
Oppose I'm an administrator and I wouldn't pass this criteria. You're going to ban administrators from voting at RFA etc? --Durin (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... you have 52 edits + 92 logged actions in 2008 = 144 through August/8.5 months, for 16.9 things on Commons per month, or 203ish for the year at this rate. You'd be fine under this. rootology (T) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh votes in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. --Bduke (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high.--Poetlister 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I just checked, and I would just barely qualify under this requirement, and I consider myself an active user here. Too restrictive. It would turn suffrage into an elitist club instead of a democratic voice of progress. If 50 seems too low, then either 75 or, at most, 100 would maybe be acceptable, but not 100. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that 150 edits/year qualifies for "elitist"— this number is rather low. Ruslik (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too high -Fcb981 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose way too high... can't believe the amount of support this has... Majorly ^talk 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too high. --Aqwis (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too high. Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change from support, while I recognise that some level of activity/community participation is required I think hard number barriers creates a them & us system, ignores the fact that many projects actually require their images to be uploaded here and gives no consideration to the opinion of new editors. We are meant to be a community were every one can contribute. Gnan garra 01:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A contributor that uploads two pictures per month deserves to be considered member of the community and having right to vote. Barcex (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs) and Barcex (talk · contribs). BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 12/year and not all in the last month leading up to the vote is what I'd like to vote on.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Encourages edit-count padding. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hogne (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is quite restrictive; the statistical analysis does not tell how many editors would qualify, but I’d guess 2–5%, which is rather low. It’s also a high bar for user-generated content – 150 good pictures or graphics per year? Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every year-long period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal may also create problems for women, as it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child, and as such I suspect the proposal as bordering on sexism. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1) Anyone in good or bad faith can raise 250 or 300 edits in a short time. (2) This is an insult to long-time contributors who were, for whatever reason, inactive (or not-so-active) in the past years. NVO (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Editcountitis is a dangerous illness notafish }<';> 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Erzbischof (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. Stratford490 (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although I qualify, I vote for the common (People with less edits) users. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose an average of 12.5 edits/month to qualify is a lot under any circumstances. --gildemax (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Für mehr Schnee im Winter und mehr Sonne im Sommer, jetzt! Danach lasst uns alle streben brüderlich und Hand in Hand. --ST ○ 17:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Lilyu (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - HB (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC). Je contribue principalement sur fr et je dépose mes images ici. J'ai le droit de voter sur ce qui se passe ici, où sont déposées les images utilisées sur fr, même si mes contributions sur commons deviennent inférieures à 150 par an. My contributions are on fr, my pictures are on commons. I have the right to vote even I have no contribution on commons in this past year.[reply]

Oppose Too high. Clem23 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Oppose. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Rhadamante (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Esby (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]

Oppose pas réellement compris la question, dans le doute... --P@d@w@ne 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~300 in the past year~~
Works out to an average of 25 edits/month to qualify.
Support:
Support; first choice. Jack Merridew 13:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd choice. rootology (T) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Support second choice. Maybe a trifle high. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(+) Logical arguements are more important than votes. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月14號 (星期Thu), 00:42:13 || =|| 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First choice. That's what I do on a good day! Lycaon (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support providing that a prorata recognition for newer editors is part of crats considerations. 3rd choice its just above the 20 per month requirement but not unobtainable. Gnan garra

Support --ВиКо (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose:~~
Oppose I'm an administrator and I wouldn't pass this criteria. You're going to ban administrators from voting at RFA etc? --Durin (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no thanks, I think this is high. --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh votes in difficult cases. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a reliable metric of activity, which is what we want. Rocket000(talk) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In best case it is an indicator of activity, in worst case it is misleading as it depends very much on the users edit patterns. A user primarily focusing on adding content by doing file uploads has to do a lot of work per edit, whereas a users focussed on categorization using hotcat, will make many more edits with the same effort. The edit count is just one of many possible metrics to take into account when evaluating the concept of activity (assuming that activity is the relevant quantity to consider for suffrage at all).

It all reminds me of old days in computer programming where the evaluation of the productivity/effort was based on source lines of code. Nowadays, Software metrics usually include a combination of several well established quantities, and should, on top of that, in the ideal world, have a layer of human judgement.

The problem is, that we do not have such a set of reliable, mature and well-established metrics to combine into a suffrage-meter. Thus, we need to go back to the second best, which is qualitative statements and human 'crat judgements.

-- Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger's right that edit count is a poor metric; I think this is merely intended to be a coarse comb. But, really, an edit a day is not too much to ask. I saw "5 admin actions in the last six months" and laughed. A janitor uses a mop every day; if you've got one and are not using it, it's serving rather more as a résumé bullet-point than a tool, which is another discussion. I expect the core issue is a clash between the view that commons is a project and community unto itself and the view that it is the images folder of the 800 pound gorilla. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but with low enough minimums, it's only ruling out those that are no where close to the preferred value (which you can't put a number on). Using the programming analogy, it's like walking by programmer while he's at his desk and making sure his screen ain't blank. The number's just to give us an idea how big the screen is. And the layer of human judgement is not really lost anyway. Rocket000(talk) 23:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. And I really don't see an issue with asking an average of an edit a day to have a post in some important discussion counted as a 'vote' — it's not as if 'crats and others don't weigh things according to a variety of measures already. If someone with basically no significant contributions here makes some spot-on comment, people will still pay attention. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too high. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Strongly oppose for the same reasons as I mentioned in 25/month above. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and I wouldn't qualify under this requirement, and I consider myself an active user here. WAY too restrictive. It would turn suffrage into an elitist club instead of a democratic voice of progress. --Willscrlt (Talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way way too high. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting now to Oppose, since if it passes I won't be doing much voting here in the future.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, far too high. --Aqwis (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. --Bduke (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bit too high, IMO. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Cirt. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. Pabouk (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. This is more edits than admins need to have... good grief. I can't believe people are supporting this. Majorly ^talk 13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too high. --Cecil (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Would limit suffrage too much- J Logan ^t: 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, too high. Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is to much, activity in wikicommons comes in bursts (say after a photoshoot on a trip) and most don't average 25 per month even in a big photo trip ;) ---SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sdrtirs (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose change from support, while I recognise that some level of activity/community participation is required I think hard number barriers creates a them & us system, ignores the fact that many projects actually require their images to be uploaded here and gives no consideration to the opinion of new editors. We are meant to be a community were every one can contribute.Gnan garra 01:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tim Ross (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A contributor that uploads two pictures per month deserves to be considered member of the community and having right to vote. This is insanely crazy for a project like Commons. This restricts participation too much. Barcex (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Y'ouch. Too high; it will especially disenfranchise new users who find themselves at home here after a month or two. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Willscrlt (talk · contribs) and Barcex (talk · contribs). BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 12/year with at least 1 outside of the final month before the vote is what I'd like to vote on.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Encourages edit-count padding. Note: Just in case one of these options passes, I'm making one edit per vote to pad my edit count. --Carnildo (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Hogne (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 08:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See below :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is far too high, especially for user-generated content: almost 1 edit/upload a day? Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This proposal, as any proposal seeking to impose strict minimums of edits in relation to strict periods of time, would only serve to concentrate political power to a core in-group of contributors, who are the ones most likely to make lots of edits within every year-long period, while excluding from decision making the out-group of contributors who may be very familiar with our project and contribute high-quality material, but because of lack of time for work commitments or other reasons they contribute more sparingly, and as such the proposal is undemocratic. The proposal may also create problems for women, as it is likely to exclude pregrant women or women who recently gave birth from voting, who probably will have to cease contributions for a while in order to cater for their child, and as such I suspect the proposal as bordering on sexism. NerdyNSK (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Same grounds as my "oppose" in the 150/year section. NVO (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Editcountitis is a dangerous illness notafish }<';> 13:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Jayvdb --Packa (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too high. Stratford490 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Jeroencommons (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Avi (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Elmondo21st (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's just too much. With this proposal, a user who signed up in January and made 1 edit every day since then wouldn't be eligible to vote. Doesn't work. Pruneau^talk 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose very restrictive - counts to high. Two month wikibreak and you can't vote anymore? --gildemax (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong opposition.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I’m sysop too (like Durin) and I wouldn't pass this criteria !! (like Durin !!!) Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 06:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because I don't speak english --Thesupermat (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - HB (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC). Je contribue principalement sur fr et je dépose mes images ici. J'ai le droit de voter sur ce qui se passe ici, où sont déposées les images utilisées sur fr, même si mes contributions sur commons deviennent inférieures à 300 par an. My contributions are on fr, my pictures are on commons. I have the right to vote even I have no contribution on commons in this past year.[reply]

Oppose No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Oppose. --AB (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Esby (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) See my comment for the 3rd option.[reply]

