Wowpedia talk:Voting policy/Archive02

Categories for voting, and listings
I think a policy vote should be in a different category than non-policy voting such as deletion and so on. This way (or even in status quo) we can have a link in the sidebar for the list of votes. There are so many votes going on, and I have no idea what they are. Also, maybe we could have a user-maintained page that lists several high-profile votes, very abbreviated proposals, and what it means to the community. Any other ideas? Schmidt 08:11, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * I'll think on that one for a bit before I chip in with my . Just one thing though: Deletion votes already live in their own category. --Mikk 08:47, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Ok, that was quick. No, I don't see the point in separating regular votes from policy votes. There just aren't that many. (See Category:Votes in progress). However, I agree with your idea of listing them + oneliner summaries somewhere. I'd suggest a new full-page wide box below the community portal. (On a sidenote, I've also been considering automating Village pump talk topic summaries there, but I need a working Linux box somewhere to run the script on. Mine is on the blink and I cba to fix it right now.) --Mikk 08:55, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * (Call me restless) I created a sample page that could be included in a box in the community portal. See Wowpedia:Community_Portal/Democracy  --Mikk 09:26, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Thanks. Good job. This works for what I was talking about. See, I miss so many policy votes it's not funny. Schmidt 11:47, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


 * Heh, and here I was wondering why I never see you voting for or against policies :-)  Anyway, I linked it into the community portal now. --Mikk 12:07, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

= Proposal to simplify regular votes =

''This was moved in from Wowpedia:Policy/Proposal to simplify regular votes after being ratified. --Mikk 06:02, 23 June 2006 (EDT)''

I feel that the current (read: old) voting requirements are a bit too complicated:
 * Minimum vote of 5
 * Winners must outnumber losers by 3 to 1
 * Pending closure time of 3 days

The Proposal
Simplify regular voting rules to:
 * Winners must outnumber losers by 5
 * Pending closure time of 3 days

Particularily, for multiple-choice votes:
 * The "win by 5" rule refers to the closest competitor.

Reasoning
The reasons for this becomes especially apparent when taking multiple-choice votes into account. Even for regular votes, the 3:1 ratio can become rather ridiculous when the opposing votes number more than just a few. If there's 5 votes against, you'd need fifteen votes in favor.

(On a sidenote, 3:1 is rather extreme to begin with, in my opinion. A qualified majority vote as applied everywhere else, is simply 2:1.)

Examples of what's required to win in current (read: old) system vs proposed system:

Policy ratification vote

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments

 * 1) I'm not decided yet, but I just think it's funny to have a vote on a vote :) "Hands up anyone who wants to take a vote?" -- Kirkburn 16:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 * 2) This sounds like you want to use the policy voting process (except for the ratify/adopt part) for generic votes. --Fandyllic 3:40 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006
 * 3) * Buh? The policy voting process clearly states 3:1 ratio for policy votes? --Mikk 16:52, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 * 4) **D'oh, I mistook the blue banner for the proposal. You're supposed to put your proposal before the vote or at least link to it. Some of us are too stupid to click . --Fandyllic 4:33 PM PDT
 * 5) *** lol. *shakes head* Yep. I do belong here. Schmidt 11:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
 * 6) I added an example table to the proposal page to show you exactly what happens at different levels of votes.
 * 7) Oh one thing, I assume you mean the winning side must outnumber the SUM TOTAL of the losing sides? Maybe this should be made clearer?--Ralthor 18:12, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
 * Dear lord no. That'd be a horror with 4+ alternatives. I meant win by 5 over the closest competitor. I'm clarifying the proposal. --Mikk 18:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Votes

 * Delete:


 * Keep:

Comments
This is a nomination to delete all voting areas not devoted to deletion and policy. The templates are out of date, it's completely unused, and it's counter to the philosophy of wikis. Indeed, I would prefer we moved closer to wikipedia-style "vote" processes, but this isn't quite that extreme :P 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for why I've chosen "delete" for this, rather than a policy vote - this is not about recall a policy in effect. It has no current effects, and is not just about removing this specific page, but this list:


 * 1) Wowpedia:Voting policy
 * 2) Template:Vote/Closing
 * 3) Template:Vote/Closing/Content
 * 4) Template:Vote/Note (possibly)
 * 5) Template:Vote/Vote
 * 6) Template:Vote/Vote/Content
 * 7) Template:Vote/Talk

Nice and short! 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Eirik's comment: winning a vote isn't the same as consensus. Far from it in fact, as minority views are pushed away and no compromise is found to please all parties. This isn't about remove the ability to discuss the best method for doing anything, it's about removing an outmoded and inflexible solution. No votes of this type have been carried out for a long time! The tools we all have access to are talk pages, where people can discuss their ideas and a solution for all parties can be found.


