Forum:Poll Rules

Here are the current rules we have about polls: One_Piece_Wiki:Forum_Rules.

The problem is, they do not apply to non-forum polls—at least, not explicitly. It is important to be explicit in rules, to avoid disputes about their interpretation. It is especially important when these rules deal with polls!

In this forum, I'd like that we discuss whether these rules should apply to any "official" poll, and if not, how talk page polls should be different.

While we're at it, there are a few "loopholes" in the current rules that we should correct (both in forum and talk page polls). Here's what I think should be added:


 * the obvious fact that the poll shouldn't be modified after it has started (end date or questions—there are exceptions to this, that must be discussed here and formally stated in the rules);
 * implied by the previous point: the fact that a poll should be agreed upon before it is started;
 * the fact that anybody can change/withdraw their vote at any time (or not).

If you can think of anything else, of course, we're going to discuss it too.

Discussion
Personally, I think the rules should be extended to talk pages. The only thing that should be changed is the duration. Sometimes two weeks is too long for a talk page poll (and even for a forum)…

A mandatory 2 weeks is kind of excessive. I presume you made this forum for the rather insignificant poll about the unreleased content stuff, which is a prime example of a poll that doesn't need to run for 2 weeks. Changing a poll after any votes have been cast should make them automatically invalid and the people that have voted already should be informed so that they may vote again. Sometimes changing a poll is necessary for better wording/clarification, it's just unacceptable to do it without prior discussion. Aside from that, the forum rules seem plenty applicable for talk pages as well. 13:29, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel that these rules should be nearly identical for all polls, and the only that that should change for different polls is the time for each since in some cases 2 weeks is a bit ridiculous. I think we should decide on the times for different scenarios now though, so that nobody makes shit up all the time. Here are a few of my timing suggestions:


 * Standard/most polls should be 2 weeks by default, and no poll should be less than a week (with one exception).
 * Two-part things like admin elections or ban forums should be 2 weeks total (1 week nominations, 1 week voting, or 1 week ban or not, 1 week how long the ban is.)


 * The exception being chat mod polls which run rather smoothly with a 6-day run time (3 days nominations, 3 days voting) because chatters are frequently on every day.
 * Any talk page poll about deletion of a page/category/whatever should be moved to a forum (copy/paste all the related talk page content to the forum, like I did with Forum:Fansub Page) where there should be a 2 week poll.
 * Any poll about different versions of a picture should just be one week, and the poll should take place on the talk page.

My rationale for these times is how likely a person is to notice and vote on a poll in its later days. We don't want to make every poll too short, otherwise semi-infrequent editors will never be able to vote on things.

There should be examples of the poll made before the poll starts, and we should generally standardize the format of them (we could possibly make a template or something so it's easier to make a poll as well). And I think minor changes to the poll such as minor phrasing alterations or formatting corrections that make the forum can be done without prior notification as long as it's done as a separate edit from someone's voting and the edit summary is used. Otherwise they should be discussed in the forum. Votes should only be invalidated though if the alterations would effect the outcome (ex another outcome is added/or one is removed).

As far as people changing their votes mid-poll, I think this is acceptable (as long as it doesn't happen in a way that breaks the rules here). I've changed my vote a few times because something that was said in the ongoing discussion has actually changed my mind. If people can't change their vote, then it makes any discussion that occurs after the poll starts completely useless, and lessens the chances of compromise or endings everyone could be happy with. 15:30, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Like sff9 said, I think polls rules should be general and not limited to forums, though I prefer not to make rules too strict or we may regret them later. I quickly read the forum poll rules and, assuming we are extending them globally, there are some changes and additions I'd like to discuss:


 * Length: I rather avoid setting specific length times, instead we can simply say that a poll can last either one or two week. The length will be decided by consensus during the discussion or decided by an admin if that's not the case. This is just to make things easier.
 * Poll creation: this is something I think we should also discuss. I remember poll created hastily or with poor wording choice. Hence I think we should set some guidelines about this too, for example:


 * A poll should be created after an exhaustive discussion. Basically, "don't rush to make a poll, talk first".
 * A poll should be gone through a short trial period of a day before officially be opened to vote. This is to double-check with all user if the option's choices are fine and if there aren't any issue. I remember some polls where I disagreed with the wording choice, or other where the options were changed because there were some issue with them.
 * I propose that admins can cancel out a poll in the first week/3 days if there are some anomalies or irregularities, but only one time (or not?). This is to ensure a sort of "referee role". Note, that
 * Admins should add a notice to the site news about an ongoing poll. Sometimes I missed some poll because I wasn't even aware that they were started.
 * Other rules: I think any other specific one-time rule for a poll (don't know what they may be) can be decided upon poll creation, as long they don't go against the guidelines and they are approved by the admins.

Ok these are mine suggestions.

Most polls should last 2 weeks and should only be on the forums. People don't notice talk page votes which is evidenced by the lack of votes that happened on the Unreleased content talk page until people were told to vote. SeaTerror (talk) 22:53, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

1 week is probably best. Waiting half a month for a poll to end when it's pretty one sided is stupid, or if all the votes possible are already cast. 22:54, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

@SeaTerror: most people won't notice any poll, regardless where it's placed, if it's not highlighted by admins in the site news.