Oppose pas réellement compris la question, dans le doute... --P@d@w@ne 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Option 3: No change, no firm suffrage guidance~~
English: If you prefer the current status quo of no defined suffrage requirements, and want to leave it 100% to 'crat discretion, note your support here in this section. The above sections are to gauge how many Commons regulars support change to the present status quo—a Support here indicates you like things how they are.
~~No change~~
~~Support:~~
I do not think the system is broken. Nichalp (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, why did they make this suffrage poll anyways. This is the definition of voting from an online dictionary: "1 a: a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office b: the total number of such expressions of opinion made known at a single time (as at an election) c: an expression of opinion or preference that resembles a vote 2: the collective opinion or verdict of a body of persons expressed by voting." This means ALL users. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support no change (and ONLY choice). This is absurd. I'm not particularly active, but I am an administrator. My judgment has been trusted enough to give me admin abilities, yet even including log actions I don't pass most of these criteria. So, I'd be an administrator who'd be banned from voting at RFA, RFB, or RFCU. That's ridiculous. The supposed purpose here is "to prevent sudden inappropriate canvassing or importing of disputes from another project" I think our bureaucrats are well intelligent enough to prevent that from being a problem. This is a solution (with unreal bureaucratic red tape) looking for a problem. Stop this madness! --Durin (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note: I just went through the "A" in special:listusers for administrators. Guess what? 11 of the 27 (40%!)listed administrators would fail at least some if not most of the criteria here. I'm far from being the only administrator who would be banned from voting. Approximately 100 administrators would not be eligible for voting under various criteria listed here. Incredibly strong vote for speedy close of this poll --Durin (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are all those admins you counted meeting their Commons requirements for activities, of so many admin actions per six months so that they don't lose their adminship? rootology (T) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of them, yes. I think I found two that were not. Also note that Florence herself would fail these criteria. Can't trust her, can we? --Durin (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt that votes from admins will be discounted based on their activity level. c.f. SB Johnny's recent checkuser request to see the point of this poll. Some discussion here is also relevant. naerii 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're certainly welcome to post a new close proposal below in a new section (just keep the same formatting so it looks decent :)), to see if it has support. The lower end thresholds on here--the 50/year, for example--are ludicrously easy to get, and to stop people from inappropriately SULing over from other wikis to try to game votes and elections per their personal politics. As for Flo, I hate to say it, but if even Jimmy can be desysopped for inactivity per local policy (like he was on Wikinews, well...). Local consensus decides things. ;) Naerii clarified a point above, btw, that had been clarified a couple times. It's still 'crat discretion ultimately, so if Flo put down an Ultimate Oppose somewhere, I can't see it getting disregarded. Again, to echo Naerii, SB Johnny's vote and the recent En-spawned mischief on Wikiquote are two examples of why something like this is helpful in general. rootology (T) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durin: We just went through a pretty contentious vote where we had people who had no involvement here at all come in and try to skew things, in the face of a pretty strong consensus among the regulars for a different outcome. Durin, did you vote in that one? It ran for two weeks... yet I didn't see you speaking up. How involved are you, actually? I don't think 50 edits a year is a very high bar at all, or a lot to ask... that's the lowest one and you oppose it! If (the generic) you are not involved at all, we want to hear your opinion, sure. But are you qualified to vote? I'd say no. Sorry, no offense intended, but if you can't even muster 50 contribs you're no longer involved. Florence is not, in my view, and with no offense to her, involved enough in the day to day matters here to be qualified to vote. Comment? Sure. Absolutely! Love to hear it. But vote? No. CU and Oversight require VOTES with numerical restrictions, and we don't need carpetbaggers coming in and importing their disputes from other wikis here by skewing votes... That you found some admins that don't pass the lowest bar? I think I already hear Herby saying "well maybe they shouldn't get reconfirmed, then" (if we had reconfirmation here, which we don't. Yet.) NO way are we going to speedy close this. If the community ends up endorsing no change, what we 'crats are going to do is apply the "few or no contributions here" metric to remove votes as we see fit... not to let someone with no prior contribs vote. We used 10 in the recent situation because it was very generous. There was significant internal sentiment expressed for 50. By the way, please don't confuse trust with franchise. Don't confuse input with vote. I trust you. I want your input. But if you're not involved here any more, maybe you're not competent to vote. Even though I trust you, one of the first people I met on wiki and one of my personally most trusted people. We just saw Pfctdayelise resign her adminship, because she felt she wasn't active enough. That took a lot of courage and personal insight, if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think I'm involved enough here to be trusted to vote on something, then please forcibly remove my admin bit since I can't be trusted and ban me from voting. 40% of admins fail this criteria. You might as well gut this project. --Durin (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those 40% even vote in Votes today? How many Votes have you yourself participated in, beside your own? One, on your first edit ever? How would it gut the project to not give suffrage to users who don't even use it anyway? rootology (T) 17:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is completely disconnected from the realities of this project. If maybe 1 or 2 percent of admins failed, it might make sense. But 40%? There's clearly something wrong with it. If you change the proposal to say "except admins" then you make admins a special case. If this becomes policy, people will game the system like mad just to stay eligible due to stupid bureaucracy. --Durin (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reality of the project? Should the other-WMF project snowbirds have as much voting clout as the people who work Commons day in, day out? There are tons of people that trivially and easily can do 20 edits a month, or 150 a year--yourself included, because you yourself already got 144 just in the past six months. Your 40% sample is flawed as well, because by your own admission you only looked at admins that begin with the letter "A". I'm seriously not getting how it's an offense to ask admins or any other user to do 20 edits per month, or 150 a year (both absurdly easy to do). You know that admins and 'crats here also have to do so many actions per six months to not lose their bit, right? This is the same smart principle extended laterally. My simple question is... how is it an offense if these folks aren't even active in voting anyway? How does it disenfranchise YOU, when you've never even participated in voting here, beyond your first edit ever? rootology (T) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it's not gaming the system like mad if 100+ random users all arrive and do 2000+ extra helpful edits per month. I think it would be probably rather welcome. They may or may not have the ulterior motive of wanting perpetual voting power in case their "opponents" ever run for office here (AGF says otherwise), but extra hands helping positively on Commons thanks to a gentle carrot on an absurdly short string isn't a bad thing. If users only want voting clout "in case" their opponents run, but without participating actively in Commons, to assume bad faith for just a moment, we probably don't need those people voting anyway for politics unrelated to the local project. As mentioned elsewhere, can you imagine the storm that would erupt if a dozen or more German WP editors that are functionally inactive on En.wiki all arrived en masse there to take out an opponent's en.wiki RFA for de.wiki political or personal reasons? There would howls of protest to get those votes discounted. The same principle and standards have to go both ways. En.wiki membership, activity, or rank status give no clout on other projects. You and I are admins here, and Herby is also a CU and 'crat here. That doesn't give any of us any extra muscle or standing on Wiktionary, any more than an En.wiki checkuser/crat/admin should have extra standing on Wikitionary or elsewhere. rootology (T) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With Root in a big way here. There is nothing special about admins (or 'crats, Cus, Oversighters - I have had & have dropped all those rights somewhere). What does matter is the people currently actively involved in Commons - if they have some rights fine, if not then no matter. There is not and should not be a distinction. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the above criteria are pretty darned easy to game. If you set the standard to low, it will be largely ineffective; set it too high, and you'll wind up with elitism. And if the suffrage eligibility are going to be up to bureaucrats to interepret anyway, we might as well vote on whether it's up to the 'crats to decide who's wise enough to vote in any given election. Besides, this whole thing really smacks of instruction creep. Peter ^Isotalo 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's not that I like the idea of leaving it up to the 'crats; but it is still a better option than the other two which I find trivialistic. Remember that on commons a lot of work happens 'offline'. What about someone who does not contribute frequently but regularly uploads quality media? Creating a good image takes a lot of work, and someone who contributes such work to commons on a regular basis should defiantly have the right to vote. On the other hand those who take on the work of managing the site but contribute very few media are very important people and need to have voting rights assured. I'm not sure there can ever be a fair and non-crufty solution, but counting edits might not be the best way to evaluate commitment towards a Media repository. Maybe a multiple path to suffrage solution might be better. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that uploads count as "edits". They certainly would to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Herby here. —Giggy 00:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if edit counts are to be used then maybe one should consider a file upload to count as 2 edits, and a Quality Image to count as say 4. But its going to be very hard to come up with a "fair" metric, whatever the case. That the system can be seen to be fair is almost as important as it actually being fair--217.145.11.21 21:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edit count is an unreliable metric of activity. I trust the 'crats ability to execute decision and weigh votes in difficult cases. A more detailed explanation can be found at Commons talk:2008 Election suffrage poll#What is the administrative burden?. And for those speculating if I oppose the edit count requirements because I would not pass them, I can inform that I easily pass all of them. -- Slaunger (talk · contributions · Statistics) 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Why should less active wikis have vastly more restrictive suffrage requirements than far more active ones? Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was a little startled at the very existence of this poll. Bars to participation are a bad idea across the board, especially in a project like this. 'Crats aren't stupid, and I'm not aware of a problem so urgent that we need to create new user hierarchies to deal with it. Ford MF (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I agree with Jayjg. It seems to work fine as it is now. --Aqwis (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support These suggestions disenfranchise perfectly legitimate voters who may be not meet the requirements but who are obviously perfectly fine. We have 'crats for a reason, and they should do their job. Anything else is just instruction creep. -- Ram-Man 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - 3rd choice. - I have faith in the Commons:Bureaucrats, and that's why I give this at least some support, but I agree with Lar (talk · contribs) and others that at least some guidance going forward is a good idea. Cirt (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an edit count to vote contributes to a balkanization of the Wikimedia projects, and worse, focuses on the wrong metric. The real value in this project comes from uploading imgages, which is often a hard job that doesn't produce impressive edit counts. Creating an image can takes hours of work and all the "credit" that one gets for it, for the purposes of this discussion, is exactly one "edit". On the other hand, it is easy to rake up dozens of edits in a matter of minutes by chatting around or doing chores such as recategorizing images. Sure, categories are useful too, but why should the categorizers have a better chance of having a voice than the content providers? --Itub (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've given this opinion in every suffrage discussion on Wikimedia projects. We need to be inviting to new users. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basically, I take the following assumptions;
Almost all folks vote because they want to express their preferences and opinions in good faith

