Forum:Endorsements referendum

This forum page has been archived.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

Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Endorsements referendum

In light of the recent discussion regarding the admin endorsement requirement for chat moderator applications (as outlined in FW:ADMIN), the community has decided to bring several key points to a vote. Please familiarise yourself with the issues surrounding these points.

Question 1

Do you support complete removal of the admin endorsement requirement as it is for chat moderator applicants?

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. 03:00, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
2. I have faith the community will decide what's best. Having an endorsement required for chat moderator and nothing else is a ridiculous double standard.  A Follower  Talk  19:58, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. Now it's quiet, but the moment FO4 gets announced, we'll get flooded again and with that a new flood of people who wanna get extra powers. Better to have a deterent as a filter - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:21, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)The endorsement requirement keeps the rabble out.
3. Endorsements of some sort need to be in place. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. There are unnecessary rules, and there are rules that help make our wiki a smoother experience for everyone. I am sure one can guess at which I believe this particular rule to be. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. Even if I haven't endorsed a single person, it would be beneficial to have this rule. We can see it like a recommendation, to see some trust in the nominated user. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
6. Endorsement to ensure staff support, community vote to ensure community support. Works as is; doesn't need to be changed. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. There needs to be a filter. The prerequisites for applying ensure that someone has completed the editing/presence requirements, and the endorsement judges something that rules and number requirements can't: Character. The potential endorser must disregard the numbers and truly think about whether the chat would benefit from giving the prospective chat moderator his/her own star. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:31, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. For any applicant that stands a chance, an endorsement is not a difficult thing to obtain. --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. It's a good smell-test, and I like good smell-tests. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 14:58, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
10. I agree with Skire's vote above, it's easy to get. It also helps weed out the would-be applicants that nobody really sees in chat. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. It kind of balances things out, doesn't it? Especially for the future. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:01, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
12. It should be obvious why this is a bad idea. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
13. Shows that some people on the wiki shows said user responsible enough. Great Mara (talk) 03:44, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
14. 12:14, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
15. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
16. I think we should keep it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."

Question 2

Do you support expansion of the endorsement right to include all moderators and chat moderators? This means that moderators, chat moderators, along with admins, will be able to endorse chat moderator applicants.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. What do you need, boss? (talk) Cmods have more domain in the Chat, and would be more effective in choosing new chat mods.
2. With a whopping 8 admins on the wiki, I see only one in chat on a daily basis, I see three more in chat somewhat often, and the rest rarely or infrequently in chat. Having one admin there regularly that can be asked for an endorsement puts a load on that admin and also creates limitations on who can get rights based on who that admin has interacted with. I would submit that given that chat mods and admins are supposed to be equals in chat, then it makes sense that they could endorse, especially considering how many of them are chat active. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. I place my trust in the Chat Moderators knowing enough about their own domains to make informed decisions of this nature. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. Chat mods are more often in the chat, I think. They should know better. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. I would rather have someone who frequents chat to be able to endorse potential chat mods rather than admins being the only source of endorsements. Seems counter-intuitive to ask for support to moderate chat from someone who may not even use the feature. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. I was originally going to say "no, then someone who just got voted in could start endorsing all of his/her friends," but then I realized that: 1.)That's just being paranoid, which is something that has plagued this wiki's policies for too long; 2.)Someone who got an endorsement from his buddy and really shouldn't be a chat mod would never pass the community vote. I like this change. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:36, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. They are often more in touch with applicants than some admins are (e.g. myself!) --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. If a freshly made C-mod endorses his buddies, the community would just take that into account anyway when casting their votes. So I see nothing wrong with this. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:00, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. I'm in chat more than all but one administrator right now, and I believe I possess the ability to gauge whether a prospective chat moderator has what it takes or not. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
10. I think I can trust our current chat moderators/moderators to handle this kind of power. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. 12:16, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
12. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
13. Obviously I am all for this. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
14. Assuming the above vote passes, this will open things up a bit.  A Follower  Talk  20:14, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
15. I'll endorse anyone who buys me more Xbox LIVE ^{"Semper Invictus"} 20:44, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."
2. 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Question 3

Please select the option below you support the most regarding bureaucrats giving endorsements.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (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.

Option 1

Bureaucrats may not endorse chat moderator applications.

1. Bureaucrats should remain neutral in decision of giving the user rights, including endorsement. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would rather see this expanded to all forms of requests, since the bureaucrats decide the outcome and enabling them to exclude themselves would limit the concensus, but this is a step in the right direction at least. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
3. To ensure neutrality (or a façade thereof). --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. At first I didn't see, "Why not?", but then I realized it would probably be for the best if the Bureaucrats just stick to the ultimate decision should their discretion be warranted. It would ensure integrity of the procedure more than anything. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:01, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
5. They already decide the outcome of all applications as it is to my knowledge, so why they should be granted further power? 02:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
6. Bureaucrats have a presumed swaying power over others' opinions, which is why long since the Vault times they self-imposed a ban on voting on requests. Time to set the unwritten convention on stone.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
7. Personally I believe they should not vote, either. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:51, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
8. unless we also change the final decision policies, this should be the rule. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 22:15, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. They may, however, express any opinions they see fit in the comments section of a request. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:49, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Option 2

Bureaucrats may endorse, but they must be excluded from the final decision-making process.

1. In my opinion, an endorsement is a yes vote. And the way I sees it, by endorsing a candidate, a bureaucrat has made their position known. People are raising their concerns about B-crats compromising their neutrality by endorsing, to which I say why not have them sit out of the deliberations for making the decision? In this case their neutrality or lack thereof becomes a non-issue. I myself cannot see why so many who are afraid of b-crats losing their neutrality go to the extreme of saying they cannot endorse when, simply keeping them out of the deliberation process would solve that problem. The only real argument I see in favor of B-crats not endorsing, given this, is that keeping them out removes one more person from the deliberation process and limit consensus, and even then that still leaves three to deliberate, eliminating the possibility of a stalemate. In the end I find this option to be a nice middle ground that addresses the concerns of both groups.*EDIT* Also, two of the B-crats are way more active in chat than most of our admins. If all admins can endorse, even those not active in chat, why would we not allow two chat active b-crats to endorse given that they have a better grasp on the users there and their behaviors? Richie9999 (talk) 02:52, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would hate to ruin a perfectly good empty space (I wrote this right before Richie voted... but I'm keeping it.), but I think if a BC decides they want to make an endorsement, we already know their point of view, and there are 3 other perfectly capable BCs that can talk it over. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
3. Similar thoughts as those above me, I have no issue with a bureaucrat endorsing an application, as long as they play no part in the final decision. Granted, I have a much more liberal view of what an endorsement is in the terms of our wiki. But, if a BC wants to endorse, it's within their rights. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
4. After some deep thought about this issue, I have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to go. The reasons above explain my reasons. BCs are just admins who have the power to check a little box that makes other people admins. I really don't understand what the big deal about them not being able to endorse is. Paranoia gets seriously out of hand here. _{Don't give up the ship!} 21:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Option 3

Bureaucrats may endorse without restrictions or conditions.

