RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/Archive13

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, (new)(back)

Procedure for voting standards votes[edit]

After a lengthy discussion over at RW:ATIM, I'm placing the "official" draft of the procedure for the impending votes on voting standards. (The most recent draft of the entire proposal, including the votes themselves, can be found here.) If anyone has any more concerns that this procedure will result in illegitimate outcomes, speak now.

  • Accounts which are eligible to vote must have
    • at least 75 total edits, and
    • a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of these votes
  • All votes will last fourteen (14) days
  • An intercom to the group sitewide-urgent will stay up for the duration of the votes
  • Votes with more than two options will use instant-runoff voting (also known as preferential voting, ranked-choice voting and the alternative vote)
    • In this system, if, after all the first choices of all ballots are counted, no one option has achieved a majority, the option with the fewest votes is eliminated and a new round of counting takes place. Each ballot with a first choice for the eliminated option is then counted as a vote for its next-highest-ranked option. This process continues until the winning option receives a majority of the vote against the remaining options.
    • If, after all ballots are exhausted, no option has achieved a majority, the two options with the most first-choice votes will go to a seven-day runoff with the same eligibility and intercom requirements. At that time, the options may be reevaluated, and one or both may be replaced with a compromise option which is felt may receive a greater number of votes.
    • Options are presented in a numbered list. When voting, rank your choices from most preferred to least preferred and add your ballot like this:
      • 2, 1, 3, 4 Blue (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You are not required to include all the available options in your ranked-choice ballot.
    • At the conclusion of the votes, the round-by-round calculations will be posted alongside the official results.
  • In votes with only two options, the option with more votes passes. For these votes, signing under your preferred option constitutes a vote for that option.

Again, speak up now if you have concerns about this procedure's legitimacy. Blue Talk 03:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearer standards[edit]

Concerns regarding the upcoming voting standards votes[edit]

If all goes well, we will begin the voting standards votes by the time two days have elapsed from this point forward (12:00 AM EST, or 04:00 AM UCT October 12). I am marking out this section for anyone to raise any concerns regarding the substance of the votes, the current draft of which can be found at Forum:Voting standards#Second draft. We have discussed this issue for a long time, and the proposal has had a while to gestate. Much time was also spent determining the procedure by which we will vote. I do not believe that any part of this process has been rushed - quite the contrary - or that insufficient notice was given to the general userbase. Blue Talk 03:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs secret ballot. Fools. 71.233.37.32 (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Who are these fools to whom you're referring? I am but one person. And perhaps you would like to ask Trent to write a MediaWiki extension to handle seven separate votes, five of them instant-runoff? I don't believe that would be necessary to ensure people vote their conscience. Blue Talk 06:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Here it is[edit]

STANDARDS FOR VOTING[edit]

In recent months, various issues with our voting process (and lack thereof) have become apparent. This prompted my essay, the ensuing discussions and the forum, where these issues gestated and many people offered suggestions. Over the last month or so, no one has argued that a set of voting standards are not needed, though there was some disagreement over which types of votes we should introduce standards for. It is time for a wide-ranging, decisive set of votes.

Regulations[edit]

Background terms[edit]

Policy votes are votes which have as their proposition the alteration of these Community Standards.
Penalty votes are votes which have as their proposition the penalization of a user. Some distinction will be made between votes to ban a user and votes to penalize a user through anything less drastic.
Minor votes are anything else we might vote on, such as upgrading articles to silver status or cover story status.
A positive option is any option in a vote that is not nay, goat or none of the above.