@Galaxy: I disagree, or rather one week is fine for some polls but others require two weeks. This is why I suggested that it should be decided upon poll creation.

Polls should be allowed to take place on talk pages or forums, but I think that, as Levi said, they should be highlighted in the Wiki Activity. I personally think that in the case of admin votes, ban votes, or important forum decisions about wikia policy, then a two week vote should be used. In the deletion of pages, translation problems, or other issues, there can be a one-week poll. Other than that, I think we should go with Levi's proposed set of rules. A poll should not be started until the topic has been discussed in its entirety, and we definitely need some regulations on wording. I remember in Seaterror's forum where half of the discussion was over poll wording and not about the issue at hand. 23:36, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add some revisions to my response. To simplify things, how about one-week polls on talk pages and two-week polls on forums? In addition, the problem concerning "vote rigging", where people convince others to vote a certain way, needs to be addressed. I personally don't think that it matters, and that some people need to grow a spine, but we should discuss this. 02:35, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine PX. 02:36, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks is already the voting rule anyway. We would need to revote on a whole new system if we try to do it that way. SeaTerror (talk) 02:54, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

^ For forums. Not all pages. 02:55, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Only you and Sewil believe that crap. SeaTerror (talk) 02:59, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You keep assuming the wrong thing. Plenty of people believe it, because it's fact. 03:01, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

In fact, this forum wouldn't exist if Sff didn't believe it. Inb4 only you, sff, and sewil do. 03:02, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Not assuming at all. It isn't a fact either. You're making it up to meet your own agenda and trying to exploit a "loophole" that doesn't even exist but putting it on a talk page. The voting rules is for every single vote meaning that votes are two weeks long. The only vote that has a separate rule is for voting on bans. SeaTerror (talk) 03:03, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The point of this forum is to make sure that this doesn't matter, so let's keep to the topic on hand. It's already been established that forum rules are two weeks long, so what's it going to be for talk pages? 03:04, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

ST. It's in the forum rules, not talk page rules. This forum obviously wouldn't exist if they mattered for talk pages. Px too now. Anyways, on topic, they definitely should be universal, so that the incident doesn't happen again, 03:05, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so is everyone is agreement with the two-week polls on the entire wiki? take into account chatmod elections, where the current rules say that the vote is only a single week long. Are those going to be changed, or should those be left as a special case? 03:07, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

No. Not 2 week polls. 2 weeks is way too long for the poll we had on that talk page. 1 week max for those. 03:08, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

If not noticing a poll being active is the problem, then just contact me or another admin to place it onto the site news. And 2 weeks for a simple poll is too lengthy. For something like a category talk, 1 week should suffice. 03:09, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so talk pages one week, forums two weeks, mod elections one week. And polls currently active are to be reported to an admin to be posted on the site news. Any problems? 03:10, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I lkie that much. 03:13, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I already told you what the problem was. The voting rules applied to every poll meaning every poll is supposed to be two weeks. We would need to vote on the rules again to decide what to do with votes on each thing so nobody can try to "exploit" the nonexistent "loophole" again. SeaTerror (talk) 03:15, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with what PX said, except for a few special cases. Talk page polls are actually fairly rare in the grand scheme of things. Most of the time talk page discussions get settled before things become polls. I think that cases of deletion discussions, we should move things to a forum if a poll needs to take place, making it two weeks. Most talk page issues are minor, except for deletion issues, which I think are too serious to be settled in a week. Also, people should use their heads, and if something on a talk page poll would affect more than just the page the talk pages is attached to, any poll should be in a forum, not on the talk.

And for what ST said, according to the forum rules, if we can get a clear majority to agree that we should apply the forum rules to talks, we may not need a poll in this forum, ironically enough. 03:20, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

How about we just rename the forum rules "Discussion Rules"? That way it covers everything without us having to get bogged down on specifics. 03:24, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Community consent seems to be that one week forums are acceptable on talk page issues. I don't think that deletion votes should be moved to forums, but I do agree with votes that affect more than the page itself. Merge votes, renaming votes, and simple deletion votes can be kept to talk pages, but policy votes must be on forums.

DP, I have no idea what you are talking about. 03:26, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

PX, this kind of thing is the reason we have the Candidates for Deletion forum. 03:29, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we use that, actually? According to the page, it hasn't been used for almost a year now. I don't really care either way, but let's just set one. 03:31, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the suggestion to move it there was met with some hostilities. 03:44, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Because you tried to move it mid poll. 03:45, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

So was it the moving or the extending or both? 03:47, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Because you tried to extend it and move it on the day before it ended. That's why we should have a "poll start time" of 1 day after it's made so that people can object. Maybe longer, idk. 03:48, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The rules were already listed as two weeks for everything, PX. That's why I said we would have to revote on new rules if people want talk page votes to be a week only. SeaTerror (talk) 03:48, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

There have been discrepancies. We should carry on with the assumption that those rules were only intended for forums, and that there are currently no written rules for talk pages, whether or not you think it's true. On that note, here's what we apparently have so far.


