Forum:Voting regulations addendum 1.0

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

This proposal serves as an addendum to the voting regulations policy, which outlines 10 votes are required for quorum on forums relating to policies and procedures. This addendum will expand the quorum requirement to all forum votes, regardless of topic.

Poll

Poll finished on 3:56 am November 17, 2021 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support: # {{yes}} ~~~~ # {{no}} ~~~~ Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. Should have honestly been a thing from the get-go. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 19:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
2. I agree with Fin, it's surprising that this hadn't been covered yet. The Appalachian 20:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
3. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 02:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Hellotalos (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
5. okie dokie >>bow burger box 06:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Yes from me, seems weird to me to have these with only a few users voting. Dare Rodeo IX 03:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
7. Master Miraak (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
8. Should have been all of them to begin with. ~the elusive legume 13:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
9. ~ A better future, underground! 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
10. Makes sense to have the same rule for all votes. Boulder City 15:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
11. This should have been in effect a long time ago. A vote is hardly representative of the wishes of the community if it doesn't have a minimum voting requirement. Without this policy, it's possible for small groups of people, provided they aren't overruled by no votes, to essentially vote somebody in even though the community is disinterested or indifferent to it, which doesn't seem like good practice to me. I wouldn't be surprised if similar logic was employed when this voting regulation was implemented for policy and wiki changes, and I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to rights holder votes. ~TechnoCrusader 21:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
12. why isnt this a thing already>? JustDoggo2 I swear to god if I don't get my damn mugs! IM GOING TO EXPLODE 22:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No

1. I don't believe that the same quorum requirements should be used for non-policy votes. -Eckserah ^{Head Dataminer} 05:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
2. if this is 10 yes votes being required then I'm voting no. Smaller number would be desired. But I gotta vote no anyways because I'm still a little confused. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 22:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Clarification needed, is this 10 votes period or 10 votes to either yes/no over the other? Great Mara (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

It is 10 votes period. For example, a vote that is 7 yes and 2 no would not pass, it would need to be a minimum 10 yes, 2 no. Good question! -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 21:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

do you mean 8 yes 2 no? I find this vote interesting. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 21:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just using random numbers. To reiterate, a minimum of 10 yes votes are needed to achieve quorum, and subsequently pass, a proposal. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 01:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I was under the impression that was already a thing. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 17:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you clairfy with an example of a vote that has passed but would not have if this policy was in place? Agent c (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also really appreciate some clarification as just before I resigned from chat mod I was being told by multiple admins and other rights holders that I was going to lose my rights based off my chat mod request only getting 9 Yes votes instead of 10. I personally don't think a chat mod request falls under policies and procedures. I'm not trying to make this about anything either as I would not attempt to take back my chat mod resignation. Just would really appreciate clarification on this proposal. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 07:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not around when you resigned the other night, but I think Eckserah later pointed out that the 10 vote quorum originally only applied to policy and guideline changes (see here). Apparently, that procedure was taken over for all votes at some point, without being properly codified into our ruleset. This is evidenced by a statement by Saka on /d back in 2017 (see here). So it was more confusing than anything else, and is also the reason why we are currently having this vote. Hope this helps to clarify. –Findabair^{The benefit of the doubt is often doubtful.} 11:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

well thank you for responding. No offense to anyone but not sure Saka saying something 4 and a half years ago makes it rule. But I'm satisfied with that I suppose and I'm glad we're trying to add clarity to the policy. I can understand how the policy, with the way its written, can be interpretted multiple ways. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 15:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

back in the day I believe we understood rights requests to be a process and therefore within scope of the quorum rule. Agent c (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

yeah I got you. I was just confused why this was a vote at all when it was already in place. I now get that different people interpreted it differently and we're just clarifying it to avoid further confusion. You could see how this was awkward to me before clarifying why this was happening, I hope. I'd now ask to give the exact writing of the update or if we haven't yet, then to rewrite the rule slightly before I cast a vote. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 15:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

also something to point out is we don't always have enough active users on the wiki to get 10 yes votes. We sometimes have to advertise or ask people to vote on it when they don't even have any background on the subject. Could be a problem in the future. Also I present an example of where this could be flawed. If the vote has 9 yes votes and 0 no votes it wouldn't pass. But if it has 10 yes votes and 5 no votes it could? Seems a little flawed. Sometimes a vote doesn't spark enough interest for some users to even get involved at all. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 15:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I am happy to clarify from my perspective. My understanding was that all votes were one and the same, held to the same quorum requirement. But I was not sure, so I brought it up to the staff group. Jbour asked me immediately if I was going to take their chat mod rights away, to which I responded no, I had to review, speak with the others, and think about it. This was before Eckserah pointed out that it is not clear, the quorum rule being placed only on the policy vote procedure page, not the rights holder vote procedure page.