Procedure[edit]

The procedure for this set of votes has been determined by myself in consultation with the rest of the moderators after a two-week period for community input. This procedure is unique to this particular vote, and is as follows:

  • Accounts which are eligible to vote must have
    • at least 75 total edits, and
    • a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of these votes
  • All votes will last fourteen (14) days
  • An intercom to the group sitewide-urgent will stay up for the duration of the votes
  • Votes with more than two options will use instant-runoff voting (also known as preferential voting, ranked-choice voting and the alternative vote)
    • In this system, if, after all the first choices of all ballots are counted, no one option has achieved a majority, the option with the fewest votes is eliminated and a new round of counting takes place. Each ballot with a first choice for the eliminated option is then counted as a vote for its next-highest-ranked option. This process continues until the winning option receives a majority of the vote against the remaining options.
    • If, after all ballots are exhausted, no option has achieved a majority, the two options with the most first-choice votes will go to a seven-day runoff with the same eligibility and intercom requirements. At that time, the options may be reevaluated, and one or both may be replaced with a compromise option which is felt may receive a greater number of votes.
    • Options are presented in a numbered list. When voting, rank your choices from most preferred to least preferred and add your ballot like this:
      • 2, 1, 3, 4 Blue (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • You are not required to include all the available options in your ranked-choice ballot.
    • At the conclusion of the votes, the round-by-round calculations will be posted alongside the official results.
  • In votes with only two options, the option with more votes passes. For these votes, signing under your preferred option constitutes a vote for that option.
  • Do not edit the existing options or add new options. Edits of this sort will be reverted. This is to preserve the integrity of the IRV system.

At the conclusion of all votes, the winning options will be compiled and written up in a new section in the Standards.

Duration[edit]

This first voting period of two weeks began at 2:40am UTC October 14 2011 (10:40pm EST Oct 13; 3:40am BST Oct 14) and will run until 2:40am UTC October 28 2011 (10:40pm EST Oct 27; 3:40am BST Oct 28).


This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: See below

Vote 1: Franchise (edit count requirement)[edit]

In policy and penalty votes, the franchise will consist of:
1. Users with at least 150 edits
2. Users with 100 edits
3. Users with 75 edits
4. Users with 50 edits
5. Users with 50 edits in the (main) namespace
6. Users with 50 edits in the (main) talk namespace
7. All sysops
8. All registered users

Vote here:

  • 3, 4, 5, 7, 6, 2, 1, 8 Blue Talk 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 8B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2, 3, 1, 5, 6, 4, 7, 8 SoCal 212 03:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2, 3, 1--ADtalkModerator 03:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 4, 5, 3, 2, 7--"Shut up, Brx." 04:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2, 3, 1, 4 DamoHi 05:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 5, 6 -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 07:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 3, 2, 1 -- Nx / talk 07:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 4, 3, 2 --TheEgyptiansig001.png 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5, 8, 7 Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, 8, 7 Tytalk 14:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2, 3, 4, 1, 7 Mountain Blue (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC) I'd like to thank Blue for starting and moderating the debate that's led up this vote. It must have been a considerable amound of work and it's an important step forward for the wiki that someone took the initiative to do this.

Vote 2: Franchise (registration date requirement)[edit]

In policy and penalty votes, the franchise will consist of:
1. Users with a registration date at least 3 months prior to the conclusion of the vote
2. Users with a registration date 2 months prior to the conclusion of the vote
3. Users with a registration date 1 month prior to the conclusion of the vote
4. All sysops
5. All registered users

Vote here:


Vote 3: Thresholds[edit]

In policy votes and penalty votes with the goal of banning a user, a positive option must accrue at least _____ to pass; in all other penalty votes, a positive option must accrue _____ to pass:
1. Three-fourths (75%) of the vote total; two-thirds (67%) of the vote total
2. Two-thirds (67%) of the vote total; one half (50%) of the vote total
3. One half (50%) of the vote total; a plurality
4. A simple plurality in all cases

Vote here:


Vote 4: Durations[edit]

Policy votes must last _____; penalty votes must last ______:

Option A: At least fourteen (14) days; at least seven (7) days[edit]

  1. Anarcho Symphony Noise Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 03:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 07:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. (((Zack Martin))) 09:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. - π Moderator 05:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  7. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Option B: Between seven (7) and fourteen (14) days in both cases[edit]

  1. Blue Talk 02:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  2. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 03:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  3. SoCal 212 03:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. ADtalkModerator 03:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  5. --"Shut up, Brx." 04:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  6. --DamoHi 05:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  7. -- Nx / talk 07:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  8. --TheEgyptiansig001.png 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  9. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  10. --Edgerunner76 OMYAC.jpg 14:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  11. Tytalk 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  12. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC) It's actually surprising the voting standards thing has come this far if you think about it. In a HCM environment like this I couldn't have pulled this off if I'd wanted to. There is some pretty powerful leadership behind this vote.
  13. Alain (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  14. DickTurpis (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  15. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  16. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  17. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Goat[edit]


