Forum:A new VFS is in order/archive

Outcome of first round voting

Based upon the previous round of voting:

The revised rules

1. The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), registered users have a vote to see if we need more ops (op votes count double in this vote). A minimum score of +7 must be attained in order to progress to the next level.
2. The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself), but not vote. Any nominees who do not wish to become a sysop can opt out at this stage.
3. The next 8 days (13th - 20th) registered users may vote for up to three people for oppage (op votes count double in this vote). If only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is cancelled and the candidate is opped.
4. The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), the users with at least 70% of the leader are moved into a third round of voting. In this round each user gets two votes apiece (unless there are only two candidates). Stacking these votes is not allowed. In the event of a tie in this round, the candidate with more votes in the previous round than the other gets oppage.
5. The last day of the months with 31 days, Britslayer is allowed to eliminate British candidates from VFS. This helps to ensure we respect prejudice views.
6. The ops can change these rules at any time for any reason to help the fight against wiki-terrorism.

---

Still under discussion

Further discussion

The first round of voting has brough up several more issues. I've highlighted the four that I'm aware of. If anyone has any further suggestions please mention them in the next couple of days, so we can have a final round of voting.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

(active) op votes count double proviso

Shabidoo raised the suggestion that "Admins special voting privileges only apply to active admins", by which I'm assuming he is referring to the double vote tally (given the closed third round of voting is no longer closed). As a bit of an historical aspect, this was raised going back a few years ago, and the active admins at that stage chose to allow previous admins to have that double vote count still in place. While I fully support the concept, the difficulty is in the definition of "active" in this rule. An "active" user by MediaWiki standards is a user who has edited within the last 30 days (previously last 90 days). Given a returning admin voting at VFS would automatically re-raise them as "active" by this definition, it becomes a self-defeating rule. As spike has suggested on Forum:VFS: "Change these rules at any time", the definition of "active" could be left to the consensus of the admins at the time of the vote.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

+7 proviso reduced to +5

As raised by Simsie, while this proviso still has a purpose, the figure itself could be reduced to something more in line with our current userbase. I don't recall a time where the differentiation here has been between +5 and +7, so I don't think the reduction will have any significant impact to the effectiveness of this rule, but where we can see only 7 votes in total on most of these points, a +7 proviso could be brought into play by a single against vote.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

Britslayer alternative joke rule

This ended up getting through in the first round of voting, but only just, and there was significant voting against a joke rule. To ensure that we are going through due process, I'd like to redo the vote on this section, but give this a different structure to avoids the almost stalemate we currently have. One of my objections to the "joke" rule is that it reads as though it were a valid rule in our process. The alternative rule proposed has the same disadvantage. At some stage the "What is the fattest animal?" rule in PLS as an example. If we are to include a joke rule, I'd rather that it be unrelated to the process, or be a non-sequitur rule. Given we have VFSandwiches in off months, something along the lines of

• "Non-regulation condiments are able to be introduced at any time, but only after the written approval of the surgeon general"

This avoids the potential of rule confusion, removes a tired joke, but allows a joke to be kept in place.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

Wiki-terrorism/Forum:VFS: "Change these rules at any time"

Spike has raised an alternative wording to the final rule.

• The Admins, acting in consensus, shall strike any nomination and any vote that they determine is not from an active contributor in good standing on this website.

Rather than reiterating everything from that other forum, I'm just going to link it here.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

Voting - First Round

Voting has already ended. () All comments prior to voting are toward the bottom of this page - #Pre vote comments.

Rule 1

The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), all users have a vote to see if we need more ops (op votes count double in this vote). A minimum score of +7 must be attained in order to progress to the next level.

Remove “Op votes count double” aspect

Score: -2

As there is not significant support for this change, and enough support to maintain the current ruling, this rules stands as it is.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