In light of a few rights holder forums with less than ten votes, not just the group request of Jbour53, President Augustus, and Overseer X, I thought best to simply grandfather those in and run this vote to clarify for future forums. But Jbour had resigned before I returned to chat the next day to talk about it. To answer your question, Agent c, an example of a vote that has passed but would not have if this policy was in place can be reviewed here. I hope that helps, and keep any questions that you have coming my way, I am happy to answer. --kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Kate, I’m confused. The example you gave has 11 votes, and was a rights process vote, so the quorum rule appears to have been applied (see "The number of votes just reach"), and applied correctly (Quorum was met) Agent c (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not take back my resignation but I'd advise some tool holders to maybe wait on more opinions before telling someone they are losing their rights, then. While I don't desire to be chat mod again at this moment, it most definitely pushed me to just resign to make everything easier. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 19:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is going to make me seem really unsympathetic and please don't take this the wrong way, but regardless of the reasoning, your user rights are your own, and provided you have done nothing to merit them being taken away (resulting from a no-con or permaban from rule-breaking), you have de facto control over what you do with them. You chose to relinquish your chat mod rights, which I understand you have already clarified, but that burden does not rest on others, in my opinion. I can count a list the size of a football pitch in terms of how many times other rights holders have attempted to coerce or be suggestive about other rights holders losing their rights, for seemingly legitimate and illegitimate reasons, understood and misunderstood ones, but at the end of the day, you also chose to relinquish your rights due to a misunderstanding. That doesn't make it your fault, but it doesn't make it the fault of others, either. If anything it was a very poorly written paradigm in our voting policies that was not specific enough, one that was written ages ago, when the wiki makeup and it's composition of rights holders was almost completely different.

I was present to witness that discussion. From the get-go when the status of your rights was under discussion, you felt personally targeted and attacked, and insinuated that Jspoelstra would logically be the next person to lose his rights because of some perceived witch hunt, despite that fundamentally not being the case. To highlight my particular behaviour during that discussion, I never said you were losing your rights and I made sure you knew that I wasn't assuming bad faith, we were simply discussing the status of your chatmod rights as a result of a misunderstanding pertaining to whether the 10 votes minimum requirement was needed for user rights votes. After taking everything personally and refusing to acknowledge anybody's points, you left and resigned as chat mod of your own accord, and even now you are not part of the Nukapedia discord server, so the drastic actions don't lay on one side of the fence or the other here. It's situations like that, which make this vote absolutely necessary, in my opinion. ~TechnoCrusader 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

me bringing up jspoel was a result of being bombarded by multiple people in there in the moment. And tbh I don't consider you to be one of the aggressive ones and had no issue with what you said besides the criticism of me asking for help with d modding one time. That was a bit unprofessional to bring up imo. When someone asks for help you shouldn't later use it against them. Either way I'd like to apologize for even bringing jspoels name into it in that moment. It was irrelevant and he wasn't even there to put his two cents in. Not fair in my doing. Sorry. Also I agree this vote is necessary since it seems to be causing lots of confusion from multiple parties including myself.

however, if you seriously are saying nobody was saying I was losing my rights due to not meeting quorum and we were only discussing it then you must be misremembering. I was told by two admins at least that I was in fact losing my rights. Also I was told that my political views being anarchic in nature as I believe in less regulation, was a reason, my lack of using the tools (example given was in a case where two people began to argue and quickly made up and so I said "sometimes the best action is no action", key word being "sometimes"), and when I expressed my desire to be involved in less discord drama I was told "yeah right. That's what they all say" even though I had shown less involvement in those inner discord dramas the prior day or two. Look I didn't even want to bring up all of that. But you are painting me as a bad guy here and I just felt pressured out. I could feel I clearly didn't fit in any longer and it would be best to resign regardless of the authenticity of my "demotion". But it doesn't change the fact that I feel I was treated unfairly at the end.

Also, just to defend my political views, I've acknowledged many times that while I wish the world could have no regulation, I understand that it's not realistic. But I just caution away from over regulation. And besides what does my political view have to do with my fallout wiki chat moderation ability? Regardless, I only shared this as this topic sparked my brain like "whaaat so I wasn't going to be demoted?" So I thought I'd ask for clarification and express a little bit of why I wanted clarification. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 23:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for even discussing this on here. Back to the subject. If someone feels the desire to talk to me more about it then dm me on Discord or write me on my talk page. But I am fine as is and we should probably move back to the subject. Sorry for that. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 23:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Result

The forum received sufficient support and will be reflected in our voting regulations policy moving forward. -kdarrow ^{take her for a spin!} 23:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)