Vote 5: The "goat" vote[edit]

In penalty and policy votes, "goat" votes are:
1. Not counted toward the vote total when calculating thresholds, and are regarded as a spoiled ballot
2. Counted toward the vote total, and can help prevent an option from reaching a majority passing threshold
3. Not allowed

Vote here:


Vote 6: Sockpuppetry[edit]

In all votes, if both a user and his or her known sockpuppet (and the sockpuppet meets the eligibility requirements) attempt to vote:
1. The sockpuppet vote can be stricken
2. The sockpuppet vote must remain
3. The sockpuppet vote can be stricken and the sockpuppetmaster's original vote, if present, must also be stricken as a penalty

Vote here:

This is why I phrased option 3 with must (re the sockpuppeteer). If one of these rules is adopted, it must be done consistently. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vote 7: Opening a vote[edit]

_____ are allowed to open policy votes; _____ are allowed to open penalty votes:
1. Only moderators in both cases
2. Any eligible voter; only moderators
3. Only moderators; any eligible voter
4. Any eligible voter in both cases
5. Any registered user in both cases

Vote here:


Commentary/discussion (and apparently electioneering)[edit]

Bullet voting (voting for only one option on a ranked-choice ballot) may be easier but it's more risky - if your favored option doesn't win, your ballot is entirely discarded. Just a tip. Blue Talk 03:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I want what I want, or nothing at all. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 03:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Have fun running the tally, Blue--"Shut up, Brx." 03:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In run-off votes it's a valid choice because you don't want your support to transfer to other options. It isn't "risky", it just says that you didn't lend support to the winning option if your one choice doesn't win. It does not equal "you didn't get a say". It's a system for assessing preferences and levels of support, not a game where you have to pick the winning side - indeed the entire reason for ranked votes is so that you don't have to do that if your favourite position is unlikely to win. ADK...I'll shove your furry! 10:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the most boring, bureaucracy laden gibberish I have ever had the poor fortune to lay my weeping eyes upon. My anus contracts with banality as I seek ways to excite my synapses but I am coming up short here. Alcohol never took on a more medicinal quality...but even drunk I can find no fun to be had here. That my friends, is a sorry state of affairs. Aceace 10:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Assume my opinion something along the lines of, but a little more polite than, Ace's comment. I mean, the idea of waiting up to 14 days to vote on penalising users is really dodgy. If you're going to punish users through bans or whatever it needs to be done for specific reasons and quickly, otherwise two bloody weeks later everyone's forgotten what it was that called for the vote in the first place! Two weeks is a long time, it's hundreds of edits for some people, and countless other discussions. 24 hours at the very gorram most for that sort of thing. ADK...I'll push your Angel! 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The duration vote does not purport to supersede the existing "if they're really causing trouble, apply a quick sanction and then call for a vote" clause. And I like to think the whole standards document contains an implied snowball clause, so we shouldn't have a problem with open-and-shut cases. Most if not all avoidable HCMs with regard to penalizing can have a hefty amount of blame laid upon people acting too hastily. Blue Talk 21:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how I was impolite....I am the paragon of reasoned opinion. But it all seems a little silly. Aceace 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the part about your anus was a little TMI. ADK...I'll earn your rope! 10:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck? But you fucking bastards were all like "Hey Ace, tell us 'bout your asshole!" not 2 weeks ago. Lying swine, all of you. Aceace 10:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
But then we actually saw it and what you could fit up there and... eugh. ADK...I'll negate your flap! 12:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have strong objections to goat = no. People will never understand that, or it will be a constant "oh, by the way." Abstain never counts for votes according to most governance systems, except for candidate for a position. steriletalk 12:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What Sterile said. Goat = abstain/pass the fucking scotch. Aceace
I also agree, but that's why we're having a vote I suppose. While on the subject of "goat" - can I vote "goat" in any of the above?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The very precedent this vote could potential upset says "yes, you sure as shit can." For the sake of getting a basic rubric of voting criteria, I'd hope a Goat vote wouldn't actually win, but I can think of few other situations in which that would be true. We really do need cursory voting procedures if you clowns are going to continue to accept the new regime and demand more and more rules and sanctions. I am hanging my head in shame. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
the simplest option is to have a basic Goat=Vote or Goat=Who fucking cares. Piece of cake. Aceace 12:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
For the record it has always been Goat=Who fucking cares. Aceace 12:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to abstain, don't vote. That's how abstention works. If you want to express "who fucking cares," don't vote. That's how showing your lack of interest works (really!). If you want to spoil your ballot, draw a picture of a dick on it. If you want to express your opinion that you cannot in good conscience vote for any of the choices presented on the ballot with any expectation that "none of the above" will get counted, why wouldn't RW continue giving a voice to votes of that nature? They are the only way to make the point that some of these votes are fucking bullshit foisted on us by fucking douchenozzle assholes who think they get to slap up a vote section anytime they feel like it. As to Bflat's point that he wants what he wants or he wants nothing at all, if I'm understanding "nothing at all" to mean neither option, they are also the only way to convey the less incendiary and indistinguishable message of "no thanks, neither please." If there are two options on a ballot and the majority wants neither, how the fuck else do you get that result without the goat vote? There's no quorum, so if everyone sits out the vote in protest but one lone shitbird, guess what. His vote carries the day. The goat vote also shines a light on just how close a vote might be where some voters believe even calling for a vote is a grotesque lapse in judgment. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
This is why I proposed that there be a formal "none of the above" option in policy votes that would force further discussion before putting the matter up for another vote again. -- Nx / talk 16:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a "goat" vote and a "Jerboa" vote which will mean different things.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No, nobody likes the jerboa meme. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here be the dragons...[edit]

