Fallout Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Fallout Wiki
Nukapedia: The Fallout Wiki
48,640
pages
in: Wiki proposal votes (archived)

Forum:Vote wrap-up - Requirements for voting, admin ranks, music

View source
Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Vote wrap-up - Requirements for voting, admin ranks, music


Hi Folks,

Thought I'd wrap up a few discussions we've had recently to official poll status. If anyone objects to my suggestion we can mix in the suggested omitted polls, however I've omitted them due to lack of apparent support on the discussion pages.

Reforming the Voting System

  • Raised by: Stars and Stripes
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: Second round of voting unless there is an absolute majority of all votes, including neutrals.
    • Proposal 2: A 2/3 majority of admins to be able to veto B/c calls.
  • Feedback: Overwelmingly against on both proposals.
  • Suggestion: If there are no objections, I suggest we consider this dropped for now and don't bring it to a vote.

Comments

User rights requests and temporary chatmod rights

  • Raised by: Agent c
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: "Good Behaviour Period" be required to be met before running for posts (6months and no bans ever suggested)
    • Proposal 2: Code for appointing temporary chatmods based on stated criteria.
  • Feedback
    • Proposal 1: Mixed to a 3-6 month period, Negative to a total prohibition.
    • proposal 2: Limited, but positive.
  • Suggestion: Drop total ban. Otherwise persue both.

Vote 1: Good behaviour requirement before calling a (user rights) vote

Proposal, that the following be added to the user requirements:

Users who have any ban from chat or the wiki on their account must show a period of good behaviour of at least 6 months from their most recent incident before running for Moderator, Chat Moderator or Administrator
Note:This applies only to user rights requests. Policy changes can continue to be proposed as per normal.

Note: Voting for 3 Months rather than 6.

  • If you would not support a 6 month period, but think a 3 month period is appropriate, please vote either No, or Neutral, but note this in your comments.
  • If you are in favour of a 6 month period, your vote will be taken to mean you would be in favour of a 3 month period if the 6 month period failed to pass unless you note otherwise in your vote.

Yes

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes A good measure to *prevent* misbehaving. --Theodorico (talk) 06:12, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes I wouldnt want Ted Bundy in the police force. Same here (to a lesser extreme). JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:42, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. YesIt is still too small a timeoff, but better than none. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 01:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 23:53, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes Whether they served time on bans or not, they're representing the order of the wiki. Not exactly the best example of this with a recent ban history. User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 22:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes --DragonBorn96Talk 22:56, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes Makes future candidates more accountable I think. BADTFLLaser permit requisition
  9. Yes Ima highly supportive of this, if ya got banned ya should take some time off to rethink yer behavior towards the rules before telling folks to follow them. CharlesLeCheck Icon check


Excluded votes

Yes Everyone can make mistakes. It is part of living life & learning. Debt paid to society, should be just that "Paid" SaintPain TinySaintPain→ See Below : SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:39, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

No

  1. No This is not necessary. If a request is made within too little time of a ban, then voters will naturally notice that. --Skire (talk) 03:16, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. No anyone with an idea should be able to put A vote on weather their idea should be implemented or not, the people decide if that idea is good or not with their voting, so no, but in my humble opinion there should be no limit, 0 months is good enough, just vote no if you don't like what they have to say Wildwes7g7 (talk) 04:11, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. No They did their crime and paid their time. I don't believe any further disciplinary restrictions are merited.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  4. No Thanks to The_Old_World_Relics clarification of the poll and some thought I'd say I most agree with Gunny's comment above as I paraphrase".. "Paid their time. I don't believe any further disciplinary restrictions are merited." SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:36, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  5. No Kingclyde (talk) If they run for a postion and they just got over a ban a month ago, the likelihood that they will get elected to the position is not good. Seems like an unneeded rules.
  6. No Doubt that it will do anything good - if the user is banned and makes a mod request, then the Community will vote whether he/she is trusted enough to become a mod. Seems unnecesary. Energy X Signature0 14:39, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral--The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Neutral--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 00:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Neutral--FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:49, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I'm sort of in the middle. Old system 2 months is too soon for people with ban history (like it turned out for Dead Gunner), 6 months is too many, people don't deserve that much punishment. But all in all I'm in favor of a small change, to "protect" people from disappointment I felt DG had with his request. Four (4) months to mark the difference. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:49, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Neutral In between on this one, I understand having a small period before they can apply, but maybe it isn't necessary. On the other hand, maybe there should be a policy that someone has to list their bans on their application, pretty sure people have applied and I wouldn't learn they received a ban till someone else makes a comment about it later. Paladin117>>iff bored; 04:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Neutral If two months is too short for a sizable number of well respected users, then those running should either keep that in mind, or have this time extended. However, six months feels too long when I think about it and I'd prefer the middle ground of four months. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Vote 1)

