Forum:Housekeeping votes

Hi Folks,

This is a wrapup vote of a few smaller issues as detailed in Housekeeping discussion and The Spotify playlist. Things that seem a bigger task for now I've left out. Agent c (talk) 15:20, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Poll finished on 3:20 pm June 15, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Wiki Votes

Proposal 1: That the disused IRC features be removed from the wiki

This vote is straight forward. The IRC features on the wiki are not used, and can potentially confuse people looking for the right chat feature. This would result in the IRC links and rules being removed.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:43, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. The only thing it's good for to me is nostalgia of memories that don't exist. I say axe this relic. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. We have chat. If someone needs to do it in private, we have the private messages. Simple as that. Energy X 21:13, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
6. We still have this? Why haven't we gotten rid of it sooner? Richie9999 (talk) 13:07, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. --Skire (talk) 23:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
8. -- G͕͇̰͓̱̭̑̒̿̈́ͮ͌̓ͅO̝̪̯̲͖̦͔ͦ̉́̾̽T͓͖ͤ͊W̛̝̓̽ ^{Ù̻͉̽́s̛͒͌͒̄͐ͨě͍͉̦͙͇ͨ̈ͦ͢r̨̞͔̜̹̹̦̪ͨͤ͗̆͐͛ | T̯̙̀ͣͪ̀̔̚a̮̞͓͈͖̒l̿ͩk̢̲̬̱̬͉̲} 00:48, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
9. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:36, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
10. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
11. Jspoel 15:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
12. Kingclyde (talk)

No

1. It's a largely dead feature, but an important feature nonetheless. Chat goes down quite frequently with it still being in the Wikia experimental stages, and so the IRC channels become a different route for those looking to get together in a public setting. I see no reason to deprive those at Nukapedia of an extra social setting. However, I do agree that the IRC channels and the modern chat feature need to be clearly distinguished from each other to avoid confusion. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:22, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
2. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 03:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
3. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 21:56, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
4. Great Mara (talk) 10:04, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Result

This vote passes. All links to it can be removed. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Defining Multiple Account Abuse

This would finally, in a binding manner, define what is multiple account abuse. The options are that multiple accounts when in use on this wiki should be made clear as to who the "primary" account user is; That this should be specifically noted as not being abuse, or that we leave things the way they are in an ambiguous state.

Option 1 - All secondary accounts should be identified

The following would be added to the rules

Using multiple accounts on the wiki is not against our policies or guidelines; however we do insist that any secondary accounts should be identified with the primary username. Where this is not obvious in the username itself it should generally be identified on the user's profile page. Bureaucrats may consider requests to have an additional or replacement account with no links where there is a reason to do so. Bans from one account generally carry over to other accounts, and other accounts should not be used to avoid a (non self requested) ban on another account.

Votes below this line.

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. This is a problem that should be addressed--Josef (talk) 07:20, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. --Skire (talk) 00:07, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. 1 member 1 account. Be held responsible for coments made under any name. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:53, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:40, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
8. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
9. Jspoel 15:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Excluded Votes

1. Transparency always serves well. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 21:58, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm one to prefer the rationale approach, prevents us from having to recite it after or during the fact. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Option 2 - Defined as not being abuse

Using multiple accounts on the wiki is not against our policies or guidelines. Bans from one account generally carry over to other accounts, and other accounts should not be used to avoid a (non self requested) ban on another account.

Votes below this line

1.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. 08:54, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. The other option will not stop a thing. Our Bureaucrats with CheckUser rights are equipped to handle those abusing multiple accounts in bad faith. Let us not call out everyone with other accounts simply because of the idiocy of the few. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. Agree with Leon on this one. Great Mara (talk) 10:08, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
5. After reconsideration I concur with Leon on this. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 03:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
6. --^Talk 20:29, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
7. Kingclyde (talk)
8. Leon's assessment makes more sense to me after thinking about both sides. The other option just adds more red tape where it's not needed. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:30, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Option 3 - No changes

Option 4 - No multiple accounts (other than approved accounts, e.g. bots, etc.)

