UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/No minimum vote on APD

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Green check.png Guidelines — Policy Document
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Currently (as of 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC),) the final part of the A/PD rules reads:

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority and at least 20 total votes. Policies that pass are then added to the Approved Policies header, and should be announced on the Wiki News box on the main page.

The community has shrunk quite a bit since this has been written, so some policies have had a little trouble getting the required number of votes (yeah, I know that the last two would have failed anyway, but the point stands - we can't expect 20 voters anymore.)

This policy will reword the final criterion to read:

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority. Policies that pass are then added to the Approved Policies header, and should be announced on the Wiki News box on the main page.

The part requiring twenty votes will be removed.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


  1. Author vote. See the talk page for a longer rationale I couldn't include here. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Very much so in favor of. The wiki needs this if anything is going to get done around here on a reliable basis when it comes to policy. Aichon 05:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Sadly, it's true. Policy discussion gets little attention now. Mostly just the regular wiki-lurkers and we can't always count on twenty to take interest. ~Vsig.png 05:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. As Vapor. I've been watching this discussion (well, half-assed watching, tbh), and I think that the people who vote regularly on these things amount to less than 20. -- †  talk ? f.u. 05:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. For - Obvious need is obvious. If this ends up being near-unanimous but fails due to lack of voters, I wouldn't mind a manual override of current policy to shove it through. I can think of little that would be less acceptable than us becoming unable to change any policies, including that which prevents us from doing so. --VVV RPMBG 06:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    If it gets close as time is ticking down, I think you can count on pretty much everyone to meatpuppet this one through. Aichon 06:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    This. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. My noodle. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 07:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  7. For - Having been a victim of the 20 votes clause myself, the need should be obvious. And now excuse me, I have to let loose my meatpuppet army. -- Spiderzed 11:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  8. For - You have my blade.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    By the way, I won't be supporting any meatpuppetry on this policy. You should inform people about the policy vote, but you shouldn't tell them how to vote.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    I think that's what we all have in mind. I consider meatpuppeting to be any attempt to bring in folks from outside of the typical wiki community for voting, regardless of the instructions they are offered (or, in the case of some groups, the orders they are given), hence the confusion. People should always vote according to their conscience and not be coerced into voting a certain way. Aichon 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  9. For - you've got my vote Louis Vernon 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  10. For - So Sad. So True. --DiSm ~ T 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. I miss the good times. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  12. For ---Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    •▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Changing vote. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  13. The reason recent policy votes haven't made the 20+ votes is not so much because the community is too small to make that standard, it's because many of the community don't have enough interest in the proposed policies to vote on them themselves. And since abstentions are forcibly removed (see top right box), it's getting harder for the niche policies that only apply to the administrative side of the wiki to be passed through. It could be abused, but I'm willing to go on a little faith. -- LEMON #1 15:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  14. For --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  15. For - the last good policy vote bombed due to this unhelpful clause, and I don't want to see others do the same. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  16. For I'm you're goddamn motherfucking saviour. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Your. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Yer.   AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    ...Yo mama. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  17. For - It may be crazy, but I trust the wiki users to stop bad policies even if there aren't 20 voters. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  18. For It gets my vote! --Osric Stormwall 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  19. For - Declining userbase means requirements change with the times.-- Adward  11:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  20. For - Proposals should be decided solely on their merits, not on how many people turn up to vote. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ talk 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  21. 21 - Wait, maybe not. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 11:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  22. Aye - As above. The community has definitely shrunk in recent months and this is definitely needed. -- Cheese 20:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  23. Yes. - MHSstaff 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  24. For - Aye (for aforementioned reasons). --Highlandcow 19:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  25. For - I find it hilarious that this policy has far more votes than the ones that caused it to be suggested, incidentally. --Ryvyoli Y R 07:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


