User blog:Bluesonic1/Moot Procedure Review in Detail

This is the elaborated discussion on the moot procedure and policy CT review, which can be found here. Users reading this page should only really be doing so if they found the CT's summary lacking in information and require further clarification, or would like to see the evidence that supports for specific changes. Any comments and discussion regarding these proposed changes should be direct to the linked CT. (And yes, I'm aware I have a problem with writing too much- I'M SORRY D:)

'''NOTE: Names in quotes are not to be focused on here- I don't want to see ad hominems occurring. Focus on the content of the quotes I provide for different points- after all, it could have been anyone who made the comment. With this, I also hope no one is offended by being quoted because again, I have focused on the content rather than the person who said it in an effort to put evidence behind the issues I raise here- I don't want people to think I'm clutching straws here. All references are listed at the end in block quotes.'''

Why review the moot procedure? This week's moot highlighted some issues with the procedure as it stands, and I will try my best to explain why these issues occurred and what role the procedures play. When the moot first began, it was a formal gathering, with presenters having to have sign up beforehand and a moot leader present to ensure the smooth running of the moot. As interest in the moot died down, activity and people present in the moot did too, resulting in a natural decline to an informal meeting between seasoned editors to discuss whatever came to mind. This system worked well then because there were only a few people attending the moot then, and didn't really have great issues to bring up and discuss. Since the time change, the moot attendance levels are now back to what it was in the beginning, rendering these informal procedures inappropriate now. My suggestion is to bring back the formal procedures, and to hopefully build on them based on all the experiences users who have attended the moot so far can bring in.

In terms of Moot Procedure

 * A moot leader is highly important to maintain order within the moot as well as to help guide the moot through all its stages and motions as well as keep the moot on topic [1]. The moot leader of course, does not have to be a sysop as many have already said. The moot leader however, needs to be someone who is not presenting anything during the moot, as well as having some experience in how the moot is usually run so that things are not skipped or overlooked [2]. It's also important that the moot leader have background knowledge on what has or hasn't occurred in past moots- this is so that if certain ideas that are brought up clash with what has been previously agreed on without the presenter being aware a similar topic was already previously discussed, this can be brought up and included within the discussion as opposed to being forgotten or even overridden by mistake [3].
 * The floor needs to be respected. What does this mean? When a presenter is presenting, only they should be typing out/talking in chat until they declare their topic open for discussion. This was a big issue in the latest moot, with several users noting their annoyance at not being able to completely explain their ideas. [4]
 * If presenters would like to present a subject that involves aesthetic changes to the wiki in some way, they need to have an example prepared on their sandbox page to give during the moot. This has been something that came up very often in past moots, with ideas being postponed because people wanted to see an example first. [5] This goes for users who have large ideas as well- details should be finalised before presenting it in the moot to get it through voting. If however, the point is to bring a general idea to get it fleshed out in the moot, a discussion can held to do so but should then be taken away, finalised, and then re-presented in the next moot when everyone knows exactly what they are voting on (see last point in this paragraph for more details on this issue).
 * Tackling the "rushed moot syndrome". Several users highlighted to me, as well as noting myself, that many ideas got pushed through "half assed" [6] without too much clarification and many users left confused [7] yet still voting to support the idea because they're in favour of moving the moot along rather than clearly looking at what they were voting for because they felt pressured [8]. This sort of comes back to the moot leader point, as the moot leader needs to be level-headed in situations were users are calling for a fast vote while discussion is still occurring [9]. While the moot dragging on over time is indeed an issue, it is better to have a longer moot than have half-formed ideas voted on by users who aren't entirely sure what's going on.
 * The moot leader needs to clearly state what the vote is for, keep people on this topic, and when the discussion has reached a natural end, then call for a vote with a clear restatement of what people are voting for. There have been several instances, in this most recent moot and passed, where someone calls for a vote to get it over and done with whilst users either still have concerns [10], are still trying to discuss the idea [9], or aren't even sure what they are voting on [7].
 * Ideas voted through the moot need to be final. What does this mean? That the idea has been fleshed out and everyone is certain on what is going to happen. If users have to say during voting "Oh we'll the discuss the details later", then the vote cannot go through. [11] Why? Because then users are essentially voting for something that's going to be decided upon later with free reign. This is different for example, to an idea that is finalised and then finding problems later after it was implemented that would not have been realised had the idea not been implemented. This point also ties in with the above mentioned "rushed moot syndrome". If an idea cannot be finalised, the presenter needs to go away, work on the idea more and re-present in the next moot- something up until the most recent moot, we have been doing very well. [12]