 * Forum polls are two weeks long. Talk page forums are one week long. Chat mod forums, as previously established, are one week long.
 * All polls are to be reported to an admin for placement in the wiki news.
 * Deletion polls are not allowed on talk pages. They are to be moved to the Candidates for Deletion forum and subjected to a discussion and two-week vote if necessary.
 * Before a poll takes place, a trial poll will be created to make sure that none of the wording is off. At this time, poll duration and voting options will be confirmed so that nothing will interfere with the votes mid-poll.

Now, if we want to adapt the forum rules' policy on vote influence, that would be added to this too. 03:56, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

But only two people even assumed those rules only applied to talk pages. This is why we would need to revote on old rules and vote on new ones like you are suggesting. SeaTerror (talk) 04:03, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

So then why not just write something into the forum rules that say they apply to talk pages as well? 04:06, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and plus JSD admitted that he forgot to mention that when writing the rules and I believe that he intended that it applied to all the pages. Or something similar to that. 04:10, January 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, when I wrote up the rules, I didn't know it was actually possible to have a poll on a talk page because there hadn't been one (that I am aware of) since I became an editor. I had intended the rules to apply to all polls, but what I wrote down was in language that was for forums only. So, what I'm taking out of this is pretty much what PX just said, currently they don't really apply, even if I had intended them to, so let's just fix that right now. 04:30, January 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, polls on talk pages are usually to debate on its deletion or not. Unofficial One Piece Podcast is one that had a poll, and quite a few images have had polls on their talk pages as well. 05:24, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Ironically enough Yata set that poll for two weeks. SeaTerror (talk) 05:32, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

About the length, why do you want to set at all cost a length beforehand? Can we just decide that case by case? We can simply set the possible lengths, like one and two weeks. This because even a forum poll can be "not much important" hence two weeks can be too long, the same goes for talk pages.

The length, whether it should run one or two weeks, should be up to the discretion of the person who makes the poll. I agree with JSD, it would be easier to modify existing rules rather than create a whole new set. 18:56, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The poll should never be less than a week then. I say we should redo the entire system and revote on each vote rule. I say all deletion votes should go for two weeks though. SeaTerror (talk) 20:05, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply not seeing why we should redo any poll length votes. What we have right now is that all forum polls are two weeks, right? And all deletion polls must be on the Candidates for Deletion forums, right? (If they aren't they should be) Therefore, all deletion polls will be two weeks.

Concerning the variable length proposal, sure, it would be nice, but this could lead to more argument. I think it's better to have a set length for polls on talk pages and forums, instead of just determining it when the poll is created. 20:53, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

About the trial poll, I think its minimal duration should be stated explicitly in the rules (one day is OK, not less). Another idea: to avoid a poll going on unnoticed, it could be stated that the poll cannot start before an admin place it in the site news.

About changing an ongoing poll: in some cases it could be allowed, to add examples and the like. See what happened for the manga/anime infobox switch.

About variable poll length, I'm afraid PX is right. This could lead to a poll for deciding the poll length. *Shivers*

That is what I have been saying the entire time. SeaTerror (talk) 22:35, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Polls can totally be edited if it's to clarify/correct the options, there's no reason to make a big fuss over that. Polls should be allowed to be edited if it's to make them in-line with the rules if the rules have been ignored. If the poll is very much against our rules, it should be void/null.

Regarding Sff's idea about admins having to place the poll in the messages before they start, this is pretty good. (my only concern is the timing of admin responses. What ever happened to that "Administrator Noticeboard" idea discussed in the recent election forum?) The admins should also actually start the poll when they place in the messages as well. 06:18, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Polls should be edited only to make them in line with the rules we currently have which is the 2 week thing. We have to make poll lengths consistent or else just have everything on the forum so nobody can try to exploit a non-existent "loophole" again. If anything I do support the idea of revoting if people try to get people to vote for an option they want and banning the people from the next poll version. Banning accounts goes too far. SeaTerror (talk) 21:44, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Remember that we have another poll riding on this forum. Can we say that forum/deletion polls are always two weeks, while other poll lengths can be established at the time of the poll's creation. However, this length must be between one and two weeks. Finally, the forum and poll must be posted to the site news before the poll can begin. 02:29, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Everything sounds pretty much ok to me. I'm not sure why anyone would want a poll to be something between 1 and 2 weeks, and not one or the other. Seems kind of hard to keep track of to me, but I only really care about the minimum being too short. Also, chat mod elections should be 6 days, like I said above. 02:37, January 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I don't like the variable rule thing either. I think that we should just set an ironclad rule for forums and talk pages (or one for each, but no more) so that this isn't as confusing. But people here seem to support it, so why not? 03:00, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

We already had the rules which is two weeks. It is better to have everything at two weeks unless there's evidence that some polls wouldn't need the full two weeks. Those would be extremely rare though. SeaTerror (talk) 03:02, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

While the duration is important, I feel it's also necessary to change the rules as to who can vote. I don't know about you guys, but I'm not particularly comfortable with how many people are in a position to vote despite being inactive editors, chatters/bloggers or just gone from the site in general and only return to have their say. If it was something like a base requirement of 300 edits with an ongoing 50 edit per month requirement, we'd be able to weed out the people who only vote because they want a say and focus on those who actually care about the consequence of some decisions. 03:08, January 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * 50 edits per month sounds a bit over-the-top. How about we go admin-forum style and set it at 300-500 non-blog edits? 03:16, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * And would it be 50 edits in the last 30 days from the day the poll closed or opened? If it was 30 days from when it closed, people could edit whore to get the right to vote. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad though. 03:19, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