I feel 3 or 4 months shows just the same amount of dedication to staying here at Nukapedia and striving for better as 6 months, so I feel a smaller number then 6 months is good enough. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm fine with a 6 month grace period, I feel 3 suffices in most circumstances.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 00:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer the six month period. USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wes, I think you misuderstand the "Good behaviour" vote. It applies to requests for additional user rights, not to policy. So if it passed someone with a chatban couldn't run for chatmod for 6 months, but still could propose votes on anything else. Agent c (talk) 21:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

In light of understanding my misunderstanding I still keep the no vote but change the 0 months to 2 months(keeping it the same I think), you can just vote no if you don't want someone to become A mod,it's as simple as that, but thanks for helping to clear this up for me Chad! (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 01:19, January 7, 2013 (UTC))

If I read this correct it says a yes vote might still allow a member more rights after a time. So I voted YES. I would hate to see a mistake to hold well-intentioned members back if they had ambitions to serve with more responsibility.

SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 04:54, January 7, 2013 (UTC) EDIT: The_Old_World_Relics clarified the poll. I will edit my vote to "NO" Please see bellow for details. SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

People already can gain rights after being banned. Voting yes adds that they must wait an additional 6 months after the ban ending before they can try, instead of immediately like they can now. Paladin117>>iff bored; 04:56, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
Voting YES means you support the person having to wait 6 months after a b an before they can run for an extra rights tools. Voting NEUTRAL means you feel that the person should have to wait before running for any extra rights tools, yet feel 6 months is too long, instead 3 months is good enough. And voting NO means you support no wait time between bans and being able to run for any extra rights tools. Hope this clears everything up Saint, have a nice evening. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 04:59, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thank You The_Old_World_Relics. I will appropriately edit my vote. To "No" as in " I support no wait time between bans and being able to run for any extra rights tools." IMO the community should say yea or neigh to when and who should gain more responsibility.

I'd like to know if this also accounts for patroller requests (sice they are treated differently from other requests). I feel as if preventing a person from becoming a patroller because of a chat ban is very inappropriate. Please clarify. USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:02, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

This refers only to votes for chatmod powers, so merely requesting patroller rights won't be affected.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 01:28, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
I would assume patroller rights aren't included. All other user rights requests are, however, according to the original proposal (it's also chat or wiki bans). --Skire (talk) 01:31, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Vote 2: Temporary Chat mod guidelines

That the following guidelines be added to the chat administration policy:

Temporary chat mods should, in general, be appointed only when the following criteria apply.
  • When 3 or more chatters are engaged in active conversation
  • When there are no other active users with Chatmod rights
  • When attempts to ping any logged in, but "away" chatmod users have failed
  • When to not appoint a temporary mod would either leave chat unprotected, or where the sole remaining chatmod cannot dedicate the time to continuously monitor chat
  • When the last mod has a good faith reason to believe the rights may be required
  • There do not appear to be any chatmods editing the wiki who can visit chat.
The Delegating admin shall
  • only appoint a single Temporary Chatmod at any time
  • Report usage of this feature to a bureaucrat (or another Bureaucrat in the case of Gunny, Clyde, J, Ghost) via talk page.
  • Ensure the rights are removed upon their return
  • Review any corrective measures (Kicks and bans) placed by the receiving moderator.
The Receiving moderator shall
  • Refresh their familiarity with the rules, and clarify any best practice in enforcement. They should clarify any questions about enforcement with the admin before they leave.
  • Upon the return of an Administrator to chat, inform them of the situation so the rights can be removed
  • Take a Screen capture / log of any bans issued for review later by an appointed mod.
When appointing a temporary mod
  • Consider the persons record - Are they Clear from Chat bans for a reasonable period? Are they a Patroller? Do they have a long tenure with us? How active have they been recently?
  • Consider their behaviour and maturity level. Are they likely to misuse the powers? Do they play fast and loose with the rules?
  • Are they a potential permanent Chatmod? A temporary appointment is a sign that maybe a new mod is required. Is this person likely to be interested in the job?