Moot "Policy"
Call it what you will, but this idea has been floating around for a long while now. As more people are now joining the moot, boundaries need to be defined with regards to what the moot can or cannot do, what the moot for and isn't for, and some general guidelines that users should be respecting while in the moot. Some ideas, but not limited to, are as follows:
 * Setting out the role of the moot leader and presenter as described in the procedure section, in a formalised manner with clear instructions so due respect is given.
 * Placing restrictions on how many topics a given user may present in order to maintain short moot times.
 * Defining whether or not the moot is a place to vote for CT creation (as opposed to the CT just being created). [13]
 * That the decisions made in previous moots be respected in the current moot instead of arbitrarily attempting to overthrow them in favour of a different idea. <font color="#EBB73C">[14] This doesn't exclude the possibility however, that certain decisions made may have had issues discovered later on and may be reviewed in a respectful manner in the current moot.
 * Defining the boundaries on the kinds of things the moot can make decisions on. Different users on different occasions have noted that they felt the moot occasionally overstepped its boundaries, and in fact was one of the major reasons for a new time being created as users felt like they were truly missing out something important by not attending. <font color="#EBB73C">[15]<font color="#EBB73C">[16]
 * "Anyone who purposely creates tension may be kicked." This needs to be extended towards making personal comments that can be construed as offensive as well as be more seriously enforced. While it's common sense not to insult others, naming names when it comes to issues has its problems as well, and in order to maintain mutual respect within the moot, subjects like this should be handled more carefully by users involved if naming names is required (at all). <font color="#EBB73C">[17] Should an issue like this arise, either sysop or moot leader need to be able to step in and give a warning to both deter this behaviour and demonstrate that they are there to support the community and not take sides, and to help bring the topic away from any issues rather than just let the comments pass. <font color="#EBB73C">[18]
 * "Respect for others is extremely important while trying to get their point across. They may argue for or against a point, or maintain neutrality and let others decide." This needs to be better enforced as well. I watched as more than one user was systematically ignored or shut down during this most recent moot because they presented an opposing opinion <font color="#EBB73C">[19]. If the majority agree, why should the presenter acknowledge the opinion of an opposer? Because it's possible that they have spotted something or thought of something that no one else has. All persons are unique, this is what makes group work so powerful, that there will always be at least one person who can see something that others have missed. Not to mention, if users would like to be respected, they are required to respect others just as much.

1
22:11:27: Bluesonic1: Ok instead of rushing this half assed, let's decide on the phrase now?

22:11:34: SuperSajuuk: ^

22:11:37: Bronkiin: That's what he's suggesting.

22:11:45: Bluesonic1: Yes and I agree with it

22:12:13: Bronkiin: Only staff can nominate?

22:12:19: Bronkiin: Something like that.

22:12:38: Atvelonis: Do we want only staff to be able to nominate?

22:12:47: Bluesonic1: Wait

22:12:47: SuperSajuuk: (-) no. anyone should be able to nominate

22:12:48: Bronkiin: It's just a suggestion to get us going.

22:12:53: I am Noir: I would be okay with it.

22:13:04: I am Noir: (+)

22:13:05: SuperSajuuk: I would prefer that something be added just asking users to at least check contributions before nominating a user.

22:13:07: Bluesonic1: We're currently voting on a phrase to add similar to "if there's no one to vote, don't just nominate anyone"

22:13:12: SuperSajuuk: ^

2
22:18:39: Bronkiin: Let's just finish this.

22:18:43: SuperSajuuk: which I'll take the rap for lol

22:18:46: Bronkiin: Featured images.

22:18:51: Bluesonic1: Bronkiin

22:18:59: Bronkiin: ...

22:19:04: Bluesonic1: Does anyone else have any other topics they wish to discuss?

3
21:11:22: Bronkiin: OK, I think the Featured Image and/or Quote should feature on the mainpage.

21:11:29: Bronkiin: It's a good way to showcase them.

... 21:11:48: Bluesonic1: Wasn't this discussed in past moot already?

[Link to previous moot discussion, and link to talk page comment that was brought up and discussed in the previous moot. This was not discussed in the most recent moot.]

Link to previous moot where a voting was held for something already discussed in a previous moot (see Admin template point).

4
22:04:35: SuperSajuuk: but guys seriously

22:04:57: SuperSajuuk: you didn't even let me finish my proposal, which should have resulted in the interrupters being kicked >_>

5
Link to previous moot, see point regarding "old quote of the week".

6
20:56:53: Flightmare: It should have been deleted years ago

20:56:57: Atvelonis: Why flight?

20:57:04: Flightmare: It is copyrighted

20:57:14: Flightmare: And there was a claim too

... 21:00:15: Cheatcodechamp: If this is not voting material then talking about it takes time from issues we can vote on. We now how to handle this already.

[While the original discussion regarding the map image for Lost Knife Cave (Skyrim) was concluded, the discussion regarding copyright claims against the wiki with regards to game guide map pictures went by unanswered.]

21:20:01: Cheatcodechamp: I agree with blue, rushed decisions are no better then bad ones.

...