You would have to open a whole new voting rule forum. Blog edits were allowed. I'm against any ongoing edit per month rule. SeaTerror (talk) 03:18, January 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's not true, Sff's opening post says we can propose any poll rules here. As long as we vote on them separately, it's fine. 03:21, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:The_Magic_1000_rule these are our current rules. This forum was only made because Galaxy kept insisting that it only applied to forums even though that was completely false. The only thing we need in this forum is about poll lengths. The other rules would have to be made in a new forum. SeaTerror (talk) 03:27, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

See this is the problem we face, we have so many users who can just acquire the 300 votes (whether actually contributing to articles or just posting memes on blogs) and suddenly we have a dozen people voting on issues they have no real interest in. I'm not going to name names, but there are users who outright dismiss this wiki but when it comes to a vote they have to have their say, whether it's just to avoid new rules or to spite other users, and that's the only time we'll see them on forums or talks.

As far as I see it, only active contributors should be the ones voting. Having a static requirement that they could of met years ago but never touched the wiki since, only to be given equal say in matters that affect the wiki? It's just inviting a broken system or result that may not actually reflect the best outcome. 50 was just an example, but you get what I mean by a consistent check-up that can be used to show you're an active contributor and not just some random idiot who can't keep out of other's businesses, right? 03:35, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

I already said this forum isn't for that. If we try to reset all rules that means we have to revote on everything all over again. This forum was just for poll lengths. I do not support any active edit count rule. SeaTerror (talk) 04:00, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

SeaTerror's got a point. Let's focus on poll length for now, and then we can move on to voter requirements. Trying to tackle multiple issues will lead to one heck of a confusing argument.

As far as I can see, there simply seems to be an issue between a fixed poll length and variable poll length. Forum rules state that poll length for forums is two weeks, so we're really just deciding talk page poll lengths. Talk page polls are rare enough, so can we just set it at a good one or two weeks and move on? 04:08, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

How about we just ban talk page votes and move a discussion to the forum if there will be a vote? Like what happened with the Fansub discussion. SeaTerror (talk) 04:16, January 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like that idea, because it doesn't make much sense to separate a vote on an images talk page from the image's history/versions. 04:22, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Recent talk page edits are also shown on the wiki activity underneath recent forums, so it's no harder to see either. 04:24, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Kuro. I think it would be best just to move any poll to a forum if it would affect more than one page. Or if the discussion is ridiculously long and really too long for a talk page (the fansubs forum is 34 pages in microsoft word). 14:32, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

This is a bump. SeaTerror (talk) 03:53, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Why should it matter if a talk page is "too long?" There is no set amount of space, so talk pages and forums are the same.

Kuro means that if you look in the community messages, talk pages are shown there, along with forums. 03:59, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

According to forum rules, if a talk page issue is too long, the matter can be moved to a forum. Talk pages and forums are effectively the same thing; both are discussion pages, both have similar etiquette, etc. This entire issue would be really simple if we just adopted the existing forum rules for talk pages, meaning two-week polls. No matter what, we should adopt a policy of giving out the poll details before the poll starts, so any discrepancies can be ironed out (same goes for having an admin post polls to the wiki activity). 04:32, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Since this forum has ground to a halt several times now, I propose a poll. Here's a sample:

This poll will be to decide the standards for poll length on talk pages only. You must have 300 edits and have been on the wikia for three months to vote. The poll will last two weeks, and end on (date).

What should wikia standards be on talk page poll length?

All polls should be two weeks long.



All polls should be one week long.



Poll length should be decided on poll creation and confirmed before the poll starts.



Any changes, or should we start this thing? We can always just continue the discussion if this is too hasty of a proposal. 03:01, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I like the proposal. 05:15, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I support a 1 week talk page poll and a 2 week forum poll, can we put something like that on this poll? Also, while I'm not bothered by long forums because they're usually dedicated to one issue, but a long talk page may become troublesome for other small topics. That's why long discussions should be moved. 05:51, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say option 3 covers what you want JSD. 05:52, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote this poll strictly for talk page length. Forum poll length is already decided, and long discussions can be moved as per the forum rules (which I believe you wrote JSD). 05:56, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure we're revoting on those too. 06:00, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Why? What's the problem with the two-week forum polls? Forums are for extended and influential conversations, so it would make sense that they are longer. 06:11, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry PX. I saw the "All polls" part and just skipped over the actual question... And Gal, option 3 is exactly the option I don't want, as it creates inconsistency. And I don't think we're re-voting on the forum poll times here, unless we add any exceptions to those rules (such as election forums). 06:28, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Because sometimes two week polls are a waste of time, and the polls stay inactive after the first week. It's best to decide on a situational basis. 03:04, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the situational basis idea because it seems inconsistent and too dependent on the person who made the poll. For example, you could think an issue should only require a one-week poll, but I think it needs a two-week one. Then we end up discussing the poll length of a poll on a page that does not need it. It's better to have a single poll length for consistency. 03:14, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Then 2 weeks for both polls. SeaTerror (talk) 09:56, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