1. Why do you need multiple accounts? --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 08:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
2. 16:01, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Before voting, I'd like an explanation of why precisely should it take bureaucratic approval for the multiple accounts? I'd think administrators would be capable enough of determining it on our own. Restricting the decision to only bureaucrats seems to me completely unnecessary.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:46, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Limmie. Our community has given our Bureaucrats a lot of power, but our own policies still dictate that Bureaucrats are to be considered as normal users with just a few extra tools. I'm not quite convinced that only Bureaucratic discretion is needed here, nor is that idea personally welcomed by me. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:53, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Basically I picked it because I expect it to be a very rare request, and having a group of 3 discuss the issue if/when it comes up (if they felt they need it) is a little less unweildy than trying to get a group of admins together. I'm not really married to that bit though, so would be happy to see it brought down to admin. Agent c (talk) 01:58, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with this as well. Administrator-level approval should be sufficient for such a thing. --Skire (talk) 02:00, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Result

Undecided, result pending discussion bcs. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

After consideration, option #1 has passed. I will detail what we will need to do to implement this in a forum later this evening. The Gunny   20:09, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - Review of the voting rationales rule

We recently added to the guidelines a recommendation that votes be accompanied by a voting rationale, and in some cases admins can force users to give a voting rationale. Is the vote working, or is it time to remove it or strengthen it?

Option 1: Remove the rule

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. Richie9999 (talk) 13:11, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. The VOTE is enough to be read. Comments should be optional. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:45, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:43, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. My reasons are (and should remain) my own should I choose to withhold them. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 22:00, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
8. Great Mara (talk) 10:07, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
9. 15:59, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
10. Kingclyde (talk) No one should have to explain why they voted the way they did.

Option 2: Make reasons mandatory

1. --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 08:59, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Option 3: No changes

1. I have not seen valid justification for removing or "strengthening" the rule. No changes are necessary at all. --Skire (talk) 00:06, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
2. The rule is working fine, and the need for it remains as much as it was during the first vote.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
3. Rationale in the comments section for this vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:36, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. Irony I've not added comments for most of my votes this time round, but proves the point of "optional" and "enforceable". Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
5. Adding a reason makes the vote more valuable to me. Enforcing it is a step too far for me. Just fine as it is. Jspoel 15:12, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
6. I think the middle ground where it's at is best. We can be succinct and not forced to repeat ourselves in one area and pressed to reveal our thoughts in others that might demand it. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:30, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I believe the recommendation for the reason behind the vote stay, but the motion that Administrators can force a reason to be supplied, be removed. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 16:06, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I respect an individual's desire to vote what they wish devoid of inspection onto their character or intentions, but I would like to know if it would not be in bad form to request voting mentalities for feedback on a proposal, such as a user rights proposal, in the event this rule is rescinded. I know we hold discussions before votes, making any rationales voiced and over with by the point of the vote, but I feel further discussion couldn't hurt anything except for the feelings of those wishing to say their thoughts only once.

Basically, if we remove the rule, can it still be personally optional or personally requested (assuming the request is respective of the rule being removed... assuming the rule gets removed). --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any clear indication that there is a problem with the current "rule" (which is a mere recommendation and provision of some rights reserved to administrators which, to this date, has not been used)? And are we now in the habit to arbitrarily challenge (without much, if any, discussion) policies passed by a clear majority only a few months prior? There is nothing wrong with the policy as it is. Adding a reason behind a vote is always recommended, as per common sense. This "rule" is just putting it in writing. Certain powers are given to the administrators (collectively) under special circumstances. This "rule" is just putting it in writing - administrators have always had those powers (e.g. reconfirmation requests that stipulate voting rationales). There is no good reason why this needs to be changed. Requiring rationales is overreach, removing this rule is pointless as the principles that lie behind it are irremovable. --Skire (talk) 23:59, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