  1. Against. not just for the sake of it but because i genuinely think that there should be a minimum number of votes for a policy to claim any sort of support. Lower the figures to 15 with the proviso that any vote that achieves a 10+ yes's but doesn't get to that magic 15 is still passed and I would say yes. Without a minimum number (ignoring meat/sock votes) there is a strong possibility of people slipping stuff through at quiet times... like Christmas! --Honestmistake 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I thought about lowering it when I created this policy, but it just means that if/when the community shrinks a little more, we'll have to push through another policy like this, which may be somewhat challenging (I'll be surprised if we get 20 regular wiki editors voting on this.) There's always enough active editors around to ensure that awful policies don't get anywhere, and even then two weeks is a long time, so the chance of a policy going completely unnoticed is very low. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Ironically, you're helping to force this policy through. :D The system works!--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    I know... isn't democracy great :) --Honestmistake 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Against. I agree with point 1. --Miss Wheems 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Against. As Honestmistake. Asheets 18:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Because we just hit the 20 vote minimum marker for this policy. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to talk Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. No - without a minimum anyone can say a useless policy got promoted if poeple simply ignored when it was created, and the only two stooges who voted were the author and a meatpuppet of his --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 04:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    If people are ignoring the policy, then the stooges can simply meatpuppet it through now anyway. Aichon 04:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Erm, if only two people turned up to vote the wiki would obviously be too dead for anyone to care? -- LEMON #1 13:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  6. Against - If a measly 20 people can't be bothered to vote on a policy, it probably isn't worth passing. Also, if wiki participation ever shrinks to such a point that only a few people ever vote on anything, then it's time to recognize that our home has degenerated into a dusty old drama-whoring playground with no utility, and there is no longer any need for additional "laws" and policies and stuff.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    Actually, I've noticed that the smaller the wiki gets, the more focused it becomes on it's job, and the less of drama heaven it is. Might just be me, though. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  7. Against. Change the number of necessary minimum votes rather than abolishing the rule. Mr Bighead 18:53 7 January 2011
  8. Against. I'm the 31st voter on this policy vote, thus rendering your argument invalid. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    Look at pretty much any policy from the last six months. Very few of them have been getting the required twenty votes, this policy has (ironically) been one of the few exceptions. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  9. Pick a number... 0 is not an option -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:47 8 January 2011 (BST)
    Why isn't it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    Because even if the wiki does get largely abbanndoned for a length of time, the policies should remain stable until a decent number of people return. Being able to change the rules of the wiki on the sayso of one or two people is not a smart idea. How would you like to return to the wiki to find that Karloth had voted himself in, via policy, as sole 'crat, in perpetuity? It's not hard to define a quorum. Doing so will allow the wiki to be maintained by a small number of editors, visiting irregularly, while keeping a conservative policy framework -- boxy talkteh rulz 20:42 8 January 2011 (BST)
    Based on the game population decline since '06, a minimum number of five would be the same population-to-policy-votes-needed ratio as 20 was for back then. At which point, why even bother with a minimum? -MHSstaff 21:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    There is a large number of ways that would never happen, or if it did it wouldn't matter. A lot of them have already been mentioned above. Firstly and most obviously, if Karl could sole vote himself in the wiki reflectively would be too dead for anyone to give a shit. Secondly, if he wanted it that badly he could just meatpuppet himself into it anyway to get over 20 votes in the first place, which means such an achievement wouldn't be dependant on this policy. Thirdly, in the event of Firstly or Secondly, Kevan always has Veto power and judging from his stance on Grim's Coup I don't think the Karl Coup would be anything he would support. -- LEMON #1 00:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    And Kevan has vetoed policies before, so it's not completely unusual.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 01:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    Regardless of your assurances that it would never happen, and wouldn't matter anyway... this is a policy with no upside to it. All of the examples quoted in the policy, of low voter turnout, can be directly attributed to crap policies. The first is an overy convoluted mess, where people just couldn't be arsed reading through pages of text to find out WTF it was on about, when the system was working fine the way it was, and the last two were obviously going down regardless of the number of votes. More no votes weren't going to change anything, so people decided not to pile on. There may be a need to lower the number, but I see no upside to removing it altogether -- boxy talkteh rulz 19:41 9 January 2011 (BST)
    I am totally doing this. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  10. Against. For me 75-80% majority vote would be workable --C Whitty 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    The policy is changing the minimum number of votes, not the percentage of votes needed to pass. Just so you know. -MHSstaff 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    I think he is suggesting he could accept scraping the total voter number so long as the % to pass went up? --Honestmistake 01:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. Against - I'm pretty new here, but, I'd say a minimum is definitely preferable. Make if 5-6, if that's the only way, but it should be a numer. Dupreem 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Vote added after deadline--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 14:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

With voting over, this policy has Passed with a 2/3 majority and as such will be implemented in the system. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)