It should be situational. Like I've done for my past few polls, we can just throw up a pre-poll where people can discuss the exact time and such. 05:32, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Also, this should be for ALL POLLS. Not just talk pages. 05:34, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, I disagree. Discussing the length of a poll is worthless, unnecessary, and takes up space on a discussion page. These discussions are long enough without discussing poll length. 05:40, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. The option should be on the poll regardless of personal opinions. Discussing the length is needed, because some forums and talk pages have polls that last WAY TOO LONG. 05:42, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be two weeks, it could be one week, 10 days, whatever. I don't really care how long the standard length is, as long as it is reasonable and concrete. 05:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Some issues do require 2 weeks though, so a situation basis is good. 05:47, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Like I've said before, deciding on a length at the time of making a poll is just a terrible idea, and asking for an argument. If we have "situational lengths" we should decide on them now. Otherwise, everything should be the same. As I spend less and less time here due to college, I really appreciate the longer polls. And the long polls really help us make non-hasty decisions about things, which is something I think we need a bit more of these days. 05:49, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

When a forum is in deadlock on voting for 2 weeks, and there's a clear majority, then that's when you know the two week rule fails. 05:52, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

About deciding the length, if you think we are not able to reach a consensus in reasonable time during the discussion, we can always rely the decision to an admin, which will choose either one or two weeks. If that's the case, that doesn't mean he will completely ignore others opinions, it's just a matter of trust. I know that this is an ultra-democratic wiki, but it's still an option...

Actually, I support what Levi said in a way (at least the part about trusting admins). Here's my new idea: I think we should follow the general 2 weeks for forums (all deletions are forums), 1 week for talk pages, but if two admins agree to change a poll's length, then it should be changed. There are 4 active admins here now, and users could ask them if they really think a poll has an inappropriate length. This forum really needs to close soon, so we should get on with this. 21:36, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Still not good enough. Polls should be put up and discussed before they start. People can discuss the length as well. Look at the new world saga poll. That shouldn't be 2 weeks! It's better to go on a situational basis.

That being said.. poll this. 21:39, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Gonna poll it? 05:54, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Are we gonna decide only the length? What about the other suggestions?

I agree with Kuro's idea above about 50 edits per month, to keep people who don't edit out of polls. I say we poll each individual problem about polls. 06:12, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Gonna throw up the prelim. 08:59, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

First, we need to decide what happens with any poll in the event of a tie. I'm not entirely pleased with how it was handled in Forum:Opening Images in Galleries, but I don't care enough to make a big fuss over that issue. We just need to handle it better in the future with a proper rule. Personally, I just think extending them for a couple days updating the community messages is the most fair way I can think of to handle it.

Here are my thoughts on the poll options. Poll 1: Define what "with discussion" means a bit more. Poll 2: Do we even need to vote on this? It seems like a no-brainier to have this rule. (And if it does pass, we should make a category for all pages with polls in the prelim stage) Poll 6: Needs a clearer explanation of what it actually entails. And there should be more discussion about it. Does it mean 50 edits in the last 30 days, or in the last calendar month? Is that month counted from when the poll starts, or when the poll ends? Are they only article/non-blog edits? If so, 50 seems like a high number, 30 seems reasonable to me. 03:50, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

There should also be a rule against "sniping", being a way to make a bunch of people vote a certain way in the last hour or so. It's not very fair. 05:58, February 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no real way to prevent it. You can't just tell people they can't vote in the last hour of the poll, because then you're just closing the poll early. If someone wants to vote on the last day of every poll, there's not really anything we can do to stop that. And it's not really a big deal, too. We should expect that some people will vote near the end of any poll. 06:13, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the edits per month. The limit should be 0 edits needed per month in order to vote. SeaTerror (talk) 06:13, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it passes that votes are not allowed to be changed once cast, there should be an exception in the case of an uninvolved tie-breaker. Meaning, if a vote is 5-5-3, the three people who voted for the losing option should be allowed to change their vote. 22:46, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

It won't pass. That's an absolutely horrible idea. Just like having the edits per month idea. SeaTerror (talk) 22:48, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I've extended the poll start time, since there has been little discussion. 22:52, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Poll 2: I think we should mention a trial time to test the poll wording or something like that. "Agreed upon" seems to me like we have to agree on starting the poll and not on how make the poll, but that may be only for me...
 * Poll 3: it goes without saying, but it's better specify that is the author of the vote who can do that (unless who voted doesn't meet the requirements).
 * Poll 6: it doesn't define who are such users.
 * Should we decide something else regarding admin powers? Like deciding the length of the poll if no consensus is reached or other special cases. It's just an idea...

Literally none of the proposed changes to the poll have been made/addressed by others. Especially concerns/questions over the votes per month issue. So I'm extending the start time indefinitely. I'll have more time tomorrow to talk about it in-depth, but I just want to stop it from starting now. 04:02, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of these discussions have actually been brought up a few times, but none discussed in great detail. Having a monster poll like this is confusing and completely unnecessary when we have handy things called headings. Therefore, we should make separate headings for each of the polls proposed and discuss separately. In some of these, we might not even need a poll. 04:11, February 21, 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is what we did in Forum:Making Blog Rules it worked there. Start it up. 19:07, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we've wasted enough time dicking around in circles. Let's just get to voting. I hereby declare the poll open. 23:08, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

"This is such a poorly defined idea. My questions in the discussion about this were never even answered" This made me bust out laughing and milk came out of my nose.