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)
3. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 00:57, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:06, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
5. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
6.  A Follower  Talk  19:57, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I would propose a perhaps simpler solution. For the entire chat rules and endorsements, any reference to "Administrator", "(Chat) Moderator" or "Bureaucrat" should be read as anyone with the Chat Moderation toolset. Agent c (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be simpler. Although, just to be a smart-ass, I seem to recall a while back, J went through and removed Chat Moderator status from most everyone that had a position higher than Chat Moderator. ;D ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:36, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

They still have the toolset though as its inclusive, so that would be what counts. Agent c (talk) 23:38, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know. Like I said: just being a smart-ass. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot vote on number three. I support Bureaucrats being able to endorse and vote on the request, just as every other rights group, but only under the condition that they must provide a valid rationale alongside their endorsement (just as any other endorser should be doing). Since that is technically a condition, I fear that does not fit into any proposed voting categories. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Before this subject comes up, if it does, I want to leave this here to clarify a few things that I've seen said. As you can see by my user rights interface, Bureaucrats are also admins by default. I checked a few other wiki's I'm a founder on to make sure this is not an artifact of me being an admin before a BC, but the sysop rights (admin) are granted alongside bureaucrat rights. FW:ADMIN states: "Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers." Please note the inference there. Bureaucrats are administrators, just "irregular" ones. You may, or may not, if you wish, take this into consideration while deliberating the above question. Screenie on the right for kicks. As you were.  The Gunny   23:57, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I understand that from a technical perspective especially that bureaucrats are admins by default. However, that does not change anything pertaining to the vote as bureaucrats are nonetheless a separate position (requiring a separate request) from the admin position. --Skire (talk) 02:41, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

In which case, all current bureaucreats are still administrators. I don't recall any of us resigning. They are administrators by the bureaucrat definition, and by election. Agent c (talk) 23:34, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Question 3 is referring to bureaucrats specifically. --Skire (talk) 00:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is so called "Swaying-power" influencing votes then every single user of any well known status would be required to also not vote publicly - that would be every single special rights user, and everyone else who visits more than just occasionally. Agent c (talk) 02:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think you're vastly underestimating the weight the BC title carries.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 06:50, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think you're grossly over estimating it, and under estimating the star power of everyone else. Clyde is almost an unknown, J is a dedicated editor who says away from the public light. That leaves me who Who's public stance against DG lead to naught, and Gunnny who isn't too public but sought out for technical stuff. Meanwhile we have 2 other regular front page blogs who build up a great following who are cleRly influential. We have editors such as yourself, Skire, Ry and more who are more likely to have interacted with regular users. We have our stalwart chat moderators who are there all day ever day and interact with just about everyone who goes in. I think that our users have plenty of other influential voices out there they know, trust and respect, perhaps more so than the other crats who have less of a public face than me - and i doubt my star power is that much more than them. I think our user base is smart enough to listen to all voices, and not just vote one way because a certain special rights user says they should, even if it is a bureaucrat - I'd love to see any examples that show any overwhelming bureaucrat influence.... If there is any I am certain it isn't enough to warrant a gag rule. Agent c (talk) 07:49, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Chad, why don't you just use your swaying power to convince Limmie to vote your way? It sounds like it's very effective at getting people to side with you so you can take over the wiki with all of your power abuse. _{Don't give up the ship!} 19:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Toci, I believe you mean powah abyoose. Seriously, though, why shouldn't b-crats be able to endorse? I don't see a reason as to why not. In my opinion endorsing is just one facet of an admin's abilities that the b-crats have. If someone is worried about swaying power then all active community extra rights holders should be removed from being able to endorse, as many of them hold just about as much swaying power as a b-crat with the community. Arbitrarily drawing the line at b-crat is just silly when there are users with just as much swaying power as b-crats, if not more. Richie9999 (talk) 20:07, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Toci, unfortunatley the vault admins took the mind controll machine with them. Agent c (talk) 20:14, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

In my mind, since we are also discussing Chat Moderators to have endorsement options available to them, it becomes a scenario where if everyone else with Chat Moderator tools can endorse, then why not Bureaucrats as well? My only issue is when too much unique power is given to a single Special Rights group. That is not the case here, so I say why not? My only request is that everyone that endorses leave a valid and detailed reason as to why they are endorsing, so we know whether to take the endorsement seriously or not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:17, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

It is primarily the fact that bureaucrats make the final decision for user rights requests that should bar them from endorsing individual applicants. It is not because of their "swaying power." --Skire (talk) 20:35, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yet, as the site's policies stand, we can still vote on said chat mod request. There's nothing saying we can't vote on them. Now, there's some unwritten convention that says if we do vote, we recuse ourselves from the deliberations, but I don't see removing our right to vote on any requests even being discussed. The logic then follows that actually voting is less important than allowing us to endorse. How odd.  The Gunny   20:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the matter of bureaucrats endorsing is brought up only because of a discussion on another topic related to endorsements. I did not, and have to intention to, bring up a two-pronged offensive on prohibiting bureaucrats from endorsing and voting. Also, the argument that since bureaucrats can still vote, we might as well let them endorse is nonsensical. The goal is improvement, not a 100% fix (perfect solution fallacy). --Skire (talk) 21:23, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I dont see how its either. A positive vote is an endorsement (with a small e) particularly with a long explanation. The only real difference between the two is where on the page the vote is. Agent c (talk) 21:32, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we start another discussion/vote on bureaucrats voting on user rights requests? And if what you're saying is true, then endorsements are half the problem. Here we present three different paths addressing that half of a problem. The other half (i.e. voting) is outside of the scope of this forum. And so as far as this goes, I believe I have made my points sufficiently clear already. --Skire (talk) 21:45, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting the problem doesn't exist. The influence of Burecrats is vastly overstated. If we're gaging burecrats as "influencial", then we need to gag pretty much everyone who voted for the same reason. Agent c (talk) 21:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a discernible difference: Endorsements validate a Chat-Mod request, so that votes may actually take place. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

@Agent c: I've got a bag of marbles around here somewhere, I know I do. What color should we use? Blue for yes and yellow for no? The Gunny   21:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In that case, Chad, you must not have read the original post from which this thread has developed. I said that this was not really about influence, but more about the de jure power bureaucrats have to make the final decision for user rights requests. --Skire (talk) 21:54, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Then why not just exclude the endorsing bureaucrat from the final decision? I am trying to figure out why people are so staunchly against it. "It limits the consensus" just doesn't cut it. _{Don't give up the ship!} 13:40, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

The obvious reason is that some folks must think we hold too much power or influence here and want to reign that in, or take some of that for themselves. They think enough of us to vote us into office with the powers, but don't believe we have the common good sense to recuse ourselves from a vote if we endorse. Obviously, they've caught on to our evil plan to take over the world. It's completely nonsensical to me. Either you trust my judgement or not. If you don't, don't let the forum door hit you in the ass as you write up my reconfirmation request. And if you feel you want to increase your influence at the cost of ours, then go ahead and put up that BC request yourself. It's a great job. People always treat you with respect & courtesy and never bitch about your actions or decisions. /sarcasm.  The Gunny   19:38, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Well said. _{Don't give up the ship!} 19:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

There is a single reason why no Special Rights group should hold too much power, and that is because it opens doors to abuse, whether in the present, or in the future. Our wiki has already shown small signs of it, and it is one of the reasons why some of us are doing what we can to keep most power in the community's hands:

• Both Bureaucrats and Administrators have gone in and changed bans without notifying anybody, which is usually never noticed because most editors do not use the technical recent changes. This is not just something that has happened a little, but has happened a lot.
• Chat Moderators have been known to get their buddies into Chat Moderators positions as well, which is what led to the mob mentality that was finally rooted out a few months back. This is also what led to many of our current policies, such as no joke kicking.
• We have had Bureaucrats and Administrators actively deny our policies and suggest we ignore them, for the sake of a single user.

