Forum:Endorsements referendum

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Endorsements referendum

In light of the recent discussion regarding the admin endorsement requirement for chat moderator applications (as outlined in FW:ADMIN), the community has decided to bring several key points to a vote. Please familiarise yourself with the issues surrounding these points.

Question 1

Do you support complete removal of the admin endorsement requirement as it is for chat moderator applicants?

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. 03:00, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
2. I have faith the community will decide what's best. Having an endorsement required for chat moderator and nothing else is a ridiculous double standard.  A Follower  Talk  19:58, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. Now it's quiet, but the moment FO4 gets announced, we'll get flooded again and with that a new flood of people who wanna get extra powers. Better to have a deterent as a filter - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:21, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)The endorsement requirement keeps the rabble out.
3. Endorsements of some sort need to be in place. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. There are unnecessary rules, and there are rules that help make our wiki a smoother experience for everyone. I am sure one can guess at which I believe this particular rule to be. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. Even if I haven't endorsed a single person, it would be beneficial to have this rule. We can see it like a recommendation, to see some trust in the nominated user. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
6. Endorsement to ensure staff support, community vote to ensure community support. Works as is; doesn't need to be changed. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. There needs to be a filter. The prerequisites for applying ensure that someone has completed the editing/presence requirements, and the endorsement judges something that rules and number requirements can't: Character. The potential endorser must disregard the numbers and truly think about whether the chat would benefit from giving the prospective chat moderator his/her own star. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:31, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. For any applicant that stands a chance, an endorsement is not a difficult thing to obtain. --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. It's a good smell-test, and I like good smell-tests. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 14:58, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
10. I agree with Skire's vote above, it's easy to get. It also helps weed out the would-be applicants that nobody really sees in chat. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. It kind of balances things out, doesn't it? Especially for the future. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:01, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
12. It should be obvious why this is a bad idea. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
13. Shows that some people on the wiki shows said user responsible enough. Great Mara (talk) 03:44, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
14. File:LegionEmblem.png 12:14, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
15. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
16. I think we should keep it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."

Question 2

Do you support expansion of the endorsement right to include all moderators and chat moderators? This means that moderators, chat moderators, along with admins, will be able to endorse chat moderator applicants.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. What do you need, boss? (talk) Cmods have more domain in the Chat, and would be more effective in choosing new chat mods.
2. With a whopping 8 admins on the wiki, I see only one in chat on a daily basis, I see three more in chat somewhat often, and the rest rarely or infrequently in chat. Having one admin there regularly that can be asked for an endorsement puts a load on that admin and also creates limitations on who can get rights based on who that admin has interacted with. I would submit that given that chat mods and admins are supposed to be equals in chat, then it makes sense that they could endorse, especially considering how many of them are chat active. Richie9999 (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. I place my trust in the Chat Moderators knowing enough about their own domains to make informed decisions of this nature. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
4. Chat mods are more often in the chat, I think. They should know better. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
5. I would rather have someone who frequents chat to be able to endorse potential chat mods rather than admins being the only source of endorsements. Seems counter-intuitive to ask for support to moderate chat from someone who may not even use the feature. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
6. I was originally going to say "no, then someone who just got voted in could start endorsing all of his/her friends," but then I realized that: 1.)That's just being paranoid, which is something that has plagued this wiki's policies for too long; 2.)Someone who got an endorsement from his buddy and really shouldn't be a chat mod would never pass the community vote. I like this change. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:36, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
7. They are often more in touch with applicants than some admins are (e.g. myself!) --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
8. If a freshly made C-mod endorses his buddies, the community would just take that into account anyway when casting their votes. So I see nothing wrong with this. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:00, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
9. I'm in chat more than all but one administrator right now, and I believe I possess the ability to gauge whether a prospective chat moderator has what it takes or not. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
10. I think I can trust our current chat moderators/moderators to handle this kind of power. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
11. File:LegionEmblem.png 12:16, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
12. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
13. Obviously I am all for this. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:48, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
14. Assuming the above vote passes, this will open things up a bit.  A Follower  Talk  20:14, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
15. I'll endorse anyone who buys me more Xbox LIVE ^{"Semper Invictus"} 20:44, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

No

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)

Neutral

1. "Some say this user is a Moderator..."
2. 03:04, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

Question 3

Please select the option below you support the most regarding bureaucrats giving endorsements.