Yes

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes --Skire (talk) 03:17, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 04:07, January 6, 2013 (UTC))
  6. Yes FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:01, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes Frankly, I'm not really certain why this even needs to codified. We already have the ability to appoint folks using sound judgement when needed. As far as I know, no one has ever challenged our ability to do this, so the need for a formal rule makes little sense to me. But yes, if we need a rule, this will do dandy.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  9. Yes yeah. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:46, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yes I'm going to vote yes because I think this is an agreeable guideline... however I also think that it is quite the checklist for a situation that may need immediate attention if the last admin present doesn't have the time to check all of these down should an emergency arrive in their lives. But our temporary chat mod rights have always been handled well and without a hitch and I'm confident that our admins can uphold the responsibility of this checklist so that it may serve to answer any questions chat users might have after-the-fact. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Yes User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 22:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Yes It's good to have clear guidelines. BADTFLLaser permit requisition

No

  1. No Kingclyde (talk) To be honest, that guideline is really to bulky and unneeded. We should really leave it to whoever the last mod/admin/bc is in chat who has to appoint the "emergency chat mods" judgement. Making this guideline is basically stating "hey chatmod/admin/bc, we know you are a good guy/gal but we really don't trust your judgement on determining what makes a good 5 minute emergency chat mod so we will give you this checklist of 9 items before you the elected chat mod/admin/bc can do so. Because we trust your judgement." I'm firmly against this.
  2. No I can't really say that is the solution, maybe just a tempoary one. My bet is to have more moderators at times when basically no chat mod/admin is around. The alternative is to call someone who is editing and he has the power to ban people from chat. But if there is really a need to place a chat mod, I'd say that's the last solution. Energy X Signature0 14:35, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
  3. No I'm with Kingclyde here, the admins know what and when to do what they gotta do. If they don't then we got some lousy admins and these guidelines ain't gonna change that. I say give them guys and gal a vote of confidence. CharlesLeCheck Icon check

Neutral

  1. Neutral I am quite sceptical about these guidelines and whether or not they will be used and followed. I am of the belief than in the relative haste of someone needing someone with rights these guidelines will be forgotten and things will carry on as they are now. Unless I am shown that these guidelines will definitely followed and that people will commit to following this planned procedure of appointment then I cannot vote a full yes. --DragonBorn96Talk 22:56, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Can there really be an emergency in chat ?
  • This sounds like over reaction and that only births more reaction.. Chat should be a place less regulated than articles. "The articles are well served by rules & guidelines."
  • Chat should not be used as a test ground for future mods. that just breeds tattle tales. SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 01:30, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral "Chat should not be used as a test ground for future mods. that just breeds tattle tales." This won me over. Also, if we start making being a temp mod an unofficial requirement for later achieving full moderatorship, we'll creating an unfair advantage to those who didn't happen to be around during a 'crisis', and to those who didn't happen to be prefered by the admin giving the temp rights.
    Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 13:31, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Vote 2)

I agree that having temp mod rights should not be seen as a "Requirement" for running for chatmod...
The intention is the opposite in that if I'm looking at a user list that for instance includes Happylice and OWR... Now I'd personally be more or less equally happy with either being temp chatmod, I think both have the maturity and experience to use the chatmod tools appropriately. However, I know one of these users has a clear interest in the job (Relics), whereas the other does not. The guidelines would in turn suggest that Relics should get priority (all other things being equal) as Relics has the interest in doing the job permenently.
Can it be used to show that he is able to do the job come a vote, yes, I guess that is the case (as is anything on the wiki where one shows initiative); however it shouldn't be held against anyone if they don't - ideally we should never have to appoint a temp chatmod. Agent c (talk) 15:31, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk Page Music and music on article pages

