Forum:Housekeeping votes

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Housekeeping votes

Hi Folks,

This is a wrapup vote of a few smaller issues as detailed in Housekeeping discussion and The Spotify playlist. Things that seem a bigger task for now I've left out. Agent c (talk) 15:20, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Poll finished on 3:20 pm June 15, 2013 (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.

Wiki Votes

Proposal 1: That the disused IRC features be removed from the wiki

This vote is straight forward. The IRC features on the wiki are not used, and can potentially confuse people looking for the right chat feature. This would result in the IRC links and rules being removed.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:43, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. The only thing it's good for to me is nostalgia of memories that don't exist. I say axe this relic. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. We have chat. If someone needs to do it in private, we have the private messages. Simple as that. Energy X 21:13, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
6. We still have this? Why haven't we gotten rid of it sooner? Richie9999 (talk) 13:07, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. --Skire (talk) 23:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Defining Multiple Account Abuse

This would finally, in a binding manner, define what is multiple account abuse. The options are that multiple accounts when in use on this wiki should be made clear as to who the "primary" account user is; That this should be specifically noted as not being abuse, or that we leave things the way they are in an ambiguous state.

Option 1 - All secondary accounts should be identified

The following would be added to the rules

Using multiple accounts on the wiki is not against our policies or guidelines; however we do insist that any secondary accounts should be identified with the primary username. Where this is not obvious in the username itself it should generally be identified on the user's profile page. Bureaucrats may consider requests to have an additional or replacement account with no links where there is a reason to do so. Bans from one account generally carry over to other accounts, and other accounts should not be used to avoid a (non self requested) ban on another account.

Votes below this line.

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. I'm one to prefer the rationale approach, prevents us from having to recite it after or during the fact. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. This is a problem that should be addressed--Josef (talk) 07:20, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. Why do you need multiple accounts? --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 08:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. --Skire (talk) 00:07, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Option 2 - Defined as not being abuse

Using multiple accounts on the wiki is not against our policies or guidelines. Bans from one account generally carry over to other accounts, and other accounts should not be used to avoid a (non self requested) ban on another account.

Votes below this line

1.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. 08:54, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - Review of the voting rationales rule

We recently added to the guidelines a recommendation that votes be accompanied by a voting rationale, and in some cases admins can force users to give a voting rationale. Is the vote working, or is it time to remove it or strengthen it?

Option 1: Remove the rule

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4. Richie9999 (talk) 13:11, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Option 2: Make reasons mandatory

1. --Wasson...Kuasson! (talk) 08:59, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Option 3: No changes

1. I have not seen valid justification for removing or "strengthening" the rule. No changes are necessary at all. --Skire (talk) 00:06, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I believe the recommendation for the reason behind the vote stay, but the motion that Administrators can force a reason to be supplied, be removed. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 16:06, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I respect an individual's desire to vote what they wish devoid of inspection onto their character or intentions, but I would like to know if it would not be in bad form to request voting mentalities for feedback on a proposal, such as a user rights proposal, in the event this rule is rescinded. I know we hold discussions before votes, making any rationales voiced and over with by the point of the vote, but I feel further discussion couldn't hurt anything except for the feelings of those wishing to say their thoughts only once.

Basically, if we remove the rule, can it still be personally optional or personally requested (assuming the request is respective of the rule being removed... assuming the rule gets removed). --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any clear indication that there is a problem with the current "rule" (which is a mere recommendation and provision of some rights reserved to administrators which, to this date, has not been used)? And are we now in the habit to arbitrarily challenge (without much, if any, discussion) policies passed by a clear majority only a few months prior? There is nothing wrong with the policy as it is. Adding a reason behind a vote is always recommended, as per common sense. This "rule" is just putting it in writing. Certain powers are given to the administrators (collectively) under special circumstances. This "rule" is just putting it in writing - administrators have always had those powers (e.g. reconfirmation requests that stipulate voting rationales). There is no good reason why this needs to be changed. Requiring rationales is overreach, removing this rule is pointless as the principles that lie behind it are irremovable. --Skire (talk) 23:59, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - Spotify List

Until such time as we can get a proper radio working that we create 2 spottify playlists, one for 1950's-style pop music, and one Enclave style music. The priority list for adding songs being:

• Appeared in a Fallout game
• Is a song by an artist who appeared in a fallout game
• Is a song by a contemporary of those who appeared in game.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. This sounds more like a fun thing rather than a rule thing, but yeah, I can't see why not here. Brainstorming is good. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Richie9999 (talk) 13:12, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 5 - Make an edit before voting

For some time admins have been enforcing a rule that users should make an edit before voting. With us now having checkuser on Bureaucrat accounts this is not a major requirement anymore, but still has some value in ensuring people who do vote are actual participants. The rule however does not appear in our guidelines. This vote would either add it to the guidelines, or prevent further enforcement on these lines.

This would add to the rules

Before voting on any policy, users must make a meaningful edit somewhere on the wiki. This does not need to be in the article space.

The alternative being to stop enforcing this.