How can you not comprehend this? If somebody isn't here for 31 days, they shouldn't be able to vote unless they've gotten 50 productive edits. It keeps people from coming back because they're contacted on facebook, or through another messenger. Plenty of polls have had this happen, and it shouldn't be tolerated. 01:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Great. Answers. Where were these when I asked for them weeks ago? Was it really so hard to answer them before the poll started?

Anyways, is it 31 days from when the poll starts, or from when the poll finishes? There's an important distinction there. And are they blog edits, non-blog, or pure article edits? 01:47, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

If they haven't voted in 31 days, they cannot vote on a single poll until they get 50 edits. Any edit will do, even blog edits (since we counted those in the 300 edits rule.) 02:21, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

This is such a horrible idea. SeaTerror (talk) 02:33, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you'd say that. You go on facebook and tell people to vote all the time. 02:34, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M SeaTerror (talk) 02:36, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this rule because there are always chances where people just couldn't be on in a long while. What are they supposed to do then? Do we give them an exception? With a rule this strict, exceptions would ruin it. I say deal with the people if they haven't been here in a while. Not everybody spends all day on this site doing 100 edits a day. 02:40, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

They're suppossed to get 50 edits. If they get 50 edits, they're immediately lifted off the probation. Of course, this excludes spamming edits. 02:43, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, define "spamming" edits. If somebody hasn't made 50 edits in 30 days and want to make a poll, is making 50 random profile edits defined as "spamming"? They could make multiple edits to fix few mistakes on a page, but that's actually helping. Is it covering the activity feed or recent images? Well, that spam sure does help if those edits are needed, don't they? This rule is too strict yet too broad. We don't need it. 02:47, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

You're not comprehending, but I'll explain it in easier terms.

By "spam", I mean making a ton of blog comments that have no use, and editing back and forth on a page by changing the same thing. It's fine if they fix categories, it's fine if they upload images. As long as what they're doing is useful (not making 50 blog comments in a row or spamming the same edit on the same page), then they are fine. Profile edits wouldn't count anyways. 02:58, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Not alienating anybody. That statement also made milk come out of my nose.

If they don't contribute anymore, they SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote unless they start again. Like I said, it allows them to be contacted on FB or messenger about certain polls, which is definitely not fair. 19:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

"Not alienating anybody" says the guy who calls my legitimate opinions so laughable that they "made milk come out my nose". Yes, you're clearly not creating a hostile environment. (that was sarcasm, btw) Why do you even have to say things like this? It's not like saying them is going to make me think any differently. Well, actually it might make me think differently: it could make me think you're not very nice.

Anyways, the point is that old editors are still knowledgeable and experienced editors, so they still know how to vote properly. Who cares if they're not active? They can still be trusted to vote properly. In these cases, it's the people who contact others and try to get them to vote for certain poll options, not the people who are contacted, that should be punished. And with you pushing for discussion based poll lengths, that just means shorter polls and less time for people to get edits. 30 seems like a much more reasonable number. Not everyone can think of things to edit whore all day like many users we have now. 20:34, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

He's also a liar since he said I tell people to vote on Facebook. SeaTerror (talk) 20:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Older editors are no longer experienced and have no idea how the wiki should be run at the present time. They cannot be trusted, because they haven't been here in awhile. They aren't contributing to the site, so they're basically the same as people with less than 300 edits. 05:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

That...doesn't make any sense. Just because somebody is idle means they aren't aware of what's happening? They cannot be trusted? People who know how to run the Wiki don't lose experience or memory. They know how to run the Wiki, they just let other users fix more minor problems while they look for bigger ones. 05:31, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

They are not up to date on current wiki issues. If they're not going to contribute anymore, they should not be allowed to vote, plain and simple. 05:36, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

And they can't be trusted to read the forum and make an informed decision for what reasons exactly? 05:39, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter anyway. That option is going to lose anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 05:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

@SeaTerror: Because obviously people don't want to ruin their right to vote.

@JSD: Because they haven't contributed. Do we let people without 300 edits "read and make an informed decision?" 05:41, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Experienced editors are very different from new editors. Experienced editors know how wikias work, and they will not forget that over time. New editors still need to learn how wikias work. It's not as though this wikia undergoes massive changes every month. One Piece doesn't go through massive changes every month either. I can't think of a single issue on this wikia that someone who wasn't editing 31 days ago could be so out of the loop that they could not be trusted to vote. Maybe you could make the case for someone who stopped editing like 6 years ago, but to say that people who haven't edited, or because of the 50 edit limit, haven't edited enough, in the last 31 days cannot vote is frankly asinine. 14:56, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Polls
'''THIS POLL IS CLOSED. THE FOLLOWING WAS DECIDED:'''
 * 1) Should Polls be allowed to be modified in the middle of a poll, with discussion? = TIE
 * 2) After the extension = YES
 * 3) Should polls be agreed upon before they are started? = YES
 * 4) Should votes be able to be removed or changed? = VOTES CAN BE REMOVED AND CHANGED.
 * 5) How long should talk page polls be? = AS LONG AS NEEDED (DISC.)
 * 6) How long should forum polls be? = AS LONG AS NEEDED (DISC.)
 * 7) Should users who do not actively edit be able to vote? (As long as they have 300 edits and 3 months of activity). = YES

This poll will decide various poll rules. It will have multiple parts. Poll ended at 0:00 UTC on March 8, 2013.