Goat is a way of making a statement, or providing a dissenting opinion. Anyways, even if Blue outlaws it, it'll still be done. I think a good example of the use of goat would be during the Trial of Human, where people who voted goat did so to express their disapproval of his actions but did not want to be involved in his prosecution.--68.230.64.75 (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"even if Blue outlaws it" Yes, because including that as one of three options in a popular vote is definitely the same as me enforcing my own iron will. You do realize a majority of votes have to support outlawing goat votes for that option to win? Blue Talk 22:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
It's like a spoilt ballot. It can show dissatisfaction with the voting process (or that you're a moron who can't fill in a ballot) but it has no impact on the final outcome, other than that generated by the fact that people chose not to vote. And if they chose not to vote, then they should shut the fuck up and quit moaning. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Look at how Blue voted. She may be a horrible person who nobody will lend a hand to when her bones hollow out like a bird's in 60 years and she falls down stairs and breaks her hip, but for now she's mostly on the right side of this issue. If the Goat Vote gets outlawed I will weep for RW throwing out such a essential and sometimes urgently necessary part of its culture by permanently supergluing its head up its own ass so it can get hamstrung by The Rules like a bunch of catatonics. So much for anarchy. So much for revolution. I will wipe tears of shame from my eyes every time I see a protest vote removed or disregarded. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 13:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Right now outlawing the goat has 0 votes, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. DickTurpis (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Just because someone hasn't placed it first doesn't mean that it hasn't gotten any support. There are plenty of people who have selected it as a potential option. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 11:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Excepting Maratrean, those who have selected it at all have selected it as their last choice. No one's made it their first, so it stands at 0 votes. There is no danger of it passing. If people are annoyed that it was a choice in the first place, well, I don't know what to say. Especially when using IRV, having too many choices isn't the most convincing of gripes. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Note on the "goat" votes above[edit]

When I post the results, I will post two calculations: one with "goat" votes disregarded entirely, the other counting "goat" as a distinct option.