• Against. As we have seen, the assertion that "the website needs more Admins" is hard to distinguish from the assertion that "I want to run the website." We could be fatigued by a monthly claim that the site is under-administered. On the key question of workload, the Admins know things, including things about their own workload and future plans, that the electorate does not know. Spıke Ѧ 16:27 13-Oct-13
• FOR. This is the most absurd aspect of the entire wiki. Admins dont have magic knowledge or extreme supernatural insight into the wiki. They may see things from a special point of view...but so do all users. If users want a new admin...we should have one. --ShabiDOO 18:44, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
• Against. Ops do share things such as their future plans with other admins on a need-to-know basis without making that knowledge public to the wiki (or where a vandal might see it and take advantage of it). Experience on the wiki should count for something, but there is no special status to distinguish experienced nonadmin users from inexperienced users who just signed up (literally) yesterday, unless you count rollbacks, which are granted by admins, or can be taken away by any admin. Besides, this is a defense against sockpuppeting (not that you would do that, but it could happen), since you cannot create a sockpuppet account that is an admin without everybody knowing it and having voted to accept it (like opping Lyrithya's sockpuppet, PIGGY last year by forum vote). For those who have been around long enough to remember this, TOAST was a group sockpuppet that actually did get rollbacks, before it was detected and banned. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:07, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
• Against.. Adminning this wiki is different in many ways from adminning others; not least in the fact that humour by definition is subjective. It's not easy to describe in words, but I hope that other long-term users and admins will understand what I mean when I say there's a certain level of awareness and understanding one needs in order to act with decisiveness and efficacy as an op here. Please don't mistake that for arrogance or ego - it is something that can be learned, but only after you've been doing it for a while do you really understand what it means. This goes part way to explaining it, as does this - but it's also more than that. Admins & bureaus aren't innately "better" than anyone; but we do have a different perspective on what it takes to keep the site running and (mostly) shit free. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 07:40, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
• Against. Codeine's examples illustrate clearly why the original set-up is the 'least worse' way to maintain this wiki. I have in the past have been more critical how this admin business works but once you get the hat and Nicole Scherzinger chaining you to the radiator, I changed my mind.--RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:32, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
• For. I know that this will fail but yes. Anton (talk) 17:39, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Remove +7 requirement

Score: 1 +/- 1 conditional

Based upon the current voting, the community appears to be divided - as in there is no clear consensus. Sims has suggested reducing the requirement to a +5. This may be a better compromise option.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. Against. As above, and in contrast to my comments in the previous round, I'm voting against because of the absence of safeguards against a clamor for a VFS every month. Certain users are sufficiently shameless, and not otherwise engaged by the production of funny pages, to clamor for a vote every month, and I'd rather not have to check VFS except in a case of an authentic groundswell. Spıke Ѧ 16:39 13-Oct-13
3. FOR. Paranoia and assuming the worst in users gets us nowhere. An admin veto would take care of any bad candidates. --ShabiDOO 19:02, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. Conditional for: Only if a requirement that there be a similar, smaller requirement, say +5, is put in its place. Otherwise, Against., since one or two may bring up the same thing every month over the objection of the majority. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:43, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. Against. This rule was introduced to prevent canvassing and vote manipulation, and still does its job in that respect. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 07:30, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
6. For. I think there may be other ways to prevent vote manipulation. Plus seven is rather pointless. Anton (talk) 07:53, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Admins special voting privileges only apply to active admins

Score: 1

• FOR --ShabiDOO 00:49, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • I would suggest tabling this for now. While it's a valid point, I'd rather finalise this round of ballots prior to adding another vote into the mix.                                • Puppy's talk page • 02:05 18 Oct 2013

    I concur; as at User talk:Shabidoo#Pile-on votes on VFS, this is a carefully structured vote, not open season to propose other rules changes. Likewise my nearby comment on ScottPat's initiative for a group-editing session. "Active" Admins is subjective; several old ones came out of the woodwork when they saw that Romartus made Bureaucrat and thought he might be apt to de-opp them. In other words, this proposal needed to go through a discussion phase before the vote as the actual ballot questions already have. Spıke Ѧ 14:29 18-Oct-13

Rule 2

The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself), but not vote.

Add in “Any nominees who do not wish to become a sysop can opt out at this stage”

Score: 7

Unanimous support for.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For. Add this in as a footnote.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. For. We do not obtain Admins by conscription. We would not want Admins who do not want the job. Spıke Ѧ 15:55 13-Oct-13
3. For. I see no reason why this shouldn't go in. If you are not willing to fill a role it is wrong to be pushed into one and a good result will not likely come of it, Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:27, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. Ok FOR. --ShabiDOO 19:05, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
5. For. This should have been a rule long ago. Admins who didn't want the job may not be willing to do the job once elected. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:10, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
6. For. There have been people who've declined the mop before, but sure, there's no reason not to clarify and formalise that option. -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 07:33, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
7. For. Yes Anton (talk) 07:54, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 3

The next 8 days (13th - 20th) support up to three people for oppage (op votes count double in this vote). If only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is canceled and the candidate is opped.