Those are a few examples, and I will stop here as it is derailing the original vote a bit. But do not trivialize the reasons for users being concerned about how much power, as imaginary as it is, that our Special Rights holders have. Because it is a pressing concern, and just pretending abuse never happens is actively making way for a future leadership that gets away with much worse. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:55, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

My comment Danny was in response to those who have stated this mystical Burecrat ability to sway votes. As I am responding to comments here, I fail to see the point you are making. Agent c (talk) 20:07, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments moved from voting section

• (Comment) Not sure you read the vote properly. No double-standards are being proposed - this vote is to remove the endorsement rule entirely, which is why it is the first vote. If this vote passes, then it renders the chat-moderator endorsement deal below entirely null. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:16, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
  • I read the vote perfectly fine, thank you. Perhaps you didn't read my rationale properly - I'm in favour of seeing this rule repealed because I believe it to be a double standard.  A Follower  Talk  20:24, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
    • If this vote passes, then that means the endorsement policy is removed in its entirety. The second and third vote will instantly be nullified, because they are only extensions on the original policy. So if the policy is removed completely, then there cannot be a second or third voting option, which I see you have at least voted yes on vote #2. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:26, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • As has Eden. Voting on the first does not indemnify me against voting on the remainder.  A Follower  Talk  20:28, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
        • You have ignored the fact that there cannot be a second or third vote if the first vote passes, which leads me to believe you are not understanding the first vote. I know what the first vote is - Danny and I discussed it quite thoroughly. If the Admin endorsement is removed, then the entire policy is removed, as the only thing in the policy is its Admin endorsement clause. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:30, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That is not how referendums work, Leon. Even if one is rendered null by the other, it is still my right to vote the way I desire should the majority vote contradict my opinion.  A Follower  Talk  20:35, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth - I am not disputing your opinion or votes even in the slightest. You will notice I said nothing to Eden, for instance. I am simply making sure you are understanding the vote, as the votes you have made directly contradict each other. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:37, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

They are not contradictory. Vote 1: I support the policies removal. Vote 2: in the event the policy remains, I support expansion of it as it currently stands. Vote 3: in the event the policy remains, I believe bureaucrats should be able to freely endorse.  A Follower  Talk  20:40, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Just making sure that the matter had clarity - if anything, this conversation will do good for others that might not understand what exactly vote #1 is calling for. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Rest assumed, his votes do not confuse me. I fully understand his positions, by the rationales given, and they will be taken into consideration accordingly by the BCs when this vote is over. He may vote as he wishes. The Gunny   20:45, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Of course he may vote as he wishes. >.> You would do well not to mistake my intentions - clarity is all I wanted. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:47, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I would like to be asked first before my comments are moved. It is regular wiki practice to have the ability to tack on comments to other peoples' votes. I only mention other wikis, because there is nothing in our policies/guidelines stating that I cannot follow this same etiquette. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:19, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments go in the comments section. Richie9999 (talk) 21:22, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

(←)  I don't recall any "tack ons" except where administrative action is being taken. Agent c (talk) 21:24, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Tacking comments onto votes is a standard across most wikis, and it has been embraced here as well for years, on multiple older votes. I do not mind being moved, but I fully expect to be asked first, unless there are policies/guidelines stressing otherwise. And yes, I can show multiple examples both on and off this wiki. But if you want those examples, ask me on my talk-page, as this is not the place. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:26, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

"I don't recall" isn't a statement of opinion. I think this is the place rather than dragging it out somewhere else and leaving it seemingly unresolved... What other wikis do is not relevant, as is any vote prior to us dividing them as they are. Comments belong in the comments section, unless there is a reason to question the legitimacy of the vote itself. Its the only way I can remember it being done since we moved to this format. Howver, as you have no problem with it being moved, I presume you will agree that the matter is now settled. Agent c (talk) 21:33, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to be respectfully asked to move my own comments in the future. I am not breaking any policies/guidelines/standard wiki etiquette by tacking on comments, so I figure this is the least I can ask. Also, the opinion bit was aimed at Richie - sorry for the confusion. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:37, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Gunny has mentioned a pretty good point about how we use # now to format our votes, which is broken when tacking on comments. I will try and remember that in the future - but if I forget, just let me know. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:41, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

@Gunny Can I request clarification on something? Nowhere in our policies does it say the BCs get to make the final decision for policy votes. The only thing to that end is, "A simple majority is sufficient to pass." So I am confused as to why you said the BCs will consider Follower's rationale when they are not even deciding on the results. --Skire (talk) 01:21, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sure. "The administrators may veto a policy". With every policy that is voted on, we, the BCs, generally discuss the vote and the outcome. If we disagree with the outcome, we, as administrators/sysops, reserve that right to veto, just like you do. We have not had a policy vote that we all agreed needed to be vetoed, so I can't really tell you how that would look, whether all administrators would have to be polled or whatever, since that phrase is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, we generally discuss them, as a group, to be certain we don't all want to veto it and have to find out how that works. Does this explain everything? I was trying to convey to Leon that Followers votes were coherent and understood. The Gunny   01:43, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

That helps a ton, thank you. I was mostly wondering is this was a case analogous to the bureaucrats' right to make the final call on user rights requests (which is written in policy). Viewing it as more of a veto right (although one I'd contend that regular administrators share) clarifies it a lot. --Skire (talk) 01:55, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed where I said "just like you do" up above. Of course you share it. And it's not like we discuss every vote. The ones the community clearly is behind just go straight to result. You even enacted the last one before anyone posted on the forum the results, right? We don't even use the word veto. It's more like when there's not a clear consensus, like the third option here, we go: "Looks close." "You good with it?" "Yup." "OK". "Good enough." We just like to speak with a unified consensus and it gives each of us an opportunity to raise any concerns that we feel strongly about so we can speak with that unified consensus. The Gunny   02:03, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss that. My apologies. And in the case of multi polls (usually they are yesno), what would the bureaucrats do if no choice has a majority but only a plurality? Would the status quo be preserved? Would they suggest a compromise? --Skire (talk) 02:14, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the topic and the votes. In the case of issue number 3, we have 3 clear positions, one on each extreme, one in the middle. It's possible I would suggest a consensus on the middle position, if the vote were to close today, even though it got the least votes. Things might now always be that clear though. The Gunny   02:22, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks a lot for the clarification on standard procedure, Gunny. I apologise if this detracted somewhat from the actual topic of the forum... --Skire (talk) 02:26, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with people getting a better understanding on how we do things. Frankly, we BCs do a good job of gaining consensus on stuff. It's good for people to understand that's how we work. The Gunny   02:32, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Results

First two parts are clear. The endorsements will stay, and they can now be made by all extra rights holders save patrollers. The last question did not gain a simple majority for any option. We can either declare this issue not decided and retain the status quo, or we can attempt a consensus position on the middle point. Given the length of this forum, I'd recommend that any motion to form a consensus on the middle position be made in a new forum. The Gunny   20:26, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how question 3 didn't reach simple majority. The result was:

Option 1): 8 votes

Option 2): 4 votes

Option 3): 6 votes

Option 1 had 2 votes more than than the second most voted option, so first-past-the-post entails option 1 was chosen by simple majority. I hasn't achieved absolute majority, but absolute majority isn't the benchmark we use. It has at any rate achieved a far clear majority than other votes such as the talkpage music autoplay, which was passed based on the (post deadline recount) tally of 10 vs 12 votes. I see no reason not to enact the majority vote straight up here.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 16:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Seems there may be some inconsistencies in the definition of "simple majority" from American English to British English. As I understand it, when a subset of votes forms a number greater than the votes for other options, but less that 50% of the total vote, that is called a plurality.