The procedure directs voters to list their preferences using numerals, which implies that goat - as it isn't a numeral - is not a valid choice. The procedure further stipulates that no additional options should be added, which also implies that goat is not a valid choice. The result in which goats are disregarded should therefore take precedence over the other. I don't think goat has a chance of making a difference anyway, but I will post both just in case the difference is large enough to merit discussion. Blue Talk 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that after four years someone is taking goat votes seriously. I mean, it's a joke by someone who barely edits. steriletalk 03:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous but endearing. Blue Talk 04:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Exit polls, after a fashion[edit]

I have run the tallies through this IRV calculator for a quick appraisal of what the results are looking like after a few days. Note that multiple rounds were only required for the first vote, and goat votes had no effect on the results.

  1. Vote 1 (edit count franchise requirement): Option 3, 75 total edits
  2. Vote 2 (registration date franchise requirement): Option 1, 3 months prior to vote's end
  3. Vote 3 (thresholds): Option 2, 2/3 required for policy and majority required for penalty votes
  4. Vote 4 (durations): Option B, penalty and policy votes must last between 7 and 14 days
  5. Vote 5 (goats): Option 1, goats are not counted in threshold calculations
  6. Vote 6 (sockpuppets): Option 1, sockpuppet votes (when the sock master has voted as well) can be stricken
  7. Vote 7 (opening votes): Option 4, any eligible voter can open policy and penalty votes

I did this a) because I'm an election nerd and b) because totals are normally readily available for all to see in RW votes. Blue Talk 02:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

All registered users[edit]

I know it might be controversial to amend the wording after voting is under way, but it's occurred to me that it might be better (for clarity) to reword the franchise option for "All registered users" (option 8 on vote 1 and option 5 on vote 2) to "No edit count requirement" and "No registration date requirement" as appropriate. This is because a user might think there should be an edit threshold but no time restriction, or vice versa, in which case they would choose this option for one of their votes, without actually voting for "all registered users" to be eligible. Any thoughts? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I considered that but I don't think it's unclear, especially as the votes for the different components of the franchise requirement are clearly labeled. Blue Talk 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

i would love it[edit]

if i didnt keep getting spammed about all this nonsense by wiki-wide messages--Mikalosa (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no other way to inform the userbase about important votes like this. All you have to do is mark the message as read and it will go away permanently. Blue Talk 03:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Important? Who the fuck are you to be saying this is important? Does anyone else think this is important other than you? I sincerely doubt it. And yes, I too loathe being spammed by banners telling me I have to have an opinion on this irrelevant shit. Take your sad little Tinpot Dictactor organizational desires elsewhere, Blue. DogP (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You're out of touch with this site and you haven't been paying attention. Thanks and come again soon. Blue Talk 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, exemplary bit of community-building spirit from the moderator there. Way to show that you're listening to your constituency, considering their opinions, and taking their concerns seriously. Way to lead by example, Blue. Staying up above the fray, and not at all being dismissive or arrogant when confronted with an opinion that differs from your own. Really. Top-notch work. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If it helps, I'll strike my comment above in favor of the one below. Blue Talk 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me DogP is really overreacting, and he's obviously out of touch since this has been in the works for quite some time. You don't get to disappear for a while and come back only to jump into something you know nothing about. And honestly, P, how does one respond to being called a "Tinpot Dictator" stirring up "irrelevant shit?" Blue was not at fault for her post. Doggedpersistence is the problem here.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Fuck off Brx, I can assure you DogP wants no help from you. Aceace 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe I was offering help.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
6 months and you still don't know the first thing about this place. The problem is a child like you who doesn't know how to pick his battles and pops off about things that are way over his head. Keep digging. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that my cranky old conservative metaphor applies quite well here. You guys are like Bill O'Reilly. Having been here a long time is meaningless, as evidenced by Dogged's complete misunderstanding of this vote and the reason and method it came up--"Shut up, Brx." 05:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that my understanding of this vote is "a sad little farce by people who refuse to step away from the computer and smell the flowers and who have a desperate need to impose order and rules where such things are neither needed nor wanted and have no perspective on what might be important about a digital community", perhaps you'd like to explain how that is that a misunderstanding? DogP (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
In the past few months, there have been complaints each time we had a vote. This will, once and for all, establish a clear procedure and should stymie complaints. You seem to think that Blue is an evil control freak for doing this, but she's just trying to curtail HCM. Once this vote is settled, HCM resulting from people bitching about voting processes should be curtailed as voting processes were established and decided upon democratically. The community will have spoken--"Shut up, Brx." 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus christ, Brx, The Dog has been here since 14 June 2007. You don't get to have an opinion about him one way or the other. Moreover, you should always address him as "sir," walk three paces behind him, and never look him in the eye. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we can add DogP to brxs list of people who don't understand the RW culture. So who do we have so far:
DogP
Ace McWicked
P-Foster B♭maj7
Nutty Roux
Human
Anyone else? Aceace 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no like for any of the moderation system; I have not bothered voting in any of the silly vote about vote standards, and find some particular mods like to BE MODS as if it's a thing in their lives, telling us all how the wiki runs, and how brains are assigned, etc. so in that sense you can count me as "not understanding the culture". But what do I know Pink mowse.pngGodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 03:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
@Ace put like that I can see it as funny. @Godot the moderation system is less than ideal in so many ways, but I see it as a necessary evil now the site has more "regulars" than can be counted without shoes on. - π Moderator 03:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"find some particular mods like to BE MODS as if it's a thing in their lives, telling us all how the wiki runs, and how brains are assigned, etc." I assume you mean me. Nutty Roux is going to swoop down and say "I agree with you in spirit," even though it's obvious that your point is so misrepresentative of my actions and hyperbolic as to be facially wrong. Honestly, if I get many more accusations of being an authoritarian fascist dictatorial self-important officious [insert slur here], I may just start actively trying to embody what you guys seem to imagine me as. Blue Talk 03:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Blue setting up a community vote is the paragon of authoritarianism. DickTurpis (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you in spirit but I'm a little too drunk to swoop. Sorry I'm late. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 05:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on this. I miss the days when the community was small enough & laid back enough to just get on with things without a load of squabbling, & it seems like some of the fun has been lost along the way. Nevertheless, I think that doing things slowly & bureaucratically is much faire & less harmful to the community than just doing things unilaterally & riding out the HCM, which seemed to be all the rage a few months ago. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This fucking shit again?[edit]