The rule serves no purpose, and was used questioningly in a recent vote. Agent c (talk) 00:41, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

If anything, this rule was in direct contradiction with what happened in that "recent vote." It was the only thing that we had on the matter to show that what was done in that vote was wrong. In addition, this rule was never cited in that incident, and so I fail to see how it was "used questioningly." --Skire (talk) 00:49, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Voting rationales are important on an encyclopedia. Sometimes our social environment overwhelms this fact, but in the end, what truly matters is that we get the factual information that we need in a precise and concise manner. Giving reasons for votes is not unreasonable, nor is it truly that difficult. If you don't want your opinions being challenged here, then what are you doing on an encyclopedia of knowledge in the first place? Not to mention that certain topics need actual input instead of blatant votes. A perfect example would be over the petition against a mandatory message wall feature that I started up a while back. Petitions with just signatures on them are meaningless. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:36, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that this vote is one of the only ones that did not include a direct quotation on what is to be changed. Perhaps this is because the creator of the vote is a clear opponent of the policy? It vexes me that some voters have either a very shallow or non-existent understanding of this "rule," because it merely recommends voting rationales (which means policy does not stipulate rationales). Furthermore, it puts in writing the fact that the administration team does have the right to require voting rationales on certain votes. Removing this policy will do nothing except erase what is true and will remain true from our policy and create another grey area. Seriously, voting rationales are still purely optional. --Skire (talk) 23:31, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Please don't ascribe to malice what is simply an oversight. Agent c (talk) 23:40, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

I understand, and my apologies. However I do believe that having a quotation up there since the inception of this vote may have provided users more knowledge on what they are actually voting on... --Skire (talk) 23:43, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

And I agree on that. Agent c (talk) 23:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  Why are there so many remove the rule votes? You're all just fine with a simple yes or no? With user rights requests or other important votes? Sorry, but I hold a reasoned vote in higher regard to a simple yes or no any day. But that's just me. Jspoel 15:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

And I hope you shall continue to do so regardless of the outcome of this vote. It is shocking to me that so many people seem to believe that this "rule" requires a voting rationale. It merely recommends it... --Skire (talk) 23:29, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

My issue with the rule is its sheer pointlessness. It attempted to encourge votes to have rationales, which is fine. But there wasnt exactly a derth of rationales prior to this, the rule is in a place where people are less likely to read it or be influenced by it, and thus it becomes pointless. Agent c (talk) 23:35, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

MY issue with the rule is the part about arbitrarily demanding votes. I was ok, to an extent, with the reasoning behind the rationales being suggested. When that last bit about demanding them snuck (sneeked? Seriously, spell check, WTF?) in on that vote I was dead against it. I foresaw problems where an admin could require it on a vote they wanted passed, and then use it as a bludgeon to force opposing votes away. We were not given an option to vote to keep the suggestion and lose the mandatory part. I think we tread on very thin water when we allow users to determine the veracity or intent of others' votes when they have a dog in the fight too. I would rather go to no rule at all than leave a wide open door ready to be abused. The Gunny   00:45, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the way I see it: If Administrators have the right to bypass community input completely, calling upon Administrative decree to push a vote through, then what's the problem with requiring a voting rationale when it's proven that the subjects in question are in need of them? We have some major issues in our votes, stemming back to our D&C roots. Popularity votes, spite votes, votes made in utter ignorance, etc. At least with a rationale, we can determine what is what. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:52, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I could see a scenario where, if you have to make rationales mandatory, it could be fair. But that would only be a scenario where a neutral admin has the authority to question votes. Allowing an admin with a dog in the fight to strike votes based solely on "their" view of the issue only sets us up for an unfair vote. Of course, this was not an option in the vote creating the rule, nor is it now. I don't dislike when folks add comments to their votes. It helps me immensely when I have to interpret what their intent is on user rights requests. What I don't like is what I've outlined about. Pitting users without rights against an admin on the way they see a subject is never a fair fight. All it's gonna do is cause folks to not bother voting to avoid the hassle. The Gunny   01:16, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Striking votes? What does that have to do with requiring a vote rationale? If you're referring to the pure human vote, only one vote was struck, and it was not over the mandatory voting rationale policy that I enacted. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:35, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Gunny, I must feel that I have some responsibility here in not clarifying properly what my original intentions were when proposing this policy addition. What I wanted was for the administrators (plural) to reserve the right to mandate rationales on certain matters (such as some reconfirmation request we've had in the past). Certain circumstances may require rationales to ensure voting integrity. My intention was that this could be done with administrative/bureaucratic consensus. And following Leon's reply above, I don't believe at all that this addition to policy was "misused"... --Skire (talk) 02:01, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Hell, it couldn't have been misused. It was never even enforced! ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:04, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Result