Poll finished on 11:15 pm June 11, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing the following line in the appropriate section of the option you support:
  • # {{yes}} ~~~~
  • # {{no}} ~~~~
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Option 1

Bureaucrats may not endorse chat moderator applications.

1. Bureaucrats should remain neutral in decision of giving the user rights, including endorsement. Energy X 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would rather see this expanded to all forms of requests, since the bureaucrats decide the outcome and enabling them to exclude themselves would limit the concensus, but this is a step in the right direction at least. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:40, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
3. To ensure neutrality (or a façade thereof). --Skire (talk) 02:43, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. At first I didn't see, "Why not?", but then I realized it would probably be for the best if the Bureaucrats just stick to the ultimate decision should their discretion be warranted. It would ensure integrity of the procedure more than anything. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 15:01, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
5. They already decide the outcome of all applications as it is to my knowledge, so why they should be granted further power? 02:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
6. Bureaucrats have a presumed swaying power over others' opinions, which is why long since the Vault times they self-imposed a ban on voting on requests. Time to set the unwritten convention on stone.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
7. Personally I believe they should not vote, either. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 19:51, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
8. unless we also change the final decision policies, this should be the rule. ^{"Semper Invictus"} 22:15, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Excluded votes

1. They may, however, express any opinions they see fit in the comments section of a request. _{Don't give up the ship!} 01:49, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Option 2

Bureaucrats may endorse, but they must be excluded from the final decision-making process.

1. In my opinion, an endorsement is a yes vote. And the way I sees it, by endorsing a candidate, a bureaucrat has made their position known. People are raising their concerns about B-crats compromising their neutrality by endorsing, to which I say why not have them sit out of the deliberations for making the decision? In this case their neutrality or lack thereof becomes a non-issue. I myself cannot see why so many who are afraid of b-crats losing their neutrality go to the extreme of saying they cannot endorse when, simply keeping them out of the deliberation process would solve that problem. The only real argument I see in favor of B-crats not endorsing, given this, is that keeping them out removes one more person from the deliberation process and limit consensus, and even then that still leaves three to deliberate, eliminating the possibility of a stalemate. In the end I find this option to be a nice middle ground that addresses the concerns of both groups.*EDIT* Also, two of the B-crats are way more active in chat than most of our admins. If all admins can endorse, even those not active in chat, why would we not allow two chat active b-crats to endorse given that they have a better grasp on the users there and their behaviors? Richie9999 (talk) 02:52, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
2. I would hate to ruin a perfectly good empty space (I wrote this right before Richie voted... but I'm keeping it.), but I think if a BC decides they want to make an endorsement, we already know their point of view, and there are 3 other perfectly capable BCs that can talk it over. - Chris 02:55, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
3. Similar thoughts as those above me, I have no issue with a bureaucrat endorsing an application, as long as they play no part in the final decision. Granted, I have a much more liberal view of what an endorsement is in the terms of our wiki. But, if a BC wants to endorse, it's within their rights. --MountHail (talk) 02:01, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
4. After some deep thought about this issue, I have come to the conclusion that this is the best way to go. The reasons above explain my reasons. BCs are just admins who have the power to check a little box that makes other people admins. I really don't understand what the big deal about them not being able to endorse is. Paranoia gets seriously out of hand here. _{Don't give up the ship!} 21:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Option 3

Bureaucrats may endorse without restrictions or conditions.

1. ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog)
2. What do you need, boss? (talk)
3. "Some say this user is a Moderator..." 00:57, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
4. THE NUCLEAR KING ^Talk 03:06, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
5. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:37, June 6, 2014 (UTC)
6.  A Follower  Talk  19:57, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

I would propose a perhaps simpler solution. For the entire chat rules and endorsements, any reference to "Administrator", "(Chat) Moderator" or "Bureaucrat" should be read as anyone with the Chat Moderation toolset. Agent c (talk) 23:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this would be simpler. Although, just to be a smart-ass, I seem to recall a while back, J went through and removed Chat Moderator status from most everyone that had a position higher than Chat Moderator. ;D ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:36, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

They still have the toolset though as its inclusive, so that would be what counts. Agent c (talk) 23:38, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know. Like I said: just being a smart-ass. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I cannot vote on number three. I support Bureaucrats being able to endorse and vote on the request, just as every other rights group, but only under the condition that they must provide a valid rationale alongside their endorsement (just as any other endorser should be doing). Since that is technically a condition, I fear that does not fit into any proposed voting categories. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Before this subject comes up, if it does, I want to leave this here to clarify a few things that I've seen said. As you can see by my user rights interface, Bureaucrats are also admins by default. I checked a few other wiki's I'm a founder on to make sure this is not an artifact of me being an admin before a BC, but the sysop rights (admin) are granted alongside bureaucrat rights. FW:ADMIN states: "Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers." Please note the inference there. Bureaucrats are administrators, just "irregular" ones. You may, or may not, if you wish, take this into consideration while deliberating the above question. Screenie on the right for kicks. As you were.  The Gunny   23:57, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I understand that from a technical perspective especially that bureaucrats are admins by default. However, that does not change anything pertaining to the vote as bureaucrats are nonetheless a separate position (requiring a separate request) from the admin position. --Skire (talk) 02:41, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

In which case, all current bureaucreats are still administrators. I don't recall any of us resigning. They are administrators by the bureaucrat definition, and by election. Agent c (talk) 23:34, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Question 3 is referring to bureaucrats specifically. --Skire (talk) 00:59, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

If the issue is so called "Swaying-power" influencing votes then every single user of any well known status would be required to also not vote publicly - that would be every single special rights user, and everyone else who visits more than just occasionally. Agent c (talk) 02:09, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think you're vastly underestimating the weight the BC title carries.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 06:50, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I think you're grossly over estimating it, and under estimating the star power of everyone else. Clyde is almost an unknown, J is a dedicated editor who says away from the public light. That leaves me who Who's public stance against DG lead to naught, and Gunnny who isn't too public but sought out for technical stuff. Meanwhile we have 2 other regular front page blogs who build up a great following who are cleRly influential. We have editors such as yourself, Skire, Ry and more who are more likely to have interacted with regular users. We have our stalwart chat moderators who are there all day ever day and interact with just about everyone who goes in. I think that our users have plenty of other influential voices out there they know, trust and respect, perhaps more so than the other crats who have less of a public face than me - and i doubt my star power is that much more than them. I think our user base is smart enough to listen to all voices, and not just vote one way because a certain special rights user says they should, even if it is a bureaucrat - I'd love to see any examples that show any overwhelming bureaucrat influence.... If there is any I am certain it isn't enough to warrant a gag rule. Agent c (talk) 07:49, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Chad, why don't you just use your swaying power to convince Limmie to vote your way? It sounds like it's very effective at getting people to side with you so you can take over the wiki with all of your power abuse. _{Don't give up the ship!} 19:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Toci, I believe you mean powah abyoose. Seriously, though, why shouldn't b-crats be able to endorse? I don't see a reason as to why not. In my opinion endorsing is just one facet of an admin's abilities that the b-crats have. If someone is worried about swaying power then all active community extra rights holders should be removed from being able to endorse, as many of them hold just about as much swaying power as a b-crat with the community. Arbitrarily drawing the line at b-crat is just silly when there are users with just as much swaying power as b-crats, if not more. Richie9999 (talk) 20:07, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Toci, unfortunatley the vault admins took the mind controll machine with them. Agent c (talk) 20:14, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

In my mind, since we are also discussing Chat Moderators to have endorsement options available to them, it becomes a scenario where if everyone else with Chat Moderator tools can endorse, then why not Bureaucrats as well? My only issue is when too much unique power is given to a single Special Rights group. That is not the case here, so I say why not? My only request is that everyone that endorses leave a valid and detailed reason as to why they are endorsing, so we know whether to take the endorsement seriously or not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:17, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