tl:dr. What a total waste of our time this whole farce is. If someone needs a little club to be the Chairman of and hold lots of nice, very well organized talking shops, go to it. We need voting standards like we need hygiene standards. DogP (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a vote born from the storm of HCM. It was developed carefully, slowly, and rationally, without flaming or needless bickering. Like I wrote in the introduction, nobody took the time to argue that voting standards weren't a good thing. Not a single solitary user. And the people for whom this vote doesn't matter won't be affected by it, because we only need voting standards for policy discussions and Coop cases - areas that these editors generally don't frequent. I am proud that RationalWiki is capable of mature decision-making, something that hasn't been at the forefront of site politics.
A year or three ago I might have responded differently. Things have changed, for better or for worse - and I hope it turns out for better. Though we are still largely the same as we were four years ago, I believe we have improved our site and community stridently. If you want to make a coherent argument about something, make it. I will listen and reevaluate my position. Blue Talk 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
To be honest there's about three or four who think it's really necessary, about the same number who think it's bollocks and everyone else who goes with the flow. Scream!! (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I haven't said anything to the contrary. I am fully aware that a fair amount of people couldn't care less. But how am I supposed to address the concerns of people who are completely silent? I believe they are important, and I have made my arguments... and nobody has argued, outside of DogP here, that they aren't important. Blue Talk 17:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Dogged in principle. Most of this is a load of overdone paper pushing shit cooked up by some officious twats, but like I've said from the beginning if people want to ban RW editors and invent rules they don't need, at least the process should be fair and make one less opportunity for moderators to moderate a damn thing. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
"Most of this is a load of overdone paper pushing shit cooked up by some officious twats..." You had weeks to say so before the damn thing started. You obviously weren't somehow afraid of hurting my precious feelings, so you just didn't bother. I would have listened if you had made an argument. Blue Talk 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I made the points I wanted to. Like I said, if we're going to have all this process I'll chime in to make suggestions with an eye toward fairness. Other than that I could give a shit about rules. We did fine without them forever. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"How can you call this justice? This is totally bullshit, there aren't even any voting standards so you can just make them up however you like!"
"So now you want to force everyone to vote on voting standards! This is totally bullshit, you can't force everyone to have voting standards whenever you want!"
Rock and a hard place.--ADtalkModerator 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Or simple hypocrisy? Pink mowse.pngGodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 21:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Where does the first quote come from? WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
They are just quotes I made up, not quotes of any individual. I'm not trying to attack anyone or highlight any person's hypocrisy, but just trying to point out that people have vociferously made both criticisms, making it hard to find the right path.--ADtalkModerator 22:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's good. It'll end the bickering that arises from every vote.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with DogP - this more boring the Atlas Shrugged. Aceace 22:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
If "it's boring" is the worst that can be said about all this, I'd consider it a resounding success. DickTurpis (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean, seriously[edit]

