Wowpedia talk:Voting policy

Template:Archives1

Categories for voting, and listings

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

I'll think on that one for a bit before I chip in with my .02. Just one thing though: Deletion votes already live in their own category. --Mikk 08:47, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

Proposal to simplify regular votes

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

I feel that the current (read: old) voting requirements are a bit too complicated:

• Minimum vote of 5
• Winners must outnumber losers by 3 to 1
• Pending closure time of 3 days

The Proposal

Simplify regular voting rules to:

• Winners must outnumber losers by 5
• Pending closure time of 3 days

Particularily, for multiple-choice votes:

• The "win by 5" rule refers to the closest competitor.

Reasoning

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

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

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

Losers	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Winners (current)	5	5	6	9	12	15	18	21	24	27	30
Winners (proposed)	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15

Policy ratification vote

Yes

1. Yes Mikk 16:18, 1 June 2006 (EDT) - (my proposal, so..)
2. Yes Ralthor 18:09, 1 June 2006 (EDT) - (Well I think it could be easily changed to say that the winning vote must outnumber its greatest compitition by a 3:1 ratio, but that doesn't seem to simplify it at all. I like the ratio idea for policies just because if wowwiki ever gets to a point were a lot of people vote, 30-35 votes wouldn't be very significant. Then again if it is a ratio it will probably never get approved. Yea this will work, if winning by 5 votes ever becomes to easy or doesn't reflect enough of the community we can change it again.)
3. Yes ProfGlitch 06:39, 16 June 2006 (EDT) - (Agreed!)
4. Yes Jeoh 06:22, 16 June 2006 (EDT) - (Great idea!)
5. Yes Dracomage 06:45, 16 June 2006 (EDT) - (I think its sound.)
6. Yes Kirkburn 08:47, 17 June 2006 (EDT) - ()

No

Comments

1. I'm not decided yet, but I just think it's funny to have a vote on a vote :) "Hands up anyone who wants to take a vote?" -- Kirkburn 16:30, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
2. This sounds like you want to use the policy voting process (except for the ratify/adopt part) for generic votes. --Fandyllic 3:40 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006
   • Buh? The policy voting process clearly states 3:1 ratio for policy votes? --Mikk 16:52, 1 June 2006 (EDT)
     • D'oh, I mistook the blue banner for the proposal. You're supposed to put your proposal before the vote or at least link to it. Some of us are too stupid to click  Project page . --Fandyllic 4:33 PM PDT
       • lol. *shakes head* Yep. I do belong here. Schmidt 11:53, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
3. I added an example table to the proposal page to show you exactly what happens at different levels of votes.
4. Oh one thing, I assume you mean the winning side must outnumber the SUM TOTAL of the losing sides? Maybe this should be made clearer?--Ralthor 18:12, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

   Dear lord no. That'd be a horror with 4+ alternatives. I meant win by 5 over the closest competitor. I'm clarifying the proposal. --Mikk 18:19, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

---

New comments

Deletion vote

Votes

Delete

1. Delete User:Kirkburn/Sig3 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - (Consensus is way better than voting. We have voting stuff set up for policies and deletion, but we never use any of this (nor should we).)
2. Delete User:Tekkub/Sig 08:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - (I vote for "my vote doesn't matter." So I guess that's a yes :))
3. Delete User:DuTempete/Signature17:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - (no comment)
4. Delete Syzgyn 17:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) - ()
5. Delete Pcj (T•C) 13:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) - (no comment)
6. Delete SWM2448 21:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) - (As long as there are still votes for huge things and deletions still as was said.)

Keep

1. Keep --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) - (I view voting as the most obvious and accessible venue for reaching a consensus. That is, the poke in the eye of anyone who has an opinion. Much is discussed on IRC or via IM, but speaking as someone without those tools, I would prefer not to see a tool I DO have access to disappear. Show me other tools that I do have access to, and I may buy in to deleting this mechanism. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
2. Keep --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:58 PM PDT 1 Oct 2007 - (Voting seems to be less wishy-washy than consensus. It seems hard to pin down consensus as anything but a vague notion. Ironically, if we did operate by consensus, I suspect we couldn't get rid of voting.)

Comments

This is a nomination to delete all voting areas not devoted to deletion and policy. The templates are out of date, it's completely unused, and it's counter to the philosophy of wikis. Indeed, I would prefer we moved closer to wikipedia-style "vote" processes, but this isn't quite that extreme :P User:Kirkburn/Sig3 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

1. WoWWiki:Policy/Voting
2. Template:Vote/Closing
3. Template:Vote/Closing/Content
4. Template:Vote/Note (possibly)
5. Template:Vote/Vote
6. Template:Vote/Vote/Content
7. Template:Vote/Talk

Nice and short! User:Kirkburn/Sig3 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Note well: this isn't changing the deletion or policy nomination process, this is the older, different "general vote" stuff. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're using Wikipedia as an example of consensus (which I suspect is the case), then I think the idea of consensus leading to acceptable compromise to opposing parties is a false assertion. Wikipedia is rife with examples of the pretense of consensus leading to an arbitrary decision. Rarely do admins fully explain decisions made by "consensus". I would have to demand a clear and definitive explanation of the form of consensus we plan to use in WoWWiki, if we are using it as a replacement for voting.

Consensus as I've seen operate in most scenarios goes like this:

1. x number of people generally want option A.
2. y number of people want option B.
3. x outnumbers y, so the decider picks option A.
4. Group y grumbles and protests.
5. The decider says some stuff about making minor changes and may or may not make them.
6. Group y realizes they are stuffed, basically realize arguing is fruitless, and mostly opts out of the discussion.

--Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:06 PM PDT 1 OCt 2007

Again, we don't even use the templates I'm suggesting for deletion. The policy and delete vote stuff isn't being touched by my suggestion. I'm saying we should avoid votes as much as possible (which we seem pretty good at anyway). User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I once saw a cleanup or merge vote I think... --SWM2448 23:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

---