“plu·ral·i·ty - a number of votes that is more than the number of votes for any other candidate or party but that is not more than half of the total number of votes”— Merriam-Webster.com

The wikipedia page for majority (which I double checked before I posted the above results) states:

“A majority may be called a simple majority to contrast with other types of majority”— Wikpedia

And:

“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset considered; i.e. a plurality is not necessarily a majority as the largest subset considered may consist of less than half the set's elements.”— Wikpedia

But on the same page, it does state:

“In British English, majority and plurality are often used as synonyms”— Wikpedia

Since you compare it to a vote that only had two choices, I'll show the stats:

Music on talk page vote	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	10	45.5%
No	12	54.5%
BCs can endorse	Votes	Percentage of total votes
No	8	44.4%
Yes, but not decide	4	22.2%
Yes	6	33.3%

In the first vote, the no votes constituted an overall majority of all votes. This would be defined as at least a simple majority in either British English or American. In the second vote, the no votes only constituted a plurality of votes, ie there were more of them than the other two options, but less than 50%. But, if in British English, a simple majority can be synonymous with plurality, then it can constitute a simple majority in British English. In my knowledge of American English, it is a plurality rather than a simple majority.

“In North American English, the term plurality, also called relative majority[1] used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes received by one candidate (or any proposal in a referendum) out of the entire group of candidates. [2] It is contrasted with an absolute majority,[1] or simple majority, which is more than half of the votes.[2]”— Wikipedia

So the question then is do we use the American English definition of simple majority or the British English definition? There were 8 votes for BCs not to endorse, while there were 10 votes allowing us to, 4 of them with restrictions. There is obviously no clear consensus position here. What do we have to fall back on? The fact we use American English as our default editing language? Or do we have to make some kind of vote over which definition of "simple majority" we use, American or British English? Or perhaps we could just do as I suggest and see if we can come to a consensus position on the middle ground? I'd be interested in hearing opinions, but I would prefer them in another forum, as this one is 8 billion lines of comments. The Gunny   20:18, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

To me the term majority is clear - greater than 50%. You cannot have a majority with anyhing less than 50%+1. What you have otherwise is a large minority. If we are looking for the "consensus" or "majority" position, I think we'd actually be looking at something closer to option B or C than A, when we look at the options presented, two of the options clarify that Bureaucrats should be able to endorse - more people agree with this proposition than not, although some only do with caveats. As such any implementation of A would be simply non democratic and against the consensus position. Agent c (talk) 20:27, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Gunny says on what a majority is, however I feel this is complicating methods and I don't think that going for a middle ground compromise is the best option. Instead I would like to suggest that, in a separate forum, people order options A, B and C in accordance to their preferences. We could use a system, such as 1st choice = 3points, 2nd choice = 2 points and 3rd choice = 1 point, to calculate which option is prefered, for example i I ordered my votes A, C, B then A would get 3 points, C would get 2 and B would get 1, if chad then ordered his C, B, A then C would get 3 points, B would get 2 points and A would get 1 point, added to mine A = 4, c =5 B=3 which would mean C would be the ones we pass. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:33, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I think we have three options here:

1. Pass A on the grounds that it has a plurality.
2. Do a run-off vote.
3. Continue discussion on a separate forum to find a compromise position on the matter.

Personally, option 3 is my preference. --Skire (talk) 20:53, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well the way I see it option 3 will only lead to options 1 or 2 in the long run. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:10, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

The hope is that it doesn't =P. What is your best course of action? --Skire (talk) 21:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well since we can't past something without a vote anyway we would either A) do another (or a run-off) vote or B) Pass one of the options we already have. A seperate discussion is not an alternative to either of these, it is literally just doing what we're doing here but some place else. I have suggested by "best course of action" above your post, already. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:32, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Here are other dictionary definitions for simple majority:

“Less than half of the total votes cast but more than the minimum required to win, as when there are more than two candidates or choices.”— Dictionary.com

“A majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any one candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority.”— Oxford Dictionary (US definition)

Regardless of the source of definition, the proper way to determine how we should interpret the term is to look at how we have been interpreting the term so far. Below is a sample of five votes, from various periods of the wiki, in which the result went to the choice with more votes, regardless of the proportion to the overall voters:

Expanded Wiki Navigation	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	4	33%
No	5	42%
Neutral	3	25%
One edit before voting	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	8	47%
No	7	41%
Neutral	2	12%
Achievements	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	15	48%
No	12	39%
Neutral	4	13%
Chat-mod min. edit count increase	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	8	38%
No	10	48%
Neutral	3	14%
Cartman's reconfirmation	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	12	38%
No	13	41%
Neutral	7	22%

That shows beyond doubt that the meaning of simple majority has always been the first-past-the-post principle. The option with more votes than the others wins. This vote is no different from any other. I am sorry if this isn't to the satisfaction of some of the bureaucrats, but the option forbidding them from making endorsements has won fair and square. There is no need no make any further votes in the matter.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 02:36, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here:

“The most dangerous phrase in the language is, "We've always done it this way."”— Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

_{Don't give up the ship!} 05:46, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Quotes mean absolutely nothing, except for use as confirmation bias. What we have here is a majority vote, and some random quote is not going to change that. Am I happy with results? Not really. But the community has made their choice, and that needs to be respected. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 05:52, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The community did make their choice. 10 people voted for bureaucrats to have the right to endorse (4 just wanted a condition on that right) as opposed to 8 people in support of denying their right to endorse altogether. The way this vote was set up has split one side of the argument. In hindsight, we should have first decided whether or not we wanted them to vote in the first place, and then set conditions. That's where you'll find your bias. _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:06, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem: there were 3 different voting options, all with clearly defined rules. Just because 2 of the options were similar, does not mean that they supported the other. For instance, if I had voted that I was fine with Bureaucrats having the option to endorse, but not to vote, then I would be pretty upset if I had other users saying that just because I was fine with Bureaucrats having the option to endorse, that I can be tacked onto those that were fine with the Bureaucrats having the right to both endorse and vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:16, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I, for one would be fine with them being able to vote and endorse, I chose option two because I saw it as a middle ground, however I find the b-crats being able to endorse, regardless of whether they can vote or must exclude themselves, preferable to not being able to endorse. Richie9999 (talk) 06:18, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I feel the same way (meaning I would've been fine with options 2 or 3), Richie, but I'm afraid those feelings probably won't matter. We had our time to vote and switch votes. Right now, I am questioning the procedure. Options 2 and 3 were set up to fail from the start. As I said, determining whether or not we wanted them to endorse in the first place and then setting restrictions would have produced a much different result. Leon, they don't have to support each other, but voters for options 2 and 3 both agree that bureaucrats should be able to endorse. You can't deny that. _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:22, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: I am suggesting that it should have been something like this: Option 1: No endorsement. | Option 2: Endorsement. If yes, not allowed to determine result or no restrictions? _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:25, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Definitely cannot deny that both support the option for Bureaucrats to endorse. But it needs to be understood that when someone specifically votes for a certain rule, then that means that is where their convictions lie unless they clearly state otherwise. My vote falls in line with Bureaucrats having the option to both endorse & vote. My vote does not just lie with them just having the ability to endorse, and that means my vote does not go with that option, at all. Yes, there are similarities. But the very definition of being flaky is "Breaking or separating easily into small thin pieces." - and I do not believe we need to be fostering a community of flaky voters. That is just my opinion, naturally. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:28, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