I looked again at what is being suggested. Not only is it something with which I disagree, it's just astonishing how long and over-complex it is. I would hardly have imagined that if we needed rules and regulations, that they would take pages and pages and subsections and clauses and conditionals and specifics and then the world's most complex voting system. If you want to implement some rules, it's your job to make whatever system you come up with be intelligible, appealing, and with a clear benefit. What is being talked about here is none of those things, and instead looks like 15lbs of spaghetti was vomited up onto the Constitution of the TUC (or AFLCIO, take your pick) by Andre the Giant. DogP (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

D.O.G to the P is right on the money. I mean we/they even had to specify what "goat" meant. Aceace 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You'd be absolutely right...except for the fact that two factions have quite different ideas what "goat" means. DickTurpis (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I see nothing complex about it, easy to follow really, and codifies in general what we have done for votes in the past. There is no reason not to codify procedures we use. It is a good idea, rather then making it up a new everytime the community needs to make a decision. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
But this isn't your circle jerk anymore, aspie fascist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A little late, but...[edit]

It seems to me we overlooked an important option here. Somewhere there should have been an option for "Do not hold community votes", as that seems to be opposition to voting in general, and if that one were to win all the rest of this would be moot. I don't suppose it would win (and voting to not vote is odd, at least) but it might give people an option they like more than the current ones. DickTurpis (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Those who don't believe in voting won't participate in a vote about voting. There's no set voting body so there can't be such a thing as voting by abstention. Blue Talk 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe they'd vote for not voting if it would end all future voting. I don't know. I'm really not sure what people's gripe with this whole process is, other than it's ugly and boring. I get it we shouldn't have to be this nitpicky about what should be a straightforward process. The travesty isn't this vote, the travesty is that it's necessary. DickTurpis (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Their argument is an absolute one: all voting on policy is unnecessary and undesireable, because there should be no policies in general. It is a reactionary point of view that has been with RW as long as I've been here, and from what I've garnered, it originates in the anarchy of RW 1.0. I don't think there's anything we can do to cater to this group besides leave the wiki entirely, which is to be expected when those of a more accomodationist persuasion try to coexist with absolutists in any community (even an online one). Blue Talk 17:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If we're not going to have a policy on how voting works, then voting is meaningless and we might as well get rid of it entirely (unless perhaps we want to keep it as a non-binding straw poll which in itself can resolve nothing). If that's what people want, we should give them the opportunity to support that notion. That's basically my rationalization for starting this discussion. DickTurpis (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservative is the new reactionary. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Conservative was reactionary since his first edit at CP. DickTurpis (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You, sir, are a delight. Thanks for lightening things up. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 19:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RESULTS for the VOTING STANDARDS VOTES[edit]

RESULTS

Vote 1: Franchise (edit count)[edit]