Change “…support…” to “…vote for…”, effectively disallowing against votes

Score: 2

This has been predominantly supported                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. Against. As discussed below. It may be that the biggest difference between three nominees is that one is a prank nominee. Spıke Ѧ 16:19 13-Oct-13
3. For. Against votes tend to turn VFS into a drama fest, and can produce hard feelings which last. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:23, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. For. I think we should allow comments but not against votes. Anton (talk) 08:01, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Remove “op votes count double”

Score: -2

Predominantly against this change.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. obviously FOR --ShabiDOO 19:05, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
3. Against. This seems to me to be a better safeguard against prank voting than voting against candidates, which could create drama. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:46, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. Against. In one word - Aimsplode--RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 17:40, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. Against. I am normally against admin votes count double, but here, if we do not allow against votes, double admin votes in support of real (not prank) candidates would help. Anton (talk) 08:01, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
6. Against. As stated above. Spıke Ѧ 09:12 15-Oct-13

Restrict IP votes

Score: 7

Unanimous support for.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. For. It's not that I hate them. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:20, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
3. For. There is no reason (except that we want to feel inclusive, which we can do without this provision) to allow anonymous votes, which may include anonymous repeat-voting, and there is no reason to think they would help us make a better decision. Spıke Ѧ 16:22 13-Oct-13
4. For. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:11, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. For. Too much potential for abuse, open proxies, double voting, etc. Moreover, as Spike has pointed out, they are not invested in the site enough to register, why should they be allowed to decide something this important to the site? -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:13, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
6. For. not having to performing a shitload of CheckUsers whenever VFS rolls around :) -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 17:31, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
7. For. We might give IPs quarter of a vote, but I am not sure it will help anyone. Anton (talk) 08:01, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Admins special voting privileges only apply to active admins

Score: 1

• FOR --ShabiDOO 00:50, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  • As above, I would suggest tabling this for now.                                • Puppy's talk page • 02:07 18 Oct 2013

    Yup, as above. Spıke Ѧ 14:29 18-Oct-13

Rule 4

The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), current ops take the users with at least 50% of the leader and vote on who to op. Each op gets two votes apiece (unless there are only two candidates). Stacking these votes is not allowed. In the event of a tie in this round, the candidate with more user votes than the other gets oppage.

Change percentage to 70%

Score: 3

Unanimous support for.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. For. Point well-taken. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:16, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
3. For. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:26, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Open this round of voting to the full community, removing “op only” aspect

Score: 5

Unanimous support for.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. For. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:01, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
3. for --ShabiDOO 19:25, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. For. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:27, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. For. Yes! Anton (talk) 08:03, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 5

The last day of the months with 31 days, current ops play Russian Roulette to see who gets de-opped. (Zombiebaron goes first with 6 bullets)

Remove this rule

Score: 3

Predominantly voted for, however the following vote may colour the outcome of this vote, as there is also support to retain a joke, just not this particular one.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:34 13 Oct 2013
2. For. Violently in agreement that a document on our decision-making is serious, and is not the place for levity (especially meaningless levity that seems as though it is serious) for the sole reason of convincing us again that we are funny people. Spıke Ѧ 15:57 13-Oct-13

   Comment. I'm struggling to make myself feel serious enough to vote for. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:02, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

3. Violently AGAINST this wiki becoming a drab grey sad point-of-order boring sad club. --ShabiDOO 19:14, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
4. For. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:10, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. For. This joke has gotten too old. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:31, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Change Rule to update Joke Rule

Score: 1

Minor support for, and I would suggest based upon the previous vote having a much stronger vote tally, not enough support to outweigh the previous vote.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:29 21 Oct 2013

1. For. A little humour at the end shouldn't cause confusion or harm to anyone who is clever enough to save his vote for an OP. Perhaps: The last day of the months with 31 days, Britslayer is allowed to eliminate British candidates from VFS. This helps to ensure we respect prejudice views. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:31, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
2. Against. We should have substantial humour in our articles, but minimal in our policies.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:36 13 Oct 2013

   It is minimal humour if this is it. It brightens up the mind of the reader in the same way the rules on Template:Recent do. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:38, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

3. For. The joke rule at the end does need updating, and if we use this joke, once Britslayer is forgotten, it will need updating again. The question is, how often, and who has to come up with the joke? But I am not against having a joke at the end of some sort. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:34, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. I guess. If the current joke must go...then if someone can come up with the stellar helarious one...it would be great. --ShabiDOO 12:43, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
5. For. Change! I like Scott's version. Anton (talk) 08:05, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
6. Against. As set out below. For those wanting a big group-edit with big implications, this is not it--nor does it preclude one later. Spıke Ѧ 09:21 15-Oct-13

Rule 6

The ops can change these rules at any time for any reason to help the fight against wiki-terrorism.