Vote passes. Users don't have to add a reason for their vote anymore. Though it would be appreciated. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - Spotify List

Until such time as we can get a proper radio working that we create 2 spottify playlists, one for 1950's-style pop music, and one Enclave style music. The priority list for adding songs being:

• Appeared in a Fallout game
• Is a song by an artist who appeared in a fallout game
• Is a song by a contemporary of those who appeared in game.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. This sounds more like a fun thing rather than a rule thing, but yeah, I can't see why not here. Brainstorming is good. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Richie9999 (talk) 13:12, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. Another fun feature to help our editors relax a bit as they're visiting Nukapedia. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:41, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
5. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:45, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. Enclave Radio 2.0 here we come!! 07:38, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. A variety for those that do not like one kind of music. Energy X 17:32, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
8. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 17:39, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
9. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
10. A good (albeit not a community approval required) addition. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 22:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
11. Jspoel 15:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
12. Kingclyde (talk)

No

Neutral

Comment

Result

Vote passes. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 5 - Make an edit before voting

For some time admins have been enforcing a rule that users should make an edit before voting. With us now having checkuser on Bureaucrat accounts this is not a major requirement anymore, but still has some value in ensuring people who do vote are actual participants. The rule however does not appear in our guidelines. This vote would either add it to the guidelines, or prevent further enforcement on these lines.

This would add to the rules

Before voting on any policy, users must make a meaningful edit somewhere on the wiki. This does not need to be in the article space.

The alternative being to stop enforcing this.

Yes

1.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. on a wiki where commenting on a blog post (of which we have many active ones) qualifies as that edit, I don't see why asking a user wishing to vote has an edit is a bad thing, it's not like it's hard to comment on a blog post or leave a message on a tp or correct some grammar mistake on the articles. Richie9999 (talk) 13:14, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. This is completely necessary. Making one edit (which doesn't even have to be constructive, per se) on the wiki is not an unreasonable demand, especially considering the making of that one edit will permit the user to participate in any wiki vote initiated thereafter. --Skire (talk) 00:09, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. If anything I'd tighten the requirement, not loosen it.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
5. Join the community & play a part in it before try'n to change it. What is next letting anons vote. SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 02:00, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. As far as I'm concerned you're still an anon if even if you have a registered username but no edits. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 06:55, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
7. An edit and you can vote? Make that 25 edits and you've shown at least some commitment to the wiki. Maybe people say hey I'm spending my time in chat, but I feel at least some edit (preferably main namespace) experience is required also to take part in (important) votes. I mean 25 edits, that's easy already. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm going to say no as I feel that personal experience will teach any willing participants on this wiki whatever it is they need to know in order to vote and that this rule is more redundant than effective. Now if it were 20 votes? Then we'd beg scrutiny for being too much or being tempting of vandalizing. EDIT: just let learners learn the natural way and we'll deal with them if we have to. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Not really neccesary. Energy X 21:15, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. Ignorance is ignorance. Understanding is understanding. Making a few edits before-hand does not change these in a person. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:41, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
5. This isn't necessary. If they are familiar with what goes around here then I don't see a problem. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:50, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. 07:39, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. 15:58, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
8. Kingclyde (talk)

Neutral

1. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. Great Mara (talk) 10:10, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

So you would allow false votes ?.. Votes from anons adding votes from many many many IPs that you can in no way legislate other than by blocking all anons.