Total votes: 28

Choice Votes
1. 150 edits 7
2. 100 edits 5
3. 75 edits 7
4. 50 edits 2
5. 50 mainspace edits 3
6. 50 mainspace talk edits 0
7. All sysops 0
8. All registered users 3
Goat 1
Needed to win 15
  • Options 6 and 7 eliminated for having 0 votes
  • Option Goat has fewest votes; eliminating; no votes to redistribute
  • Option 4 has fewest votes; votes are redistributed:
Choice Votes
1. 150 edits 7
2. 100 edits 5
3. 75 edits 8
5. 50 mainspace edits 4
8. All registered users 3
Needed to win 15
  • Option 8 has fewest votes; votes are redistributed:
Choice Votes
1. 150 edits 7
2. 100 edits 5
3. 75 edits 9
5. 50 mainspace edits 4
Needed to win 15
  • Option 5 has fewest votes; votes are redistributed:
Choice Votes
1. 150 edits 8
2. 100 edits 6
3. 75 edits 11
Needed to win 15
  • Option 2 has fewest votes; votes are redistributed:
Choice Votes
1. 150 edits 9
3. 75 edits 15
Needed to win 15

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 3: 75 EDITS.

Vote 2: Franchise (registration date)[edit]

Total votes: 28

Choice Votes
1. 3 months prior 16
2. 2 months prior 5
3. 1 month prior 6
4. All sysops 0
5. All registered users 1
Needed to win 15

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 1: 3 MONTHS

Vote 3: Thresholds[edit]

Total votes: 28

Choice Votes
1. 3/4; 2/3 3
2. 2/3; 1/2 18
3. 1/2; plurality 0
4. Plurality always 7
Needed to win 15

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 2: 2/3s; 1/2

Vote 4: Durations[edit]

Total votes: 25

Choice Votes
A: >=14 days; >=7 days 7
B: Between 7 and 14 days 17
Goat 1

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTES IS OPTION B: BETWEEN 7 AND 14 DAYS

Vote 5: Goats[edit]

Total votes: 30

Choice Votes
1. Not counted toward total 19
2. Counted toward total 10
3. Not allowed 0
Goat 1
Needed to win 16

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 1: GOATS ARE NOT COUNTED

Vote 6: Sockpuppets[edit]

Total votes: 27

Choice Votes
1. Can be stricken 14
2. Must remain 1
3. Can be stricken and original must be stricken 11
Goat 1
Needed to win 14

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 1: SOCKPUPPET VOTE CAN BE STRICKEN

Vote 7: Opening votes[edit]

Total votes: 29

Choice Votes
1. Only mods in both cases 3
2. Any eligible voter; only mods 5
3. Only mods; any eligible voter 1
4. Any eligible voter in both cases 17
5. Any registered user in both cases 2
Goat 1
Needed to win 15

THE WINNER OF THIS VOTE IS OPTION 4: ANY ELIGIBLE VOTER

Summary[edit]

Old policy
New policy

In order to vote in policy votes, which seek to change the Community Standards or similar official policy documents, or penalty votes, which seek to penalize (or change existing penalties for) a user, you must have at least 75 total edits and a registration date at least three months prior to the conclusion of the vote.

In policy votes and penalty votes which seek to ban a user, a positive option (an option that is not "nay" or "none of the above") must accrue a two-thirds majority of votes to pass. In all other types of penalty votes, a positive option must accrue a simple majority of votes to pass.

Both policy votes and penalty votes must last between seven and fourteen days.

"Goat" or similarly labeled votes are not counted toward vote totals when calculating thresholds, and cannot prevent an option from reaching a two-thirds or simple majority.

In all votes, if both a user and his or her known sockpuppet attempt to vote, the sockpuppet vote may be stricken by anyone. Importantly, if a user votes only with his or her known sockpuppet, their vote is still valid.

Any eligible voter (an account with 75 edits, etc.) can open policy and penalty votes.

I invite anyone to look over my results and summary. If no fault is found, I'll add this section to the Standards. Blue Talk 20:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This being a "policy" vote, shouldn't it be redone under the new voting criteria? (75 edits, 3months registration & 2/3 majority) Scream!! (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Another two-week vote? In theory I agree, but look at the mess of people complaining about just one above. Blue Talk 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Aw! Come on. Where's your sense of fun? Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyhow, how does one "open" a policy vote? Scream!! (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
According to the results, you would set up a list of options and choose a duration between 7 and 14 days. Blue Talk 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Where? Scream!! (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Here, presumably. Blue Talk 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
EC) Also: who's going to police the elegibility? Scream!! (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can. Blue Talk 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)