Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Vote wrap-up - Requirements for voting, admin ranks, music


Hi Folks,

Thought I'd wrap up a few discussions we've had recently to official poll status. If anyone objects to my suggestion we can mix in the suggested omitted polls, however I've omitted them due to lack of apparent support on the discussion pages.

Reforming the Voting System

  • Raised by: Stars and Stripes
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: Second round of voting unless there is an absolute majority of all votes, including neutrals.
    • Proposal 2: A 2/3 majority of admins to be able to veto B/c calls.
  • Feedback: Overwelmingly against on both proposals.
  • Suggestion: If there are no objections, I suggest we consider this dropped for now and don't bring it to a vote.

Comments


User rights requests and temporary chatmod rights

  • Raised by: Agent c
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: "Good Behaviour Period" be required to be met before running for posts (6months and no bans ever suggested)
    • Proposal 2: Code for appointing temporary chatmods based on stated criteria.
  • Feedback
    • Proposal 1: Mixed to a 3-6 month period, Negative to a total prohibition.
    • proposal 2: Limited, but positive.
  • Suggestion: Drop total ban. Otherwise persue both.

Vote 1: Good behaviour requirement before calling a (user rights) vote

Proposal, that the following be added to the user requirements:

Users who have any ban from chat or the wiki on their account must show a period of good behaviour of at least 6 months from their most recent incident before running for Moderator, Chat Moderator or Administrator
Note:This applies only to user rights requests. Policy changes can continue to be proposed as per normal.

Note: Voting for 3 Months rather than 6.

  • If you would not support a 6 month period, but think a 3 month period is appropriate, please vote either No, or Neutral, but note this in your comments.
  • If you are in favour of a 6 month period, your vote will be taken to mean you would be in favour of a 3 month period if the 6 month period failed to pass unless you note otherwise in your vote.

Yes

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes A good measure to *prevent* misbehaving. --Theodorico (talk) 06:12, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes I wouldnt want Ted Bundy in the police force. Same here (to a lesser extreme). JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:42, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. YesIt is still too small a timeoff, but better than none. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 01:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

No

  1. No USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. No This is not necessary. If a request is made within too little time of a ban, then voters will naturally notice that. --Skire (talk) 03:16, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. No anyone with an idea should be able to put A vote on weather their idea should be implemented or not, the people decide if that idea is good or not with their voting, so no, but in my humble opinion there should be no limit, 0 months is good enough, just vote no if you don't like what they have to say Wildwes7g7 (talk) 04:11, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. No They did their crime and paid their time. I don't believe any further disciplinary restrictions are merited.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg

Neutral

  1. Neutral--The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Neutral--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 00:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Neutral--FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:49, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I'm sort of in the middle. Old system 2 months is too soon for people with ban history (like it turned out for Dead Gunner), 6 months is too many, people don't deserve that much punishment. But all in all I'm in favor of a small change, to "protect" people from disappointment I felt DG had with his request. Four (4) months to mark the difference. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 20:49, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Vote 1)

I feel 3 or 4 months shows just the same amount of dedication to staying here at Nukapedia and striving for better as 6 months, so I feel a smaller number then 6 months is good enough. --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm fine with a 6 month grace period, I feel 3 suffices in most circumstances.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 00:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer the six month period. USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wes, I think you misuderstand the "Good behaviour" vote. It applies to requests for additional user rights, not to policy. So if it passed someone with a chatban couldn't run for chatmod for 6 months, but still could propose votes on anything else. Agent c (talk) 21:30, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

In light of understanding my misunderstanding I still keep the no vote but change the 0 months to 2 months(keeping it the same I think), you can just vote no if you don't want someone to become A mod,it's as simple as that, but thanks for helping to clear this up for me Chad! (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 01:19, January 7, 2013 (UTC))


Vote 2: Temporary Chat mod guidelines

That the following guidelines be added to the chat administration policy:

Temporary chat mods should, in general, be appointed only when the following criteria apply.
  • When 3 or more chatters are engaged in active conversation
  • When there are no other active users with Chatmod rights
  • When attempts to ping any logged in, but "away" chatmod users have failed
  • When to not appoint a temporary mod would either leave chat unprotected, or where the sole remaining chatmod cannot dedicate the time to continuously monitor chat
  • When the last mod has a good faith reason to believe the rights may be required
  • There do not appear to be any chatmods editing the wiki who can visit chat.
The Delegating admin shall
  • only appoint a single Temporary Chatmod at any time
  • Report usage of this feature to a bureaucrat (or another Bureaucrat in the case of Gunny, Clyde, J, Ghost) via talk page.
  • Ensure the rights are removed upon their return
  • Review any corrective measures (Kicks and bans) placed by the receiving moderator.
The Receiving moderator shall
  • Refresh their familiarity with the rules, and clarify any best practice in enforcement. They should clarify any questions about enforcement with the admin before they leave.
  • Upon the return of an Administrator to chat, inform them of the situation so the rights can be removed
  • Take a Screen capture / log of any bans issued for review later by an appointed mod.
When appointing a temporary mod
  • Consider the persons record - Are they Clear from Chat bans for a reasonable period? Are they a Patroller? Do they have a long tenure with us? How active have they been recently?
  • Consider their behaviour and maturity level. Are they likely to misuse the powers? Do they play fast and loose with the rules?
  • Are they a potential permanent Chatmod? A temporary appointment is a sign that maybe a new mod is required. Is this person likely to be interested in the job?

Yes

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes --Skire (talk) 03:17, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 04:07, January 6, 2013 (UTC))
  6. Yes FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:01, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Yes Frankly, I'm not really certain why this even needs to codified. We already have the ability to appoint folks using sound judgement when needed. As far as I know, no one has ever challenged our ability to do this, so the need for a formal rule makes little sense to me. But yes, I we need a rule, this will do dandy.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  9. Yes yeah. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:46, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

No

Neutral

Comments (Vote 2)


Discussion on Talk Page Music and music on article pages

  • Raised by: TP music Limmiegirl, Other pages Agent c
  • Proposals
    • Proposal 1: Music on Talk pages be either prohibited, not set to Autoplay, or player in a unified location.
    • Proposal 2: Music on article pages either not be set to Autoplay, or only set to Autoplay when the music itself is the subject of the article.
  • Feedback:
    • Proposal 1: Some support for a compromise position between blocking, and unregulated.
    • Proposal 2: Limited but favourable support.
  • Suggestions:
    • Proposal 1: With no resistance to the unified position as compromise, move to a Prohibited/Unified position/no restriction vote. If there are no objections, Leave off No autoplay for now as an alternate compromise if no consensus this round.
    • Proposal 2: Bring forward.

Vote 3: Music on talk pages should be...

(Vote one only)

Unrestricted

Only limited to the player being in a unified position to allow quick/easy disable

  1. Yes Agent c (talk) 00:06, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:32, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes don't see why not, so long as we have the option of turning it off (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:26, January 6, 2013 (UTC))
  4. Yes I used to have a problem finding the player on certain talk pages. If they are all at the top and immediately visible when the page loads, the first thing I will do is hit pause if I do not wish to hear music. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 06:27, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes no point in having it there if it isnt going to play. May as well just have a link to the video, if you dont like it then you can pause or mute it (note: if autoplay on all pages is disabled, then my vote will change to disabled for user talks too) JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:48, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes I agree with Agent C's reasoning in the discussion thread, prohibiting autoplay would in effect be a backdoor ban on TP music. Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪

Autoplay prohibited

  1. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 03:57, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes I can push play myself, if I want to. --Theodorico (talk) 06:22, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes can crash browsers otherwise. I will push play if and when I want. FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:51, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes People should not be confronted with music when they want to ask a question (especially to an admin). It only distracts. Maybe now it's a bit of fun but it's not user-friendly. A newbie wouldn't know that fast where to find the "off-switch". Even I didn't, the first time I heard music playing. You can add a music bar to a userpage, that's really your own page. Talkpage is much more public possession, so to speak and should be kept "clean". Also more professional, in my opinion. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes I can not longer stand loading up talk pages and having to turn off all the music. Put it on your user page.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  6. Yes As per Gunny and Jspoel. Users' talk pages are still a communication tool first and foremost, and while personalisation is OK it should not be imposed upon anyone or serve as even a minor inconvenience. --Skire (talk) 22:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Prohibited

Comments (Vote 3)


Vote 4: Music on other articles should...

Always Autoplay

Autoplay only when the subject of an article

  1. Yes --The Old World Relics (talk/blog/contributions) 00:37, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 05:28, January 6, 2013 (UTC))

Never Autoplay

  1. Yes USA Flag Pre-War User Avatar talk 01:15, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes --Skire (talk) 03:18, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Yes I can push play myself, if I want to. --Theodorico (talk) 06:22, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Yes FollowersApocalypseLogo nihil novi sub sole 08:52, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yes I'm going along with Theo. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 21:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Yes Just to be consistent with my above vote. I've turned pretty cool against any autoplay of music since we've been trying it out.  The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg
  7. Yes Distracting and irrelevent to the page ,unless it's the page for that music, in which case I still wouldnt want it blaring at me. If they want to listen to it, they can. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 22:50, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comments (Vote 4)

Advertisement