User talk:UHM/RationalWiki:Standard Voting Procedure (Proposal)

Just to be clear about this, this is not a version that is ready to use (that's why I put it in userspace). I wouldn't use these rules without clear consensus of the community that they should be implemented, even if only voluntarily. -- 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

users eligible
Ironically, becoming a sysop on RW is easier than becoming autoconfirmed, so there's not much point in distinguishing the two. -- Nx  / talk 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is "auto confirmed". i had that on my name, and didn't understand it.  I'm also "eligible?".  and yes, NX, i'm sure i could look this up. hehe.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @nx: I thought of it as those who may have lost their sysopship in a trial, don't want it or don't have an account that long. On the other side if everything stays as it is, that thing can really be taken out.
 * @WfG: "auto confirmed" means that non of you edits leaves little red "!" in RC. The user group has some basic editing, deletion and renaming rights but no blocking rights. -- 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. RationalWiki:Autoconfirmed users -- Nx  / talk 19:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. I'll take it out. -- 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Goat votes
Shouldn't count for anything. 1. it's too complicated, and 2. it provides a space where people can express their disdain/indifference/lack of interest in the options on the table. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only there to clear up unclear votes. If a user only wants to express their disdain/indifference/lack of interest he could (1) not vote at all or (2) do that somewhere else but on the same page. A user could also go with 0 for both cases and so work towards producing a failed vote, it's completely up to them. -- 19:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If a vote is unclear, a bunch of people voting for an option that has always meant one thing but all of a sudden means another won't clear anything up, it will only make it worse. People can't be counted on to read the instructions. "Goat" has meant "goat" since 2007, and changing it both violates the spirit if goat and will really gum up the works. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 19:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is less work to make two votes or try to clean up an HCM... -- 19:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * HCM + a one or two vote difference worked out by changing what a long-standing term means =/= a solution. It equals MOAR HCM. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 19:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With that logic I can nuke the whole page right now. -- 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 19:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a goat vote. -- 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Majorities and Voting Durations
Maybe majorities should be based on active users, rather than number of voters. I notice that "active editors" in the Statistics page is set at 91 days, but I think that the threshold for accession should be a majority (whether that be 50%+1 or 66% or whatever) of those who are currently active (e.g. in the last 30 days). "Goat" votes would thus be identical to not voting, but for the key difference of being an active abstain vote, which can be useful in my next suggestion on voting duration. The duration should be in the form of some minimum (which would depend on urgency, but I think generally 24 hours is far too short for site-wide decisions; a week would be more appropriate) plus X period past the last vote (i.e. interest has petered out). Likewise once the minimum period is past, there would only be some brief period between the attainment of a majority and closing the vote (immediate would be acceptable in this instance, I guess). These two measures together would ensure that votes actually reflect the overall will of the active community, rather than merely those who feel strongly about the decision and are quick to vote. Tricksy (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Another plus for this form of majority is that Nays or Goats can actually be measured to determine when the Yays cannot gain a majority. If 25 people vote Yay in the first hour, but 500 vote Goat in the next hour (picking numbers out of the air here, but assuming that there are less than 1500 active members), the vote can be summarily closed and the motion failed. Tricksy (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. "Goat" votes mean "goat" and should be given no other weight, value or meaning aside from "goat." P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss. 01:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as you say - it provides a space where people can express their disdain/indifference/lack of interest in the options on the table. That is all this is measuring.  Saying it only means "goat" doesn't really change this; unless voters can vote Goat and either Yay or Nay.  Maybe my suggestin about majorities could stand tweaking in light of this (maybe), but I think it doesn't affect my suggestion about duration.  There is no point waiting to see if members care or not when they have already effectively indicated that they do not.  Tricksy (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents
Good proposal. Here are my thoughts on a few things: Think that's it for now. Any thoughts or comments are most welcome. DickTurpis (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Voter eligibility - Only registered accounts can vote. If an ip votes, the vote is struck out and an indent is put before it to remove it from the tally. If a registered user later claims the vote was made by them, they can sign after it and remove the strike and indent, legitimizing the vote. Furthermore suspicious accounts can be flagged by any user, if they suspect sockpuppetry or other sort of fraud. If 4 mods can agree that this vote is illegitimate, it is removed under the same manner as an anon ip. The process for this can be informal discussion, or perhaps in a more official form, with something like ref tags put after it with a footnote saying "This vote has been flagged as a suspected sockpuppet [tildes]." Within the ref tags would be space for moderators to sign off if they agree. If the requisite 4 do so, the vote is removed.
 * Goat - The proposal of goat votes being counted as partial is too confusing and contrary to how we've been doing things for years. I've always seen it as more like "neutral" votes on WP, or a protest vote, as well as a place for jokers and such to make snide comments without really disrupting the vote.
 * Majority vs. consensus - this is an important matter. So far it seems everything has been done by majority, but there might be a case, for major issues at least, for something more like the rough consensus that generally governs Wikipedia. Much discussion will be needed before we should feel comfortable switching to a consensus format for anything, as it is fundamentally a major change.
 * Closing votes - should be done by mods, to prevent random guy pulling a "this is a bullshit vote, I'm closing this", or calling a vote when they side they support happens to be up by one, or whatever. Ideally, the mods should agree amongst themselves first. Since most votes usually have a clear winner, this isn't a big deal most of the time, but there will be times when votes are very close and controversial, and calling them will have to be handled very carefully. This perhaps should be thought of more as a duty than a right of moderators.
 * Announcements and locations - votes should be held in designated spaces. Right now they're sort of held in a haphazard way an moved about on occasion. Also, for important votes at least, there should be a way to see what's happening other than checking recent changes.
 * In accordance to your comments (great ones btw) and the others I have made some changes. I hope more people can now agree upon it. -- 14:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)