• • (Edit conflict, I made this post before I made the one below)I see your opinion and respect it, but I do need to attempt to paraphrase what you are saying so I can get a clearer understanding of it (oh just look at me using what my college speech teacher taught me last week). You are saying that, if a user votes for option 1, and his favorite color is red, that doesn't mean that red is the favorite color of the other option 1 voters? Apologies for this interruption in the actual conversation, I am having difficulties understanding what you mean. _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:38, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
    • What it means is that if someone makes a vote, then that is what they should be standing for, otherwise the structural integrity of the vote is at risk. Voting for one option, and then settling with another option because it is similar, is essentially creating a two-faced vote. I am not trying to be self-righteous here, as I still regret multiple occasions in which I settled with the lesser evil instead of standing true to what I really believed in voting for. As for your example, it would be more like this: A user votes that the best colour is red, while another position is to say that the best colour is both red and blue. Yes, the second position is partially correct since red might be your favourite colour, but you have to choose whether red is the best colour, or if both are. Changing your vote or tacking your vote onto position 2, just because you do not mind blue, and red is your favourite colour, does not mean that both positions are similar or compliment each other in any way, as you are being dishonest and saying red and blue are the best colours, even though you really consider only red as being the best colour. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:50, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
      • I understand now. Thank you for clarifying. _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:57, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To simplify what I said, you either have to take the vote in full, or not at all. You cannot just take a full vote, and break it up into smaller parts to strengthen another position. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:31, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

You just made my point. Options 2 and 3 are one main idea broken up into smaller parts, which strengthens option 1. _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:38, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

2 different philosophies are at play, not just one:

• Skire believes we should either remove the Bureaucrat's ability to both endorse and vote, or just to remove their ability to vote.
• Follower believes we should do away with the policy entirely.

• • The first philosophy is to determine just how much rights a Bureaucrat should have concerning Chat-Moderator forums. These three options are not fragments of a single thought, and the community genuinely has the right to determine just how many rights our Bureaucrats should have (just as with any other rights group), and here, they get the chance to specify what they want.
  • The second philosophy cannot be fragmented, as it is a single idea from a single user. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:43, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

"they don't have to support each other, but voters for options 2 and 3 both agree that bureaucrats should be able to endorse. You can't deny that. "-> That's just cherry-picking the interpretation that's convenient to your own standpoint. The way I see it, both 1 & 2 are in line with eachother in that they are both restricting the bureaucrat's free-hand, and you can't deny that either. Convenient interpretation can go either way. Regardless, the whole point is moot, choice 1 was chosen legitimately according to our policies, and must be respected. Any issue with how the poll and the questions were presented should had been brought forward prior or at least during the voting period, we can't go around casting doubt on them AFTER the votes have been cast and finalized just because it turned out it didn't go the way we hoped for. I hope we all have at least as much respect for the polices and our practices to accept this fact.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 06:45, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. You said that the vote is over and the result must be respected, and then you called it moot ("subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision"). Before we continue (so I know how to respond properly), which one is it? _{Don't give up the ship!} 06:54, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I believe she was calling your point moot before moving onto the subject of majority community vote. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 06:58, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

That's an interpretation error on my part. Disregard. _{Don't give up the ship!} 07:00, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Limmie, I mean you no disrespect with this, but please don't just assume my rationale is based on the idea that I didn't get what I wanted. People putting words and ideas into my mouth is a major pet peeve of mine. I do acknowledge the decision and will follow it as it stands unless something changes. I only wanted to keep things fair, and I simply feel that the setup wasn't. If you want my honest response as to why I didn't point this out before, I'll tell you it's because I didn't notice it until now. Lol. _{Don't give up the ship!} 07:07, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Please note I didn't say you, I said we. I assumed nothing about anyone ;)
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 07:19, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Lim's example clearly does not apply as neutral is not a completely different proposition, plus in the case of 69 the lack of a true majority was considered. Here we have a situation where more people voted for propositions that are incompatible with the proposition that had the largest number of votes. Given that there isn't even consensus on how to interpret it, to suggest that the community made a decision is absurd. Agent c (talk) 07:20, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

It seems going that way, it would be nearly impossible to have any votes that have more than 2 options. All it takes to circumvent a majority vote (majority means, by definition: "the greater number"), is to combine the other votes and say that combined, there are possibly more dissenting votes overall than supporting votes. This is not how voting works anywhere else that I can think of, as combining dissenting votes is a steamroll tactic. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:27, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The case of 69 was a user-rights request, and those are left to the bureaucrats' discretion, unlike policy votes. You will notice I pooled no rights request in my samples precisely for that reason. That more people voted for propositions that are incompatible with the proposition that had the largest number of votes is just a potential situation in the first-past-the-post system, which as any other voting system, has its flaws. Regardless of said flaws, it is and has always been the system we employed according to the rules. If anyone feels this system should be changed, by all means make such a proposal, but even if it is changed it will not affect the results prior, which include this. Like I said, I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your satisfaction C, but that is what the community has legitimately chosen. Ad-hoc interpretation of our polices according to the convenience of the moment is not something any of us should engage into.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 07:30, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Something that needs to be taken into account is that if we require 50%+1 for a vote to pass, then a huge portion of our community votes have been invalid. Let me give a few examples using the logic of combining dissenting votes against the majority vote:

1. Creation and implementation of a Verified Template: 4 yes/ 3 neutral/ 1 no = 4 for the template, and 4 against it, yet the template was created without further discussion/votes.
2. Yes to Sci Fi Alliance: 10 for sci-fi alliance/ 7 for no alliances/ 5 for fantasy alliance = 10 for sci-fi, and 12 against it, yet we became a part of the sci-fi alliance.
3. Good behaviour requirement before calling a (user rights) vote: 9 yes/ 6 no/ 6 neutral = 10 for yes, and 12 against the requirement, yet the good behaviour requirement was added.

Those are just a few examples, and the list keeps going and going and going. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:44, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

It's not a steamroll tactic but the opposite. The reverse being that vote proposers can simply include a single proposition that is the way they want, and a crazy number of options to split the vote against - it is therefore an anti steamroll tactic.

If vote proposers are going to give more than 2 options to users then you are leaving it in the hands of the bureaucrats to interpret the vote and determine what the community consensus position is. Nobody can honestly say with a straight face there is any consensus here, and this it fails to resolve. The solution however appears simple. If you feel confident that the community supports your proposition go call a straight up and down vote. The community can't have chosen something when 55% chose incompatible options.

2 of you examples are invalid. The alliances was not an exclusive vote - we could have joined all, and your third includes a neutral option which is not a proposition in itself. Agent c (talk) 07:46, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

So does a community vote require 50%+1 to pass, or not? And yes, neutral votes are votes against the other options. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:48, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, posting anyways)

“Neutral: not helping or supporting either side in a conflict, disagreement”

Thus, neutral votes are impartial to either side and aren't really a "third option," per se. It's just a way for a user to say "I've seen the arguments for both sides, but I don't have an opinion or I don't care how it turns out." As for the Sci-Fi Alliance vote, I don't remember that one at all (I must've been away when it happened), so I can't comment on it or whether or not a consensus was truly reached (as one has not been reached here) until I find it. _{Don't give up the ship!} 07:51, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral means both impartiality, and not supporting the other options available. Disregarding neutral votes is making a farce of the voting system, as neutral votes are important in determining how a community feels about a certain subject. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 07:53, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

