All posts by Herr keplers

Damnit Slice

A Walruse: Demote

A5637: Demote

Aok: Demote

Aravis Tarkheena: Demote

BusyCityGirl: Keep

Caysie98: Demote

Dwarfminefan580: Demote

Gslover1: Demote

GuacamoleCCXR: Demote

Harold89: Demote

Idkwhoyouare: Demote

IndyAJD: Demote

InvisibleHunter: Demote

Ireithien: Demote

Legofrodo12: Demote

Lunaicus: Demote

Man.city1: Keep

Marcel77799: Keep

PinguBonScott: Demote

RusMan: Keep

Samed5: Demote

Skull5657: Demote

Starrocks923: Keep

Slicer Vorzakh: Keep

HyperFlash Studios: Keep

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Span

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Sped

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Weed

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Pros

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Prow

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Herr keplers

TheShadowAssassin wrote:

Herr keplers wrote:

LordWeirdo wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...

...if only we could actually know how big the active community is.

</noscript>

Using Special:ListUsers, even after deselecting all the irrelevant groups, we get over 900 records, including dupes and blocked users. While I would be voting A), I'll hold back until we can sort this out. We'd need a census.

</noscript>

While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think.

</noscript>

My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess.

I look to Roddy's comment. If it's that awful, all we need is a blog with a poll on it with one option: "I am active here." Users are directed there and the poll's results are the official number of active people on the wiki.

Users without an account can also vote, and also, who's to say that everyone is going to vote anyway? I could just choose not to.

Then you would be discounted from census. I heavily, heavily doubt that users without accounts will vote, and even if they did it would not add nearly enough to change the average.

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Herr keplers

LordWeirdo wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: Um, yes, this vote would make perfect sense...

...if only we could actually know how big the active community is.

</noscript>

</noscript>

While yes, we usually have around 40 active members at any one time, it often happens that inactive users pop back in for a vote. It's definitely not as straightforward as you think.

</noscript>

My concerns exactly with this vote. Ironically, in attempting to bypass a bureaucratic hiccup, we find ourselves looking at a bureaucratic mess.

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Herr keplers·8/21/2016 in Community Voting

Crop

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Herr keplers·8/22/2016

Drip

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Herr keplers

Herr keplers·8/21/2016

(Edited by Herr keplers)

Vote to Bypass Vote Length in Extreme Circumstances

This should be fairly common sense and I cannot envision anyone objecting, but there is no clause that specifically allows for a vote to pass in this case. Assuming that there is a vote that has been agreed upon by over 50% of the whole community (or an otherwise overwhelming majority, like a unanimous 49% of the community within 24 hours), the vote can immediately close as it is quite literally impossible for the vote to not pass.

Just as a clear iteration for those who did not catch it the first time, this applies to 50% of the community, not 50% of those who have voted.

A) Yes 13 votes

B) No 0 votes

Consensus

Yes.

(Edited by administrators)

A reply to Veralann

Chump

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

Cramp

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

T-007Bond wrote:
B. What if these banned users created dupes to vote for their original accounts to get unbanned?

Fun fact: You can't vote unless you've been here for a month at least. In other recent news, did you hear that the American Colonies might declare independence?

Well what if that dupe was disgusing as an original account and was discovered that it was a dupe this whole time? Also, I'm not an American and I'm not updated on American news.

Uh, you can't fake account age, and we have tools to find out what accounts are dupes and which aren't

</noscript>

Actually, Hype, he has a fair point. You can't CU every new user, and I managed to hide behind User:MyNameIsNotBob for three months before being found out by accident. While I sincerely doubt and hope nobody is stupid enough to use a dupe for months to add one vote to something, it is certainly possible.

(Edited by Herr keplers)

A reply to Veralann