No significant points of issue raised with this rule

• But see Forum:VFS: "Change these rules at any time". Spıke Ѧ 11:03 16-Oct-13

Pre vote comments

What it says on the tin. We need a vfs to bump up the list of active admins. After the fork... forked, we lost a bulk of the admins. And lately, most of the bannination and huffing is done by SPIKE, and sometimes Simsilikesims. Lately, me and simsie have discussed in PM about calling for a VFS, to boost up the ranks, to ease off the workload of bans. And huffing those many articles is probably not that healthy. So I say VOTE for a new vfs.--The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 02:23, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

I may be getting confused in my old age, but as far as I'm aware the way we hold a vote to see if we need new admins is via VFS, and is put in place at the start of the calendar month - not a week into it. That makes the vote above null and void, although I do appreciate the enthusiasm.

Having said that, each time there is a VFS there is a shitstorm of drama - or a dramastorm of shit. The last VFS is a case in point, as are the three prior. As such, I'm thinking it's time we dragged out the old VFS rules and examined them one by one, to see that the process is encouraging the genuinely best option for the community to be the eligible applicant.

As I was about to create a forum for exactly this purpose, and found Densa had beaten me to the punch, I'm just going to completely hijack his forum.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:28 07 Oct 2013

==Vote: VFS 2013 2: Reloaded==
{{s|1}}
*{{boner}}

Current rules (per {{VFSrules}})

Add your thoughts to individual rules below the rule in question.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:09 07 Oct 2013

Rule 1

“The first 10 days of a month (1st - 10th), all users have a vote to see if we need more ops (op votes count double in this vote). A minimum score of +7 must be attained in order to progress to the next level.”

The major points of contention I see with this rule is double value for op votes, and the +7 requirement. The former issue is not a concern for me - current active ops are more able to understand the needs of oppage are. The latter makes no sense with a smaller user base.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

"All users" do not know if we need more ops. Those doing the job know if they need help. If you ask "all users" whether we need more ops, what you will get, in Forums like this one, is relatively inexperienced users wanting instant notoriety for themselves. (The hypothetical question of whether an existing Admin needs to be removed or replaced is not handled by VFS anyway.)

However, if the question is admitted to the floor and if we agree that it is to be decided democratically, indeed I don't understand on what basis some users get more votes than others.

On the +7, compare the U.S. Constitution's protection of trial-by-jury "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars"--attaching to a timeless document numbers that are relevant just today. Spıke Ѧ 13:12 7-Oct-13

The community knows just as well if they need another op (another or new voice) for many reasons just as amuch as admins know if the want another admin to come along and spoil the fun. Admin bias is absurd. All extra privelages for admins should be dropped. --ShabiDOO 01:27, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 2

“The next 2 days (48 hours) of a month (11th and the 12th), any users can nominate users for oppage (not yourself), but not vote.”

Makes sense to me.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

And if the person who is nominated does not want to get opped? He just votes against? Anton (talk) 17:22, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

The rules should clarify that a nominee must accept, as we don't draft Admins. Spıke Ѧ 18:20 7-Oct-13

However if we cannot perform the tasks needed from an opp then it is no use being opped surely! Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:31, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 3

“The next 8 days (13th - 20th) support up to three people for oppage (op votes count double in this vote). If only one candidate from this round would progress to the next level, that level is canceled and the candidate is opped. ”

I think this needs to be restated. The concept here is that votes are to support candidates. That suggests that against votes (which are the opposite of support) shouldn't be permitted. I also see no need for double value op votes here. Whomever is chosen should be the will of the majority of the community. The only weighting I would suggest is that IP votes don't count. (Historically we've locked VFS from anon edits anyway - this just formalises the practise.)                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

That this is "a wiki anyone can edit" doesn't require it to be a wiki anyone can manage (in lieu of the people who do the work). IP ought not get a vote. (IP ought not get a vote anywhere, even VFH/VFP, if only as an inducement to register.) IP, to the extent that he cares about VFS, is a fallen-away Uncyclopedian who does not have our best interests at heart, including a few who want the site to fail.