Bureaucrats main job is to take good decisions for the commons, they don't need to create more bureaucracy to secure their job.

Bureaucrats are perfectly capable of applying a honest vote weighting if they feel that there is something fishy in the voting. And if something strange is happening in a voting, it attracts the attention of the commons community and compensating votes.

Bureaucrats have hopefully better things to do than beancounting

One could have invented all possible weighting rules for the voting of SB Johnny; it would not have changed the outcome --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I like any of the options. Edit count alone does not activity make. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The restrictions proposed on suffrage here are essentially a reaction to the events of SB Johnny's RFCU and out of proportion compared to what was needed there. That contentious request was resolved with a bureaucrat-imposed suffrage of <10 edits, far fewer than any of the proposed limits above. I'd strike this vote if a much lower suffrage limit (meaning one edit) was an available option. If the results of this poll as are interpreted as "votes from users with edit counts of over X are always counted (with rare exceptions) and those under X are also counted, except in certain contentious cases" as opposed to "Users vote count if and only if their edit count is over X" I would consider some of the options above reasonable. In other words, universal suffrage in general, but allow bureaucrat's to discount low activity users in special circumstances...--Nilfanion (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st choice. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support better than the alternatives --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you supporting or opposing? You have supported in the oppose section. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from oppose to support section, user opposed all other alternatives.--Nilfanion (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a modest suffrage requirement, but all of the proposed hurdles are too high. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Angus McLellan, these are too high hurdles. If really needed and wanted, just make it xx number of total edits. Like was done in the SB Johnny's checkuser request. Garion96 (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If it isn't broken, why fix it? --Fcb981 (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - So x image uploads, x minor cat changes, x well thought out deletion arguments, x votes on Featured pictures or x Myspacey talk page messages are all weighed the same and are reason to deny suffrage to those with x-1 ? Cannot see any reason to change things - can the proposers point to what happened that made people think this was necessary and how (in a practical sense in relation to what went wrong) this'd fix things ? - Peripitus (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see a problem with letting 'crats decide like they do now - hard and fast standards on something like this aren't necessary. Some longterm contributors could be omitted even though they've done a lot for the project in the past and are knowledgeable about how Commons works. Royalbroil 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works fine as it is. I trust the bureaucrats to discount frivolous/drive-by votes as necessary. Some of my earliest edits here were voting in RfAs. Explicitly banning people from voting is incredibly stupid. What happened to this essay that every always goes on about? We're supposed to be open and welcoming to everyone, not "you can't vote here, you don't have enough edits, bye" attitude. Really, this is worse than enwiki. Majorly ^talk 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've been going back and reading through old and linked discussions as well as the comments on this page, and while I see the rationale behind polling the community on this, I don't see any valid reasons for raising the requirements for suffrage. Obvious canvassing and votestacking is discouraged no matter what project you're on, and I trust the 'crats to apply their judgement when closing discussions. More to the point, a lot of the concern seems to be about drive-by votes that tip the discussion one way or the other--what this viewpoint fails to address is the fact that you can raise the suffrage requirements as high as you like, but damaging comments will remain damaging regardless of whether they're backed by a vote. --jonny-m t 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is my first preference. I find Foroa's fifth point particularly pertinent, though I also agree with Lar's statement that I will respect whatever comes out of this. —Giggy 14:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The arguments made here have convinced me. First, bureaucrat discretion is exactly that. Second, IMO an upload is worth a lot more than most other edits; without uploads there would be no Commons. If it's a choice between the bureaucrats using their discretion and the disenfranchisement of content contributors, the former seems like a no-brainer. (Also, this poll provides a lot of community guidance to the bureaucrats even if there is no change.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had to think a lot about this. I'm glad the community can voice its opinion whether they want voting requirements or not. Bureaucrats will respect whichever decision the community makes. But I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If we suspect anything fishy, we'll discuss the matter, as it was done with SB Johnny's RfCU. That worked once. Are there reasons to believe this will not work any further? Patrícia ^msg 11:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having experience about things like this from English and Croatian Wikipedia, I strongly oppose any change here. There are far to many fairly inactive users to be found in each wiki for this to work effectively. A respected and experienced user could take a wikibreak, return, and find he can't add his opinion. Also, there would be users making null edits to bypass the requirements. This whole system is flawed, pushing back judgment by common sense and experience, and favoring judgment by arbitrary numbers. Admiral Norton (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Patrícia. If it's not broken, don't fix it. Bastique ^demandez 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The definition of someone "valuable" to the project should not be based on something as superficial and utterly meaningless as the number of edits they have made (especially in such a small range as "20", "30" etc) - and doubly especially on a contributory commons project where the number of edits means zilch as to how useful someone is. I'll AGF and presume this was a well meaning suggestion - otherwise I would lean towards asking the question what the true motivation behind this is. SFC9394 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a suffrage requirement, how about "has made at least one edit prior to the vote in question"? --Carnildo (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--birdy geimfyglið _{(:> )=|} ∇ 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per month/year minimums are far too restrictive when it comes to users who are familiar with the expectations of commons, but spend the vast majority of their time at their home wiki. A bare minimum requirement along the lines of "must have 200 total edits before being eligible to vote" makes much more sense (though the actual number is debatable). auburnpilot (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support wie Vorredner --Historiograf (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I support this or the 50 in last year. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is ridiculous. The job of a bureaucrat in an RfA (or RfB) is to determine local consensus. Even EN wiki doesn't have such strict criteria. Chenzw (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Commons is primarily the image host for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. User from those project may well have reasons to voice their opinions here even if they don't edit much on the Commons. I trust the 'crats to handle canvassed votes. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Stop making some "rights and rules" of our imaginatory virtual world. Start making image server. Everyone! --Aktron (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The system does not seem to be in need of fixing. --Geoff (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support If it ain't broke, don't fix it. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 15:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2^nd choice. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Strongly against introducing such requirements. IMHO we urgently need much more effort in categorizing and better describing those loads of photos, not such new rules. --Miaow Miaow (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Things seem to be okay as they are.KTo288 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with Aktron, this is completely ridiculous. Petr Kopač (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sdrtirs (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I haven't heard any concrete reason given that suggests participation needs to be restricted according to activity.--Father Goose (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support More users are global. They do not always come here. Even if they are more active elsewhere and less active here, their suffrage here should not be just based on how many edits here.--Jusjih (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The proposed changes do not significantly improve the existing situation, and potentially simply add additional ammunition to fight over. Various judgment calls continue to be made, such as allowing long term users and the like to participate even if they do not fulfill the arbitrary criteria. The quite complicated and somewhat intimidating disclaimer above effectively summarizes the appropriate approach. Debate (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Humberto (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the available proposals restrict too much the participation I prefere not to change. Barcex (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Rlevse • Talk • 13:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First choice per Itub (talk · contribs) and others. BenFranske (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Parpan (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support there is no need for a chance, I think Redlinux (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Patrícia. ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think Jay sums it up pretty well - why should Commons have a more restrictive suffrage requirement than do other, far more active projects? Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Delorian (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Moondyne 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edits / time isn't a useful metric for determining suffrage Hustvedt (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support VERY STRONG! There is nothing wrong with the current system at all. The other systems are stupid.--MacMad (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks working well till now, why to change so ? Guérin Nicolas ^(messages) 19:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hogne (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a major contributor to Commons, I would seriously resent if I decreased my activity for a time and was denied suffrage because my recent edits might fall slightly under some threshold. Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Snowwayout (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Going through this page, I see three main reasons for voters to support restrictions on suffrage eligibility.
1) Voters with few edits may not understand Commons well enough to vote effectively.