  • Raised by: TP music Limmiegirl, Other pages Agent c
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: Music on Talk pages be either prohibited, not set to Autoplay, or player in a unified location.
    • Proposal 2: Music on article pages either not be set to Autoplay, or only set to Autoplay when the music itself is the subject of the article.
  • Feedback:
    • Proposal 1: Some support for a compromise position between blocking, and unregulated.
    • Proposal 2: Limited but favourable support.
  • Suggestions:
    • Proposal 1: With no resistance to the unified position as compromise, move to a Prohibited/Unified position/no restriction vote. If there are no objections, Leave off No autoplay for now as an alternate compromise if no consensus this round.
    • Proposal 2: Bring forward.

Vote 3: Music on talk pages should be...

(Vote one only)

Unrestricted

Only limited to the player being in a unified position to allow quick/easy disable

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:32, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes don't see why not, so long as we have the option of turning it off (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC))
  4. Yes I used to have a problem finding the player on certain talk pages. If they are all at the top and immediately visible when the page loads, the first thing I will do is hit pause if I do not wish to hear music. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 06:27, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes no point in having it there if it isnt going to play. May as well just have a link to the video, if you dont like it then you can pause or mute it (note: if autoplay on all pages is disabled, then my vote will change to disabled for user talks too) JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:48, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes I agree with Agent C's reasoning in the discussion thread, prohibiting autoplay would in effect be a backdoor ban on TP music. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪
  7. Yes Why have it if ain't gonna play right away? Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate 04:33, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes The pause button is easily accessible, same as the volume control. I don't see any issue with TP images, why an issue with TP music? Audio/Visual, both user-defined and auto-loaded content. User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 22:37, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Yes After reviewing the comments I agree disabling autoplay would remove the spirit of having the music. It is still moderately annoying, but there are other possible solutions other than eliminating autoplay. FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 23:48, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yes Same as A Follower, maybe it's not such a terrible burden to press pause if I don't like the music. BADTFLLaser permit requisition
  11. Yes What the problem with pausing the darned little thing if ya don't want to listen to it? Folks want to have a bit of fun on their talk pages, just let them... CharlesLeCheck Icon check 00:31, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Autoplay prohibited

  1. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 03:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes I can push play myself, if I want to. --Theodorico (talk) 06:22, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes People should not be confronted with music when they want to ask a question (especially to an admin). It only distracts. Maybe now it's a bit of fun but it's not user-friendly. A newbie wouldn't know that fast where to find the "off-switch". Even I didn't, the first time I heard music playing. You can add a music bar to a userpage, that's really your own page. Talkpage is much more public possession, so to speak and should be kept "clean". Also more professional, in my opinion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes I can not longer stand loading up talk pages and having to turn off all the music. Put it on your user page.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  5. Yes As per Gunny and Jspoel. Users' talk pages are still a communication tool first and foremost, and while personalisation is OK it should not be imposed upon anyone or serve as even a minor inconvenience. --Skire (talk) 22:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes I find autoplay annoying, I don't want to listen to your music if I'm on your talk page, keep it on the userpage. Richie9999 (talk) 04:02, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes I wish I could vote with more zeal. Especially on articles, it's so annoying, and unprofessional, I never liked autoplay. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 04:27, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes Music should not be auto play. However, if the music player control is in a standard location it will make it easier to "sample" member's music as the page visitor's option. I am all for sharing music. I just wish it was optional & more easily accessed in a standard location. SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 06:09, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Yes In the interest in not begging questions from other people in the room whenever I browse the computer I'd rather not have unwarranted music if I can help it, and the music on talk/user pages are almost always rather loud. If I am in a position to want music to play, I will then press play, but as it stands, I turn any music off more than I let it keep playing whenever I browse user pages. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:28, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yes Kingclyde (talk) Some people keep their player's in an obvious place, some don't. Some people's songs start off hella loud in the office (not good) some don't. (That is from a lunch incident explained in the discussion forum). Regardless, as some have suggested above, it is not a "backdoor to getting it removed altogether". That kind of paranoia is silly.
  11. Yes If it is something I don't like (and still have to say something), it seems exhausting pressing the pause button again and again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energy X (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
Excluded votes
  1. Yes can crash browsers otherwise. I will push play if and when I want. FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:51, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes If people want it they can start it themselves. BADTFLLaser permit requisition