Votes against individuals I defend, and Puppy and I have locked horns on this before. In VFS, several candidates may be nearly equally able to administer, whereas helping the wiki is best done by repelling prankster/vandal nominations. Spıke Ѧ 13:12 7-Oct-13

Why do you think so badly about people editing from an IP address? They are just people who have not registered to Uncyclopedia. Anton (talk) 17:25, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Anon is a person who has not made even the simplest commitment to the website. There is no reason to think he will help us make good decisions, and there is no reason we should be interested in his participation in an election. Registered users tend to care about their reputations. Anon by definition has none; and those who change IP by reconnecting acquire many votes to our 1. Spıke Ѧ 18:24 7-Oct-13

You say "has not made even the simplest commitment to the website". This is a good reason for not allowing Anons to "rule". But, even though it is off-topic, Anons are often readers of Uncyclopedia so their votes at VFH can help writers to understand how their external audience receives their articles. And isn't the Main Page a page for new visitors, which either do not contribute here, or are IPs. Anton (talk) 18:57, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Restrictions against IPs is needed to avoid vote rigging. It's extremely easy to come in with multiple IPs in order to stack votes. Giving IP half votes elsewhere (VFH) gives an option to shape our content, but VFS defines our structure.                                • Puppy's talk page • 08:45 07 Oct 2013

Rule 4

“The following 10 days of a month (21st - 30th), current ops take the users with at least 50% of the leader and vote on who to op. Each op gets two votes apiece (unless there are only two candidates). Stacking these votes is not allowed. In the event of a tie in this round, the candidate with more user votes than the other gets oppage.”

I don't see the need for this rule, unless there is only a small margin between the two - three top candidates. That could be avoided by changing the percentage to 70% in this rule. An alternate to this rule is that the final round of voting is likewise open to all members of the community, but vote options are restricted to only those candidates with x% of the vote. This is closer to a preferential voting system, rather than leaving the votes to an exclusive group.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

Indeed. --ShabiDOO 01:23, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments during vote

Comment. We may not have enough voters (and therefore votes) to distinguish between 70% and 50% sadly. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 15:45, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

1:2 is 50%. 3:4 is 75%. We have more than 4 voters.                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:51 13 Oct 2013

Yes but we have more than 4 voters on VFH and yet some articles just get ignored on that. Some people won't care, some people will be away. What is the difference between 50% and 70% when it is the difference between two noobs' votes who logged on yesterday. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 15:59, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Moving commentary to keep voting area tidier. Votes for sysops and votes for feature are significantly different. VFH decides on one article for one day, and a nomination with minimal votes has a significant period that it can sit there and gather more votes before being removed from the running. VFS is held far less regularly, and installs an admin for life. This is generating a situation where you can have one applicants with 10 votes, and a second applicant with 5, but in the final round of voting the second applicant can become an admin - a situation that has arisen previously. The proposed rule change means that a third round of voting may not be required as a clear majority has been reached.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:13 13 Oct 2013

Comment. Do we not vote for our ops to become ops and therefore we vote for our ops to reflect the judgement of the community or is this not how it works? Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 15:50, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I voted for Lyrithya and emc to be admins. They may not be suitable to reflect the judgement of the current community. Having said that, wouldn't a vote amongst the community be a better litmus rest of the will of the community than the vote of a handful of representatives of the community?                                • Puppy's talk page • 03:57 13 Oct 2013

Yes I suppose. Based on the fact that they are admins for life. If we had to re-elect every year then I would be inclined to say that they share our exact views. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:01, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not how it works at present. Also, one thing we haven't discussed because it isn't mentioned in this document on voting procedure, is the rule that Admins work in concert and work out disagreements among themselves (for example, take care not to countermand one another's moves). I was talked about for Admin earlier and said I could not fulfill this duty then. Both Darthpedians who have driven the current round (and the only other eager wannabee this year has been Dannyboy1209) don't seem to share our vision for the site, and indeed seem to have no vision other than self-amusement and personal notoriety. As dumb as it is to open a question to vote and then try to rig the vote with weird arithmetic, I will vote against measures that, in the name of "democracy," would not let us keep the Admin college collegial except invoking the distasteful "nuclear" clause. Puppy's past claim that wikis are bound to be democratic is faulty, though better argued elsewhere. Spıke Ѧ 16:16 13-Oct-13

That sounds like one of the unwritten rules of admin code of conduct. Probably something worth writing at some stage. I don't know if it belongs in VFS rules/procedure though.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:29 13 Oct 2013

Rule 5

“The last day of the months with 31 days, current ops play Russian Roulette to see who gets de-opped. (Zombiebaron goes first with 6 bullets)”

Nonsensical rules remove the value of the actual rules. This rule is meaningless, and should be removed.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