Yes

1.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. on a wiki where commenting on a blog post (of which we have many active ones) qualifies as that edit, I don't see why asking a user wishing to vote has an edit is a bad thing, it's not like it's hard to comment on a blog post or leave a message on a tp or correct some grammar mistake on the articles. Richie9999 (talk) 13:14, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
3. This is completely necessary. Making one edit (which doesn't even have to be constructive, per se) on the wiki is not an unreasonable demand, especially considering the making of that one edit will permit the user to participate in any wiki vote initiated thereafter. --Skire (talk) 00:09, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. I'm going to say no as I feel that personal experience will teach any willing participants on this wiki whatever it is they need to know in order to vote and that this rule is more redundant than effective. Now if it were 20 votes? Then we'd beg scrutiny for being too much or being tempting of vandalizing. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Not really neccesary. Energy X 21:15, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:47, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Chat rules changes

Proposal 1 - Reorganisation/Clarification of Rules 1/2

This would seperate the intention of rules 1/2 and clarify them further.

Existing Rules

1. Personal attacks, bigotry and/or racist or sexist name calling.

2. Harassment and/or sexual harassment.

Proposed Rules

1. Personal attacks, harassment, sexual harassment, insults or bullying.

2. Racially Bigoted, Sexually degrading, or hate speech.

Rule 1 becomes a personal attacks rule, whereas rule 2 becomes a rule about dealing with is about groups as a whole.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:26, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. I like the wording of both of these, divorces the two issues appropriately. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. ^{"Anything, for the family"} 04:30, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. So it doesn't become a major problem in chat--Josef (talk) 07:33, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
8. So long as it's not zealous... and doesn't apply to mutants/ghouls. (troll) 08:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
9. Richie9999 (talk) 13:16, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
10. An excellent improve to current chat policy --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

No

1. Hell no. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 00:25, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
2. Fuck no. What kind of pleb could possibly even entertain the idea of voting yes. Higgey the Scotsman _{(talk page)} 00:33, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - Kicking and banning guidelines

That the following be added to the guidelines:

Moderators are reminded that they have the freedom to deal with situations with a less firm hand if required... If someone intends a bit of good humour, realises their mistake, and apologises, there may be no need no need for a kick or ban if the moderator feels the apology is genuine and the lesson has been learned

The use of kicks and bans for "joke" purposes is not permitted.

The first guideline reminds mods they have the freedom to take issues on their merits, and to not place a ban or kick if they do not feel it is worthwhile in this situation - a person who is genuinely sorry for taking a joke too far learns nothing from a 3 day ban that they haven't learned from messsing up.

The second is making written what is already a semi-written rule.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:27, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
4.  The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
5. If we use the kick jokes, it makes us look bad. So no kick joking. Energy X 21:16, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
6. Weren't we doing this all along? I guess the fact I had to ask reckons the need for having it noted down somewhere. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. coulda sworn this was already a rule... Richie9999 (talk) 13:17, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
8. --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

I'd like to see the 'unable to joke kick/ban' rule uplifted. Would return some of that good old humor in chat I miss. 08:51, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposal 3 - No Dolan removal

Existing rule

Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. This often includes, but is not limited to; excessive usage of capital letters, punctuation marks, deliberate distortions of the English language (such as "133t" or "Dolan" speak), and excessive usage of non-English languages. Making arrangements to troll or otherwise disrupt another chat room or service is not permitted in our chatroom. This does not prevent you from joining another chatroom, linking another chatroom, or encouraging others to visit if the topic of conversation is likely to be of interest.

Proposed change

Trolling or general irritation or disruption of other users. Making arrangements to troll or otherwise disrupt another chat room or service is not permitted in our chatroom. This does not prevent you from joining another chatroom, linking another chatroom, or encouraging others to visit if the topic of conversation is likely to be of interest.

The alternative being that we start enforcing the no Dolan/deliberate distortions rule. This rule is clearly violated by many regulars - including moderators and admins - every day.

Yes, Remove it

1. Agent c (talk) 15:21, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. Not like this ever stopped anyone, anyway. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:28, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. But only if we later clarify trolling in like a wikipedia link or something. Akin to our, Don't be a dick rule. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:08, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. It's never really disruptive. If anything, it brings a lot of fun to the chat when it's used. #Saiv da dolun ^{"Anything, for the family"} 02:16, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. u cant keep teh dolan et bay, al atemps to do so r fyootile as jopser sed teh fashist roolz nevar stahpd anywun viva la revulooshun Higgey the Scotsman _{(talk page)} 02:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. What Jasper said. 08:50, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
7. dolun 2013 ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 00:25, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

No, Enforce it

1. You're taking out the part about caps and spamming nonsense letters. Were if just dolan, I'd say yes. But removing it all leaves "trolling" by itself up to interpretation. The Gunny   17:58, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. Absolutely not. If it is some strange reference, we should agree, but in general, no. Very nonsensical and out of order. Energy X 21:25, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Trolling needs clarification--Josef (talk) 07:42, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. Were it just the Dolun speak dat wuz getting removed I'd be all for it. But the other parts should stay. Richie9999 (talk) 13:19, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. Is there any reason for the changes beyond removing the no-dolan rule? --Skire (talk) 00:04, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It's usually done in all good fun and if the boundary of "dolan" and whatnot writing is being pushed it can classify as spam so it's own rule isn't totally needed, yet it still can get quite annoying every now and again. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 15:55, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Just on Caps/Spamming nonsense... Its my view that these would continue to be covered in rule 10 (spamming). I would be happy to clarify this on Rule 10 concurrently with this. Agent c (talk) 13:32, June 9, 2013 (UTC)