But you're saying that neutral votes are essentially counted as no votes, and they're not. _{Don't give up the ship!} 07:57, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The act of voting neutral means you are not supporting any of the other options. What you guys are saying is that dissenting votes can be combined to create a percentile higher than the current major vote. The definition of dissenting opinion is as follows: "an opinion written by one or more expressing disagreement with the majority opinion". So in the act of not supporting the other options, neutral votes are indeed dissenting votes, which means they have to be considered in the logic you and Chad are proposing. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:01, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I was considering writing once more that the outcome would've been much different if the vote had been structured differently (e.g. to decide first if we even wanted bureaucrats to endorse in the first place, and THEN determining restrictions, not just throwing them all into one vote and splitting it), but that would be taking this conversation in circles, which is getting us nowhere. I've made my point. It's logical, I don't care how anyone wants to verbosely tip-toe around it. Now we just need input from users who aren't online at the moment. _{Don't give up the ship!} 08:06, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Also, I must add, if we aren't supposed to point out malpractice or wrongdoings after they happen (only before or as they're happening), then what is the point of a court system? In other words, "evidence clearly says you murdered that guy, but we didn't catch you before you did it or as you were doing it, so you're free to go." I know, I know, completely different argument, but I couldn't let this flaw slip by unnoticed. _{Don't give up the ship!} 08:08, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, you are the one trying to tip-toe around plurality (a voting requirement of more ballots cast for a proposition than for any other option), which is how we have handled most votes since Ausir took his leave along with Porter. I am not happy with option 1, either. But I will stick up for the community and the fact that their votes matter - and in this case, the votes are clearly seen in majority within option 1.

It is definitely agreed, though, that this has gotten pretty verbose. But that is not necessary a bad thing when attempting to clarify procedure. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:11, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

“If vote proposers are going to give more than 2 options to users then you are leaving it in the hands of the bureaucrats to interpret the vote and determine what the community consensus position is. Nobody can honestly say with a straight face there is any consensus here, and this it fails to resolve. The solution however appears simple. If you feel confident that the community supports your proposition go call a straight up and down vote.”

I don't really feel strongly at all about any particular outcome here, which is why I didn't even bother to argue my point beyond a single line responding to a specific address to my vote, nor made any effort to convince anyone during the vote. My only concern here, which is the same as in every other dispute in which I made a stand lately, is to uphold the respect for our policies and nothing else. In this case, a vote that has been 100% legitimate, and is being brought to doubt merely because a vocal group of people disagree with it. I see this whole affair as no better than when a few users tried to repoll the No-Dolan rule right after the vote because they didn't agree with it. I will say the same thing I said back then: we don't always get it the way we want, but the rules and the due process comes first, second and third. We have to respect the results of community decisions, not nitpick excuses until we get what we want.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 08:16, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, I am not arguing that a plurality is not present or what a plurality is. I am saying that a plurality wouldn't have happened if we had set this up properly. Limmie, the more you covertly call our argument childish or stupid, the more it reassures me about my position, so please keep it up. _{Don't give up the ship!} 08:23, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

That is not what you said - you said we were tip-toing around your point. Your main point along with Chad is that all dissenting votes can be collected to oppose plurality with a reconstructed majority - which is not how voting works, and I doubt a professional precedent can be cited to back up that claim. The other point you brought up is that this would not be an issue if we did things differently, but that is a hypothetical situation which neither Limmie or myself have addressed, meaning we cannot possibly have verbosely tip-toed around that logic. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 08:30, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

• Changing the rules requires community consensus. One specific example of determining this consensus is a vote. We have used other ways at various points, but it remains the default way.
• Most votes are binary - up and down, yes and no. Although there may be a "neutral" option, as a vote cannot resolve for neutral these votes do not count for determining whether a mojority exists. They can be used to inform and interpret the vote, and for quorum. Even if we had 20 valid neutral votes, and they were the only valid votes, a vote cannot fall to "neutral" as it is neither for, nor against. It is a minuted abstain, or "present" vote.
• Where there is a non binary vote, consensus determining can become fuzzy. Obviously if a true majority vote for one option, then there is no question. However when a leading option is countered by more votes for other options, it is clear that the leading option is not consensus and cannot pass as it stands.
• Where there are similar options, it may be possible to look to these to inform a middle solution between those that does have the ability to achieve consensus and a true majority (the length of time for the inactivity policy for example was a consensus compromise).
• where there are no similar or compatible/comparable options, it stands to reason that there are more votes against that proposition than not. It cannot be held that 45% of voters should overrule 55% who are opposed to something simply because they cannot agree on a specific alternative. At the end of the day the majority is still opposed, else they would have voted for it (or a related option). If for example Arizona had a vote to declare independence and it failed with only 40% in favour, it would be crazy to argue that if 20% believed it should be in the USA, 20% believed it should be in Mexico, and 20% believed it should be in Russia that the state should therefore be independent - clearly a plurality don't support the status quo, but a plurality doesn't support the independence option either.

So based on this, there are only two options:

1. We look for a middle position that is able to achieve a consensus. In this case the likely candidate is B for the basis of this middle positon: A significant number of users believe crats should be able to endorse, A significant number believe there should be restrictions; B combines both of these, and shares part of its proposition with C.

1. If a consensus position cannot be reconciled from the votes is a nullity. All propositions fail due to lack of consensus.

Ultimately I think it falls to the proposers of the change to find a consensus position that the majority of the active community finds acceptable, as on the face of it, it exists in none of these cases. The alternative would be a vote where I could run a poll with 1 outcome I like, and then try to split the votes against me between a dozen other options... it becomes a license to steamroller. Agent c (talk) 12:20, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

One side is arguing that a plurality constitutes a simple majority and thus option 1 should pass. The other side is arguing that a plurality is not enough to pass since more voters prefer options other than option 1. Although I agree fully that, based on precedence and definition, plurality makes for a simple majority, I was still pushing for continued discussion on the matter itself, leading to a yes-no poll on a compromise position, perhaps. Considering the nature of the options, it would seem that finding a compromise with option 2 at the centre may be easiest. Of course, we also have the administrative decree option, which requires consensus among administrators... --Skire (talk) 15:18, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Result (break)

Neutral IS a distinct option. If the majority goes to yes, then the proposition passes. If to no, it is rejected. If instead it goes to neutral, then that means the option made available fails to reach consensus and the proposal goes back to discussion without being neither rejected nor approved, to be voted on once the appropriate changes are made. I don't understand how you can claim neutral shouldn't count in the majority calculation when you yourself provided proof that it does, in the case of 69's request. You claimed it was rejected on the basis of not reaching full majority, but the outcome was 12-9-5 (46%-35%-19%). If it is as you say now and neutrals don't count towards majority, then it would in fact be 12-9 (57%-43%), meaning a majority according to the definition you defended earlier was reached and surpassed. So what is it then? Do neutrals count toward majority or not? While user-requests are not precedent-setting since they are up to the BC's discretion, it does shed light on how you understood the issues at hand right before this vote, and it shows your argument making an 180 turn. This is what I was preaching against before about cherry-picking and convenient interpretation, and the reason I'm making a stand on this, quite frankly, absolutely irrelevant issue. Consistency and objectivity should count for something, and if we believe something to be X, then it should remain X even when it goes against us, even if for no reason other than intellectual honesty. And no, this is not me calling you or anyone else dishonest, just to make that clear.