2) Voters with few edits may be here with unsavory motives (e.g. "inappropriate canvassing or importing of disputes from another project").

3) Editors should be expected to make some minimum contribution or commitment in order to enjoy the right of suffrage.
My responses:

1) Edits are a poor measure of an editor's knowledge. Plenty of people with high edit counts don't know what they are doing, compared to those with few edits who study policy and consensus thoroughly. Bear in mind that many contributors here have extensive knowledge from their experience on other wikis.

2) The formal rationale for this proposal bothers me as a violation of the assumption of good faith. That said, this concern could be addressed by restricting suffrage to editors with a minimum number of total lifetime edits, rather than requiring fresh edits every month or year. Editors with 40 edits (in two months) or 50 edits (in a year) have the confidence of most voters here. Why should they lose that trust simply because they have cut back their editing for a few months?

3) Even more disturbing is the idea of a poll tax, or a formal distinction between privileged high-edit users and the vast remainder of the community. This runs contrary to our principles, and is especially invidious here, as Commons relies on casual editors far more than, say, enwiki. Imply these editors are second-class citizens, and Commons fails. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support WODUP 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Brian67 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Globbet (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SupportEvrik (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support No need to fix anything. Captain panda 02:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - many frequent Commons users are actually active on Wikipedia and would not meet the above requirements. However, being because they are familiar with process (from Wikipedia or another sister project), there's no reason not to let them vote. -- Ynhockey (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Commons is a shared resource - if there's any consideration of activity, it should not merely include local involvement. GreenReaper (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Rüdiger Wölk (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a casual editor of Wikipedia and upload images here very occasionally. I understand the concerns about canvassing, but I oppose a policy that makes me unable to vote. I would support a less restrictive policy, like one that restricts you from voting if you have less thn 10 edits ever or registered your account less than a week ago. Foobaz·o< 01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is in support of this option, not in opposition, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is, thanks. I have moved both of our earlier comments to this section, where they belong. Foobaz·o< 06:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support Syrcro (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. IMHO not the best way to determine suffrage, but better than the other choices. --NEUROtiker (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Christian 11:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Of course. It is sad that the Commons "community" has so disgustingly anti-wiki of late. James F. (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support notafish }<';> 13:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - There's no reason to create some little "subcommunity" of active users just to prevent SPAs and sockpuppets from voting on RFx's, is there no concept of "assume good faith" on Commons? Mr.Z-man (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Packa (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support+++ Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Sindala (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Teun Spaans 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC). I have uploaded hundreds, if not thousands of images, and i dont want to be excluded from voting if i am less active for a few months or even a year. Communists are already having way too much power over ordinary uploaders, as showing in the july poll, which effectively killed ToL.[reply]

Support. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Stratford490 (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--StaraBlazkova (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I haven't other choice[reply]

Support Commons has been running fine in the last few years. We vote the 'crats into office after all :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leujohn (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Support Not perfect, but by far the best in comparison to the other options. --Nerzhal | ?! 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Avi (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 03:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --dontworry (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support because one very good edit can beat 200 lame edits. So, until you can compute that, no number will do. Wikimedia/pedia is a meritocracy -- where sometimes merit is measured by how much noise you make, or how many 'friends' you have. – Tintazul ^talk 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Sigbert (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Zimbres (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Epinheiro (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 'crats can use discretion; no rulescreep needed. KillerChihuahua (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support First choice. Jade Knight (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sabri76 18:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support no change --gildemax (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think additionnal rules are needed. community choice, community choice. Darkoneko (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's important to let people, who are often involved in other WM projects, take part in decisions in Commons. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → ^(écrire) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: possible changes are non-sense.
Français : (missing text)
On ne mesure pas la valeur des gens à leur compteur d'éditions. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support, le statut-quo, tant que le sondage n'aura pas été traduit dans les autres langues principales. Rhadamante (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this one "It's important for Commons and all Wikimedia projects to let people, who are often involved in other WM projects, take part in decisions in Commons." I am sorry but this is my true opinion. Best regards. --Brunodesacacias (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Lilyu (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lilyu seems to have cast a "support" vote that accidentally wound up in the "oppose" section (note that Lilyu has voted against every proposal listed here except, I think, 300 per year). Accordingly, I'm moving Lilyu's vote up into the "support" section; feel free to correct if this is an error. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thx for the correction :) Lilyu (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support No change. 1) Confusion entre qualité et quantité. 2) Cette consultation aurait du faire l'objet d'annonces dans les différentes langues. Mais la faute n'en revient peut-être pas à ceux qui sont à l'origine de cette consultation.--Barbetorte (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)--Barbetorte (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - HB (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC) cf Brunodesacacias[reply]

Support - Tout contributeur net a son mot à dire sur ce bien commun qu'est "Commons", sans limitation de durée, bien sûr. Teofilo (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Darkoneko. Clem23 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support No change please. Sylfred1977 (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2008 (CET)

Support per SFC and Foobaz. Ceedjee (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support better than the alternatives. I would support some minimum number of edits to get a suffrage (looking this and the previous poll something less than 50 might be a realistic offer). I shall not support any requirements of type x edits in time y after that. Baileypalblue over there has good points. --AB (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support restricting voting condition via edit count is not going to work that much. I feel the current values are fine for now.

Support Per Tintazul. --Makaristos (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems fine to me. DocteurCosmos (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support sidonius (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC) I do understand why some people think a limit is necessary, but I strongly oppose all the propositions here:[reply]
Why is there no proposition of the kind X edit and Y days after account creation like on some other projects? Why would a user has to prove themselves over and over?

Commons isn't a project like the others. It is the place where all projects share their resources and what is done on Commons has an impact on all wikimedia projects. If opinions of users from other wiki is not welcome here, then the other projects should stop moving there resources on Commons and keep them where they still have control on it. Lots of people comes on Commons only when they need something here: this is normal and this is due to the special role that is played by Commons. Those people still should have the right to participate in decision making here. If not, once again, we should stop collaborating with Commons.

This poll lacks of context for those who didn't follow all previous discussion. For once, it's not clear to me what vote would be concerned by the limit. Is it, like I understand it, only for admin/bureaucrats/... elections? or for all votes on Commons, including RfD for example? If this is only for elections, can we be assured that the limit won't be used also on RfD? It should be explicitely stated for which vote this applies and for which it doesn't.

I think every project should have some Commons admin, but it would imply giving adminship to users which may not be that much active on Commons (but which of course still needs to know well how Commons works), but which are trusted by the community of their main wiki, especially for little projects which may have very few active Commons users. If those users can even vote, I don't see how they could be elected.