It is primarily the fact that bureaucrats make the final decision for user rights requests that should bar them from endorsing individual applicants. It is not because of their "swaying power." --Skire (talk) 20:35, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Yet, as the site's policies stand, we can still vote on said chat mod request. There's nothing saying we can't vote on them. Now, there's some unwritten convention that says if we do vote, we recuse ourselves from the deliberations, but I don't see removing our right to vote on any requests even being discussed. The logic then follows that actually voting is less important than allowing us to endorse. How odd.  The Gunny   20:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

It should be obvious that the matter of bureaucrats endorsing is brought up only because of a discussion on another topic related to endorsements. I did not, and have to intention to, bring up a two-pronged offensive on prohibiting bureaucrats from endorsing and voting. Also, the argument that since bureaucrats can still vote, we might as well let them endorse is nonsensical. The goal is improvement, not a 100% fix (perfect solution fallacy). --Skire (talk) 21:23, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I dont see how its either. A positive vote is an endorsement (with a small e) particularly with a long explanation. The only real difference between the two is where on the page the vote is. Agent c (talk) 21:32, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we start another discussion/vote on bureaucrats voting on user rights requests? And if what you're saying is true, then endorsements are half the problem. Here we present three different paths addressing that half of a problem. The other half (i.e. voting) is outside of the scope of this forum. And so as far as this goes, I believe I have made my points sufficiently clear already. --Skire (talk) 21:45, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting the problem doesn't exist. The influence of Burecrats is vastly overstated. If we're gaging burecrats as "influencial", then we need to gag pretty much everyone who voted for the same reason. Agent c (talk) 21:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is a discernible difference: Endorsements validate a Chat-Mod request, so that votes may actually take place. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:47, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

@Agent c: I've got a bag of marbles around here somewhere, I know I do. What color should we use? Blue for yes and yellow for no? The Gunny   21:52, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In that case, Chad, you must not have read the original post from which this thread has developed. I said that this was not really about influence, but more about the de jure power bureaucrats have to make the final decision for user rights requests. --Skire (talk) 21:54, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Then why not just exclude the endorsing bureaucrat from the final decision? I am trying to figure out why people are so staunchly against it. "It limits the consensus" just doesn't cut it. _{Don't give up the ship!} 13:40, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

The obvious reason is that some folks must think we hold too much power or influence here and want to reign that in, or take some of that for themselves. They think enough of us to vote us into office with the powers, but don't believe we have the common good sense to recuse ourselves from a vote if we endorse. Obviously, they've caught on to our evil plan to take over the world. It's completely nonsensical to me. Either you trust my judgement or not. If you don't, don't let the forum door hit you in the ass as you write up my reconfirmation request. And if you feel you want to increase your influence at the cost of ours, then go ahead and put up that BC request yourself. It's a great job. People always treat you with respect & courtesy and never bitch about your actions or decisions. /sarcasm.  The Gunny   19:38, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Well said. _{Don't give up the ship!} 19:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

There is a single reason why no Special Rights group should hold too much power, and that is because it opens doors to abuse, whether in the present, or in the future. Our wiki has already shown small signs of it, and it is one of the reasons why some of us are doing what we can to keep most power in the community's hands:

• Both Bureaucrats and Administrators have gone in and changed bans without notifying anybody, which is usually never noticed because most editors do not use the technical recent changes. This is not just something that has happened a little, but has happened a lot.
• Chat Moderators have been known to get their buddies into Chat Moderators positions as well, which is what led to the mob mentality that was finally rooted out a few months back. This is also what led to many of our current policies, such as no joke kicking.
• We have had Bureaucrats and Administrators actively deny our policies and suggest we ignore them, for the sake of a single user.