That sounds in no way fair or reasonable. But if you say so.. It would turn my stomach to be an admin that allowed such abuse, even if I could create an army of false IP anons to support my veiw.. I would feel sick inside.

It really should be 1 member one vote & then if Admins decide after that to throw out the members wishes then it would just be a fairly stated betrayal and not on made false by anons being created to support an issue.

anons can not be regulated if you let them vote on site issues... Letting them vote on polls is trivial, it is like american idol.. Who should give a shit..

However the work many of us here have put into this site is an issue.

• To let anons vote on real issues is an insult.. & that includes voting for who should be a mod & or admin.

Just because I disagree dose not mean I don't want to be friends or respect you.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 03:08, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Saint... anons can vote. Never have we ever forbade an anon with legitimate reasons to vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:03, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Quote" Saint... anons can vote. Never have we ever forbade an anon with legitimate reasons to vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:03, June 10, 2013 (UTC)" End Quote"

I see no bigger issue on this vote platform..

Then THAT should be changed.. I can go to over 12 libraries in 20 miles of my house and even more Mc Donalds or hotels with wi-fi and say I am an anon..

It should be final line signed in members. Any thing less more than invites user abuse.

• Why bother getting an account if you can just run about town changing the rules willy nilly and never be held accoutable for any thing you say or do online?

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 02:21, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

This is an absolute deal breaker. There can be no just vote so long as anons can move from IP address to adress and vote time and again even if they have been baned for spam and vandalisim.. This is unfair to all who try to play by the rules.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here."-

That's the great thing about us not being a Democracy. Our votes are not determined by majority census, but by the legitimacy of the voting rationales involved. Our Bureaucrats make the final decision, and they are usually just. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:38, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I posted this before in the wrong place, but sure enough it worked there to so I stand by it and this repost as it's intended place.

"Self Quote" So you would allow false votes ?.. Votes from anons adding votes from many many many IPs that you can in no way legislate other than by blocking all anons. That sounds in no way fair or reasonable. But if you say so.. It would turn my stomach to be an admin that allowed such abuse, even if I could create an army of false IP anons to support my veiw.. I would feel sick inside.

~It really should be 1 member one vote & then if Admins decide after that to throw out the members wishes then it would just be a fairly stated betrayal and not one made false by anons being created to support an issue.

anons can not be regulated if you let them vote on site issues... Letting them vote on polls is trivial, it is like american idol.. Who should give a shit..

However the work many of us here have put into this site is an issue.

To let anons vote on real issues is an insult.. & that includes voting for who should be a mod & or admin. Just because I disagree dose not mean I don't want to be friends or respect you. "End self Quote"

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 04:07, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Result

It's a close call. I'm deciding people need to make an edit (preferably more) before voting. Just plain zero edits and able to make vote doesn't sink in well at all with me. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Chat rules changes

Proposal 1 - Re-organization/Clarification of Rules 1/2

This would separate the intention of rules 1/2 and clarify them further.

Existing Rules

1. Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling.

