Warcraft Wiki talk:Voting policy/Archive01

Proposal

See Project:Voting policy.

Votes

Yes:

1. Yes Fandyllic 10:57 AM PST 18 Jan 2006 - (Should have voted earlier.)
2. Yes Xmuskrat 9:18 AM EST 26 Jan 2006 - (Good job putting this together, Fan. Sorry I didn't vote earlier as well.)
3. Yes Mobrules1 - (I agree.)
4. Yes Terrybader 14:11, 14 Feb 2006 (EST) - (need more votes)
5. Yes Ralthor 00:30, 28 Feb 2006 (EST) - ()

NOTE: This has been adopted on 8 Mar 2006, having met the ratification minimum, ratification ratio, and ratification time requirements. I really need to read the policy Project:Policy status phases more closely. You'd think I'd remember, since I wrote it! --Fandyllic

No:

None

Comments

1. Okay proposal looks ready for a vote, but any suggested changes are welcome. --Fandyllic 9 PM PST 14 Jan 2006
2. I modified the Proposal template some so that all that was need was "proposal|Proposal Text". This way they do not have to worry about adding the To Vote On line. --Terrybader 14:33, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)
3. Sorry, I undid your changes. Here's why: Although it sounds like a good idea to make the proposal text a parameter in the template, alot of times that will cause problems because many things don't get preserved correctly in a template parameter. I don't want people to have to make their proposal text work in a template parameter, just because it is in a parameter. Also the template was only intended to be a banner, so adding the proposal text makes it more than a banner. You could make a separate template called {{Proposal/Withtext}} or something like that. --Fandyllic 6:41 PM PST 15 Feb 2006

   No worries, I think that will defeat the purpose of keeping it simple. I will just leave as is, ppl adding a vote to page will have to read up on the process anyway and will have to figure it out no matter how it is done. --Terrybader 09:27, 16 Feb 2006 (EST)

   Ideally vote proposals will be simple, but no need to force it based on limitations of the wiki. --Fandyllic 3:06 PM PST 16 Feb 2006
   

4. NOTE: This policy proposal has reached the policy ratification minimum (5 votes) and the ratification ratio (at leats 3:1 in favor), so must now wait the ratification time (1 week or 7 days) before being adopted according to the policy status and phases. --Fandyllic 1:38 PM PST 28 Feb 2006
5. Now it's adopted. It has effectively been implemented already, but I'll review various votes to see if they conform to policy. The exceptions will be policy votes and deletion votes, which have their own rules. --Fandyllic 11:25 AM PST 8 Mar 2006

No Policy?

I guess... we don't actually HAVE a voting policy... --Xmuskrat 16:47, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

Sadly yes. But if you think of one, post it. I'm going to take a swing, but it really is an open process. --Fandyllic 5:57 PM PST 10 Jan 2006

I honestly did my best to do that vote by the best policy we had. (or I knew how) --Xmuskrat 21:11, 10 Jan 2006 (EST)

We have a voting policy now! --Fandyllic 11:20 AM PST 8 Mar 2006

Vote template revamp?

Very nice work on Template:Vote/Closing imo, Fandyllic. If you want a hand, just unlock the templates for a couple of days and I'll be all over them like flies on sh*t :-) --Mikk 03:43, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Can you tell me the specific templates that are locked? I didn't notice or remember any that were. --Fandyllic 12:15 PM PDT 31 May 2006

• {{Vote/Vote}}, {{Vote/Note}}, {{Vote/Talk}} --Mikk 14:06, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Okay, their unprotected now. Sorry about that. --Fandyllic 2:14 PM PDT 31 May 2006

I was thinking that perhaps Vote/Note shouldn't be used inside Vote/Vote. Then Vote/Note could be used in article pages and make more sense. Also, I was thinking it might be nice to be able to give parameters to Vote/Note to give a brief intro WHAT the vote is about, like thus:

{{Vote/Note|
* Should we split this page in two?
}}

And yeah I know that long texts in parameters can cause problems... But I really do only mean it for one-liners. The actual meat of the proposal would live in the talk page, after all? If one does not want to give a oneliner, one could always just do

{{Vote/Note|}}

And even forgetting the pipe wouldn't do too much harm. --Mikk 05:02, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

(Actually, I'll just whip up some /Devs and show you what I mean. Gotta run out now though, so in a bit.. --Mikk 05:04, 31 May 2006 (EDT))

Okay, now explain it to me in detail :-)

Since I'm tearing out the voting templates and putting them back together again, I feel I really need to understand the policy in detail. And there's some things I don't really understand completely.