Those are a few examples, and I will stop here as it is derailing the original vote a bit. But do not trivialize the reasons for users being concerned about how much power, as imaginary as it is, that our Special Rights holders have. Because it is a pressing concern, and just pretending abuse never happens is actively making way for a future leadership that gets away with much worse. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:55, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

My comment Danny was in response to those who have stated this mystical Burecrat ability to sway votes. As I am responding to comments here, I fail to see the point you are making. Agent c (talk) 20:07, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments moved from voting section

• (Comment) Not sure you read the vote properly. No double-standards are being proposed - this vote is to remove the endorsement rule entirely, which is why it is the first vote. If this vote passes, then it renders the chat-moderator endorsement deal below entirely null. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:16, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
  • I read the vote perfectly fine, thank you. Perhaps you didn't read my rationale properly - I'm in favour of seeing this rule repealed because I believe it to be a double standard.  A Follower  Talk  20:24, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
    • If this vote passes, then that means the endorsement policy is removed in its entirety. The second and third vote will instantly be nullified, because they are only extensions on the original policy. So if the policy is removed completely, then there cannot be a second or third voting option, which I see you have at least voted yes on vote #2. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:26, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
      • As has Eden. Voting on the first does not indemnify me against voting on the remainder.  A Follower  Talk  20:28, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
        • You have ignored the fact that there cannot be a second or third vote if the first vote passes, which leads me to believe you are not understanding the first vote. I know what the first vote is - Danny and I discussed it quite thoroughly. If the Admin endorsement is removed, then the entire policy is removed, as the only thing in the policy is its Admin endorsement clause. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:30, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That is not how referendums work, Leon. Even if one is rendered null by the other, it is still my right to vote the way I desire should the majority vote contradict my opinion.  A Follower  Talk  20:35, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth - I am not disputing your opinion or votes even in the slightest. You will notice I said nothing to Eden, for instance. I am simply making sure you are understanding the vote, as the votes you have made directly contradict each other. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:37, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

They are not contradictory. Vote 1: I support the policies removal. Vote 2: in the event the policy remains, I support expansion of it as it currently stands. Vote 3: in the event the policy remains, I believe bureaucrats should be able to freely endorse.  A Follower  Talk  20:40, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Just making sure that the matter had clarity - if anything, this conversation will do good for others that might not understand what exactly vote #1 is calling for. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:43, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Rest assumed, his votes do not confuse me. I fully understand his positions, by the rationales given, and they will be taken into consideration accordingly by the BCs when this vote is over. He may vote as he wishes. The Gunny   20:45, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Of course he may vote as he wishes. >.> You would do well not to mistake my intentions - clarity is all I wanted. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:47, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

In the future, I would like to be asked first before my comments are moved. It is regular wiki practice to have the ability to tack on comments to other peoples' votes. I only mention other wikis, because there is nothing in our policies/guidelines stating that I cannot follow this same etiquette. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:19, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Comments go in the comments section. Richie9999 (talk) 21:22, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

(←)  I don't recall any "tack ons" except where administrative action is being taken. Agent c (talk) 21:24, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Tacking comments onto votes is a standard across most wikis, and it has been embraced here as well for years, on multiple older votes. I do not mind being moved, but I fully expect to be asked first, unless there are policies/guidelines stressing otherwise. And yes, I can show multiple examples both on and off this wiki. But if you want those examples, ask me on my talk-page, as this is not the place. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:26, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

"I don't recall" isn't a statement of opinion. I think this is the place rather than dragging it out somewhere else and leaving it seemingly unresolved... What other wikis do is not relevant, as is any vote prior to us dividing them as they are. Comments belong in the comments section, unless there is a reason to question the legitimacy of the vote itself. Its the only way I can remember it being done since we moved to this format. Howver, as you have no problem with it being moved, I presume you will agree that the matter is now settled. Agent c (talk) 21:33, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to be respectfully asked to move my own comments in the future. I am not breaking any policies/guidelines/standard wiki etiquette by tacking on comments, so I figure this is the least I can ask. Also, the opinion bit was aimed at Richie - sorry for the confusion. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:37, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Gunny has mentioned a pretty good point about how we use # now to format our votes, which is broken when tacking on comments. I will try and remember that in the future - but if I forget, just let me know. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:41, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

@Gunny Can I request clarification on something? Nowhere in our policies does it say the BCs get to make the final decision for policy votes. The only thing to that end is, "A simple majority is sufficient to pass." So I am confused as to why you said the BCs will consider Follower's rationale when they are not even deciding on the results. --Skire (talk) 01:21, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sure. "The administrators may veto a policy". With every policy that is voted on, we, the BCs, generally discuss the vote and the outcome. If we disagree with the outcome, we, as administrators/sysops, reserve that right to veto, just like you do. We have not had a policy vote that we all agreed needed to be vetoed, so I can't really tell you how that would look, whether all administrators would have to be polled or whatever, since that phrase is a bit ambiguous, but regardless, we generally discuss them, as a group, to be certain we don't all want to veto it and have to find out how that works. Does this explain everything? I was trying to convey to Leon that Followers votes were coherent and understood. The Gunny   01:43, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

