Talk: Voting policy

DYK

Is it only Admins who can can make DYKs?minicurls (Owl me!!!) (talk) 00:56, March 6, 2013 (UTC)minicurls

No, but as you can read for yourself in the voting policy, "Only autoconfirmed registered users with greater than 20 article edits may participate in voting." You can check your edits here. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:20, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Discussions voting requirements

As Discussions was not clearly included in the Voting Policy, and as its members are largely separate from the wiki-editing community, I have the extended current "20 contributions" requirement to cover any voting related to Discussions topics. Please let me know if there are questions or concerns. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:57, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

20 posts are quite easy to be established. You coukd make that 80/100 atleast.   Reverb frost  |  What's new?     20:13, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

20 edits is similarly an easy threshold to reach for wiki editors so only requiring 20 Discussion posts for voting there is meant to be the same simple requirement. The goal with that requirement seems to be to prevent people from showing up just to vote without have any other contributions to the community. I would like to keep the numbers the same to start, but if the Discussions community feels the voting requirements should be stricter, that of course can be discussed and possibly voted on (with some considerations given to not allowing one group of contributors disenfranchising another). Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:20, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have to mention that Ironyak1 made changes to/updated a policy without asking the community to vote for it. If you read the policies it is clearly stated that: "changes to community-wide policy and/or changes to individual articles are determined by a vote." Having the moderators decide who to make a new mod has been a De Facto rule for several years (2016 till now) and changing it without a community vote seems a bit dishonest no? In addition, it is stated no where that any user, not even Admins have the right to change policy, it isn't included in the rights of an admin, therefore a vote is completely needed.

Now, talking about the actual new "policy," whilst in theory having a vote to decide new mods would work fine, it really wont:

1. It will become a popularity contest. The user the most active in the OT Thread and RP Thread as well as the most sociable will easily win the "election", so whilst we would have popular and well known mods, they aren't specifically qualified to the job (see Magnus). Most people who vote are going to be rather long term users, why? Because new users will 1) Not easily be aware of the vote and 2) may feel discouraged from voting due to their recent joining. If they actually vote, they'll most likely vote for the currently most popular candidate, as they don't know who anyone is, this further improves the possibility of electing a candidate merely on popularity rather than effectiveness.
2. Letting the current moderators decide the new mod from a series of Mod Applications (just like we have done in the past, only exception is Magnus of course) and voting between ourselves lets us better pick new mods that we think could work well and dynamically with the team to improve the discussions. I am 100% certain that we know better who is hard working and responsible than the whole community.

Harrypotterexpert101 suggested two very interesting ideas that I would like to talk about:

1. "It was brought up that these sort of elections (of MODs) would most likely be a popularity contest. This can be avoided if a few nominations were made by the wiki admins/MODs of users that they think are hard working and suitable for the post. The nominees would proceed to be voted on by the community, and the one with the most votes gets granted the rights (or several, depending on however many MODs are needed at the time)."
   • This is an excellent proposition, why? Well it lets us Mods pick out certain users we KNOW will be hard-working and reliable, we know we will be able to count on them. It also keeps the aspect of community voting, making it quite a lot more democratic than what it has been the last 2 years.
2. "The community would nominate and vote on a candidate they think would be suitable for the post. Once a user (or several, depending on however MODs are needed at the time) comes out on top of the voting platform, the admins/MODs will take a vote on the user(s) in questions. If the user(s) are approved by more than half of the MODs/Admins the rights should be granted."
   • Again, this gives more power to the community, thing is though, this will take so much more time, if both admins and moderators have to approve a user before he is made mod, it would really take a long time. It would also force mods to chose users they perhaps don't want, people that do not have the intention to take their work seriously, and that's really a shame.

In general, these are some good ideas that I think us mods could accept. Instead of going to the extremes, a compromise seems more fair. Moderators are also part of the community are they not? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CosmicChronos (talk • contribs).

