To keep this discussion of who should be a tertiary voter together and to keep it distinct from discussions of other uses, posts have been copied here from Forum:Admin Coordination. The original version is preserved there. Getting all of this discussion here without bringing in unrelated material was a little difficult; so if you see any errors or omissions here, feel free to correct them.
....All admins, and in fact all contributors to this wiki, should have their opinions taken into consideration when making decisions, in accordance with what it says at Forum:Who Decides (although I think perhaps the lists of people on that page are maybe not quite as inclusive as they could be of all our valued contributors of good faith edits). --The Overmind (talk) 01:43, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
- The Overmind: "(although I think perhaps the lists of people on that page are maybe not quite as inclusive as they could be of all our valued contributors of good faith edits)." I think Hilde just put people who did 100+ edits. The rest of the people either haven't edited in a long time or are really new. I think it would be OK to list the good faith editors though. Miley Spears Junior Bobbie Girl (let's talk) 03:40, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
- So do I. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 16:01, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
- As there seems to be agreement with no objections, and the request for opinions on Forum:Who Decides was made on Oct. 22, 2015, well over a week ago, I'll post suggested names below to the tertiary list that I believe have significantly contributed to articles. If you disagree with these, post your opinion. Pope Hilde (talk) 23:09, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
- I looked through everyone's edit history who's not on the Primary or Secondary list. Below are those who meet the following criteria:
- So do I. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 16:01, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
- Have posted on the site in the past year; have contributed to articles (either by writing or by adding image(s)/video(s) to articles); have posted 10+ edits on more than one day. I did not include those who contributed to discussions but not to articles (those would not count as "contributors of good faith edits" as they didn't make edits to articles of any kind), or who posted images none of which are used in an article.
- Believe it or not (you can check the contributions of all editors here), that only leaves one:
- User:JoX the Bobtist: named user, active for one month+, familiar with the website's focus, consistently worked to follow Wikia policy, created article(s), uploaded image(s)/video(s) to site, added image(s)/video(s) to article(s) http://subgenius.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/JoX_the_Bobtist
- I was going to post a significant list for other decides to choose from. But as there's only one who meets what I consider the minimum qualifications, and as there's been no objection and has been supporting for adding names, I'll add these one to the tertiary list unless there's any objection in the next week. (Note that there is an editor who contributed images but none have been used in articles, and there is an editor who made contributions to articles on one day but hasn't been back). Pope Hilde (talk) 23:54, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
- I know you checked but it's hard to believe there's only one. But if you and The Overmind both agree that's OK with me. :) Miley Spears Junior Bobbie Girl (let's talk) 02:23, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
- There is only one. I'm the only living PreChurch Prophet of "Bob". All the rest are dead. Which is redundant. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 17:06, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
- I know you checked but it's hard to believe there's only one. But if you and The Overmind both agree that's OK with me. :) Miley Spears Junior Bobbie Girl (let's talk) 02:23, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
- NO! Yes this was The Overmind's idea. But if I'm the only tertiary voter, the haters will blame Pope Hilde & Miley Spears for giving a vote to their "friend". Even though I may not be anybody's friend, that's what they will think if they pay attention at all. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 17:11, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
- "If they pay attention at all" may be the key phrase. Since The Overmind returned, the "haters" have disappeared. I don't think it's a problem, but don't want to force anything on you. Pope Hilde (talk) 14:28, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
- They could be back in five minutes. And I claim to be a Sockpuppeteer with multiple accounts so am not to be trusted. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 21:21, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
- "If they pay attention at all" may be the key phrase. Since The Overmind returned, the "haters" have disappeared. I don't think it's a problem, but don't want to force anything on you. Pope Hilde (talk) 14:28, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
- NO! Yes this was The Overmind's idea. But if I'm the only tertiary voter, the haters will blame Pope Hilde & Miley Spears for giving a vote to their "friend". Even though I may not be anybody's friend, that's what they will think if they pay attention at all. JoX the Bobtist (talk) 17:11, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
....Anyway, on Forum:Who Decides, it says that anybody who posts their name on that forum gets to be a tertiary voter (and that forum page was originally written by Pope Hilde although neither Miley Spears nor I have objected to that). This would mean basically anyone can be a tertiary voter. If we were to have a base criterion besides that I'd suggest having 20 productive edits (i.e. any sort of edit that isn't outright vandalism, even if it is just contributing to a discussion), or alternately a leaderboard score of at least 60. Those are a little arbitrary, but I picked them because they seem like reasonable cutoff points and everyone above those cutoff points has contributed at least some valuable stuff to the wiki.