That helps a ton, thank you. I was mostly wondering is this was a case analogous to the bureaucrats' right to make the final call on user rights requests (which is written in policy). Viewing it as more of a veto right (although one I'd contend that regular administrators share) clarifies it a lot. --Skire (talk) 01:55, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed where I said "just like you do" up above. Of course you share it. And it's not like we discuss every vote. The ones the community clearly is behind just go straight to result. You even enacted the last one before anyone posted on the forum the results, right? We don't even use the word veto. It's more like when there's not a clear consensus, like the third option here, we go: "Looks close." "You good with it?" "Yup." "OK". "Good enough." We just like to speak with a unified consensus and it gives each of us an opportunity to raise any concerns that we feel strongly about so we can speak with that unified consensus. The Gunny   02:03, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss that. My apologies. And in the case of multi polls (usually they are yesno), what would the bureaucrats do if no choice has a majority but only a plurality? Would the status quo be preserved? Would they suggest a compromise? --Skire (talk) 02:14, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on the topic and the votes. In the case of issue number 3, we have 3 clear positions, one on each extreme, one in the middle. It's possible I would suggest a consensus on the middle position, if the vote were to close today, even though it got the least votes. Things might now always be that clear though. The Gunny   02:22, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks a lot for the clarification on standard procedure, Gunny. I apologise if this detracted somewhat from the actual topic of the forum... --Skire (talk) 02:26, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with people getting a better understanding on how we do things. Frankly, we BCs do a good job of gaining consensus on stuff. It's good for people to understand that's how we work. The Gunny   02:32, June 11, 2014 (UTC)

Results

First two parts are clear. The endorsements will stay, and they can now be made by all extra rights holders save patrollers. The last question did not gain a simple majority for any option. We can either declare this issue not decided and retain the status quo, or we can attempt a consensus position on the middle point. Given the length of this forum, I'd recommend that any motion to form a consensus on the middle position be made in a new forum. The Gunny   20:26, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how question 3 didn't reach simple majority. The result was:

Option 1): 8 votes

Option 2): 4 votes

Option 3): 6 votes

Option 1 had 2 votes more than than the second most voted option, so first-past-the-post entails option 1 was chosen by simple majority. I hasn't achieved absolute majority, but absolute majority isn't the benchmark we use. It has at any rate achieved a far clear majority than other votes such as the talkpage music autoplay, which was passed based on the (post deadline recount) tally of 10 vs 12 votes. I see no reason not to enact the majority vote straight up here.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 16:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Seems there may be some inconsistencies in the definition of "simple majority" from American English to British English. As I understand it, when a subset of votes forms a number greater than the votes for other options, but less that 50% of the total vote, that is called a plurality.

“plu·ral·i·ty - a number of votes that is more than the number of votes for any other candidate or party but that is not more than half of the total number of votes”— Merriam-Webster.com

The wikipedia page for majority (which I double checked before I posted the above results) states:

“A majority may be called a simple majority to contrast with other types of majority”— Wikpedia

And:

“A majority is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. This can be compared to a plurality, which is a subset larger than any other subset considered; i.e. a plurality is not necessarily a majority as the largest subset considered may consist of less than half the set's elements.”— Wikpedia

But on the same page, it does state:

“In British English, majority and plurality are often used as synonyms”— Wikpedia

Since you compare it to a vote that only had two choices, I'll show the stats:

Music on talk page vote	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	10	45.5%
No	12	54.5%
BCs can endorse	Votes	Percentage of total votes
No	8	44.4%
Yes, but not decide	4	22.2%
Yes	6	33.3%

In the first vote, the no votes constituted an overall majority of all votes. This would be defined as at least a simple majority in either British English or American. In the second vote, the no votes only constituted a plurality of votes, ie there were more of them than the other two options, but less than 50%. But, if in British English, a simple majority can be synonymous with plurality, then it can constitute a simple majority in British English. In my knowledge of American English, it is a plurality rather than a simple majority.