I agree verbatim; see also my discussion with Shabidoo at Forum:Rewrite of UN:SIG regarding wisecracking in the rules. It is not true that every policy document at a comedy website has to employ comedy, any more than that every decision at a "democratic party" has to be absolutely democratic. Spıke Ѧ 13:12 7-Oct-13

Guise, gais, lets not make UNCYCLOPEDIA SRS BSNS (serious buisness). I mean, this is a joke, but still, the PLS guidelines/or faq had the fattest animal thing. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 17:03, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

A joke about "deopping" is probably not the best joke to have here, given the self de-oppings that have happened since January. Op status is srs business. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 17:07, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

De-opping is a serious question but I liked this joke and the mentioning of Russian roulette makes this line impossible to be taken for serious and breaks the formal (and boring?) tone of the text. I think it should be left: drama often happens when things are taken too seriously. Anton (talk) 18:49, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Wise cracking and fraternising and laughing at ourselves is essential to maintaining an atmosphere of parody, humour and having fun in our unpaid work on the site. It has always been this way. Some forums may he serious but that is no reason to not laugh at ourselves for how serious we are. After all...we write many articles laughing at people who take things way too seriously and solemnly and dickishly. The joke is funny and should stay. --ShabiDOO 01:36, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments during vote

ScottPat, do not amend the ballot in the middle of a vote. Puppy wisely omitted some changes he might like to make and structured this as a way to resolve disagreement and change anachronisms in the rules that were raised in the conversational round. If you think you could write a funner rulebook, please pursue that separately. Spıke Ѧ 16:48 13-Oct-13

Are we not allowed to contribute other ideas to vote for then? Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:55, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to keep original version but also don't want to remove it, simply change it but there is no option provided for that. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:56, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

SPIKE....adding a relevant amending ballot is standard practice. He can add this if he likes. --ShabiDOO 19:25, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

Mister Chairman, it is not "standard practice" to write in the margin of your ballot the thing you really wanted to vote on. Ballots are to make good decisions with clarity where people acknowledge that the decisions are the will of the majority. Sliding in replacement questions during the process, which could take effect on a 5-4 vote (including votes that meant not that it should be policy but only that it is better than the original proposal) gets in the way of both points. Spıke Ѧ 09:21 15-Oct-13

Putting on my impartial hat here - while I don't agree with changing the ballot in the middle of the vote, this last point was added shortly after the vote was open. As such I don't believe it has made significant changes to the manner of the vote itself. As a vehicle to try and determine the will of the community at large, I'd be inclined to let the breach of protocol go through to the keeper on this one, as the extra option may be more in line with communal consensus. (For non-cricket fans, think of this as a foul ball going through to the catcher - although I know almost nothing about baseball, so I could be completely wrong.) If this was an option that had been raised earlier then I probably would have included it myself.                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:47 15 Oct 2013

However I was offered two options on my ballot paper, "Abstain" or "Vote for the only available motion." Surely it is fair that we are allowed to add our own views of the ballot paper if our view is not represented. At least give us time before the election to announce that we would like to put that view down as an option. No one displayed what options there were to vote on until the day of the vote so I did not know whether the "change the rule" option would be available until the day of the vote. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:21, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it is silly to vote for an option if you don't know what this option is. People don't vote for 'changing the law', they know how they want to change it. Anton (talk) 09:35, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Hence we need to decide on a thing to change the rule to. I proposed something. Not sure it works well but it's a start. Sir ScottPat (talk) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 17:10, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Rule 6

“The ops can change these rules at any time for any reason to help the fight against wiki-terrorism.”

I'm not happy with the ability of admins to arbitrarily change rules at any given time, but there needs to be a way of protecting the validity of the system. I don't have a better way of having a watchdog on the system, but am open to any new ideas.                                • Puppy's talk page • 04:05 07 Oct 2013

The issue of 'wiki-terrorism' - let's call it the Aimsplode example - was the reason why the first vote was suspended by myself and ChiefjusticeDS with the support of Sannse back in January 2013. This time round we have four admins and Sannse as our Wikia Staff back up so this should prevent this happening again. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 06:25, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Best example of the need for a watchdog, but not sure that the process is the best it can be. But until we have a better idea come along, I'm happy for it to stay.                                • Puppy's talk page • 06:33 07 Oct 2013

Everyone knows that rules change, even the Constitution. So why do we need to mention this at all? Anton (talk) 17:28, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Issue?

