Forum:Voting Method Changes

This is a personal issue I have, that has become quite apparent in this wiki's voting process in the past few months. The problem is: there is no process! People make a forum, and if most of the comments agree, that qualifies as consensus. I'm sorry and I don't mean to be insulting, but to be absolutely blunt that is a joke. That's a straw vote, not a clear User consensus. Is a bill passed in a single day? Does a court case go from beginning to end within a day? No. Both of these processes take months, maybe even years. Why? Because it takes time for all sides to be heard. It gives ample time for people to prepare and explain their sides and viewpoints.

Each and every discussion for changes to the wiki doesn't need to take months. But as with the aforementioned examples, they should take time, allowing a proper consensus with many people to get involved and state agreements, disagreements, or voice alternatives/suggestions. This is an issue I've had with most of the voting carried out on the wiki, but it is ESPECIALLY prominent with two very personal issues for me, namely the Fanon Forums and Main Page discussions.

I have to be quite frank: Sonic Fanon Wiki, with its wide variety of issues with quality control, trolls and vandals, and varying levels of User maturity and capability, still has a better method of carrying out consensus and site discussions. Yet SFW's previous method of consensus was "the admins decide everything" until it took up the User voting process initially inspired by SNN. You may or may not agree, but when you fall behind someone you inspired, that's just plain sad. I personally think that needs to change. So, I'm going to suggest a clear, definitive, and regulated method of carrying out a quality community voting process.


 * ) Each site discussion is given ten days. If the community consensus is unanimous, with no disagreeing votes, a 3/5 admin vote in favor from the current roster of active admins will bring the community discussion to a premature end. This gives many people ample time to find, read about, and get involved in the discussion, but if the consensus is clear without the potential for disagreeing votes, the discussion can be brought to closure quickly.
 * ) For a unanimous consensus, there must be votes from at least ten Users, who have joined and been active on the wiki for a month prior. Votes from users who have been active for less than a month do not count to unanimous consensus, but can be counted for total consensus. This prevents just a small number of Users qualifying for a consensus. It may seem like a lot, but from looking at site discussions the numbers have ranged from nine to fourteen; we most certainly have enough Users to qualify for this number.
 * ) All active admins are notified of new community discussions when they are made. This means the admins, experienced Users who know what they're doing, what the discussion involves, and what the effects may be, can quickly get involved from the get-go and share their opinions and votes, as an admin should. It also allows admins who can't be on all the time to be kept up-to-date on what's going on with the wiki. Maybe this could be programmed into the wiki or done via template or messaging, like what Wikia does for wiki-wide notifications. I personally know someone who could likely make it possible.
 * ) Any and all active Site discussions are listed on the community corner. In my time on wikis, not everyone bothers to check the Main Page, and some just go directly to the Recent Changes or Community Corner (or whatever Oasis uses for recent changes). So advertizing discussions that could potentially change the entire wiki should most certainly be a priority.
 * ) Like admin nominations, consensus must be clear and cannot be split near-evenly; there must be notable majority in favor for the subject matter of the site discussion to pass.
 * ) After ten days have passed, votes will be counted in terms of in favor, against, and neutral, with the results of each compared to the total. If consensus has been reached, the discussion will be closed and proceed based on the voting results.

I truly feel that these would help make sure discussions are regulated and efficient, with clear consensus that can be agreed upon by all parties, even those who may disagree with the specific site discussions themselves. We can't just continue to allow a small group of people make site-changing decisions within a small time period; we need both quantity and quality in terms of such important site discussions. However, some discussions and changes are quite clear-cut, hence why I made the addition for the case of unanimous votes, making it quick and easy.--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 01:00, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

There may be a couple of issues regarding which users place votes and which are forced to remain quiet and observe any future discussions in silence. Suppose site discussions are limited to Administrators -experienced people, as you refer to them- only, because a few times I've only seen regular users adding agreements to certain parties. Naturally, however, I do see a problem with that type of proposal, as Administration is either too employed or too scarce, depending on who is active and who isn't. This for the most part is the only issue, as while some regular users tend to state their opinions in more detail, I don't see enough of said detail at times (I don't mean to be offensive to anyone. Many times, I myself have kept my opinions in two simple words).

A 10-day limit is reasonable, considering a few of our minor discussion pertaining to add-ons and whatnot could potentially take less than two days, depending on the user-casted votes. Sometimes, the decision can be as simple as that: No objections, and we're off. Unless an objection does appear, than the discussion limit should assist in said objector expressing his thoughts, which may cause different parts of consensus to agree, or remain on a single vote. But, as you've stated consensus isn't always as clear as the RFA page: Suppose, the vote reaches a stalemate: What say, 4 out of 6 chosen users agree, while the remaining disagree. This isn't clear enough to pass on a vote, and there may be heavy debates over both sides of the arguments. Should this occur, then I support having the time limit stretched out a bit to reach a vote. 01:15, July 23, 2012 (UTC)