2. Harassment and/or sexual harassment.

Proposed Rules

1. Personal attacks, harassment, sexual harassment, insults or bullying.

2. Racially Bigoted, Sexually degrading, or hate speech.

Rule 1 becomes a personal attacks rule, whereas rule 2 becomes a rule about dealing with is about groups as a whole.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. I like the wording of both of these, divorces the two issues appropriately. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. ^{"Anything, for the family"} 04:30, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. So it doesn't become a major problem in chat--Josef (talk) 07:33, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. Richie9999 (talk) 13:16, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
8. An excellent improvement to current chat policy --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
9. I'm normally the first one against any signs of political correctness. But there's a difference between political correctness, and attempting to stop blatant abuse that causes only harm. These changes will help make our environment a genuine one, and so I support it. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:41, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
10. I'll admit it needs to be worked on a bit... THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:55, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
11. Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech. This is not reflected in the current rules, so they must be changed. I have to say I'm seeing instances of deplorable conduct in chat recently. It's time to reel it in. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 06:59, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
12. I'm not entirely happy with recent chat incidents and logs I've been reading. I get the feeling new users don't feel as welcome as they could feel. The adjusted rules will help improve that. Jspoel 15:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Hell no. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 00:25, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
2. Fuck no. What kind of pleb could possibly even entertain the idea of voting yes. Higgey the Scotsman _{(talk page)} 00:33, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
3. After further consideration. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:35, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. We're seriously bringing up that bullying nonsense again? I'm iffy on the looseness of the definition of "sexually degrading" speech as well. Bringing it out of the general umbrella terminology of bigotry and putting it explicitly on the foreground seems to me an invitation to political correct busywork.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:10, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
5. No based on the terminology used. I stand by "hate speech is enough" comment; we do not need to over-engineer the rules to accommodate the currently used insults when a simple approach will do. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
6. Reconsidered. Limmie summed up my reasoning. 04:06, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
7. I'm really not seeing any significant difference between the two. The rule seems fine as it is. Great Mara (talk) 10:12, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
8. --^Talk 20:29, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
9. Kingclyde (talk) The wording is confused and to specific in the proposed rules where in the current rules they are general enough to cover a wide range of things.
10. Limmie actually summed it up well enough to make me reconsider my side. I no longer like the wording of these new rules... although I did like the divorcing of them. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:38, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

Comment

Result

The new, proposed rule passes and can be changed in the chat rule policy. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - Kicking and banning guidelines

That the following be added to the guidelines:

Moderators are reminded that they have the freedom to deal with situations with a less firm hand if required... If someone intends a bit of good humour, realises their mistake, and apologises, there may be no need no need for a kick or ban if the moderator feels the apology is genuine and the lesson has been learned

The use of kicks and bans for "joke" purposes is not permitted.

The first guideline reminds mods they have the freedom to take issues on their merits, and to not place a ban or kick if they do not feel it is worthwhile in this situation - a person who is genuinely sorry for taking a joke too far learns nothing from a 3 day ban that they haven't learned from messing up.

The second is making written what is already a semi-written rule.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:27, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. If we use the kick jokes, it makes us look bad. So no kick joking. Energy X 21:16, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
6. Weren't we doing this all along? I guess the fact I had to ask reckons the need for having it noted down somewhere. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. coulda sworn this was already a rule... Richie9999 (talk) 13:17, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
8. --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
9. 
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
10. Abusing powers is not funny what-so-ever. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:57, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
11. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
12. Sigh... this should be common sense. The fact that it isn't has me worried. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 07:00, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
13. Jspoel 15:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
14. Kingclyde (talk)

No

1. I don't get why the "guideline reminder" to take situations based on their merits is needed when it's already stated we can use individual discretion, and I haven't seen a joke kick or ban since before it was classed as wrong anyway. This whole section just seems totally pointless to me. --^Talk 20:29, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'd like to see the 'unable to joke kick/ban' rule uplifted. Would return some of that good old humor in chat I miss. 08:51, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I can explain the reasoning behind the no kick bans part. The only reason they stopped is because I told everyone to stop. While I appreciate the fact that folks did what I asked, I recognize that there may be some point in the future that folks may decide to ignore my request. I, and many others, feel it is completely unprofessional to abuse the tools for fun while at the same time using them with prejudice against users not "in the club" (of chat buddies), so to speak. It sets up a bad precedence where new users can easily misinterpret what a kick is meant to convey. I don't remember one single time in the Corps that we misused our tools and shot at each other for fun. The job, when you need to wear you mod hat, is serious business and the tools are solely for that job. If you're not mature enough to respect the tools or the job, turn in your badge right now, we'll find someone who is. The link to my talk page is right there in my sig.  The Gunny   00:56, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Result

Vote passes. More freedom for moderators in chat-banning and joke kicks are not allowed anymore. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - No Dolan removal

Existing rule

Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language (such as "133t" or "Dolan" speak), and excessive usage of non-English languages. Making arrangements to troll or otherwise disrupt another chat room or service is not permitted in our chatroom. This does not prevent you from joining another chatroom, linking another chatroom, or encouraging others to visit if the topic of conversation is likely to be of interest.

