Lego Message Boards Wiki

Filter Posts Reset

Categories

Sort By

  • All
  • Following
This post is locked.

Closing RfR Loopholes

So I've just discovered we have a plethora of loopholes in the RfR policy.
As Slice recently pointed out with his most recent admin RfR, we have this loophole in the RfR policy which means you could have had two months CM experience in the past, lose the rights, but still be able to run for admin without the rights. I propose we change the wording here from "Two months chat moderator experience." to "Two months chat moderator experience and current CM rights".
Since we're at it already, I also propose we change the wording for the Discussion Mod requirement from "Chat Moderator rights prior to nomination" to "Chat Moderator rights at time of nomination". The wording's a bit too vague.
And finally, I propose we add "current admin rights" to the requirements of Bureaucrat RfR. Right now they're just "Current activity (users decide)" and "3 months as an administrator". So in theory Goggles, BCG, and Drew could run for 'crat despite not having the rights.
Vote 1: Should we change the admin RfR requirement from "Two months chat moderator experience." to "Two months chat moderator experience and current CM rights"?
A) Yes: 19 votes.
B) No: 5 votes.
Vote 2: Should we change the DM RfR requirement from "Chat Moderator rights prior to nomination" to "Chat Moderator rights at time of nomination"?
A) Yes: 19 votes.
B) No: 5 votes.
Vote 3: Should we change the 'crat RfR requirement from "Current activity (users decide)" to "Current activity (users decide) and current admin rights"?
A) Yes: 19 votes.
B) No: 5 votes.

Consensus
Yes to all.
1 38
This post is locked.

Vote to make sure the community wants the majority community percentage rule in RfRs.

So Hyper decided to implement the same rules for RFRs as CVs.
This is because he says that Thread:274076 referred to both CVs and RfRs. However to pass a RFR you need 75% or 85% support from the total number of supports and opposes. A majority community percentage means if 51% of the community voted on a rfr it can be closed instantly after 5 days, so if someone is opposed by 51% of the community or supported by 51% of the community.
Do we... A) Want a majority community percentage rule (51%) and then have another CV to clarity how the majority community percentage (51%) will relate to the support percentages (75% or 85%)?
Or B) Not bother and not a have a majority community percentage?
Votes
A: 4
B: 11
Other: 3

Consensus
Remove the majority community percentage from RfRs.
0 24
This post is locked.

What ranks to put users at

When editing wikia articles, should we...
a) put all users at rank 29
b) put all users at the ranks they were before the alien rankup
c) put all users at the ranks they were at before the post req was lowered
d) put all users at the ranks they were at before the minutes req was lowerd
I vote d.
a votes: 3
b votes: 9
c votes: 2
d votes: 6

Consensus
Put all users at the ranks they were before the Alien rankup.
0 51
This post is locked.

Endorsing LMBE

Now that the MBs are more or less gone, this wiki is the largest community of MBers. While this place does have forums, they are not suitible for the long disussions of the MBs. There is however, a solution, and that comes in the form of Lego Message Boards Eternal.
LMBE is a community in line with the rules of both our wiki and the MBs, and is moderated by trusted MBers, including KoolKanin herself. It is also the biggest of the "replacement MBs" by far. In order to help direct MBers to LMBE, I propose that we endorse the site. This would involve leaving a link on our homepage.
How would this help the Wiki? Well, it would provide a seamless link between the two sites, and this would mean that there will be less spamming of links to LMBE in both chat and on message walls. Also, keep in mind that endorsing LMBE does not mean that the Wiki can't endorse other MB replacements.
Do you support an endorsement of Lego Message Boards Eternal?
A Yes 2 votes
B No 7 votes
C Neutral 0 votes
D Support with Mutual Endorsement 18 votes

Consensus
Yes, with mutual endorsement.
1 49
This post is locked.

Vote to undo Thread:283053

So basically a long time ago in a galaxy far far away there was a crap ton of community votes and we decided to try to reduce the amount of votes by making them applicable only to policy modifications. Nowadays there are way less CVs and way more things we'd like to vote on that, under that vote, we cannot, so we're now voting to undo that.
Should we undo the above-stated vote?
A)Yes: 15 Votes
B)No:

Consensus
Yes, undo the vote.
0 22
This post is locked.

Removing the 96 Hours Requirement from RfRs

So recently multiple users have complained to me that the 96 hours requirement for Requests for Rights, which prohibits RfRs from being closed until they have been up for four days, is more of a nuisance than an equitable policy. Because the other RfR requirements seem to be effective in making position advancement difficult on their own, and the 96 hours wait seems to serve as nothing besides a redundant roadblock, I suppose it would make sense to remove it. 
Should we remove the 96 Hours Requirement from Requests for Rights?
A: Yes: 9 votes.
B: No: 8 votes.

Consensus
Yes, remove the 96-hours requirement from RfR.
0 40
This post is locked.

Adding Section "Notable Posts" to Topic Pages

The current outline for topic pages does not archive important posts in that topic. The addition of a "Notable Posts" section would fix that issue.
(A) Yes add the section [12 votes]
(B) No, don't add the section

Consensus
Yes, add the section.
0 18
This post is locked.

Removing Restrictions for User Pages

The current restrictions on creating user articles are:

Rank 5 or higher/Master Reader or higher.
If the user is lower than Rank 5:
If he/she has a rank, 100+ posts made since the 2012 update.
These rules used to make sense when the LMBs weren't close to retirement, but now removing these restrictions and saving as many users as possible before their information is gone forever is extremely important.
(A) Yes, remove restrictions [20 votes]
(B) No, keep restrictions

Consensus
A
0 20
This post is locked.

Removing Restrictions for Topics

The current rules for creating topic pages are:

Chat and role-play topics must have at least 300 pages
Story topics must have at least 50 pages
All other topics must have at least 75 pages
While these rules held up well when the LMBs weren't threatened by closing, recent events have prompted me to create this vote to remove these restrictions, which would allow us to maximize topics archived before all the content on the LEGO Message Boards is gone.
(A) Yes, remove restrictions [18 votes]
(B) No, keep restrictions
Consensus
A
0 19
This post is locked.

Banning Hate Symbols and Imagery

Given how we've recently had numerous arguments and discussions on the subject of Nazi imagery in avatars and Nazi stuff on the Wiki in general, here's a vote to clear things up once and for all. In discussion with Rio, we've decided to extend this proposed ban on all hate symbols (which shouldn't need voting on, but hey, this Wiki...). This would also be extended to figures like Hitler, Göring, etc. Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. Honest, mature, serious discussion would still be allowed, provided it doesn't degenerate into a massive argument, and no-one is bothered by it.
Should we ban all hate symbols and imagery on the Wiki, in image, video, and text form?
A) Yes: 21 Votes
B) No: 6 Votes
C) Neutral: 2 Votes

Consensus
Yes, ban all hate symbols.
0 75
This post is locked.

Vote to reverse Thread:283053 vote

As the title states, this is a vote to reverse the outcome of Thread:283053.
Let's just be clear. That vote was a horrible idea. What has ended up happening is that a very select few (the admins) were left to speak for an entire community, and what the community wants, even with a strong majority, ends up having no bearing on what is actually implemented depending on if the admins disagree or not.
For example, this admin vote. In the community discussion, the proposal had a community majority in support, but the proposal was ultimately shut down by the moderators who personally were against it.
Do not misunderstand me. I respect our admins and their decisions, but you need to decide. Do you want to basically forgo your say in all decisions? And if so, for what reason?
Support: 3 Vote
Oppose: 1 Vote
0 7
This post is locked.

Require Users to Type ~~~~ for their Signatures

This is something that drives me, and I'm sure other admins and DMs, insane. As you know, RfRs get closed two days after the last vote. That means we have to look at the date on which each vote was posted to see how much time is left. Now, this would be easy and all...
Except for the fact that almost no-one has timestamps in their signatures. Why? Because users can't be bothered to type four tildes at the end of their vote. In case you don't know what it means, here are the tildes: ~~~~. These four tildes automatically convert into a signature which you can modify in Special:Preferences with an included timestamp, which makes it super-easy for admins and DMs to know when the user voted.
I'm proposing that users are required to use these four tildes for their signature. It's a courtesy towards the people responsible for keeping track of RfRs.
Should we require users to use "~~~~" for their signatures?
A) Yes: 2 votes.
B) No: 22 votes.
C) Yes, for RfR votes: 1 vote.

Consensus
No.
0 43
This post is locked.

Reducing the Minimum Support Requirement for Administrator and Bureaucrat RfRs

Currently, a Request for Administrator or Bureaucrat rights requires 25 supports to pass, 5 more than needed for DM or CM RfRs. To many, this seems logical, as these are significantly higher positions of power, but the declining population of the wiki causes me to believe otherwise.
For example, during my administrator RfR, the greatest challenge by far was not gaining the community's support, public opinion was almost unanimous, but simply getting to 25 supports took far longer than it should have, especially considering all users who voted but one supported me. Even since this vote, several users have retired or slipped into semi-activity (a few users have become active since then as well, but hardly enough to compensate for this). Of course, it should still be difficult for an admin or bureaucrat RfR to pass, but meeting the minimum support requirement should not be the primary difficulty, gaining the support of the community should be.
For these reasons, I believe the minimum support requirement for Administrator and Bureaucrat Requests for Rights should be lowered to 20, a number more suitable for the current population of the wiki.
Note: I consider this to be a policy modification, which is why I have opened a Community Vote for this.

Votes
A. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for both: 10 Votes
B. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for only admin RfRs: 4 Votes
C. Lower the requirement to 20 supports for only bureaucrat RfRs: 0 Votes
D. Change Nothing: 14 votes

Consensus
Change nothing.
0 32
This post is locked.

Clearing out the leaderboard

As you can see here, we have two deleted accounts on the leaderboard: Edward Nigma and Izzybe5. Now, as you may know, Edward Nigma is rather infamous here as he is blocked from wikia permanently, and Izzybe5 has a new account, so I don't see the point in either of these two deleted accounts staying on the leaderboard. They can be removed by blocking the accounts.
A) Block only Edward Nigma 3 votes
B) Block only Izzybe5 1 Vote
C) Block both: 10 Votes
D) Do nothing: 11 Votes
Consensus reached: Do Nothing
0 44
This post is locked.

Stories on the MBs

Allooo~
This is, in fact, a vote to change policy, do not worry (or maybe you should).
Currently, the "guidelines" for creating an article for a topic is 300 pages (4,500 posts) for RPs and Chatrooms and 75 pages (1,125 posts) for topics that do not fall under the former categories. Besides the common sense rule, these are the only guidelines for creating articles for topics.
There are several stories on the MBs that are quite popular, noticeable by their like count. An example would be our lovely Skulduggery's stories, specifically "A Kingdom of Mods " and "Trial and War." These are the first and second stories in his still unnamed (as far as I know) trilogy. These stories, although not as popular as the last, both have over 6,000 likes, but do not meet MoS as they both have less than 1,125 posts. I would consider these stories quite important to the Message Boards, specifically the Stories Subforum, and there are a few others that are also very liked but do not have a lot of posts. More examples would "Ninja " by Scorpio360 and "Cucumberman " by M4Jesus.
I propose we make MoS a bit clearer when it comes to story topics, as they can be considered just as important as popular chatrooms such as Brickbook or Finding Friendships. Thank you for your time.
I would like to clarify that if you do not vote for A or B but vote for the other, I will count it as you do not want a post/like requirement added or changed.
A) Decrease post requirement for story topics.
----1) Make requirement 33 pages (500 posts):
----2) Make requirement 50 pages (750 posts): 6
----3) Make requirement 66 pages (1000 posts):
----4) Make requirement 20 pages (300 posts): 2
----5) Do not change posts requirements: 2
----6) Other. Explain in vote.
B) Add a like requirement for story topics.
----1) Make requirement 1,500 likes: 2
----2) Make requirement 2,000 likes: 1
----3) Make requirement 2,500 likes:
----4) Make requirement 10 likes: 1
----5) Do not add one: 6
----6) Other. Explain in vote.
C) Change nothing: 3
D) "Allow" common sense to be used by patrollers and content mods: 1

Consensus
A2 B5: Requirement 50 pages (750 posts), no like requirement
2 29
This post is locked.

Changing MoS so That Users With an Archive Page May Have a Post-Update Page

They were relevant then, they're relevant now. Vote.
A) Support: 12 Votes
B) Oppose: 6 votes

Consensus
Support
I support, duh.
1 27
This post is locked.

Adding MB profile links to archives

I personally think that links to the user's current MB profile should be added to archives. For example, in this page there's already a link to my userpage in the more information box and I feel that a link to the MB profiles of archives would contribute to the sense of "see also." In cases where the archive is of a deleted account, no such link would be provided, of course.
A) Add links to current MB profiles of archived user articles 12 votes
B) Change nothing 5 votes
0 26
This post is locked.

Making Community Votes only for Policy Modifications

So I recently opened a discussion (see here) about what to do with community votes. So I'm making a vote to make them only for policy modifications. It's so dang silly to vote on literally every single thing, some of which have no bearing on a large amount of users. So really, I think we should just make CVs only for policy modifications and leave other big decisions to the administrative team that most of the community voted in. In turn this wil also allow other staff members to do their jobs more efficiently since it won't require a community vote every time a mod wants to mod chat or a patroller wants to edit some articles. (this is sarcasm). And then, if someone wants to do something, they can either ask the admins or just go ahead and do it, depending on the scale (i.e. if someone wants to make a weekly blog that goes in the news section, they'd ask an admin, whereas if someone wanted to make one that didn't go in the news category they wouldn't have to).
Should we make CVs applicable only for policy modifications?
A) Yes: 17 Votes
B) No: 7 votes
Consensus reached; Community Votes are now only to be used for policy modifications, any other large changes to be screened by admins
0 33
This post is locked.

Vote to add user tags for retired admins/buros

Main discussion/reasoning here: Thread:282600
Should we add user tags for retired admins/buros?
A) Yes: 21 Votes
B) No:

Consensus
Yes.
0 25
This post is locked.

Reviewing RfR wait times

This should be pretty straightforward. I personally think they all need slight adjusting (except for buro) but we'll find out if you think the same. We generally don't get a lot of requests unless a bunch of people go inactive/lose their rights so yeah.
What should the wait time between RfRs for CM be?
1 Week: 1 Vote
2 Weeks: 1 Vote
3 Weeks: 1 Vote
4 Weeks (aka leave as-is): 14 Votes
DM wait time
1 Week: 1 Vote
2 Weeks: 1 Vote
3 Weeks (leave as-is): 3 Votes
4 Weeks: 12 Votes
Admin wait time
1 Week: 1 Vote
2 Weeks:
3 Weeks:
4 Weeks: 2 Votes
8 Weeks (as-is): 12 Votes
12 Weeks: 2 Votes
Buro
1 Week: 1 Vote
2 Weeks:
3 Weeks:
4 Weeks:
8 Weeks (as-is): 15 Votes
12 Weeks: 1 Vote

Consensus
Keep CM, Admin and Bureaucrat RfR waiting times the same, extend DM RfR to 4 weeks.
0 25