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

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 ~~~~ or # ~~~~ 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.

For

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. ~ 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. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
12. For ---^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 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 --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^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. 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
16. For I'm you're goddamn motherfucking saviour. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

    Your. 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 ^W! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
18. For It gets my vote! --Osric Stormwall 18:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Against

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)

   But we didn't for the last one, and ones before that. :'( --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   But we are able to make it to 20. It just seems the previous ones didn't make it to 20 because people didn't care much about them. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   But those that did didn't have issue with it (at least for part of the multi A/P one). People tend to be less likely to comment if there's nothing much to argue about. If somehow the lack of interest was not due to the policy being "fine", then someone will inevitably point out the issue at a later date. Really, there just isn't a reason for a 20 vote limit, no one can sneak anything under the radar on this wiki. You know this, I do too, and so do many others. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   You bring up valid points, but your statement is leaning me more towards abstaining...And I don't think you want me to abstain from voting... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, there will be some very serious consequences if you abstain. Very serious. "Very" was in italics, so you know I mean business. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)