Prohibited

Comments (Vote 3)

KC, it's not paranoia -- it would be an effective backdoor ban because there would be no point in adding music without autoplay since nobody would really bother starting the player. It's like allowing your kids to play as much videogames as they like, so long as the games are boring golf simulators. Might as well prohibit it altogether.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 13:46, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Remember, as this was covered in the discussion, this is talk page only, user pages can still have the autoplay function which in all reality is where all of your customization takes place in the first place anyways. Examples are my user page. What if I had all of those custom videos on my talk page as well. That seems silly. The user page is the main page for you to customize and make your own. You can add music, videos, infoboxes, whatever you like as long as it falls with in guidelines.This vote is for the talk page, not the user page. If I go to your user page and your music autoplays, awesome. I, personally don't feel however that it should autoplay when I want to leave you a message on your talkpage. And the example comparing the perceived "backdoor ban" with the video game example is odd at best.--Kingclyde (talk) 21:34, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
Lim is right here. It's not a choice of "allow", "allow without autoplay" and "do not allow" so much as it's a choice of "allow" or "do not allow". No one is going to press play on the player, if you dont want it to play then vote on not allowing it. Your point about how talk pages arnt userpages is irrelevant as it doesnt change the fact that a "allow without autoplay" vote is basically a "do not allow at all" vote when it comes to talk pages. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:03, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

I like how whenever someone's explanation of something that is clearly defined but does not fit how another person wishes to see things makes the first persons argument somehow "irrelevant". I've always loved that. It would seem to me that all of this should have been a little more hammered out in the discussion phase before being brought to a vote. If you guys seriously think that if autoplay gets voted to be turned off that it means "then end of autoplay" then maybe this should have come up in discussion. Again Jasper, maybe you did not read what I read about user pages and talk pages and the specifics of this vote. If not, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the votes wording before calling someones argument irrelevant to the topic. This vote only affects autoplay on talk pages, not userpages. That was what I was pointing out. How that is seen as irrelevant by you is beyond me. --Kingclyde (talk) 03:44, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

It did come up in the discussion. Limmie quoted me from that discussion. Agent c (talk) 04:07, January 10, 2013 (UTC)
Actually Clyde if you had read my comment you'd find that I already know this is about talk pages, not userpages. Please quote me saying that this is to do with userpages.
“Your point about how talk pages arnt userpages is irrelevant as it doesnt change the fact that a "allow without autoplay" vote is basically a "do not allow at all" vote when it comes to talk pages”— Me


On talk pages. Not userpages. This whole vote has nothing to do with userpages, we're not here to discuss that so right now I dont care about userpages in the slightest, hence me saying they are "irrelevent". So I think I have the the specifics of this vote of the vote down, seeing as I'm here to debate the use of music on talk pages.
What's being talked about right here (in the comments) is how a ban on autoplay on talk pages would basically be a ban on music on talk pages because people who vist your talk page probably wont go to the effort of clicking play and thus your talk page music would go inlistened to by most, which is pretty much the same as banning all music on talk pages. You relating this to userpages just deflects the issue of this basically being a backdoor ban instead of the happy mid point it pretend to be. How talk pages are not userpages would be a good argument for banning it on talk pages altogether, but doesnt really matter at this point because this is talking about how a ban on autoplay on talk pages would be more or less the same as a full ban on music on talk pages. I cant stress this point enough: the difference between talk pages and user pages doesnt matter in terms of the use of an autoplay ban being the same as a full ban JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 00:01, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hawk's vote to me shows exactly how this is *not* paranoia. If it doesnt autoplay, people wont bother to put it on. I'd be likely to remove it as being pointless too. Agent c (talk) 22:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)


Maybe people not bothering to turn it on if it's not automatically playing shows you how much they want to hear your music? --Skire (talk) 03:46, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Vote 4: Music on other articles should...