You must have at least 300 edits and have been here for 3 months in order to vote.

POLL 1 ENDED ON MARCH 31, 2013 AT 0:00 UTC Poll 1: Should Polls be allowed to be modified in the middle of a poll, with discussion?

A. No, they should not be able to be modified.


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (this is my first vote because only today i am 3 months old on this wikia)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (this is my first vote because only today i am 3 months old on this wikia)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (this is my first vote because only today i am 3 months old on this wikia)

B. Yes, they should be able to be modified.


 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)(only if there was a mistake)
 * 23:45, February 22, 2013 (UTC) (only if absolutely necessary)
 * 1)  01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Mistakes happen, and as long as any changes aren't huge and discussed, it's fine.
 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC) what the others said ^
 * 1) (as long as there is discussion, there's no problem.)
 * 22:01, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:12, March 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12:12, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Poll 2: Should polls be agreed upon before they are started?

A. No, they should not be agreed upon, and they can be started whenever somebody puts them up.



B. Yes, they should be agreed upon.


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Duh.
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC) obviously
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)

Poll 3: Should votes be able to be removed or changed?

A. Votes can only be changed, and not removed.


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

B. Votes can be removed and changed


 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Sometimes an ongoing discussion can make a person question their vote. The option to change and remove should be there.
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC) ofcourse somebody may not be sure what to vote.
 * 1)  (forbidding removals make pressurizing users more efficient)
 * 2)  11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 1)  11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)

C. Once a vote is cast, it cannot be removed or changed.



Poll 4: How long should talk page polls be?

A. 1 week


 * 1)  01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Discussion will lead to more arguments about length. 1 week is reasonable for all talk page issues.
 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC) One week is more than enough.

B. 2 weeks


 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

C. As long as the situation calls for (Discussion).


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)

Poll 5: How long should forum polls be?

A. 1 week


 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

B. 2 weeks


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) What I said above. And forum issues are too important to be less than 2 weeks.

C. As long as the situation calls for (Discussion).


 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)

'''Poll 6: Should users who do not actively edit be able to vote? (As long as they have 300 edits and 3 months of activity).'''

A. No


 * 23:28, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  (helps avoiding poll manipulation)

B. Yes


 * 23:12, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:24, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:31, February 22, 2013 (UTC) (Many wouldn't be able to edit lately for events, personal affairs, or something)
 * 1)  01:35, February 23, 2013 (UTC) Just a bad idea all around. Why does a wiki with a dwindling number of editors need to alienate former editors?
 * 08:28, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:02, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)
 * 11:49, March 4, 2013 (UTC) (3 months old now!)

Post-Polls Discussion
Results are posted right under the "Polls" headline.

What do we do with the tie gais?

I'm pretty sure it was agreed to extend it. But for how long? A week? 05:01, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, since the polls were started before we decided what to do with ties, we're in an odd situation. In the section below, I proposed at 3 day extension and a notification in the community messages. But I guess we should settle the tiebreaker section before we settle this tie. 06:25, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, and with that, the poll rules are complete. 16:20, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Just a TINY bump. This isn't going to actually change anything, but when somebody changes their mind, they always cross it out. Though they're still in the number, it can sort of throw-off the counting. Would it be a good idea to just, if your vote is crossed out, you put it in a separate part so it's not in the way? Sort of like this. This isn't a major change and it won't really affect much, but it might help make things SLIGHTLY easier. 23:01, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Tiebreaker discussion
Since the polls started up a bit quickly, we still need to figure out a way to deal with ties in any polls. I propose a 3 day extension and a notification about the tie in the community messages. "Sudden death" tiebreakers are ridiculous for a place with users in different timezones. Three days gives enough time for everyone who hasn't voted to vote, leading to a more democratic result. 01:42, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Or, where ever possible, just make the users who voted for one of the losing options change their vote. If a poll ended 9-9-3, the three people who voted for the losing option should just change their vote, make things easier. Of course, this would only apply to polls where more than two options available. 01:46, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that just seems unlikely to happen for every tied poll to be a 3 option poll. Plus, they'd change their votes anyways in the extension period if they cared enough. 01:50, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

An extension is a great idea. I also say if the first extension is over, and a final verdict STILL isn't reached, then in 3+ polls that people voted losing options on, they should be messaged to change their vote to decide a result as soon as possible. It's not very likely that a tie still exists after one extension, so this probably isn't needed. But an emergency is always a plus. 02:34, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

DP's option is fine. 02:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 15:59, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflicting with a bump...wow) Just realized, what'll we do for polls that have only two options? A three day extension sounds fine for that. 16:03, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

More precisely, as many three-day-extensions as necessary. About DP's idea, I'm not really convinced, but why not. We need to decide on a deadline for this "special case", though.