Proposed change

Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. Making arrangements to troll or otherwise disrupt another chat room or service is not permitted in our chatroom. This does not prevent you from joining another chatroom, linking another chatroom, or encouraging others to visit if the topic of conversation is likely to be of interest.

The alternative being that we start enforcing the no Dolan/deliberate distortions rule. This rule is clearly violated by many regulars - including moderators and admins - every day.

Yes, Remove it

1. Not like this ever stopped anyone, anyway. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:28, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. But only if we later clarify trolling in like a wikipedia link or something. Akin to our, Don't be a dick rule. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. It's never really disruptive. If anything, it brings a lot of fun to the chat when it's used. #Saiv da dolun ^{"Anything, for the family"} 02:16, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. u cant keep teh dolan et bay, al atemps to do so r fyootile as jopser sed teh fashist roolz nevar stahpd anywun viva la revulooshun Higgey the Scotsman _{(talk page)} 02:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. What Jasper said. 08:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. dolun 2013 ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 00:25, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

No, Enforce it

1. You're taking out the part about caps and spamming nonsense letters. Were if just dolan, I'd say yes. But removing it all leaves "trolling" by itself up to interpretation. The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. Absolutely not. If it is some strange reference, we should agree, but in general, no. Very nonsensical and out of order. Energy X 21:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Trolling needs clarification--Josef (talk) 07:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. Were it just the Dolun speak dat wuz getting removed I'd be all for it. But the other parts should stay. Richie9999 (talk) 13:19, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. Is there any reason for the changes beyond removing the no-dolan rule? --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. Just like the other deliberate distortions, dolan speak is by default a 'general irritation and disruption' due its inherent obnoxiousness. Allowing those brings nothing worthwhile to the chat.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
7. Trolling needs lots of clarification indeed. It seems the term is largely misused. And I don't see the reason why Dolanspeak is even needed. --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 07:29, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
8. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 15:55, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
9. --NukaTurtle (talk) 16:53, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
10. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 22:04, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
11. If I find someone annoying I generally won't want to be around them. Dolan speak is annoying. Among other things. Great Mara (talk) 10:14, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
12. I care more about it when a whole conversation devolves into it, fun maybe but it is spammy. --^Talk 20:29, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
13. Kingclyde (talk) Dolan speak is childish and disruptive. It turns a conversation into something one does not want to be part of.

Neutral

1. It's usually done in all good fun and if the boundary of "dolan" and whatnot writing is being pushed it can classify as spam so it's own rule isn't totally needed, yet it still can get quite annoying every now and again. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:55, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 04:59, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
3. Not being a chat-goer I'm not familiar how disruptive it is. Seems also to be a bit of fun. Maybe it can get out of hand, not sure. Neutral vote. Jspoel 15:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. The rewrite does more than just remove Dolan speak as a ban-able offense so that's a no for that. At the same time, this rule never stopped any of our more seasoned users from using things like capital letters, misspellings and/or dolan speak simply under the premise that it was not perceived as irritable or irritating by the resident mod(s). If it's really a problem, we would have and continue to do something about it as usual. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 03:38, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Just on Caps/Spamming nonsense... Its my view that these would continue to be covered in rule 10 (spamming). I would be happy to clarify this on Rule 10 concurrently with this. Agent c (talk) 13:32, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

How is writing in all caps any worse than dolan speak? Both are equally obnoxious. If anything, I'd say all caps is better, as at least all caps doesn't require decoding.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