On the matter that the options provided set it up so that option 1 had advantage because it split the supporters of option 3. First, for that to be true it would have to mean that options 2 and 3 meant the same thing, which like I said I don't believe it does. The same argument could be constructed to see option 2 being in the same line as 1 since both are voting to limit the BC's free hand. It goes either way with the same intensity depending on which side you want to defend, so it's meaningless. Second, the vote was up for a whole week, and SD even posted a draft with the vote and the options available beforehand, and only after said draft was approved did he release the poll. More than ample time was had to nitpick on the wording, yet only now after every vote has been cast and the result didn't go as expected is it being called to doubt. Doing so is a spit in the face of our practices and policies, and as I mentioned, no different than No-Dolan 2: Electric Boogaloo.

To argue that the middle position should be fallen back to as some sort of compromise is incurring in the Golden Mean fallacy, and opens a really nasty precedent of the other side to demand a watering down of proposals that have been passed. And to claim that this vote should not be passed as is because of the narrow margin opens up the equally nasty loophole of demanding a revisit of every single close vote we had, including but not exclusively the five examples I cited.

And Toci, I haven't, neither covertly nor overtly, called your arguments stupid, nor do believe that is so. If you saw that in anything I said then rest assured that you are projecting it on your own accord. I also have no problem with "strengthening your resolve" or anything of the sort; if my side prevails I want it so because my arguments were objectively understood and accepted, not because I managed to browbeat you or anybody else with my awesome barbed rhetorics, stealth insults, or whatever other nefarious behavior people seem fond to ascribe to me XD
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 17:36, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I think you've already had a full and adequate response to your points. This petty bickering has already had one casualty today and I have no intention of furthering it at this time. I think it falls to you to find a true consensus position rather than try to override the actual majority of voters and I look forward to see waht you come up with. Agent c (talk) 20:27, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I suppose passive-aggressive retorts are always easier than refuting the actual points... --Skire (talk) 20:52, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

The policies say a simple majority is enough to pass a policy, and a simple majority was achieved. Unless a discretionary veto from the admins as a body is enacted, this policy has passed, simple as. There is nothing more to it really.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

The policies also clearly state that rule making is done by consensus, and therefore the reason for the poll is find and express this consensus. You can either call it not passed for lack of a consensus, or you can call it vetoed to give you the opportunity to find a true consensus. Now, Are you going to seize the opportunity to find a true consensus that unites the wiki rather than drives people away? I guess thats up to you. Agent c (talk) 20:59, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was achieved. Like I said before, I find the notion that 2 and 3 mean the same thing absurd. No matter how I look at it, this is a completely run-of-the-mill situation about an utterly irrelevant topic, which has been completely blown out of proportion. If the other admins want to enact the dreaded discretionary veto over something like this, with all the inevitable drama and unforeseen consequences it will entail, it's to each of their consciences I suppose. But as it stands, the policy has passed with 100% legitimacy. At any rate, as long as everything is done according to policy I will be satisfied.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:46, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

LImmie, you have been given an opportunity to find a true consensus. You can either play "Stomp your feet until I get what I want", or you can actually find a true consensus position. Consensus is not 45%. If you continue to choose to waste this opportunity that's up to you. Agent c (talk) 23:37, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Simple majority goes down a list: majority means the most votes for a single option, which is typically regarded to 50%+1 or more, but is not restricted to that perception alone. And if that cannot be achieved, then plurality goes into effect. In the event that plurality cannot be achieved, then the vote is then condensed down to the most popular options, and a re-vote is called. I have been in more than enough professional debates to understand what simple majority is, and in this case, we have hit plurality. The literal definition of simple majority: "A majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any ONE candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority." ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:45, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one "stomping my feet until I get what I want", like I said I really couldn't care less about BC endorsement, you're the one who obviously do. My only concern is with proper procedure, but feel free to disbelieve that, it's not like I care either. Consensus was 41% on Cartman's reconfirmation, 42% on the Extended wiki navigation. And it has been 44% here. Though luck. If you disagree with the fairness of the first-past-the-post system, by all means, propose a change through the proper means, and if accepted, the new system will be the one dictating future polls. Or drag the whole wiki in yet another drama-fest over the discretionary veto. Just don't expect me to ignore the rules in this case because the result didn't personally please you.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 00:15, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Veto

I decided today that instead of arguing from my personal knowledge and experience, that I would instead argue using cold facts. What I am about to show you is that vetoing under the pretense that a simple majority was not achieved, renders any Administrative veto illegitimate until a time comes in which we repeal our simple majority policy for community votes.

Long version:

1. Our policies state: "To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum and at least ten votes are required for it to be valid; a simple majority is sufficient to pass. Voting requirements for those wishing to participate are that they must have a registered account, and have made at least one edit prior to the start of the vote."
2. The Dictionary defines simple majority as: "A majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any ONE candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority."
3. The Dictionary defines absolute majority as: "A number of votes totalling over 50 per cent, such as the total number of votes or seats obtained by a party that beats the combined opposition."

Short version:

1. Our policies state that normal procedure is to go by simple majority.
2. The literal definition of simple majority clearly states that a majority is achieved by whichever single or one vote has the highest number of votes.
3. The literal definition of simple majority clearly states "...while not constituting an absolute majority." - The argument here is that the option with the highest number of votes did not achieve simple majority since it did not receive 50%+1 votes or more. But 50%+1 or more votes is absolute majority, which is not what we follow in our policies.
4. So by attempting to veto the single option with the highest number of votes, an attempt is being made which would violate our policies, which clearly defines normal procedure follows simple majority instead of absolute majority. For this veto to succeed, the simple majority policy first need to be repealed, and either keep the area a gray spot, or specify that we instead create results through the use of absolute majority. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:28, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

What we seem to have here is a few users that rather than find a solution that is acceptable to the actual majority are continuing to demand that their own way be put through. Rather than seek a middle ground or true consensus outcome that everyone, or even a majority can be happy with, they have instead chosen to write essays on the definition of majority.

It is clear and obvious that no consensus exists. There is not even consensus on what a majority is.

This petty squabbling has already caused one resignation as they have been fed up with it.

Rather than try to seek to unite, the three of you have continued to divide. Rather than seek an outcome everyone can be happy with, you have continued to demand and steamroller your own prefered outcome.

The veto guidelines say clearly "The administrators may veto a policy". As far as I am concerned the three of you may choose to read the outcome in whatever way satifies you best. It either fails to pass or lack of consensus, or it is vetoed for lack of coneneus.

I invite the three of you again for the third time. You have the opportunity to find a true consueneus position and outcome. We can either repost everything over and over again ad infinitim, or you can do just that. The choice is yours. You may accept this opportunity to unite the wiki, or not. Agent c (talk) 00:43, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption, but may I just ask, did no one read Danny's comment with the poll about ice cream? That's basically the point I tried to make about the split vote. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:00, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that was Chad's thing =P And we do indeed have consensus per the wiki's definition. What definition are you running by, Chad? --Skire (talk) 01:09, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Strange place for a poll. Lol. Still, though, that poll sums up my issue with the structure of this vote, but I don't think encouraging this stalemate by joining the "repeat myself" parade will help anything, so I'll say this: If this had been set up properly, I guarantee the results would be much different. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:15, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Please read my vote again, Chad. I did not add it to the poll since option 3 did not allow for any conditions. But I believe I made it pretty clear that I was rooting for option 3, and I am unsatisfied that option 1 pulled through. I would really appreciate people not making my votes for me, especially when I, myself, already made my thoughts known. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:18, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I am running by the dictionary definition of consnenus. A general agreement. General agreement is not more opposed than for. It is not 45%. You have the opportunity to find a true consensus position, and I again emplore you to go find it. And Leon, I am aware of your vote, but your subsiquent actions show you helping work for the division. Agent c (talk) 01:22, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