Users who have at least 20 productive edits, besides the 3 bots User:Default, User:Wikia, and User:WikiaBot (who doesn't get a vote since it's a bot programmed by Wikia not a real person), currently include, alphabetically, User:Ivan Stang, User:JoX the Bobtist, User:Jzp-wikia, User:Miley Spears, User:PatrickCunningham, User:Pope Hilde, User:RevBabyBear, User:Shining Path of Least Resistance, User:The Overmind, and User:Zirroneous. Users with a leaderboard score of at least 60 (bots automatically excluded from the leaderboard): User:PoPe PeNGo, User:Reverend Bork, User:Shining Path of Least Resistance, User:JoX the Bobtist, User:PatrickCunningham, User:Ivan Stang, User:Pope Hilde, User:Jzp-wikia, User:Miley Spears, User:The Overmind.
So according to my calculations the voters should be as follows (according to current data): Primary editors: User:Jzp-wikia, User:Miley Spears, User:Pope Hilde, and User:The Overmind Secondary editors: User:Ivan Stang and User:PatrickCunningham Tertiary editors: User:JoX the Bobtist, User:PoPe PeNGo, User:RevBabyBear, User:Reverend Bork, User:Shining Path of Least Resistance, and User:Zirroneous, as well as anyone who posts on Forum:Who Decides asking to be considered a Tertiary editor
That's a total of 4 primary editors currently, 2 secondary editors currently, and 6 tertiary editors currently, although those numbers could change. At least this is my calculation. Anyway it already says on Forum:Who Decides that anyone who posts there can be considered a tertiary editor. But for people with at least 20 productive edits or a leaderboard score of at least 60, that shouldn't be necessary and we can just automatically add them to the list. I chose those numbers 20 and 60 because they are inclusive enough to add a reasonable number of people to the list but not so inclusive they'd include people who did almost nothing. Those numbers would obviously be subject to change.
If you look at my lists, the 4 primary editors have leaderboard scores of 670-1580, the 2 secondary editors have leaderboard scores of 210-440, and the tertiary editors have leaderboard scores of 80 or lower, making them clearly 3 different groups objectively. Also, the 4 primary editors have 905-1778 edits, the 2 secondary editors have 191-363 edits, and the tertiary editors all have 41 or fewer edits, making those also split into the same exact 3 groups objectively. So it is pretty clear who should count on the primary and secondary lists, objectively using numbers, given the wide mathematical gaps between primary and secondary and between secondary and tertiary in terms of both number of edits and leaderboard score. The only thing that can't be determined objectively is who to include as a tertiary editor, so basically I came up with semi-arbitary criteria of either 20 edits or 60 in the leaderboard to decide who should automatically be included, along with allowing anyone who wants to to post on the forum asking to be listed as a tertiary editor and they would get it too. As far as the voting system goes, I am fine with the ratio of 2 for primary editors, 1 for secondary editors, and 1/2 for tertiary editors. It is a good balance between a meritocracy that rewards people for their contributions (making people who contribute more feel like they are being valued) and a democracy where everyone's vote counts (making everyone feel like their vote counts and that they aren't being dominated by some cabal).
Oh, and as for if a vote is a tie, this means that whatever is being voted on is neither accepted nor rejected, so whatever the status quo was prior to the vote would remain in effect, of course. However, if a tie is the result of a vote on something, I think the best course of action after a tie would usually be to discuss things and maybe modify whatever is being voted on so it has a broad consensus of almost everyone supporting it.
Anyway, I am generally in agreement for how voting should work, in cases when things actually come to a vote, although as both of you said, usually things are done by consensus so voting only would arise when there is disagreement on something and people cannot agree on a compromise. In most cases nobody bothers to object to things or people can compromise and find an agreement without voting on it, so voting is only needed if those other things fail at achieving agreement. As far as my lists for who should be considered tertiary voters, I wonder what other people think. Only including one tertiary voter, as per the discussion higher up on this page, goes against what it says on Forum:Who Decides where it says anyone who posts there gets to be a tertiary voter. So we need to have some kind of consistent policy on who gets to be a tertiary voter. I think the criteria for it should be inclusive enough to include more than one person... mine include 6 tertiary voters. Of course the criteria can later be modified if that ever becomes necessary. I am not sure about whether allowing just anyone who posts on Forum:Who Decides to be a tertiary voter is the best idea, since it's possible we could be flooded with people who created new accounts and didn't contribute anything to this wiki. So there has to be a reasonable compromise between giving more editors a voice in what happens than just 1 tertiary voter, and allowing us to be flooded by new users, who could possibly all be sockpuppets of the same person, all voting en masse. I'd suggest we actually change what it says on Forum:Who Decides about who gets to be a tertiary voter, to ensure we have a system where all active contributors feel included, but also where we can't get flooded with votes from people who contributed nothing or almost nothing of value. --The Overmind (talk) 07:12, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: When I started writing the above post I thought the current policy on Forum:Who Decides regarding letting anyone who asked to be a tertiary voter get to be one automatically just by posting a response on that forum page was a perfectly sensible idea. Only when I got to writing the last paragraph of it did I realize that this current policy of allowing anyone to be a tertiary voter creates a problem, namely, we could be flooded with dozens upon dozens of new users all signing up to vote in droves, who had never contributed anything previously, who could overturn the will of the majority of people who are actually active contributors to this wiki. I do also think that only having one person be a tertiary voter is liable to potentially get people upset about being excluded completely from the democratic process. So my proposal is to go with those 6 people currently who have at least 20 edits or a score of 60 in the leaderboard, and then if other people in the future also get 20 good faith edits or achieve 60 or higher in the leaderboard, they would automatically become tertiary voters too. Both the extreme of allowing anyone at all to be a tertiary voter (opening us up to getting taken over by people who have never contributed anything to this wiki and have zero edits prior to their post on the forum asking to be a tertiary voter), and the extreme of only having one tertiary voter (making others feel excluded since they don't even have a fraction of a vote, which is liable to cause drama), well both of those are problematic and liable to cause drama. Having a reasonable compromise between 1 tertiary voter and a potentially unlimited number of tertiary voters, like my formula that would currently result in 6 tertiary voters, is the best solution and would minimize the amount of drama and the potential for anything bad to happen to this wiki. And of course if my formula turns out to include too many or not enough people it could be revised to something else, although it is best if it is something that can be checked quickly. It is quite easy to quickly check everyone's leaderboard scores and edit counts and easy for any observer to independently verify these numbers, making them objective and not the type of thing to cause controversy. And this can minimize the amount of drama, encourage people to participate enough in the wiki to first become tertiary editors, then secondary, then primary, through a system of meritocracy, plus as a democratic system it allows everyone who has done a minimal amount of positive contributions to the wiki to participate in the voting process, without including people who haven't contributed anything of value. So while at first in the previous post I went along with the existing policy on Forum:Who Decides about tertiary editors, by the end of the post I realized that the existing policy has a huge vulnerability in it that opens this wiki up to being taken over by people who have never contributed anything, and, in the terminology of computer security, we need to patch that vulnerability before it is exploited. --The Overmind (talk) 08:56, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
- I am largely in agreement with this post and your post immediately above it, especially as the one person who would be a tertiary editor under my original proposal objects to it.
- But I do have one problem, and that is in regard to "productive edits." User:Zirroneous, for example, made 41 edits, most or all of which were vandalism. I also have a problem including people who contributed nothing to the Wiki except to make comments; someone can easily make 20+ comments without contributing anything. And frankly I'm not a big fan of badges as it's relatively easy to build up badge credit without making significant contributions--one user made a great number of very small edits in one day and greatly build up badges that way.
- I would support your proposed changes with one alteration: tertiary need to have made 20 productive edits on articles (this would include images). Pope Hilde (talk) 18:00, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense. So would the new list of tertiary editors get reduced from User:JoX the Bobtist, User:PoPe PeNGo, User:RevBabyBear, User:Reverend Bork, User:Shining Path of Least Resistance, and User:Zirroneous to just User:JoX the Bobtist and User:Shining Path of Least Resistance? I didn't actually look at the entire edit histories of everyone, I just quickly looked up the numbers for their edits and leaderboard positions. It's actually quite a chore to build up a really big leaderboard score that is several hundred, and the leaderboard encourages people to do actions that are productive towards the wiki. So having a leaderboard score of at least 200 is a good sign that someone is a productive contributor (currently only 6 users have a leaderboard score over 200, specifically the 4 primary and 2 secondary users). So I might suggest keeping the leaderboard as a way to become a tertiary contributor, just raising the number from 60 to 200. Anyway, User:RevBabyBear so far just edited forum pages, talk pages, etc. rather than articles but her edits have still been good faith edits, but if we require the edits to be on articles she wouldn't count. And User:Zirroneous wouldn't count since his edits were vandalism like you pointed out (I just looked at both their edit histories). Furthermore, User:PoPe PeNGo and User:Reverend Bork were the 2 who were just their for their leaderboard scores. So if the 20 productive edits have to be to articles I'm afraid that would bring us down to only 2 tertiary editors at the moment: User:JoX the Bobtist and User:Shining Path of Least Resistance. As far as User:Shining Path of Least Resistance goes, he made a number of productive edits to actual wiki pages, uploaded images, and so on, so he should definitely count as a tertiary editor... the fact that the edits weren't recent shouldn't matter for a tertiary editor. And of course User:JoX the Bobtist is discussed higher up in this page as a tertiary editor. Having only 2 tertiary editors is a little bit problematic to me but since all people need to do is 20 productive edits to articles, that isn't too much of a hurdle to cross so I am sure we can get more in the future. Also, sorry for not noticing that User:Zirroneous had just been doing vandalism, I was just looking at the edit counts, not the actual edit histories. I am fine with your suggestions, but it would be nice if people could use the leaderboard to become tertiary contributors, with a higher number such as 200, that's the only thing I'd change from your suggestions there. --The Overmind (talk) 18:36, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
- Since that post immediately above, User:JoX the Bobtist, who very strongly opposed becoming the only tertiary editor to avoid any appearance of bias, has since made several more edits. His edit count as of this posting stands at 115 (see current total here), in the 100+ range for Primary and Secondary editors, and his badge total is currently at 210, equal to that of Secondary editor User:PatrickCunningham (for their current badges, see link to their user pages in this paragraph). Pope Hilde (talk) 20:54, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
- That makes sense. So would the new list of tertiary editors get reduced from User:JoX the Bobtist, User:PoPe PeNGo, User:RevBabyBear, User:Reverend Bork, User:Shining Path of Least Resistance, and User:Zirroneous to just User:JoX the Bobtist and User:Shining Path of Least Resistance? I didn't actually look at the entire edit histories of everyone, I just quickly looked up the numbers for their edits and leaderboard positions. It's actually quite a chore to build up a really big leaderboard score that is several hundred, and the leaderboard encourages people to do actions that are productive towards the wiki. So having a leaderboard score of at least 200 is a good sign that someone is a productive contributor (currently only 6 users have a leaderboard score over 200, specifically the 4 primary and 2 secondary users). So I might suggest keeping the leaderboard as a way to become a tertiary contributor, just raising the number from 60 to 200. Anyway, User:RevBabyBear so far just edited forum pages, talk pages, etc. rather than articles but her edits have still been good faith edits, but if we require the edits to be on articles she wouldn't count. And User:Zirroneous wouldn't count since his edits were vandalism like you pointed out (I just looked at both their edit histories). Furthermore, User:PoPe PeNGo and User:Reverend Bork were the 2 who were just their for their leaderboard scores. So if the 20 productive edits have to be to articles I'm afraid that would bring us down to only 2 tertiary editors at the moment: User:JoX the Bobtist and User:Shining Path of Least Resistance. As far as User:Shining Path of Least Resistance goes, he made a number of productive edits to actual wiki pages, uploaded images, and so on, so he should definitely count as a tertiary editor... the fact that the edits weren't recent shouldn't matter for a tertiary editor. And of course User:JoX the Bobtist is discussed higher up in this page as a tertiary editor. Having only 2 tertiary editors is a little bit problematic to me but since all people need to do is 20 productive edits to articles, that isn't too much of a hurdle to cross so I am sure we can get more in the future. Also, sorry for not noticing that User:Zirroneous had just been doing vandalism, I was just looking at the edit counts, not the actual edit histories. I am fine with your suggestions, but it would be nice if people could use the leaderboard to become tertiary contributors, with a higher number such as 200, that's the only thing I'd change from your suggestions there. --The Overmind (talk) 18:36, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
Proposal[]
I'm not indenting this because I'm trying to compile what appears to be a consensus above. Please comment on this and let me know if you agree or not within a week from this posting.
A Tertiary Voter aka Tertiary Editor must not also be a Primary or Secondary Voter. S/He must be in good standing (not currently blocked) and fit the following: named user, 20+ productive edits on articles. Pope Hilde (talk) 22:18, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Really I'd rather IPs got 1/2 a vote, but I know both you and The Overmind said there's problems with that. So I guess this is OK. Miley Spears Junior Bobbie Girl (let's talk) 03:41, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. But what happens when a Tertiary Editor has 130 edits and 260 badge points? JoX the Bobtist (talk) 21:08, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. If someone doesn't address this first, I will later. Pope Hilde (talk) 15:02, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
- OK I will here. Miley Spears Junior Bobbie Girl (let's talk) 03:35, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. If someone doesn't address this first, I will later. Pope Hilde (talk) 15:02, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus was to accept this proposal. Pope Hilde (talk)