Opening this poll before having translated it in a few other languages other than english was a very bad idea. Furthermore, the text is full of abbreviations (like 'crats, RfA) which may make sense for en.wp users, but not for users of non-english projects, like if it wasn't as hard enough for some people to understand a poll in english (there are lots of non-native english speakers on wikimedia projects). It should also have been advertised outside Commons. Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Leave it to bureaucrat discretion and common sense. Geraki ^T_L^G 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~
I want to explicitly denote my opposition here. If this is the community's will, I will use my discretion, as will other crats, I am sure, but some sort of signification of what the community's thinking is would be helpful and appreciated. Note that I indicated at least tepid support for every option on offer. I can live with any of them. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No change is not good; pass something above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with Lar and Jack after more thought on this. Given that this sort of thing is on the strong uptick across multiple projects based on reading the Foundation-l list, that I know of here and on English Wikiquote, it does just make more sense that internal decisions of key importance like elections should be made wholly by local people who actually work on the local project. Suffrage exists for the WMF board votes and the English Wikipedia Arbcom votes, so the idea isn't unheard of. Local to this project, comments like those left on SB Johnny's nearly derailed RFCU vote like claiming experience for being an installed arbiter at one point etc. on another project are not convincing. Knowledge of one project's nuances doesn't mean you know whats going on in a useful way on the other 100+ WMF projects. Put another way, someone could be a senior United States Senator from New York State in the USA, but that doesn't mean he has any authority or automatic voice in local Vancouver, BC, Canada politics because he spends most of July there annually on vacation. rootology (T) 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~With Lar on this one definitely. I am a strong believer that there should be some involvement shown in the community. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)~~ rare but I am thinking... :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Lar and Herby, for exactly the reasons they give. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lar.--Poetlister 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the opposition. Rocket000(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lar. Regarding the discussion above: Inactive admins may have our trust but they tend to lose touch with the ongoing affairs, changed policies etc. I do not see a problem with short time breaks of one or two months but not managing 150 edits or something in a year means that admin privileges are no longer needed. Adminship is not a medal of honor but a commitment to serve the community. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lar and AFBorchert. Lycaon (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose All of the above require too much, but we need guidance so that 'crats know to consider voters. —Toby Bartels (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose job-creation measure? Als wäre sonst kein Problem zu lösen... --smial (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Ragimiri (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dani ^(vita) 00:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --B.navez (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong Oppose - Im not happy with the other options provided; some are too low and others too high, but I would prefer them rather than allowing outside influences to exert undue influence on Commons at odd times, or making 'crats chin wag to figure out whose votes are in and out while we all sit on the edge of our seat wondering if they are going to do The Right Thing. I trust the crats will do the right thing, but it wastes their time, over-politicises the wiki, and results in people harbouring resentment against Commons and the 'crats when they find their opinion has been discounted. It would be better that these people know in advance that they should only comment rather than vote, and the 'crats have a simpler job. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 100% discretion is too much and there should be some minor activity requirement for the sake of having some objective selection criteria, ideally more minor than what's being provided as options above.--Pro-Lick (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We have seen recently in Johnny's RFCU that all comments are carefully read and considered by most reasonable editors. If, as many Wikipedians think, an RFx should be a discussion and not a vote, raising the bar for votes disenfranchises absolutely no one. In the true wiki spirit, everyone is free to comment; But we should leave the decision to experienced community members. Hillgentleman | 傾偈 ---2008年08月25號 (星期Mon), 09:35:37 || =|| 09:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zginder (talk)

Oppose --atlaslin (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDangerMouse (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmondo21st (talk • contribs) 2008-09-05T01:32:31 (UTC)

Oppose --Anarkangel (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Wie, kein Wechselgeld (change)? So geht das nicht, jeder hat Anspruch auf Wechselgeld. --ST ○ 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The commons community seems to endorse the idea of some minimal suffrage requirements. In such case, it is better that the requirements be transparent. This poll appears to be an attempt to codify requirements. As there's agreement that the 'crats should consider suffrage, supporting no change is choosing a more arbitrary and less transparent system, over a less arbitrary and more transparent system. In general, all our projects should move toward less arbitrary and more transparent systems. --JayHenry (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, if anything's clear from this poll, it's that the commons community rejects substantial suffrage requirements. There's more support for "No Change" than for any suffrage requirement listed here. As of now, the only change which garners even half as many votes as "No Change" is the least restrictive, 50 edits per year, and this is only because some editors who oppose all limits, or want lower limits than are available, have picked the weakest limit as the least evil. Bear in mind that this poll probably underrepresents the opinions of less-active editors, who are less likely to vote here. Editors who have not been active recently, who these proposals are intended to disinfranchise, likely haven't even seen the poll, much less voted on it. And when you state that "No Change" is more arbitrary and less transparent than the other proposals listed here, you should provide some sort of reasoning to back up your claim. All of the edit numbers listed in these proposals are arbitrary; there's no meaningful difference between, say, a contributor with 50 edits in the last year and one with 45. And all of these proposals give bureaucrats authority to discard limits at will. That leaves the same lack of transparency that currently exists, and it gives 'crats the authority to be even more arbitrary than they currently are, by discarding or upholding limits crafted by the community on a case-by-case basis. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you misunderstood nearly everything I wished to convey. Permit me to try again with apologies for not speaking clearly the first time. The community endorses minimum suffrage requirements -- that's indeed distinct from substantial requirements. Since they endorse minimum requirements (this is the status quo, and minimum requirements are thus affirmed by the "No Change"). I mean the current system is arbitrary as opposed to consistent. It is opaque as opposed to being, for lack of a better word, codified. Thus 45 or 50 would both be a consistent standard. What's arbitrary is that the bureaucrats could now apply different standards in different episodes. Stating clearly that 50 is the threshold is more transparent because it's explicit and less arbitrary because it provides explicit guidance. Of course there's no intrinsic meaning to the number 50. I hope the intent of my statement is clearer now. --JayHenry (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also a point of clarity, I don't believe the proposals suggest bureaucrats can discard the values at will rather that they have discretion under exceptional circumstances. It's not maximally consistent, but it's more consistent than the status quo. --JayHenry (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know where to draw the line between "minimum" suffrage requirements and "substantial" requirements; the key is that this poll is not attempting to codify the status quo -- it is trying to assess support for increasing suffrage requirements beyond the status quo, and the increases proposed here are rejected by the community. I agree that these proposals don't suggest 'crats can discard the values "at will" but they are allowed discretion beyond "exceptional circumstances". The wording is "edit count requirements ... can and will be disregarded by 'crats in the cases of long-term users and similar cases." Given that much leeway, I'd hardly say these proposals increase the consistency or transparency of 'crat decisions. They simply move the bar -- the status quo is (zero - 'crat leeway); the new proposals are (50 - 'crat leeway), (150 - 'crat leeway), etc. The margin of error is the same, and that's fine by me; if the objective is to reduce the arbitrariness of 'crat authority, a different measure would have to be considered, e.g. a proposal to limit the authority of 'crats to excercise independent authority. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- we can't go on like wo do actually. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain:~~
Though I oppose all the options on offer, I am not categorically opposed to some qualification criteria, but I think it’s hard to draw a good boundary, hence a 3rd way here. There are many ways people contribute – some quietly upload, some improve metadata, some edit no entries but add to discussions. Perhaps something like “5 uploads or 50 edits in the past year” could work.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Discussion and neutral comments~~
I have often felt that edit counts don't really mean a lot. There are some people who regularly make a little edit, save, then make another edit, save, change the case of a letter, save, etc. They improve an article by 0.1% and take 20 edits to do so. Whereas others will write a 10-20 paragraph, fully sourced article, previewing constantly, and save it once. Yes, this is a en.wiki example, but you see my point. 1 edit to improve an article 100% (more like 500%). Then there are people who patrol looking for specific problems throughout the site. They improve lots of articles a little bit (a good thing) and end up with lots of minor edits (thus a high edit count). Here on Commons, there are people who upload media to the repository, which I would argue is probably a bit more beneficial to the overall project than dozens of edits focusing on housekeeping tasks (people come here for the pretty pictures, not for perfect spelling). Someone who regularly uploads 10 quality pictures a month (a pretty challenging task) and rarely makes any other edits would not earn suffrage under any of these proposals, while probably being one of the most beneficial members of the project. So, what is the alternative? I don't know. There aren't any other easy metrics to use instead. I just think that crats should have the option of weighing an individual's overall contribution and edit history when making a determination. If someone starts microediting heavily (300+) in the week prior to the poll, the crat should have the right to take that vote much less seriously than the person who uploads 10 quality pictures a month yet doesn't qualify to vote (and thus should be permitted to vote because of his contributions even though he doesn't technically qualify). In other words, the guidelines above, should be just that... guidelines. They should not be hard and fast rules, though the more lenient ones will probably be fine in 95% of the cases. Crats's should have leeway to bend the rules for that other 5%. --Willscrlt (Talk) 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking less of housekeeping and more of RFAs and XFDs, here is another thing to consider... I think that most contributors here likely do not worry about, or even think about, RFAs, XFDs, and other policy matters until it either affects them personally or they know something about it. For example, I would be highly unlikely to participate in an RFA discussion unless I had some previous personal involvement with the person in question. If Herby were going through an RFA, I would probably participate, because she helped me in the past and I would want to show support for her. If my participation during the new suffrage waiting period had been minimal, would that reduce the value of my comments and opinions about Herby? No. Likewise, for an XFD, a person who has only minimally been involved prior to their image coming up for deletion certainly deserves a say in the fate of the image they uploaded, even if that's the only thing they have contributed so far to the project. Similarly, someone from en.books could click-through to an image used on en.wiki, see that it's up for removal here, and make a case for keeping it -- possibly making his/her first edit in the process. So, with regard to anything other than matters of policy or administration, I think that there should be no suffrage requirements. For adminship questions, some history would probably be good so that people know the players involved. For policy matters, people who participate actively (using whatever metric we can agree upon), even if irregularly, should all have their opinions count. For policy matters, newer, less-seasoned participants should have a say, but since they are not as familiar with precedent, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt (i.e., count less than those who have been active for a long time). One size never fits all, and these proposals seem to be trying to make all voting matters fit one requirement. You can see that in the support for nearly every option. I'm sure that different people are thinking of different situations when they express their support. So, that's what probably needs to be done to make this work. --Willscrlt (Talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the idea of loosing my right to vote because of inactivity for just one year is very strange. As long as ones images stay here one should have a right to vote! --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that edit counts are an imperfect measure of involvement in Commons. I have four edits in the last 2 months, I've uploaded 11 images over the last 2 years, yet I come by daily and watch some 22 pages. I think I have more involvement in Commons, and more useful opinions to give, than those small numbers indicate. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 06:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very active in the german wikipedia. So I use this project, when I need pictures and when I need a storage for new pictures which are supporting my articles. In the last 2 years I had about 150 edits, about half of them relevant, the rest non-essential. So the main reason, why I shall not vote in the commons is, that this project is not my "main project" and I am an "average user" instead of being an "upload-freak"? This cannot be! --Wiki-Chris (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~At what number does one become a "freak"? Lycaon (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
While you could say that electing sysops is an internal matter which should not concern the other communities who are only indirectly using Commons, the same does not hold for desysopping, as an abusive or irresponsible sysop can cause them a lot of problems. Does the intended guideline apply to the de-adminship process too? --Tgr (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no option between activity over two months or a year. I would like to see some intermediate period, say 6 months. My ideal edit criterion would be 100 edits in 6 months. Given the natur eof this site, we might ask about number of uploads too.--Londoneye (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, we have some contributors here who have never uploaded a single file but contributed significantly in the category system. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
While recognise that some activity is necessary to at least have garnished some understanding of the community it expectations, unless editors are commenting at FP, QI, VI or IFD then they can accumulate these numbers without every having any interaction with the wider community. My concerns are;
that edit count doesnt equate to knowledge of community norms/expectations.