• What is no-dolan or even dolan ? SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 02:09, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Dolan" is a meme, a series of short comics featuring poorly drawn Disney characters with misspelled names (Donald Duck is Dolan, Goofy is Gooby, ect). The comics feature very pool language, misspelling most if not all words (such as please as pls), Dolan speak is the use of such language and no-dolan is a ban on such. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 17:17, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me, any chance of seeing the 'annoying memes' rule gotten rid of? It was also written in without community approval/vote. 04:09, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

"No annoying memes" was added just so we could have another reason to kick people we don't enjoy being around. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 04:11, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds legit. 04:23, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see a rule changed, come up with a proposal... Sounds like something worth considering at the same time as Denis' thing. Agent c (talk) 09:53, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

(←)  Using speech like dolan or all caps makes you look immature and foolish, yet it is something I see from moderators time and time again. Grow up. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 07:04, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Why so serious/sensitive...? You're basically encouraging moderators to be and act like something other than themselves... which is a bad thing for an authority to do, not a good thing. I honestly think the recent bouts of intolerant sensitivity is the real threat in chat. There's a difference between not finding a joke funny and not having a sense of humor. Also, to play the proverbial devil's advocate here, how is hate speech not covered by freedom of speech when the pretty obvious principle of 'freedom of speech' contradicts that...? Better yet, how is it not already covered by the powers that be as it is anyway...? Seems to me all this does is make it easier to ban people perceived as annoying/unpopular... not make chat a more welcoming/friendly place. 16:00, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

There is not, nor has there ever been freedom of speech on this wiki. Speech has always been subject to the rules, so I'm inclined to dismiss that on its merits. As for the sensitivity issue.. When we have users talking about rather graphic depictions of sex, or goading admins into blocking them, I think it this sensitivity talk is more from those who know they've gone too damn far and simply don't give a damn. Agent c (talk) 16:20, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Now, I haven't made a decision yet on which side to be on here. But there is something that I need to address that was just brought up... you guys are using Freedom of Speech in the wrong context. First of all, Wikia does not abide by the Constitution. Secondly, Freedom of Speech only dictates that the American government cannot tell you what you can and can't say; it has nothing to do with making it where you can say anything you want without consequence. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 16:54, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Result

Vote passes. Dolan rule is enforced. Jspoel 21:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Guideline	User conduct guideline
Amendment 1	Comment policy · Vote · 18 January 2011 · 4-3
Amendment 2	Talk page blanking · discussion · Vote · 11 March 2012 · 16-4-1
Amendment 3	Signature image size · Discussion · Vote · 24 January 2013 · 8-3-0
Amendment 4	Multiple accounts · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-2
Amendment 5	Article talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 15 October 2013 · 8-2-1
Amendment 6	Plagiarism enforcement · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0
Amendment 7	Mandatory edit summaries · Vote · 8 October 2021 · 18-10-2
Amendment 8	Editing user and talk pages · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Amendment 9	Multiple accounts and block carryover · Discussion · Vote · 8 April 2022 · 11-0-0
Related topics	Administration policy

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	Discord
Amendment 1	Temp Chat moderators · Vote · 13 January 2013 · 12-3-3
Amendment 2	Kicks and bans · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 14-1-1
Amendment 3	Discord rules · Vote · 15 April 2018 · 14-2-3
Amendment 4	Deleting messages · Discussion · Vote · 20 February 2021 · 7-0-1
Related topics	User conduct guideline · Discord moderation

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	Voting regulations
Amendment 1	Voting rationales · discussion · Vote · 3 October 2012 · 12-3-1
Amendment 2	Voting requirements · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 8-7-2
Amendment 3	Voting requirements · Discussion · Vote · 4 August 2020 · 16-0-1
Amendment 4	Quorum and simple majority · Vote · 17 November 2021 · 12-2-0
Amendment 5	Policy creation and amendment standards · Discussion · Vote · 7 July 2022 · 11-0-1
Related topics	User conduct guideline