Yes, ops can do this, but do we have to tell everyone about this? The majority of people know that ops can change stuff, and telling his with "at anytime for any reason" looks like "admins have all the power and others cannot do anything". Anton (talk) 08:08, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

If I remember this was introduced because at one stage previously admins did need to step in, but there was no provision for then to do so, which created bad blood. This rules accepts that any system is fallible, and any attempt to thwart that system can be overcome. There is a positive and negative to this rule. My perspective is the positive outweighs the negative. Base on the pre-vote discussion though there was no community feelings that this should be changed, or any realistic alternative proposed.                                • Puppy's talk page • 08:43 15 Oct 2013

Ok Anton (talk) 09:30, October 16, 2013 (UTC)

Digressions

So I get a post from Newman66 on my talk page (User talk:SPIKE#Meet the new Newman66 in the future!) that, recently back from a one-week ban for pestering, rape-adopting, and evidently driving away a newbie, he will not repeat the specific actions that got him banned but will compel our attention and remediation in other ways..."don't forget that I'm better than ever!" Four minutes later, he is banging on the Chief Justice's door with a call for oppage for his two BFFs. Now the considerate Denza decides that I must be getting tired doing all that huffing and banning and need some new assistants--that is as close as either comes to making the case for a new election--though Newman66's candidates for sysop have expressed no interest; one states that he is busier than ever and the other has been making noises about giving up regular contributions for good. No matter!

Neither Denza and Newman has begun to do infrastructure work (like Puppy) or reorg work (like Mnbvcxz) that would qualify them to be the movers-and-shakers they think they are. Puppy and Mnbvcxz also write funny articles that are not autobiographical and don't make us wonder what their native language is. In contrast, the primary function of the other two is calling attention to themselves.

We would move more swiftly toward production of good, funny, new content without the numerous side dramas, and this Forum is the biggest one recently. I have deferred to the more patient Simsilikesims issues of adolescent misconduct until I see her time being wasted wholesale or newbies being driven away, but if it were my call, I would jettison this Forum and the two of them in a package deal, dooming them to other websites (where they already are--just ask them). Meanwhile, I wish Puppy shared my interest in avoiding drama rather than structuring it and becoming its manager. Spıke Ѧ 11:57 7-Oct-13

I'm not advocating a VFS be held here and now. What my intention is is to ensure that when a VFS is next held it's held in a way that will minimise a drama fest. If the upshot of this forum ends up being “leave it as it is” I'm happy to follow that path, but the last VFS showed certain gaps in the process that I'd like to minimise.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:04 07 Oct 2013

Drama

The meme of drama has been utterly abused in this forum. First....calling an action drama to discredit the action or user is a tired and tiring tactic in rhetoric. Ignore the issue and call it drama. Its tiring and tired.

Second. The last vfs was crazy...but then many crazy things wwere happening then. There have been many low-drama vfs.

Third...puppy is no drama queen these days. His arguments are well thought out, very well stated, relevant, stated in always a considerate and non-dickish tone and lacking in arrogance, condescension and pompousness. One of our admins and one of our users are perrenial generators of constant drama. Puppy is not.

Seventh. Drama does NOT always = bad. Every wiki has loads of drama and avoiding some of it at all costs is counter productive. --ShabiDOO

Sixteenth...there should be a vfs...drama or not.

Sixty-ninerth...Aleister's 90 year old mom is a stunning milf. --ShabiDOO 01:14, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Spike, what was wrong with Newman expressing his opinion on ChiefJustice's talk? He just did not know he had to start a forum or a VFS. Anton (talk) 06:06, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

admin bias

Almost invariably...a user who wants to be admin will support such votes (especially if they think they have a chance). Once opped...predictably they almost always resist voting for new admins. I have seen it so many times its now a meme-ish cliche. This is exaserbated by the fact that they have more say in the voting process. I have the feeling its different this time now.

I have always supported vfs as I see absolutely zero downsides to having a responsible user be opped regardless of the state of adminship at the time.. Morepoint of views in the cabal...less tyrrany and less stress on admins in times of high workload and or absenteeism. Their resistance to new admins is partly driven by sincere belief that it is not necesary...but without any doubt it is driven by the belief that they absolutely know better, don't want to train a new admin, dislike sharing decision making with users with different points of view, elitism and fear of change. The community is absolutely capable of making these decisions as a whole and there is little convincing arguments that admins are in an honeslty better position to decide for the commu ity. Maybe the new group of admins dont think like this.

Now is utterly the absolute time to have a vfs for so so so many reasons. The only candidate I would vote for at the moment is puppy.