that past year minimum edits will exclude newer editors from the processes. Gnan garra 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most working democracies have adopted a bicameral approach, with an upper and lower house, and we could do the same. Actually this would just be formalising what already happens at Commons, but we could have a "lower house" of all Commons users excluding Crats for votes with no limit on suffarage save for registration, and an "upper house" exclusively of crats. For any vote to succeed it must first win a majority of votes from the "lower house" before facing a vote of the "upper house" (majority voting or avoiding a quorum of vetoes).KTo288 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not an isolated project as say wikinews, or wikipedia in a given language or indeed all other projects are. It is a service project and it affects all of us. I am inactive here, but look at my watchlist most days. As an admin on the en:WP I think my voice should be heard here. We should not put the bar so high that decisions are taken by a small number of people who spend a lot of time here. --Bduke (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warum sollte ich hier abstimmen, wenn doch alles auf englisch ist....dessen ich nicht so mächtig bin. Tja, meine Stimme entgeht Euch! No German - no vote! --Grüße aus Memmingen (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unterstützung Grüße aus Memmingen ;).- J Logan ^t: 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
stoppt die Abstimmung! ich kann nicht genug englisch um mitzubekommen worum es überhaupt geht! macht erst mal für die etwas größeren Sprachen eine übersetzung! so ist das keine gültige wahl! Grüße aus der Eifel Caronna (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eine Zusammenfassung in deutscher Sprache findet sich hier. -- AFBorchert (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schön, und was über allen anderen Sprachen ? / Magnifique ! et quid de toutes les autres langues ? Arno Lagrange ✉ 09:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Unterstützung Kann genug Englisch, sehe aber ein, dass eine rein englische Abstimmung auf einem mehrsprachigen Angebot nicht angebracht ist. --Lew (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rough Google English Translation of the German Above~~
Why should I vote here, when everything is in English .... which I'm not very proficient at. Well, you're missing out on my vote! --Greetings from Memmingen (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Greetings from Memmingen;) .- J Logan t: 22:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the vote! I can't understand enough English to make out what this is even all about! Prepare a translation first the the slightly larger language! It's not a valid election like this! Greetings from the Eifel Caronna (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A summary in German can be found here. -- AFBorchert (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Translated with help from http://www.google.com/translate_t?sl=de&tl=en :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC); edited by pne (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Good idea! With Google Translate, you use the worst translator on the net.--YSpirine (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Yahoo Babel fish translations? Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where are the stats?~~
I am not a common Commons editor, as opposed to viewer. Maybe there are some things I find obscure that others find glaringly obvious, so please excuse my newbiness. I looked at this poll and those in February and March and one thing stands out to me in particular...
~~There are no stats to show how many users fit into any of the categories...~~
I mean, why doesn't it say 5,000 made 20 edits in the last 2 months, 500 made 30, and 50 made 50 or 95% made 50 edits in the last year, 75% made 100, 25% made 250. I think it is rather difficult to make an informed decision without a simple volume count and per capita count on each measure. It seems the only people average users would know to fit in any particular category would themselves and their friends. I was astonished that my English Wikipedia edits were not enough to vote in the Wikimedia board member elections, but my English Wiktionary account was. I just do fix some simple translations, omissions, and spell-checks on Wiktionary but they are scattered, whereas I spend many times the kilobytes and hours on Wikipedia, where I have had an account for even longer...
~~There are no conditions that measure how much memory a user devotes to Wikia...~~
I love having unified accounts now but I wish there was a way for people that cross over to get more credit for their Wiki projects as a whole, especially polymaths who might share their time over different fields and different languages...
~~There are no conditions to quantify which contributors that share their time around might be accepted by the wikicrats.~~
I'm very interested in seeing if there is way to learn these data, so please correct me, enlighten me, or criticize me but don't ignore me. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does the current 'crat system work? Is it weighted so that everyone, except for rarely active ISP (anonymous) or new editors given one vote, active editors with 5 or more a month given 2, and very active editors given up to 5, depending on their activity? Are meat/sock puppets weeded out? :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~User stats are any web site's most cherished treasure. The client base. Techically, simple stats can be retrieved with an outside bot, but what a pain. NVO (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Here are the stats~~
As per Thecurran’s question, here are the stats: Wikispecial Statistics Wikimedia Commons, and charts: Wikispecial Charts Wikimedia Commons.
Some summary, through May 2008 (and trailing year: since June 2007):
5383 authors (who have contributed at least 10 times total) (4590 in June 2007)

537 active authors (with >5 edits in that month), ranging from 472 to 661 over previous year

21 very active authors (with >100 edits in that month), ranging from 15 to 30 over previous year
Naïvely assuming a Pareto distribution (so interpolating linearly on the log-log scale) yields these estimates for the number of editors with a given number of edits in a given month, and as percentage of all authors (editors with 10+ lifetime edits); since these are for 1 month, not 2 consecutive months, these are (assuming a Pareto distribution) over-estimates:
20 edits: 120 authors (2.2%)

30 edits: 77 authors (1.4%)

50 edits: 44 authors (0.8%)
There are no stats on “edits in the past year” or “past 2 months”, so I can’t calculate how many editors would qualify under the above metrics.
Hope these help!
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to these data, roughly 10% of authors edit 5 or more times a month and roughly 90% of authors have been here more than a year. I extend this to assume that roughly 10% have made 10 or more edits in the last couple of months and roughly 10% have made 50 edits in the last year. Generally, a situation where only 10% have 90% of the power will have a high en:Gini coefficient that is considered unequal. Considering that many Wikimedia authors do not contribute to Commons, many Wikimedia viewers are not authors, many Internet viewers do not view Wikimedia, and much of the world does not use the Internet, I feel that any bar that excludes 90% of registered Commons authors from the vote is less than commensurate with our goals of serving the world. Considering that it's all volunteer work and that these were the options voted in, it seems the best choice would be setting the bar at most at 50 per year, which I'll vote for and/or 10 bi-monthly, which is not available. :)--Thecurran (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Issues~~
~~Wanted to summarize the issues people raise, as I see them from reading the above:~~
Commons as support

Commons is largely a support site for other sites – hence one is impacted by Commons decisions even if one largely edits en or de. One may be very active at one of these, but only occasional at Commons. This argues for wide suffrage.

Commons decisions by Commons participants

Commons is its own community – everyone is welcome to comment, but only regulars should vote. This argues for narrow suffrage.

Unified login

meta:Help:Unified login seems to be the proximate reason for this poll – people from all Wikimedia projects can now come to Commons without being anonymous.

How restrictive are these constraints?

People have different opinions about how restrictive these constraints are – #Here are the stats provides a partial answer (as does Durin’s analysis in #No change). This is a question of fact (how many people would it restrict)?

Different classes of contributors

Some edit, some upload, some edit categories or other meta-data. This argues for wide suffrage or detailed criteria.

Bursty contributions

Many people contribute in bursts (for various reasons: editing style, sickness, life). Monthly restrictions disenfranchise these people, in favor of steady contributors. Similar issues for lifetime contributions versus past year.

Edit-counts are useless

Edit counts are a poor measure of contribution – this argues for wide suffrage.