Yeah, if editors go inactive before a poll's over, we can't sit on our hands waiting for them to come back and end the poll. But if we would have to put a time limit on it anyways, why not just use the standard extension, let more people vote, but also let the people who voted for the losing option to change their votes too? The more people we let vote, the more likely we are to break the tie, and this would still work with 2 option polls. 16:49, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. 17:16, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

I just thought of something. If we extend a tied poll for 3 days, there's a chance that no one will vote during that time. So, this is just a suggestion, we extend the time indefinitely UNTIL somebody votes. When that happens, we implement the 3 day extension. This will avoid the deadline happening with no new votes. 23:13, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

I guess that works. I think as long as it's put in the community messages, someone will end up voting. 00:52, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

So...is that what it's going to be? Indefinite until vote, from then it's 3 days? Because if so, we need to get this tied poll over with. 16:37, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm at least down. I to would like to settle the tied poll in this forum. 16:44, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Works for me.

I'll wait a day. If there are no objections, it will be put on the tied poll. 22:03, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

It should always be at least 3 days. 5 at the most. If it was indefinite then it would never end because people here do not like to change their minds. SeaTerror (talk) 22:14, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I only have it as indefinite until a new vote because if we only extend for 3 or 5 days, there might not be any new votes. Even if we did extend this current tied poll for 3 days, it would be long past its deadline now. And there are still no new votes. I'm not saying people should change their minds, I'm saying there should be new votes. Extend it infinitely until a new vote, THEN give it a deadline. 22:28, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there's been no more extra objections. I'm adding it now. 19:00, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

We don't extend votes like that. We start an entirely new one for tiebreaker votes. SeaTerror (talk) 08:34, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why waste time starting a new one? Having another two weeks seems unnecessary because 30 people could have already voted. It would just lead to confusions because users wouldn't think they'd have to "re-vote" for their vote to count. As long as there's a notification in the community messages, or chat users spread word, someone else will vote pretty quick. And in those 3 days anyone who already voted can change their vote if they want. 13:22, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

No. Tiebreaker votes would be 3 days minimum like it has always been done. SeaTerror (talk) 00:16, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

What if nobody votes during that 3 day period? Then it will be over and we would have to extend again. That's why I made it indefinite until a vote is made, so we will only need to extend it once. There was no further objections, so I put it in. 00:30, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Another Great Idea!
guys i think that the time taken for any poll should be modifyed depending on the poll senarios:

A. as if u wanted everyones vote then u will have to wait for longer

B. but then if it is a small poll with minimal votes required it could end in like less than a  week

now i  know that this might cause Arguements, so i think that  the time should be decided before the poll starts and decided by a team of ppl who r absolute in this decision. like electing a team of members to be like the organisers/overlookers of thses polls and this team will decide what has to be done. their desision will be abslute nd final.this will avoid any arguement in the future and also to set the right time and options for  polls this gorup shuld have like lots of expirience with poll?> how does that sound<?

06:32, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

There's never a "required" amount of votes. If one poll gets a higher number of another, that poll wins. The discussion of a length of the poll is an idea that would be implemented if "As long as the situation calls for" wins on either polls. 06:49, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

I understand what ur sying but those were just examples. what about the idea of electing a team to make decidions related to the polls?

06:55, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

No. Then there would be arguments everywhere. SeaTerror (talk) 07:06, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Contrastingly, i believe that haveing the system of small group desion making would be a the key factor to reduce the large number of arguements tht are currently prevalent in this wikia. Why are there arguements? the main reasin for Agruements on poll is because of the majority of people with contrasting ideas and no-one has the athority to deside a winner...and then there will be a poll on that arguement then another arguement and so on and so forth.. there fore my suggestion is to give a small group the authority to decide the time and such for poll so that the number of arguements are reduced and the poll system is more efficient..^_^

07:30, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

There will still be a ton of arguments because a large number of people will disagree with what the small group says. If we went for a small group, we'd let the admins decide everything. 05:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Which nobody would want. SeaTerror (talk) 05:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

MAybe ur right maybr ur not...i mean take chat mods for example, without them there would be like tons of spam, abusive lang, etc(end of thinking cpacity), so going with what ur saying everyone who is not a mod will disagree with them? maybe they will like if they r banned or kicked. but by saying that u dont look at the big picture think of how many days the chat has run smothly. i think that both system r somewhat same and that if the chat has run well then that is more than enough proof that the fourm will too...^_^ 05:36, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The differences with chats are that you don't need a "discussion" to ban a user. When it comes to major projects that can change the Wiki in a big way, a discussion is needed. 05:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Torquil, you're suggesting we become a plutocracy, which is stupid. We're not the Gorosei. 05:43, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

We'd need 5 admins to be the gorosei. 05:44, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Does PX-BOT count? SeaTerror (talk) 05:59, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i understand (plutocracy, reminds me of another wikia from which i waas banned recently :P, i hated that wikia and so i have come to realize that the bove idea really is stupid : SRY

06:15, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Plutocracy is the government of the richest, so I don't know what has to do in a wiki... (edits=money?) maybe you meant aristocracy or oligarchy.