So you've selectively quoted the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy which says "In many cases, changes to community-wide policy and/or changes to individual articles are determined by a vote. In the absence of unanimous consensus, these issues may be settled by a majority or supermajority of those users polled (as mediated by one or more administrators)." (emphasis mine) There is no requirement that admins hold a vote for every policy change as can be seen throughout the History of the policy pages here. However if other users object to "Discussions users need to have 20 posts to participate in voting there", please share them here as that is the change I made to this policy - to make the Discussions voting requirements not based on wiki edits, as the communities are largely separate.

As to objections to Admins or Bureaucrats assigning new User Permissions, they are allowed to as they see fit, with or without holding a vote. While most of us hold votes to gather wider consensus, it is not a requirement. Seth Cooper has exercised this right in the past to choose Discussion Mods as suggested by others without mediating any votes. There is no "Defacto policy" that has been in place - only the choices made by a current Bureaucrat to exercise their rights to fulfill a responsibility that Discussions is being moderated.

While not in the scope of this Voting Policy, there are a number of proposals possible for voting on in Discussions, including how Discussion Mods are selected. The first step is establish the basics of voting requirements which is what this policy update is about.

ETA: Moderators are or course part of the community and have an equal say in these matters, like everyone else. If you feel I have acted beyond the scope of my rights, please feel free to contact another Administrator or a Bureaucrat to voice your concerns and gather their input on the matter. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:59, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the moderator has mistaken himself to be the owner and self guardian of the wiki which obviously is not the truth. As the administrator has clearly mentioned that a community wide vote is not a necessary yet this post suggests that a majority of users want this method to be the way from now on for new Dmod elections. The only resistance to this policy is comming from CosmicChronos which is but obvious because he is being stripped off thw right to choose his successor. You cannot even recognise and appreciate your colleague's(MagnificentMagnus) work who by the way has made way more moderation rights use(since they matter to you as a way to judge a Dmods work), and user interaction than you. And as for this becoming a popularity contest as has been proposed by the Dmod I don't think any such thing will happen, remember how your vote turned out for admin rights? The community can decide it's future and can make out what type of users are not worthy for the rights. Just because it has been this way from the beginning doesn't justify your point, things change and you have to accept it, why because the community users want this change. How and when will these elections take place is yet to be decided but as has been specified by the admin that this update is just a step towards introducing voting policy to discussions.   Reverb frost  |  What's new?     02:42, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add one suggestion, the user should have contributed to the wiki for atleast a month inorder to be eligible for voting. Normally I have noticed that it takes users atleast a month to adjust and understand the meaning of discussion board. If this rule is not already in place then I'd like to recommend it.  Reverb frost  |  What's new?     11:20, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I personally agree with Reverb frost, for the reasons mentioned above. Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 15:34, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I can see discussing and voting on adding a minimum time required between joining and voting. However it will have to wait till any open votes are concluded. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:15, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 17:30, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to sign my comment hahaha

Doesn't matter what I leave in or not, if I want a vote about this, then I think it would only be fair to have one no? It was a change made to policy without the consultation of the community, something you both (Ironyak1 and Reverb frost) seem very adamant about.

"As to objections to Admins or Bureaucrats assigning new User Permissions, they are allowed to as they see fit, with or without holding a vote. While most of us hold votes to gather wider consensus, it is not a requirement. Seth Cooper has exercised this right in the past to choose Discussion Mods as suggested by others without mediating any votes." I have never objected to this, I am completely aware and fine that Admins and Bureaucrats can assign new user permissions, where would you say I have said otherwise?

"The community can decide it's future and can make out what type of users are not worthy for the rights. Just because it has been this way from the beginning doesn't justify your point, things change and you have to accept it, why because the community users want this change." I fully accept change, that's why I propose we change the rule to one of those two, instead of making it 100% voted by the community.

"And as for this becoming a popularity contest as has been proposed by the Dmod I don't think any such thing will happen, remember how your vote turned out for admin rights?" What does my bid for adminship have to do with anything? Those who voted for me voted because they believed in the same things as me, those who voted against me voted because they did not believe in the same things. I cannot stop myself from laughing if you seriously think I am a popular user on here! Of all the mods, I am the least socialising, of all the mods, I announce all the new "bad" rules, and in any case, those who actually know who I am have all left, save for a few.

Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 19:07, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

One person is not "the community" and no one person can demand a vote be held for every Administrator action. As I've noted, there are only 3 users voicing their interest in this change (apparently 2 in support and 1 against) so there is no way to resolve a vote even if it were held. Should other users feel more discussion and vote is needed to resolve this change, I invite them to please post their concerns here. Again, if you truly believe that I am abusing my rights then you need to contact another Administrator or a Bureaucrat immediately. Cavalier One is both a Bureaucrat here and a member pf FANDOM Staff and could help provide a perspective on how Administration works on other major wikis for comparison.

For clarity, what exactly is your objection to "For Discussions-related topics, only autoconfirmed registered users with more than 20 Discussions posts may participate in voting." which is the change I made. Do you feel they should not be able to vote, or should also have to have wiki-edits to vote, or perhaps a different number of Discussions posts to vote? Please be specific as to what you are objecting to.

In regards to granting permissions, my point was to clarify that Admins and Bureaucrats grant rights as needed based on a variety of criteria and the situation at hand. Sometimes new rights are granted to hard working users without any request being made, sometimes they take suggestions from other users, sometimes they mediate a formal vote. Personally, I favor holding a vote to build consensus and support, but there is no "Defacto policy" in how any permissions are granted, other than Administrators and Bureaucrats grant new permissions based on their informed discretion.

As for the options listed above for possibilities on how future Dmods are chosen, the options above can be included with others when the vote on that matter occurs. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:11, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

OA not being able to vote?

Why is the OA not able to participate in the vote? If they have an opinion, shouldn't they have the right to vote just like other editors? MalchonC (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Who is the "OA"? RedWizard98 (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The organising administrator or something, just the admin that opens a vote. I fail to see why being the one that opens the vote should exclude them from participating in it. MalchonC (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Bump. I still think this rule should not exist. Why shouldn't the admin be able to vote just because they are the one that has opened the vote? MalchonC (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with MalchonC's sentiment. SeichanGrey (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would have to respectfully disagree. The point of the 'Organising Administrator' not being able to vote is so as to not create a conflict of interest and allow for potential RFP nominees or community members in general to feel as though their vote is valid and not rigged against them. If an admin opened a vote on RFP and immediately voted against a nominee, for example, do you think that community member would have faith in the administrator to not close a vote due to some vendetta against them? Or that their concerns are being properly addressed by the said administrator if there are issues with the vote? Votes here have been littered with much drama, name calling, and accusations of bias in the recent years, so having a somewhat neutral party in those affairs was thought to have been beneficial during the creation of the voting policy.  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Harrypotterexpert101. Castlemore (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If the admin closes the vote after the 7 days have expired, I see no vendetta possible to factor into play here? Besides, once a user becomes an administrator, it's by default acknowledged that they would be professional enough to not let a fair play turn into a personal grudge, so I don't really see the necessity to affirm this once more. Forcing someone who may have an opinion to stay neutral can be unfair as well. And given the high standards of what counts as a valid vote (7 participants and +3 majority), sometimes an additional vote from the admin could be the key of turning an invalid vote into a perfectly valid one.

All that said, if RFP nominations do need a neutral party, would you agree with letting the admin participate in other votes about wiki contents? MalchonC (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Potentially in certain situations, such as those where there is no clear majority or if there isn't a clear community consensus after 7 days, but I still think it is bad practice in general to take part in the vote you're meant to be overseeing. In response to "I see no vendetta possible to factor into play here", I was referencing a situation that happened in Discussions roughly five years ago where an administrator closed a nomination due to their objections and the nominee reported the entire mod team and the administrator to a Bureaucrat, titling the message "Biased admin and harassing mods." So I understand your perspective, I really do, but it is just something I think we should avoid, considering it would've looked a lot worse if that administrator had voted against the candidate. Since this is a site-wide change, however, and there seems to be some disagreement, it might be worth raising this issue in Forum:The Wizengamot for more input or a even a vote. Cheers,  Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)