Always Autoplay

Autoplay only when the subject of an article

  1. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:37, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC))
  3. Yes I have found the music articles put on Fo1 and Fo2 town pages to be very good at setting the kind of ambiance that is expected in Fallout games and have no problem with them. Even if I am in the middle of a public setting I can always just turn it off and as it stands now I let the article songs play more than I turn them off. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:45, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes It's just a few articles, don't reckon it's a bad thing here. CharlesLeCheck Icon check

Never Autoplay

  1. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Skire (talk) 03:18, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes I can push play myself, if I want to. --Theodorico (talk) 06:22, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:52, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes I'm going along with Theo. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes Just to be consistent with my above vote. I've turned pretty cool against any autoplay of music since we've been trying it out.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  7. Yes Distracting and irrelevent to the page ,unless it's the page for that music, in which case I still wouldnt want it blaring at me. If they want to listen to it, they can. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes It is a feature I find to be incredibly annoying, on a user page, I can understand but for an article like a location I think its annoying, and if there shouldn't autoplay. Richie9999 (talk) 04:00, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Yes I usually don't have my speakers on anyway, but I can understand it being annoying to others. Paladin117>>iff bored; 04:29, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yes Music should not be auto play. However, if the music player control is in a standard location it will make it easier to "sample" member's music as the page visitor's option. I am all for sharing music. I just wish it was optional & more easily accessed in a standard location SaintPain TinySaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 05:24, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Yes Kingclyde (talk)
  12. Yes Theo does make a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energy X (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Comments (Vote 4)

Results

We are currently looking at all the votes. There's some pretty mixed results on a couple here and we will carefully deliberate over the correct course of action. Results will be posted as soon as possible. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 01:21, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Vote #1

The motion for a good behavior clause to be added to the requirements for extra rights positions (voted only) has passed as written with the altered requirement of 3 months after any bans or blocks. This is a compromise position, taking into account that none of the positions were able to gain a simple majority of votes.

Vote#2

The motion for rules to appoint temporary chat mods has passed as written.

Vote#3

The motion for placement of the You Tube player on user talk pages was tied. With the community being split between the compromise position of placing the player in a standard place on talk pages and the position of no autoplay at all, we have decided to take this issue under consideration and reserve the right to render a final verdict on the motion after further consideration or at a later date. There will be no immediate change to the current policies regarding usage of the You Tube player on talk pages. This decision was not made lightly, as we are cognizant of the both sides of the issue. We will work to find a consensus position.

After clarification of Jasper's vote on the issue, since his stated position is that if articles go to no autoplay, his vote changes to no autoplay on talk pages, the vote total for music on user talk pages is 10 for consistent position of player with autoplay and 12 for no autoplay. The motion passes for no autoplay of music on user talk pages. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 20:25, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Vote#4

The motion for placement of the You Tube player on article pages without the use of autoplay passes as written.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 23:41, January 13, 2013 (UTC)


Policy vote forum overview
PolicyUser rights request policy
Proposal discussionDiscussion
Proposal voteVote
Date and result16 February 2022 · 12-0-1
Amendment 1Good behavior clause · Vote · 13 January 2013 · 9-6-6
Amendment 2Moderator endorsements for chatmod · Discussion · Vote · 12 June 2016 · 15-1-3
Amendment 3Granting patroller tools · Discussion · Vote · 16 April 2021 · 28-1-2
Related topicsAdministrators and moderators · Forum vote records · Administration policy · Rights holder activity policy
Policy vote forum overview
PolicyDiscord
Amendment 1Temp Chat moderators · Vote · 13 January 2013 · 12-3-3
Amendment 2Kicks and bans · Discussion · Vote · 15 June 2013 · 14-1-1
Amendment 3Discord rules · Vote · 15 April 2018 · 14-2-3
Amendment 4Deleting messages · Discussion · Vote · 20 February 2021 · 7-0-1
Related topicsUser conduct guideline · Discord moderation
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement