Xenharmonic Wiki:Referendum

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page was created on Sun 9 Feb 2025 to enable the community to directly vote on major existential concerns the wiki is facing at this time.

Every editor who wishes to vote is encouraged to vote.

This page will be divided into two sections, "Yes/no questions", and "Multiple choice questions". Each section will begin with an explanation of how the voting method works.

You may vote on as many or as few questions as you wish. You may not vote more than once on the same question, but you may edit your vote after posting it if you wish.


Authorship and responsibility for implementation

This page was mostly written by Budjarn Lambeth, who copied the wording of some questions from Mike Battaglia. The results of the referendum will be implemented by Tyler Henthorn.

(Do note, however, that Henthorn is neither for nor against this referendum itself, nor is he for nor against any particular outcome. He is simply acting as a neutral party to facilitate it. It is his intention to allow the community (all of you) to take the lead, and he will simply implement whatever you decide.

Also note that Battaglia is neither for nor against the referendum either, Lambeth just simply copied Battaglia’s wording from an unrelated post Battaglia made.)

Yes/no questions

How to vote

Edit the page and write either "* YES. ~~~~" or "* NO. ~~~~" in a new line under the question. The "~~~~" will automatically tag the vote with a name and date to make counting easier.

How votes will be counted

After the third vote is cast on a question, a 7 day timer begins counting down. After 7 days have passed, whichever option has more votes - YES or NO - is the one that wins.

If there is a tie after 7 days, then the poll stays open and the very next vote cast acts as the tie breaker.



Question 1. Should FloraC be granted bureaucrat permissions? YES or NO?




Question 2. Should Fredg999 be granted sysop permissions? YES or NO?



Question 3. Should Fredg999 be granted interface admin permissions? YES or NO?



Question 4. Should Lériendil be granted sysop permissions? YES or NO?

  • YES. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Lériendil has not been active for very long, and seems mostly concerned with specific RTT projects rather than the wiki as a whole. But we need more admins and I don't think they'd do a bad job. Sintel (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Francium (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Lériendil (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Inthar (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. VectorGraphics (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Iniðil (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)"
  • YES. VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral. 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES. DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • YES Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)



Question 5. Should Lériendil be granted interface admin permissions? YES or NO?



Multiple choice questions

How to vote

Edit the page and write "* The options I'm okay with are (whatever options you choose). ~~~~" in a new line under the question. For example, "* The options I'm okay with are A, C, D, F. ~~~~" is a valid vote.

How votes are counted

After the third vote is cast on a question, a 7 day timer begins counting down. After 7 days have passed, whichever choice appeared the most times in peoples' votes is the one that wins.

If there is a tie after 7 days, then the poll stays open and the very next vote cast acts as the tie breaker.



Question 6. Who has the last say on the RTT pages, particularly Gene's stuff?

Options
  • A. They should be treated just like any other page, anyone can edit them.
  • B. Any proposed edit must be first suggested on the talk page, and receive more replies in favour than against, as of exactly 7 days after the first reply is posted.
  • C. Any proposed edit must be first suggested in both a Discord poll in #wiki, and a Facebook poll in Xenwiki Work Group. It must receive more yes votes than no votes on BOTH platforms, as of exactly 7 days after the poll is posted. If nobody votes at all on one of the platforms, that is considered a "yes" vote.
  • D. Any proposed edit must be suggested to a bureaucrat on that bureaucrat's talk page, and the bureaucrat must say yes in order for it to be implemented.
  • E. Any proposed edit must be suggested to any admin on that admin's talk page, and the admin must say yes in order for it to be implemented.
  • F. None of these options are acceptable, the community should be asked to invent a different option which can then be voted on.
Votes
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, E. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • AB Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. As far as I'm concerned there is no good reason to treat these pages in a different way. Use the talk page and build consensus. Sintel (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, E. Lériendil (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, E. Francium (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. See Sintel's comment above. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Eli5121 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. VectorGraphics (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. see sintel's reasoning. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, E. FloraC (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Wiki should be open and peer reviewed and vandalism attempts always can be reverted if needed. Iniðil (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, E. VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A (see Sintel's reasoning). 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A (see Sintel's reasoning). In addition, any content that is deemed worthy of long-term conservation should be hosted elsewhere than on a wiki, since a wiki is by nature constantly evolving, being subject to community edits over time, especially since the Xen Wiki which allows for original research. Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. I agree largely with Sintel's reasoning above. Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Arseniiv (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm good with A or B. Also F: Create a page category tag thingy to say "This is a legacy page, because its primary author is deceased. Use the discussion tab to suggest changes." In other words, I'm proposing B but without any formal process or deadline on what we do in response. Xenjacob (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)



Question 7. Who is overseeing the mathematical content, and is responsible for making sure it is correct?

Options
  • A. It should be treated just like any other content, anyone can edit it.
  • B. The bureaucrats should be responsible for overseeing it directly.
  • C. The admins in general should be responsible for overseeing it directly.
  • D. We should hold a one-off election to elect a team of five "math experts" with the responsibility and authority to correct all math on the wiki.
  • E. We should hold a recurring annual election to elect a team of five "math experts" with the responsibility and authority to correct all math on the wiki.
  • F. There should be a team of "math experts" which can be appointed by, or dismissed by, any bureaucrat.
  • G. There should be a team of "math experts" which can be appointed by, or dismissed by, any admin in general.
  • H. None of these options are acceptable, the community should be asked to invent a different option which can then be voted on.
Votes
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, F, G. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ACFG Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Having some kind of wiki-wide math project / task force is not a bad idea, but it should be on a voluntary basis and their edits/opinions should not be given special priority. Sintel (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, D, E, G. Lériendil (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, E, G. Although Sintel has a good point with the voluntary basis and the priority. Francium (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. See Sintel's comment above. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Eli5121 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. see sintel's reasoning. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, F, G. FloraC (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Experts opinion should be validated by clarity of argumentation, not the expert status. Iniðil (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)"
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, E, G. VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A (see Sintel's reasoning), though not much of us are good enough at maths, so I'd also pick F and G. 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A (see Sintel's reasoning). All information on the wiki, mathematical or not, can be subject to factual verification by users, and I don't see why math as a field would be treated differently from history, psychoacoustics, instrument making, etc. Any voluntary user can contribute to such verification tasks, so far as they work in collaboration with the rest of the community. Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, E, G. DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A; I again agree with Sintel's comment. Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Arseniiv (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Additionally I recommend looking into the feasibility of adding a checkbox when editing, like "minor edit" but, "mathematical correction". Xenjacob (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)



Question 8. In future, who gets to add or remove admins?

Options
  • A. Any bureaucrat can add or remove admins at their own discretion (that's how it works now).
  • B. A page is created where anyone can nominate someone to be added or removed as admin. A yes/no vote is then held using the same rules as the yes/no votes on this page, and the bureaucrats must enforce the results of the vote.
  • C. None of these options are acceptable, the community should be asked to invent a different option which can then be voted on.
Votes
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Edited to add support for Sintel’s proposal. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • AB Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • C. Admin nominations should be discussed with everyone giving their opinions freely. After a set period the discussion closes and a bureaucrat reviews all of the arguments, and makes the final decision. The outcome should be based on community consensus (near unanimity) and not majority vote. Sintel (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C. Lériendil (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C. Francium (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • AC. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C (by Sintel). FloraC (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • C. In my opinion it should be limited amount of trusted members of community, who are liked by everyone and uncontroversial people, who can decide who can have and what type of permissions on the wiki, and who don't change often. Iniðil (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)"
  • The options I'm okay with are B, C (Sintel's proposal). VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C (Sintel's proposal). DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C (by Sintel). Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A and C (by Sintel). recentlymaterialized (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)



Question 9. In future, who gets to add or remove bureaucrats?

Options
  • A. A page is created where anyone can nominate someone to be added or removed as bureaucrat. A yes/no vote is then held using the same rules as the yes/no votes on this page, except that YES requires a supermajority of at least 2/3 of the vote to pass. The bureaucrats must enforce the results of the vote. If the wiki has only one bureaucrat, the community cannot vote to remove them until a new bureaucrat has been added first.
  • B. A protected page is created where any admin can nominate someone to be added or removed as bureaucrat. A yes/no vote is then held using the same rules as the yes/no votes on this page, except that YES requires a supermajority of at least 2/3 of the vote to pass, and only admins are allowed to vote. The bureaucrats must enforce the results of the vote. If the wiki has only one bureaucrat, the admins cannot vote to remove them until a new bureaucrat has been added first.
  • C. None of these options are acceptable, the community should be asked to invent a different option which can then be voted on.
Votes
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Edited to add support for Sintel’s proposal. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • AB Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • C. (same process as I outlined above) Sintel (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C. Lériendil (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C. Francium (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • AC. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). FloraC (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • C. In my opinion it should be limited and constant amount of trusted members of community, who are liked by everyone and uncontroversial people, who can decide who can have and what type of permissions on the wiki, and who don't change often. Iniðil (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C (Sintel's proposal, except that the incumbent bureaucrat(s) must be given merely as much power as ordinary editors over the appointment decision, and that editors may vote to remove a bureaucrat by 4/5 majority, even a lone one who then becomes a lame duck with limited powers, and hold an urgent election/discussion for replacement). VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (by Sintel). Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are C (Sintel's proposal). DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C (by Sintel). Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)



Question 10. Who gets to determine what pages are locked or unlocked?

Options
  • A. Any admin can lock or unlock a page at their discretion (that's how it works now).
  • B. Only bureaucrats are allowed to lock or unlock pages.
  • C. A page is created where anyone can nominate a page to be locked or unlocked. A yes/no vote is then held using the same rules as the yes/no votes on this page. The admins must enforce the results of the vote.
  • D. A page is created where anyone can nominate a page to be locked or unlocked. A yes/no vote is then held using the same rules as the yes/no votes on this page, except that ONLY admins can vote. The admins must enforce the results of the vote.
  • E. Any proposed lock or unlock must be first suggested in both a Discord poll in #wiki, and a Facebook poll in Xenwiki Work Group. It must recieve more yes votes than no votes on BOTH platforms, as of exactly 7 days after the poll is posted. If nobody votes at all on one of the platforms, that is considered a "yes" vote. The admins must enforce the results of the vote.
  • F. There should be a clear protection policy (analogous to Wikipedia's protection policy).
  • G. None of these options are acceptable, the community should be asked to invent a different option which can then be voted on.
Votes
  • The options I'm okay with are F (by Sintel). BudjarnLambeth (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
    • Edited to add support for Sintel’s proposal. BudjarnLambeth (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, B, C. Fitzgerald Lee (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ABCD Xenoindex (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • F. There should be a clear protection policy (analogous to Wikipedia's protection policy). Protection can be done at the discretion of an admin, but the reasoning and duration should be clearly outlined on the talk page. To quote the Wikipedia policy:
Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection.
Protection should be used sparingly and mostly as a last resort. Leaving pages protected indefinitely without leaving any path to unprotect them (as is happening now!) is unacceptable on a wiki. Sintel (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F. Lériendil (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F. (just added Sintel's to the list at top) Xenjacob (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F. Francium (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F. See Sintel's comment above. Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F. I fully agree with Sintel's above comment. Eli5121 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are some combination of options C, D, E, or F for most cases, and option A in cases of flagrant misbehaviour (edit warring, vandalism, et cetera). [math]\overrightarrow{\,\,\scriptsize\text{ArrowHead294}\,\,\,}[/math] (speak to me) 15:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • F. see sintel's comment. CellularAutomaton (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, F (by Sintel). Any voting process is too impractically slow for occasions where protection is in need. FloraC (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • F. see sintel's comment. Iniðil (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The option I'm okay with is F: allow locks and unlocks both by any admin as in A (for speed) and by popular vote as in C. In the latter case, editors may also vote on a page-specific moratorium on admin locks. VIxen (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, C, and D. 2^67-1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F (by Sintel). I assume that the protection policy would cover most needs, without requiring any community voting since the situations are clearly identifiable by the admins, and that exceptional situations could be treated in a case-by-case approach. Fredg999 (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F (Sintel's proposal). DotuXil (i like microtones) 05:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are A, F (by Sintel). Unque (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The options I'm okay with are F (by Sintel). recentlymaterialized (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)



Final results

Question 1

Yes, FloraC will be granted bureaucrat permissions. (100% of 18 votes).

Question 2

Yes, Fredg999 will be granted sysop permissions. (100% of 18 votes).

Question 3

Yes, Fredg999 will be granted interface admin permissions. (100% of 18 votes).

Question 4

Yes, Lériendil will be granted sysop permissions. (87.5% of 16 votes).

Question 5

Yes, Lériendil will be granted interface admin permissions. (87.5% of 16 votes).

Question 6

A. RTT pages (including Gene's) will be treated just the same as any other wiki page, not subject to extra protections just because they are RTT pages. (100% of 18 voters).

Question 7

A. Mathematical content will be treated just the same as any other wiki content, any editor can check and update it. (100% of 17 voters).

Question 8

C (Sintel). Any future admin nominations or removals should be discussed with everyone giving their opinions freely. After a set period the discussion closes and a bureaucrat reviews all of the arguments, and makes the final decision. The outcome should be based on community consensus (near unanimity) and not majority vote. (87.5% of 16 voters).

Question 9

C (Sintel). Any future bureaucrat nominations or removals should be discussed with everyone giving their opinions freely. After a set period the discussion closes and another bureaucrat reviews all of the arguments, and makes the final decision. The outcome should be based on community consensus (near unanimity) and not majority vote. (86.7% of 15 voters).

Question 10

F (Sintel). There should be a clear page protection policy (analogous to Wikipedia's protection policy). Protection can be done at the discretion of an admin, but the reasoning and duration should be clearly outlined on the talk page. To quote the Wikipedia policy:

"Applying page protection solely as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed. Instead, protection is used when vandalism, disruption, or abuse by multiple users is occurring at a frequency that warrants protection."

Protection should be used sparingly and mostly as a last resort. Leaving pages protected indefinitely without leaving any path to unprotect them (as is happening now!) is unacceptable on a wiki.

(72% of 18 voters).

Retrieved from "https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Xenharmonic_Wiki:Referendum&oldid=181374"