You can criticise by claiming that this was not set up properly, but nonetheless I did not see any objections (much less yours) when I posted a link to a draft of this vote on the discussion page (as Lims mentioned). What we should have done, perhaps, is vote on whether or not bc's should be able to endorse, and if so, what restrictions. Separating into two yesno polls instead of a multi may be a better choice. However, that has nothing to do with the current debate itself as a plurality is a simple majority. That simple. --Skire (talk) 01:26, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

It goes both way Chad. What we have here are two users arguing the legitimate result of a legitimate poll. I invite the two of you to stop the nitpicking and accept this opportunity to strengthen the respect for the policies and acknowledge the valid result of the poll instead of dragging the wiki into this drama over such an irrelevant issue. We can both be sanctimonious, and it isn't going to take anyone anywhere.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:27, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Limmie on this. We are being told that we are the ones causing dissent, even though we were not the ones to try and veto the way our policies tell us to handle community votes. Our votes specify that consensus is achieved through simple majority, and I provided the literal definition for simple majority and how simple majority negates absolute majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarouxBloodline (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~! 01:29, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Danny, first, I had a huge plate of personal matters that kept me from seeing that discussion forum (which is the only place I am aware that you posted the draft). Second, "What we should have done, perhaps, is vote on whether or not bc's should be able to endorse, and if so, what restrictions. Separating into two yesno polls instead of a multi may be a better choice;" I said that exact thing earlier on in this forum, but no one seems to be able to put 2 and 2 together and see the common sense in that. Third, I don't care about the plurality vs. majority debate. My original concern was the splitting of this vote, which you, yourself, have just pointed out. Why are we suggesting to simply ignore this irrefutable point and act like all is well? Just because we made a mistake doesn't mean we can't simply start it up again and fix it. Not wanting to find a sensible solution to this matter is just utter laziness, and I won't tolerate laziness. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:45, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Irrefutable point? There is no majority vs. plurality debate -- we have a plurality and therefore, by definition and precedence, a simple majority. Why that is not being accepted by some is beyond me. Anyhow, I have worn myself out on this topic for now... --Skire (talk) 02:08, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the goddamn plurality. I'm talking about the split vote. _{Don't give up the ship!} 03:28, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

"The Dictionary defines simple majority as: "A majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any ONE candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority." ^{Some Assembly Required!} 03:32, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

The goddamn split vote is irrelevant. The way we did the poll should be perfectly fine, if a storm of controversy wasn't conjured around it. The poll template allows for yesno style or multi style polls. This is the latter. You're basically saying that only yesno votes should be used while multi polls should always be avoided because a plurality doesn't make for consensus (so yes, you are talking about the goddamn plurality). There never should be this debate in the first place, and such a split vote would have three options anyway (yes, no, and neutral), so that resolves nothing. --Skire (talk) 03:35, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Right, I'm locking this now. You've chosen to continue to squabble instead of work constructively on something that people can unite around. You've been all given multiple opportunities to take the lead in this process (and have been begged to do so) but have instead chosen to squander this chance. After I come back from a full nights sleep I will take the lead in doing so, getting a solution that can truly claim a true consensus. This squabbling has already put one great big hole in the wiki's skill set today, and we shall be damn well lucky if we avoid another one. Agent c (talk) 03:41, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

You seem to forget that all those involved in this debate (which is fully legitimate) except Leon are admins and can still edit ; ) At any rate, you have no right whatsoever to simply shut down a forum because you don't want to participate any longer in the debate. You are pushing your personal stance with a complete lack of regard for other people's opinions. Tocino is presenting his side and I am engaging in an interesting argument with him. That's all. --Skire (talk) 03:44, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had to resort to profanity. I want to keep this civil, professional, and respectful, but PLEASE don't put words into my mouth. I'm not saying that only yes/no votes should be used simply because of the idea that a plurality doesn't mean consensus. I don't care about the semantics behind plurality, simple, or absolute majority. I really don't care. Multivotes are a crucial part of the way we do things here, but in this particular instance and this particular instance only, it really shouldn't be a multivote. Multivotes are for three or more different options, not one option and two variants of the same option. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm sorry if it came out differently before, but I am really trying my hardest to express this without sounding like a jackass or looking illiterate. _{Don't give up the ship!} 04:08, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I did not forget at all, nor have I refused to continue the discussion. I had hoped you would have taken this opportunity to set things aside until the morning. I am not pushing my personal stance, I am doing something what all of us should have done hours, nay, days ago - show some damn leadership; All of us have had a serious failure of leadership over the last few weeks, and I intend to correct that. I will take the lead on the consensus resolution in the morning after I have slept. You can either be a part of the solution, or part of the problem - there is no neutral. The solution starts tomorrow. That is all. Agent c (talk) 04:10, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the block. The guidelines for page protection says:

“

• Critical parts of the site. This includes pages like the main page or widely used templates.
• Articles which are frequently targets of vandalism.
• Pages which are the "battleground" for an edit war. If a set of editors repeatedly reverts each other's changes, an administrator may protect the page to encourage them to resolve the dispute in a different manner (i.e. by discussion as appropriate).”

None of those reasons apply here. The discussion is clearly still underway. If you don't personally wish to continue that's fine, but you have no right to deny others to do so.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 04:17, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

I've already told Limmie, Danny, and Gunny this, but I'll say it here for the public to see. The God's honest truth is that this whole thing, the argument about this, is so stupid, and the outcome of this vote has no effect on our lives whatsoever. All I wanted to do was point out a wrong I thought I saw, and it all went to shit and turned into this mess. That being said, I am very interested to see what Chad has planned for tomorrow. I like his attitude about it, and I'm going to follow his example. I told Gunny this via PM, but among all this bickering and excessive arguing, people (myself included) seem to forget that our number one purpose on the wiki is to collaborate to provide information to the public about our favorite game series. Anything else comes second, petty policy debates included. But overall, it's going to turn out fine. It's just another policy war. And war...war never changes. As for the vote, veto, and everything that's been fought over here, it is what it is. I respect the decision the community made. I'm willing to let it all go and move forward, starting with whatever Chad has planned for tomorrow (pending whether or not I think it might lead to more senseless arguments). I'm not setting a good example to others by partaking in this kind of debate. I plan to remedy that. With Gunny gone, ALL OF US need to step up our leadership to make an attempt to fill the massive void we now have. And I want to help lead that change. _{Don't give up the ship!} 04:58, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Since the result of this vote was contested on the two-fold grounds of the imprecise definition of "simple majority" and the way the vote was structured with multiple options possibly diluting the consensus on the main question of "Should BCs endorse chat mod requests", a compromise has been worked out between the contending parties. First, this vote will be passed on the plurality, in keeping with prior wiki practice of defining "simple majority" as a plurality. Secondly, a new vote will be opened with straight forward yes/no options on the question of BCs endorsing chat mods and any restrictions placed on them if they can, so that a proper reading of the community's consensus on the issue can be made. I'd like to thank all parties who have agreed to this compromise and commend them for working towards consensus. Please see the new proposal here.

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	User rights request policy
Proposal discussion	Discussion
Proposal vote	Vote
Date and result	16 February 2022 · 12-0-1
Amendment 1	Good behavior clause · Vote · 13 January 2013 · 9-6-6
Amendment 2	Moderator endorsements for chatmod · Discussion · Vote · 12 June 2016 · 15-1-3
Amendment 3	Granting patroller tools · Discussion · Vote · 16 April 2021 · 28-1-2
Related topics	Administrators and moderators · Forum vote records · Administration policy · Rights holder activity policy