Edit-counts show activity

Edit counts at least show active involvement in the project – this argues for narrow suffrage.

Suffrage eligibility is wrong

Restricting suffrage is un-wiki, and does not assume good faith. This argues for wide suffrage.

This is just about voting, not discussing

Everyone is welcome to talk, but only a few can vote. This argues for narrow suffrage.

This is all advisory anyway

’crats will decide as they will – this is just canvassing opinion. This argues for (or at least not against) narrow suffrage.
I think these are the main issues people raise, as neutrally presented as I can – my own opinions are in the votes above.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Why is this poll only in English?~~
As per (frustrated) comments about #Rough_Google_English_Translation_of_the_German_Above, why is this poll only in English? (There is no “other languages” at the top.) If it is just to canvass the opinions of English-speaking contributors, that is fine, but it seems very exclusionary – German-speakers being relegated to Commons:Forum#Election and no other languages having any representation whatsoever. For something as fundamental as a vote on suffrage, one would expect it to be inclusive. (See also: Commons:Language policy.)
’crats – why is this only in English?
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed this being only in English is highly exclusive and disregards the contributors outside the anglosphere. We need to be more inclusive. One more reason to not adopt any of the proposals here. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfortunate oversight. One I'm embarrassed that has went uncorrected until now. But it's not too late, if someone wants to do some translating, that would be great. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering this too - I can translate into french and norwegian, but I have no idea how to use the templates. naerii 15:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is not perfect but I've added {{En}} to some of the text... find those template invocations and add {{Fr}} or {{No}} or whatever langs you know, and translate away. It's not perfect. We should have done it sooner. But this is an effort to at least make up for not having done it at all. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lar!

What’s the usual way to have multilingual discussions anyway? I recall that for WikiMedia elections the candidate statements were translated, though of course one can’t translate all comments.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To start off with, are our tags for suffrage polling (on every commons page I view) written in English for every viewer? That would seem like grafitti to many users. If it is in English only, how do we fix it? I read COM:LP and can't find a set list of languages to translate into. To reach most of the world, I would suggest starting with the six official w:United Nations languages: 1Arabic (Afro-Asiatic), 2Chinese ([[w: languages|Sino-Tibetan), 3English ([[w: languages|Indo-European), 4French, 5Russian, & 6Spanish. To reach our most common language viewers, I'd then pick up the rest of the top ten Wikipedia languages English, 7German, French, 8Polish, 9Japanese (Japonic), 10Italian, 11Dutch, 12Portuguese, Spanish, & Russian. To reach our most common language family viewers, I'd take the first of each one represented in our top hundred languages 13Finnish (Uralic), 14Turkish (Turkic), 15Indonesian (Austronesian), 16Korean (Isolate#1), 17Vietnamese (Austro-Asiatic), 18Telugu (Dravidian), 19Thai (Tai-Kadai), 20Basque (Isolate#2), 21Georgian (South Caucasian), 22Quechua (Quechuan), & 23Swahili (Niger-Congo). To reach indigenous languages of the last continents not represented, Australia & North America, I'd further add 24Noongar (Pama-Nyungan) & 25Nahuatl (Uto-Aztecan). To assuage the conflicts on w:List of unrecognized countries, I'd next add 26Abkhaz (South Caucasian) from the family not represented above & 27Hebrew, as Israel is the least recognized UN member by far. Finally, I'd add 28Simple English for ease in translation and comprehension. Besides, 28 is a w:perfect number. BTW, I counted w:creole#Languages, w:pidgins, & w:conlangs by their base family (all Indo-European in the top hundred). :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dans ta jolie collection, tu as oublié l'espéranto qui figure parmi les vingt premières langues de Wikipédia et qui a des locuteurs dans plus de 60 pays. Pourquoi recourir à une solution simple et évidente quand on peut élaborer des protocoles compliqués? Dans la pratique, sur Meta, certaines choses ont été traduites en diverses langues (les élections pour le CA notamment) sur la simple base du volontariat : le résultat était que l'interface arrivait à être traduite dans plus d'une dizaine de langues à des degrés divers, selon l'énergie des contributeurs bénévoles et non selon l'importance des langues. Arno Lagrange ✉ 09:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, the fact that this poll was not translated for major languages shows yet another reason why this poll should never have gone live, and should be closed down now. This isn't en.commons. This is commons. --Durin (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Et voilà une page de 176 ko qui est à plus de 98% en anglais (langue de moins de 6% de l'humanité) et même les protestations contre ce fait sont pour la plupart aussi dans la langue de Bill Gates. Et encore j'ai le privilège de connaître un peu la langue de George Bush pour pouvoir comprendre un peu de quoi il s'agit. Cela ressemble à une fortification avec plusieurs enceintes. Ceux qui résident au centre de la forteresse (6%) semblent même ignorer qu'il existe un monde en dehors de leur forteresse. A l'intérieur de la première enceinte ont réussi à s'introduire des gens venus de l'extérieur qui ont payé cher pour avoir le droit de venir là mais qui ne seront jamais admis dans le saint des saints (les non-anglophones qui pensent maîtriser l'anglais 2%). Ceux -là défendent leur position en empêchant ceux qui sont à l'extérieur d'entrer en disant "mais vous n'avez qu'à comprendre l'anglais si vous voulez être pris en compte; nous on l'a appris". Dans la deuxième enceinte il y a ceux qui aimeraient entrer, qui ne sont pas à l'aise avec l'anglais mais en comprennent assez (5%) pour deviner que quelque chose d'important se joue, alors ils protestent -en anglais- mais en vain. Dans la troisième enceinte, il y a ceux qui ont entendu du bruit, et demandent "que se passe-t-il ?" dans leurs langues, donc personne ne les écoute (2% ? ). Et puis à l'extérieur il y a tous les autres (85 %) qui ne savent même pas qu'on est en train de prendre des décisions à leur place et qui l'apprendront un jour à leurs dépends sans avoir aucun moyen d'intervenir. Et s'ils protestent devant le fait accompli ils se verront répondre : "mais nous avons déjà discuté de cela il y a fort longtemps". Voilà un système féodal bien établi au milieu d'un projet qui a des prétentions hyper-modernistes parce qu'il est basé sur des technologies récentes (internet, wiki). La théorie de la relativité n'aura servi aux militaires qu'à remplacer leurs massues paléolithiques par des bombes capables d'anéantir la vie sur la planète. De même la technologie informatique est utilisée par une fraction de l'humanité désireuse d'établir sa domination sur le reste du monde comme outil supplémentaire et particulièrement efficace pour renforcer sa domination avec le même mépris de l'autre. N'est-ce pas aux États-Unis d'Amérique du Nord que 55% de la population est créationniste, théorie qui veut affirmer la supériorité de l'homme sur l'animal et de l'américain sur le non-américain? D'ailleurs la connaissance et l'intérêt que cette population a de la géograpie, de la culture (ne parlons même pas des langues) du reste du monde est significativement bien inférieure à la moyenne de l'humanité. L'ouverture du monde "Wikimedia" aux cultures et aux langues du monde se montre dans la pratique bien illusoire. Arno Lagrange ✉ 09:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take your general, non-poll related ramblings to a blog, this is not the place for it. You are welcome to post comments in any language you wish. Many complain that there are no translations, but I haven't seen a single translation added, despite efforts and requests above. It's easier to criticize than to actually work. Patrícia ^msg 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Répondez en français s'il vous plaît. Je suis d'accord avec Arno Lagrange. Cette affaire est très déplaisante et très ethnocentrique. Je demande l'abrogation de cette élection mono-culturelle. Gilles (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that this poll has strictly NO VALUE until it has been translated in other languages. And what we can see is even the two days before the end of the poll, nothing has been translated. This is commons, not en.commons. Rhadamante (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis entièrement d'accord avec les intervenants ci-dessus ; à moins d'un bon niveau en anglais et d'une pratique courante, les discussions plus hauts sont incompréhensibles. Les initiateurs n'ont même pas fait l'effort d'une traduction - en quelque langue que ce soit - même résumée, pour expliquer. Alors, soit les contributeurs non-anglophones sont dégoutés et s'en vont, soit ils votent contre ; dans les deux cas cela m'empêchera sans doute pas la proposition d'être adoptée, mais merci pour l'ambiance... Pierre73 (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gilles: respondo-te em Português que é a minha língua nativa, que tal? Por que se sou fr-1 mas en-3, é bem possível que seja mais simples escrever em Inglês que em Francês. É muito arrogante exigir-me que responda em Francês, que por sinal é uma língua menos utilizada que o Inglês e na qual não sou muito fluente (embora a entenda bastante bem). Espero não ter de voltar a ler comentários deste género. Patrícia ^msg 10:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Where is this coming from?~~
~~I was puzzled about where this poll came from – it just saw the Site Notice one day. In case you are similarly mystified:~~
It originated at Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes, specifically: Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Suffrage_requirements_for_all_admin.2C_bcat.2C_and_CU_votes, following previous discussions at Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Poll_time.3F, Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Voting Approval Poll, and Commons_talk:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Voting, as mentioned in the lede.
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voting should be anonymous, this makes it hardly a vote, and the format even if a public vote is horrendous, it has to be hand counted75.165.19.75 17:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Stop this poll~~
Okay this poll didn't bother me to start with, but there is an under current of discontent with it, which is only bubbling through in the discourse above. Basically the vibes I'm picking up is that this poll lacks transparency, that it was sprung on the community without warning or consultation, and because of the lack of languages other than English, that it is an attempt by a clique of self serving users to reinforce their own privileges at the expense of the general community. I am sure this is not the case, but the lack of general consultation on the terms and context of this poll and again I must reiterate the use of languages other than English may give this impression.
It would be far better to suspend this vote, lay down a proper groundwork of selling the need of this poll in the various community languages, canvassing of opinion of what the terms of this poll should be, having this poll translated into at least the most common languages and having done this forewarning the community by a reasonable period that a poll will be taking place.
Far better to look a little bit foolish now, and throw away work already done , than to come to a decision that may be resented by elements of the community and which will undermine the moral bedrock of this community, which is that all decisions are achieved by consensus.KTo288 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I advocated early on that this poll should have been closed. It's poorly thought out and poorly worded. That it was never translated into the major languages shows a lack of preparation and forethought. The nature of the poll was also modified after it began, changing the basis on which it was originally launched. It was bad from the beginning and is even worse now. I'm just thankful that the obvious 'winner' in this is no change with no firm suffrage and allow bureaucrats discretion. --Durin (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This style of poll (support or oppose all you feel like) is flawed: Consider a poll with choices (A), (B), (C), and (D) perhaps only insane people like (D), everyone sane likes (B), but half of the sane people prefer (A) and half prefer (C). Most people don't bother going and commenting each and every one since doing so is option, not allowed, or not clearly allowed. You can then end up with (D) winning because everyone else got split among (A), (B), and (C). Not good. This poll also imposes false quantization: "per month" and "per year" are not the only, or even the most natural alternatives. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support and crush with a stick. So much wrong with this initiative; where to begin? As usual, the poll is framed to encourage an outcome; merely participating in it drives that outcome. I uphold English as a world language but nothing can be gained by excluding other language users; it's divisive. Linking the poll in the Sitenotice suggests, all by itself, that the initiative has merit, which it does not.
How long before Wikimedians understand the nature of a wiki? The only thing that is holding this community together is the wiki itself -- the technical barrier to politics as usual. The more we try to run this like a small town in Wheatfields, the sooner the doom. — Xiong 熊 talk * 03:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment. You can criticize the poll as much as you want, but please don't go around assuming bad faith from the proponent. It was perhaps not well thought through, but to demand translations halfway is a bit too much, and to even suggest there is some sort of agenda behind this proposal is, well, silly. To throw away the poll four days from its end is also not reasonable. Let it run to its end and we'll discuss what to make of these results; if we can't make anything, we won't change anything... if it looks like it needs a second turn, we'll open the discussion to formulate a second turn. And then we make sure there are translations. And we can all learn from this experience. Patrícia ^msg 10:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to let a train wreck continue to be a train wreck. Having the fortitude to close this poll and, say "No, this is not how we do things" is a good thing, not a bad thing, even if the poll is nearing its end. It sends a strong message to avoid this sort of major error in the future. I agree there are lessons to be learned from this, most especially that any future poll have considerably more baking period before it goes live and becomes a site notice. I do not maintain there was bad faith in making this poll. I do maintain that it was a mess from the beginning and has only become worse. It's sadly hilarious that this note was added to the poll after it started. This, among other things, changed the nature of the poll and further showed that the poll was ill thought out. It also essentially invalidates the poll. The poll presupposes that bureaucrats are not doing a good job of using their discretion; thus the need for suffrage requirements. Then, the note is added saying that bureaucrat discretion is fine. I'll have my cake and eat it too please. --Durin (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it seems I was implying bad faith on the part of those behind the poll, I was saying there was the perception of bad faith, especially amongst those whose first language is not English, not the actual existence of bad faith. And again what I was trying to say got a bit lost in my attempt at rhetoric, that the important consensus is not what is arrived at in this poll. But what should have come before, that there was no consensus in the general community as to the need for this poll, and no consensus that the general community should accept being bound by the outcome of this poll.KTo288 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no information for this poll. Copy-paste a message in english on at least most actives Wikipedias' village pumps take only a few minuts. Asking for a translation for at least the proposition, less than few hours for most languages. Too late for this one, but please think of it for the next time.--Lilyu (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is high time to stop that poll and make the things seriously. Commons does not belongs to a few cast of commons users, who decided to change the rules as they want. This poll is a large humbug:
No one of the sister-projets, which are strongly concerned because of their use of commons, have been warned if this poll;

