Inkipedia talk:Policy/Consensus

Policy draft

There are still a number of issues that the draft does not address:

1. The majority of a group (i.e. Inkipedia's active editors) -- if the active editing community don't see or interact with the discussion, are we to say motion passed given the arguments put forward by the proposer?
2. The dispute should be analyzed in an unbiased fashion -- by who? Do admins/bcrats have the final say? Is this still democratic?
3. Where should the voting take place? (May be out-of-scope for this policy)
4. Add that beginning another discussion should link to previous discussions (if any)
5. Links to Request for Rights page and MOS should be fixed.
6. I would argue moving/splitting/merging generally does not require consensus, unless it is a well-established or high-traffic article (such as Splatfest). Correction of an article name, especially unreleased items, should fall under the just do it category.

Slate Talk Contribs 13:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, but we should keep the discussion open for longer just in case. Will put that in later.
2. It's not supposed to pure democracy. The Admins and Bcrats do have the final say (albeit not if it clearly goes against consensus).
3. Same place as always, talk page. That said, yes, it's out of scope.
4. If it's on the same page, not needed IMO.
5. Done.
6. Will note corrections are an exception.

I probably won't be back until early tomorrow or late tonight, so if anyone objects to the changes, please chip in.

Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 14:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Better now? Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 19:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Raltseye prata med mej 17:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Last bump. I'll pass this tomorrow afternoon if no one objects. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 12:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus policy proposal

This is a vote regarding the future of voting itself on Inkipedia.

Me and Trig Jegman are proposing changes to Inkipedia's consensus policy: (1) use simple majority as the standard for determining when consensus has been achieved, and (2) remove the role of adjudicator, and (3) require three admins to veto (stop) the proposal. This proposal, if passed, will pave the way for an easier to understand process for deciding on changes to Inkipedia. If passed, a 51% support vote would always be considered a consensus favoring the proposed change. In addition, by requiring 3 admins for a veto to be executed, it would no longer be possible for one person to control Inkipedia's fate.

Please sign your name in the relevant section below to support or oppose this proposal. If there is no opposition, the vote will end at the end of 2 July 2023 (UTC time). Otherwise, the vote will end at the end of 16 July 2023.

If you want more information on this proposal, read the comparison table and background information below.

Current consensus system: adjudicator

Proposed consensus system: simple majority

The system currently used by Inkipedia and Wikipedia. Consensus is not purely determined via vote count. An adjudicator decides the outcome after considering all points raised and which arguments are strongest. For non-sitewide matters, any user can act as adjudicator. If the proposal is a site-wide matter, only an administrator can act as adjudicator. a 51% support 49% oppose vote is a successful proposal, unless an adjudicator decides otherwise. Prevents rapid change to Inkipedia; it takes time for discussion to arrive at the solution that everyone can agree on. If at least one administrator believes that a proposal is harmful or undeveloped, they can step in as adjudicator and stop the proposal.

Consensus is determined purely via vote count. There is no adjudicator. As a result of not having an adjudicator, even proposals concerning site-wide matters would not require an administrator. This would reduce staff workload. A 51% support 49% oppose vote is a successful proposal. Allows rapid change to Inkipedia, as a single person cannot block changes, and there is less need for discussion to find a solution that everyone agrees on. Easy to understand. Simple majority is simple! If at least three Inkipedia administrators believe that a proposal is harmful or undeveloped, they can veto (stop) the proposal. To veto, three administrators add a veto vote under a new header. Then the vote is stopped and the proposal fails. The requirement of three admins prevents one person from having too much power.

Background:

Trig Jegman wanted to create a dedicated proposal submission page with clear rules, but Slate and I have found that Inkipedia's policy is not compatible with Trig's suggested system. So, the changes we are voting on now would make Inkipedia's consensus policy compatible with such a system, and if this vote is successful then there will be another vote to set up Trig's proposed dedicated proposal submission page.

Inkipedia has always operated on consensus, meaning that there must be a general agreement, and relying on an "adjudicator" (usually an admin) to judge whether a consensus has occurred in a discussion or vote, meaning that one person could shoot down a proposal for not having a strong-enough support or for being harmful or undeveloped. In practice, most discussions and votes on Inkipedia have operated as if simple majority is already in place, but it is possible for one person to invoke the consensus policy and decide the outcome, and some Inkipedians have expressed confusion over that system. That consensus system may work for the large communities like Wikipedia that use it, but I believe that a smaller community like Inkipedia needs an simple way to determine consensus: simple majority.

Heddy (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Support

1. Trig Jegman - 02:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2. 🦑InkBerry🍓Talk 02:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
3. Odd (Talk) 03:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Anemoia [Talk!] 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
5. FancyRat 14:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
6. -Xando (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
7. -Random 17:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
8. Jelly Cat (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
9. EminenceTalk 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
10. GloverMist (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
11. — Exaskliri _(they/them) (talk | contribs) 10:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
12.  GX_64 (talk)  11:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
13. Arivaki-Kun (banter) 16:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
14. ℂ𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕚𝕟𝕖𝕥.𝕠𝕔𝕥𝕠 (ℙ𝕣𝕒𝕥𝕥𝕝𝕖) 21:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
15. Xevsplatoon (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• If the lack of opposition continues, this vote will end today at 23:59 UTC. Heddy (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• The vote has ended. I will update the policy accordingly. Heddy (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)