 * Note well: this isn't changing the deletion or policy nomination process, this is the older, different "general vote" stuff. 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're using Wikipedia as an example of consensus (which I suspect is the case), then I think the idea of consensus leading to acceptable compromise to opposing parties is a false assertion. Wikipedia is rife with examples of the pretense of consensus leading to an arbitrary decision. Rarely do admins fully explain decisions made by "consensus". I would have to demand a clear and definitive explanation of the form of consensus we plan to use in WoWWiki, if we are using it as a replacement for voting.
 * Consensus as I've seen operate in most scenarios goes like this:
 * x number of people generally want option A.
 * y number of people want option B.
 * x outnumbers y, so the decider picks option A.
 * Group y grumbles and protests.
 * The decider says some stuff about making minor changes and may or may not make them.
 * Group y realizes they are stuffed, basically realize arguing is fruitless, and mostly opts out of the discussion.
 * -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 2:06 PM PDT 1 OCt 2007


 * Again, we don't even use the templates I'm suggesting for deletion. The policy and delete vote stuff isn't being touched by my suggestion. I'm saying we should avoid votes as much as possible (which we seem pretty good at anyway). 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this count, then as a policy and/or deletion vote? Do we have any examples of "general stuff" votes in the past?  ... and, um, if we're not using it, what is the worry about leaving it here?  In part, what is the problem you are trying to solve?  --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (aka Dazed and Confused)


 * I once saw a cleanup or merge vote I think... -- 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Much of the evidence of past voting seems to have been removed or archived, but there have been a few votes in the past as the wiki was growing. See the what links here for the Accepted template to see a list of past votes that have been accepted. Most votes seem to win, since the list of what links here for the Declined is much shorter.
 * The argument that this policy is not heavily used or appears philosophically distasteful seems to be a weak argument, but you can vote to delete it. It seems strange you have to vote to delete something with the implication that consensus would be better when obviously consensus would prevent deleting it. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 4:50 PM PDT 1 Oct 2007

There's 6 votes to delete as I write this and 2 votes to keep. Consensus does not prevent actions from being taken, nor would it "save" this article. What this is affecting would not affect this type of vote. The WW:VOTE page currently gives the impression that voting on many different types of article changes is a good thing - which is plainly isn't, as we'd never get anything done.

The fact that nearly all votes win does fairly help my argument - in some cases it can show that the "no" people got little choice in the matter and couldn't influence the outcome by creating a consensus, and it can also show that there wasn't much point voting in the first place. Many decisions are also not black and white "yes/no" - voting doesn't often allow for shades of grey. In fact, even this vote doesn't allow for shades of grey. I've nominated it for deletion, and I have no way of altering that to say "I want to remove the templates and process, but keep the outline of the page" as we're stuck in "delete or not do anything".

As for "why does it matter that this exists if it's not used". It's another policy for people to wade through when they want something done, plus it gives the wrong impression. It's also another set of pages and templates to maintain. Note that I have not set this to pending closure, since this is important. 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The page... just doesn't make any sense. At all. Why should we vote on what to name a page? That's just confusing! People need to use the talk pages for that sort of thing, not some sort of vote. blgh. In effect, how it is currently set up does make it worthless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * Some issues here that need to be cleared up:
 * Are we trying to delete this stuff because Kirkburn feels he needs to keep them up-to-date, but doesn't want to?
 * Are we trying to delete this stuff because we think consensus is the way to go and voting has no place?
 * If consensus is the way to go, can we agree on what that means?
 * I'd like some answers to these questions. I really hope #1 is not the case, because that just seems silly. #2 may be really what's going on, but if so then we should say that is the intent plainly. #3 Is very important, since most examples of consensus try to keep the definition vague so almost any action can be justified.
 * I'm pretty sure I'm going to be on the losing side on this issue, but I didn't move out of the USA when G.W. Bush got elected and re-elected, so sometimes you just gotta be bitter. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 11:03 AM PDT 2 Oct 2007
 * One last thing... Wikipedia... ugh. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr)

Though this sounds like a broken record: we don't use this stuff. I am not suggest we delete or change the deletion and policy processes (at this time). This is about getting rid of stuff that gives the wrong impression. We don't vote on the stuff the article suggests, we never have. 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep the policy. It's been a big help when we've utterly failed to reach concensus, and when a vote has been too restrictive in number of options, we've started a new vote with more options based on comments in the first vote. The fact that it's not being used much isn't a good enough reason to remove it imo - it just means we can reach concensus often. I also think the built-in time restrictions and number of votes requierd is a good thing for when concensus fails - it gives people time to react if they don't read the village pump several times daily or hang out in IRC. -- Mikk (T) 03:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the intro by the way:
 * Votes conducted according to this policy are considered enforceable. You are of course free to set up a vote whichever way you like, but you are much less likely to receive backing from other contributors and/or administrators if someone reverts changes you make as a result of the outcome.
 * That's what it's there for. And it works for it. I've had situations in the past where I have no idea about e.g. what goes on on some server and there's a revert war going on. Forcing them to do a vote tells me at least what the majority think. -- Mikk (T) 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My compromise would be to substantially alter the page contents to be far simpler, and just be an outline of the vote process. 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be ok with that. And changing the wording to something more along the lines of "when you can't reach consensus, here's how to do a vote that admins will back up". And I certainly wouldn't mind scrapping the vote template, it just causes a mess with markup. -- Mikk  (T) 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, the article will be kept, but somewhat changed. 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

True colors vs alternate skins
Has anyone looked to how the "yes" and "no" appear on the various alternate skins? Are they always acceptable? Sometimes? Should they set BG color as well as FG color, to guarantee a standard appearance? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)