“In North American English, the term plurality, also called relative majority[1] used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes received by one candidate (or any proposal in a referendum) out of the entire group of candidates. [2] It is contrasted with an absolute majority,[1] or simple majority, which is more than half of the votes.[2]”— Wikipedia

So the question then is do we use the American English definition of simple majority or the British English definition? There were 8 votes for BCs not to endorse, while there were 10 votes allowing us to, 4 of them with restrictions. There is obviously no clear consensus position here. What do we have to fall back on? The fact we use American English as our default editing language? Or do we have to make some kind of vote over which definition of "simple majority" we use, American or British English? Or perhaps we could just do as I suggest and see if we can come to a consensus position on the middle ground? I'd be interested in hearing opinions, but I would prefer them in another forum, as this one is 8 billion lines of comments. The Gunny   20:18, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

To me the term majority is clear - greater than 50%. You cannot have a majority with anyhing less than 50%+1. What you have otherwise is a large minority. If we are looking for the "consensus" or "majority" position, I think we'd actually be looking at something closer to option B or C than A, when we look at the options presented, two of the options clarify that Bureaucrats should be able to endorse - more people agree with this proposition than not, although some only do with caveats. As such any implementation of A would be simply non democratic and against the consensus position. Agent c (talk) 20:27, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what Gunny says on what a majority is, however I feel this is complicating methods and I don't think that going for a middle ground compromise is the best option. Instead I would like to suggest that, in a separate forum, people order options A, B and C in accordance to their preferences. We could use a system, such as 1st choice = 3points, 2nd choice = 2 points and 3rd choice = 1 point, to calculate which option is prefered, for example i I ordered my votes A, C, B then A would get 3 points, C would get 2 and B would get 1, if chad then ordered his C, B, A then C would get 3 points, B would get 2 points and A would get 1 point, added to mine A = 4, c =5 B=3 which would mean C would be the ones we pass. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 20:33, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

I think we have three options here:

1. Pass A on the grounds that it has a plurality.
2. Do a run-off vote.
3. Continue discussion on a separate forum to find a compromise position on the matter.

Personally, option 3 is my preference. --Skire (talk) 20:53, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well the way I see it option 3 will only lead to options 1 or 2 in the long run. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:10, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

The hope is that it doesn't =P. What is your best course of action? --Skire (talk) 21:12, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Well since we can't past something without a vote anyway we would either A) do another (or a run-off) vote or B) Pass one of the options we already have. A seperate discussion is not an alternative to either of these, it is literally just doing what we're doing here but some place else. I have suggested by "best course of action" above your post, already. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:32, June 13, 2014 (UTC)

Here are other dictionary definitions for simple majority:

“Less than half of the total votes cast but more than the minimum required to win, as when there are more than two candidates or choices.”— Dictionary.com

“A majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any one candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority.”— Oxford Dictionary (US definition)

Regardless of the source of definition, the proper way to determine how we should interpret the term is to look at how we have been interpreting the term so far. Below is a sample of five votes, from various periods of the wiki, in which the result went to the choice with more votes, regardless of the proportion to the overall voters:

Expanded Wiki Navigation	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	4	33%
No	5	42%
Neutral	3	25%
One edit before voting	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	8	47%
No	7	41%
Neutral	2	12%
Achievements	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	15	48%
No	12	39%
Neutral	4	13%
Chat-mod min. edit count increase	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	8	38%
No	10	48%
Neutral	3	14%
Cartman's reconfirmation	Votes	Percentage of total votes
Yes	12	38%
No	13	41%
Neutral	7	22%

That shows beyond doubt that the meaning of simple majority has always been the first-past-the-post principle. The option with more votes than the others wins. This vote is no different from any other. I am sorry if this isn't to the satisfaction of some of the bureaucrats, but the option forbidding them from making endorsements has won fair and square. There is no need no make any further votes in the matter.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 02:36, June 14, 2014 (UTC)