In any case...with only ten regular users and three theoretically active admins...I think it utterly absurd that the admins have a better say in the matter. I suppose if at least two admins vetoed specific users it could be helpful to disqualify his/her candidacy.

We need a new admin and I'LL vehemently support a vfs right now. I have zero desire to be one. I think anyone who wants to be an uncyclopedia admin is insane (which can be a goodhing). But I'll say it again...I believe it is in the best interests of the wiki to have a new admin and we should have a community wide vote on the matter...simple majority decides if we need one and candidate with most votes (all registered users=one vote). If two admins veto a candidate (not because there shouldn't be one but because they see that candidate as unable to responsibly have such powers) the candidate is disqualified. Anything more is unecisarily complicated and not in the best interests of the wiki. --ShabiDOO 00:26, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think that we should only begin VFS when we have candidates. You only mentioned Puppy but he says that he does not have time to contribute regularly... There are many other active users but I don't think any of them would want to become a candidate, except for Denza and Newman. But they should acquire more experience. Anton (talk) 06:02, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Can I break digression? I'd rather leave conversation on if we should hold a VFS until November, and keep that to VFS page - let alone who should be nominated. Focus on the process first, and look at the vote proper once we have this sorted.

I'm hoping as of Sunday UTC we can start voting on potential rule changes, once we have the basics discussed, and limit voting to a week. That will mean structure in place by last week in Oct, without having to rush decisions.                                • Puppy's talk page • 07:42 08 Oct 2013

I take it from Shabidoo's insertion at the top of this page that we are not to use the word "drama," as it has come to stand for things that are not political and are in fact helpful. Therefore it would not be "drama" when he continues in the same post that "One of our admins [is] perrenial generators of constant drama." Then, in this section, Shabidoo crusades against "tyrrany" [sic] and "elitism." This, by comparison, is artificial injection of emotion into a page that Puppy continues to try to focus, correctly, on what edits we should make to the rules. Spıke Ѧ 09:34 8-Oct-13

Shabidoo. "three theoretically active admins"? I don't know how you measure an 'active admin', but the three who are here are more than 'theoretically active'! --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 09:48, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Its not worth it changing line by line. The whole set of rules is utterly out of synch with the reality of the wiki now. A simple majority vote and one user one vote (as we do with everything else) is all we need to do. --ShabiDOO 15:02, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Would you then suggest that our current process (first round of votes to determine need, then nominations, second round of votes to determine front runners, and final round of votes to pick the overall leader) could be maintained, but removing the double vote rules, and the admin only restriction on final rule? (I seem to remember you suggested a process along these lines when we had a similar conversation going back a year or so ago.) Or are we looking at only round 1 as a vote on need, then nominations, then round 2 to determine winning nominee?                                • Puppy's talk page • 08:31 08 Oct 2013

And yes Romartus you're right...there are three fully active admins...I was wrong. --ShabiDOO 15:22, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

At our height, we had scores of admins; vandals banned in seconds, pages huffed one after another, etc. We need to rebuild, and boost our forces. We're heavily understaffed at the moment, and the admins are taxed heavily. We should just get to voting as fast as possible, to get a few more admins on. --The Sieger of Dungeons Lord Denza Aetherwing Inventory 15:56, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

If I could reiterate - this forum is more to determine process than call for a VFS. By current rule that's still a few weeks away, and is a vote held at VFS. Please leave questions of potential current need for a VFS out of the equation until such point as we have determined the process for future election.                                • Puppy's talk page • 08:20 08 Oct 2013

I'm suggesting Puppy that amins should have zero extra advantages throughout the entire proccess except perhaps vetoing candidates (with consensus amongst them). ESPECIALLY now with so few users/admins. The community IS capable of making the decisions by simple majority and a veto is all that is needed to keep bad candidates from progressing through the steps or voting terrorism (which is a helarious term by the way.) --ShabiDOO 20:45, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shabidoo here. And I wanted to add that cvhanging rules is fine and we need to do this constantly, but right now we do not have a big community, so we can survive without VFS, and for a while just start forums like this in order to dertermine whether a user who wants to be admin, should be admin or not.

Too much sysops is not bad (especially in our case), unless every active user is an admin, so I don't think choosing an admin amongst many candidates is good, if we can allow every person who wants and can be a sysope to be such. Anton (talk) 08:18, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

IP comments

Secret Rule: Downt tell nobady abowt da sandwich, mmkay? ~Z "S" K —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.70.46.177 (talk • contribs)

^Everyone should have a right to express himself, right? Anton (talk) 19:41, October 18, 2013 (UTC)