Two days before the end of the poll, nothing, neither the debats nor the purpose has been translated in the main languages of the wiki community.
~~Rhadamante (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Support A translation in other main languages (Chinese, Arabic, Russian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, ...) is an absolute prerequisite for such a poll. Croquant (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree : 94% of inhabitants of Earth dont speak english... English coutnry's arent the center of the world ! Pierre73 (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Most of the contributors of the main Wiki projects (except, of course, :en) don't even understand what this is all about. This poll can not, in these circumstances, represent anything else than the opinion of a "happy few" who were properly informed and understood the objective of this poll. It would be far better to stop it, do things as they're supposed to be done (e.g., ask a few people to translate and pass the information on as many projects as possible), and start it again in a few days/weeks. Alchemica (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support stop this mono-lingual meaningless poll. --Pixeltoo (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is interesting to note there's been a sudden rush of French contributors voting in support of no change. This would seem to support the assertion this should have been translated into other languages before launch and properly advertised over major wikis. --Durin (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Because there was a message posted on fr:WP's village pump by a french user warning us... two days before the ending of this poll. Lilyu (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
CommentThis process to gather input is now almost over... I'm not seeing any reason to stop things now. Before we started, the 'crats had implicit discretion. The outcome I see here is that the 'crats still have discretion but now there's more information on what some think the guidelines might be. I'm not seeing that as a bad thing. ++Lar: t/c 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (de) Das ist sowieso fast fertig. Warten wir einfach, und dann können wir sehen, was zu machen ist. Aber ich bin ja ganz einverstanden, dass es eine Fehler war, diese Umfrage allein auf Englisch zu machen. Commons ist ein mehrsprachiges Projekt, englishsprachige Benutzer sollten es nicht vergessen. Stellt euch vor, man hätte so eine Umfrage über ein wichtiges Thema auf Deutsch, Französisch, Spanish, Chinesisch oder was-weiss-ich-sonst eröffnet, dann werdet ihr verstehen, wieso viele Benutzer frustriert (und sogar sauer) sind. Ihr hättet vor die Eröffnung darauf warten müssen, mehere Übersetzungen zu haben. Wenn ihr die Ergebnisse analysieren, müsst ihr das unbedingt berücksichtigen. Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(en) The poll is almost done. Let it go to its end. Wait and see. But I do agree that the way this poll was done is not acceptable and something like that shouldn't be done again. Commons is a multilanguage project. English-speaking users should not forget that. Try to imagine that someone opens a vote on an important matter in spanish, french, german, chinese or whatsoever without any translation and you will understand the frustration of many users. Not to forget the many abbreviations used on this page which make sense only for english-speaking wikimedia users. You should have wait to have a few translations before starting the poll. Once the poll is done, you should keep that in mind while analysing the results. Polletfa (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and throw the poll out (in the trash) STOP IT!!!!!!! Mrmariokartguy (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll

Contents

Option 1: Two months of activity

20 per month

30 per month

50 per month

Option 2: Edits in the past year

50 in the past year

150 in the past year

300 in the past year

Option 3: No change, no firm suffrage guidance

No change

Discussion and neutral comments

Rough Google English Translation of the German Above

Where are the stats?

Here are the stats

Issues

Why is this poll only in English?

Where is this coming from?

Stop this poll

Navigation menu

Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll

Option 1: Two months of activity

20 per month

30 per month

50 per month

Option 2: Edits in the past year

50 in the past year

150 in the past year

300 in the past year

Option 3: No change, no firm suffrage guidance

No change

Discussion and neutral comments

Rough Google English Translation of the German Above

Where are the stats?

Here are the stats

Issues

Why is this poll only in English?

Where is this coming from?

Stop this poll

Navigation menu

Search