(Ugh, the more I read, the more confused I become). This is how I understand it:

Regular votes

• Must win by a 5 vote lead.
• Or is it a 5 vote minimum and 3 vote lead?
• Pending closure time is 3 days. (Or is it 5 days?)
• Gets "Accepted" or "Declined".

Policy votes

• Must have at least 5 votes
• Must have a 3:1 ratio to win, e.g. 5:0, 5:1, 6:2, 7:2, 8:2, 9:3, 10:3...
• Or is it a 3 vote lead? e.g. 5:0, 5:1, 5:2, 6:3, 7:4, 8:5...
• Pending closure time is 7 days.
• Gets "Ratified" or "Rejected".
• Ratified: when implementation is taken care of, it can be "Adopted". Of course, if there's nothing to take care of, it can go straight to adopted.

Recalling policy

I can't find any info on this really, except a blanket statement that standards being lower?

There's a lot of conflicting information, so.. help? :-) --Mikk 05:35, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Detailed Voting Summary

Yeah, it gets a bit complicated. I always get the banners mixed up. The reasons for all the different voting processes comes from the levels of priority and speed of each issue. We want to take a little more time and effort for policy than generic voting or deletion, but deletion should probably get decided quickly, but maybe a longer time before finishing.

In a nutshell:

• Policy:
  • Use {{Policy/Proposal}} banner on talk page, write proposal, add {{subst:Vote/Talk}}.
  • Minimum 5 votes for winning side; 3:1 winning margin (not by 3 votes); 7 day wait.
  • Use {{Ratified}} to replace {{Policy/Proposal}} if yes winning before 7 day wait.
  • Use {{Adopted}} to replace {{Ratified}} if yes wins and after wait time. Change/add policy page and add {{Adopted}} to article page.
  • Use {{Rejected}} to replace {{Policy/Proposal}} if no wins and after wait time.
    • Use {{Recalled}} to replace {{Adopted}}, if no votes winning by 3:1 margin and waited 7 days. Remove policy proposal.
• Generic Vote:
  • Use {{Proposal}} banner on talk page, write proposal, add {{subst:Vote/Talk}}.
  • Minimum 5 votes for winning side; 3:1 winning margin (not by 3 votes); 3 day wait.
  • Use {{Accepted}} to replace {{Proposal}} if yes wins and after wait time. Make proposed changes.
  • Use {{Declined}} to replace {{Proposal}} if no wins and after wait time. Make no change, leave votes or archive.
    • I get {{Rejected}} and {{Declined}} mixed up often, but its no big deal.
• Deletion Vote:
  • Use {{Delete}} on article page and {{subst:Delete/Talk}} on talk page.
  • Minimum 3 votes for winning side; wait when either side winning by by 3 votes; 5 day wait.
  • Use {{Delete/Closing}} to replace {{Delete/Vote}} on talk page if delete or keep winning, while wait time elapses.
  • Use {{Willterminate}} to replace {{Delete/Closing}} on talk page if delete winning after wait time over.
    • Use {{Terminate}} to replace {{Delete}} on article page.
  • Use {{Willkeep}} to replace {{Delete/Closing}} on talk page if keep winning after wait time over.
    • Remove {{Delete}} from article page.

--Fandyllic 10:56 AM PDT 1 Jun 2006

Okay. Uhm. To me, it seems that there's no way for this information to all fit into {{Vote/Vote}} et al. I'm proposing to split policy votes off into {{Policy/Vote}} and {{Policy/Recall}}. I also think that using {{Ratified}} to signal pending closure is a misnomer; when something is ratified, it has been decided upon once and for all, it's not going to change tomorrow just because a single person suddenly feels differently. "Ratified" to me means "done deal, but not necessarily implemented". Agree? --Mikk 12:14, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Agreed. --Fandyllic 1:44 PM PDT 1 Jun 2006