21:20:36: Cheatcodechamp: Im more opposed, why are we agreeing to something that we feel is flawed

7
20:46:58: Bluesonic1: Are we then voting this to go through, or simply that it will be a prelim to a bigger discussion later?

20:47:07: Bronkiin: That it will go through

20:47:08: Atvelonis: for this to go through

...

20:47:13: AdmiralRegis: I believe for a bigger go though

20:47:18: AdmiralRegis: rough

[Despite users having 2 different ideas of what they were voting for, voting proceeded]

21:31:11: Kora Stormblade: what are we voting on?

...

21:31:24: Bluesonic1: (Oppose) For exactly Kora's comment

...

21:31:52: Atvelonis: it's not directed toward you kora she's saying she's lost, we all are somewhat

[Context: Users were discussing how often a poll should be changed, what the poll topic should be and how the poll topic is chosen whilst voting for one of these three at the same time.]

21:59:31: Atvelonis: I'm getting lost

21:59:33: Bluesonic1: Do it at the end of the moot like the picture & quote stuff

21:59:38: Bronkiin: ^

21:59:40: Atvelonis: Ok?

21:59:41: Cheatcodechamp: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_Wiki:FeaturedImages

21:59:42: Atvelonis: fine fine

21:59:43: Bronkiin: Yes good idea.

21:59:49: Cheatcodechamp: Nominations

21:59:53: Atvelonis: So The Elder Scrolls Wiki:FeaturedPoll

[Context: This very idea was already voted on and passed, (Quote: 21:49:09: Cheatcodechamp: All in favor of Brokiin's idea of handling the poll the way we handle featured items?) yet users are only now realising what it was that was voted for.]

8
20:48:08: Bluesonic1: @Admiral: They said the vote was for this to go through, not rediscuss later

20:48:09: AdmiralRegis: Because Brokiin keeps wanting us to vote lol

9
21:34:52: ~*LilithRayn*~: Can we vote on a few different options on how often to update it?

21:34:55: Flightmare: pick a topic every 1 or 2 weeks?

21:34:56: Bronkiin: We should nominate questions.

21:34:58: Atvelonis: But right now we're voting on how often

21:35:02: Atvelonis: I like once per month

21:35:06: Bronkiin: Like featured article and image and motm

...

21:35:23: Atvelonis: 6-2-3 is split 50/50, we need more people to vote

21:37:29: Atvelonis: It's still 6-2-3

...

21:38:26: SuperSajuuk: can I propose some options?

21:38:32: Atvelonis: no

21:38:33: Atvelonis: wait

...

21:38:37: Atvelonis: Stop

21:38:41: Atvelonis: Re-vote, this is silly

[The first vote did not pass due to a stalemate- this was mostly due to users still discussing the idea and attempting to flesh out the concept better. Instead of recognising this in the failed vote, a re-vote was called for rather than allowing members to finish their discussion.]

10
0:40:45: Atvelonis: We still need to figure out something about chat

20:40:46: G0LD3NF1RE: But it's hard to measure

20:40:50: Atvelonis: wait wait

20:40:55: Bronkiin: waiting

20:40:56: Cheatcodechamp: sorry

20:41:05: ~*LilithRayn*~: (support)

11
20:45:36: SuperSajuuk: maybe a ct for this one?

...

20:45:43: SuperSajuuk: it's a difficult one to sort out in moot

20:45:47: SuperSajuuk: and there's apparently only 15 mins left :/

20:45:48: Bronkiin: No, I reckon we can do it here.

20:45:52: Bronkiin: We're almost done.

...

20:46:09: SuperSajuuk: I think if we go with 500 in one namespace, we can take it from there

20:46:16: Bronkiin: Vote?

...

20:46:21: Bronkiin: (+)

20:46:24: SuperSajuuk: if needed, we can rediscuss if problems arise :3

[Voting continued while users still discussing the subject]

20:47:47: AdmiralRegis: Thats why we will re0discuss next time.

...

20:47:50: Cheatcodechamp: If it dosn't solve anything then why are we going for it.

20:48:00: Atvelonis: It makes it a little better

20:48:03: Atvelonis: It's a start

20:48:50: AdmiralRegis: @Bluesonic1 Pfft... Well if it doesn't work we have no choice to talk about it more

20:48:57: SuperSajuuk: ^

20:49:13: SuperSajuuk: things can be rediscussed again and again if they need be. Just don't want to hog up the moot with just this xD

20:49:18: Bronkiin: ^

...

20:49:50: Atvelonis: Yes. The vote passes 8-1-0. We WILL discuss it more later.

21:17:27: SuperSajuuk: i could try to make a sandbox mainpage to discuss at next moot if needed

21:17:43: SuperSajuuk: anyway... voting?

[Topic was voted on despite no example presentation to first make sure the change will be as aesthetic as claimed to be by users in the discussion.]

21:20:02: SuperSajuuk: Comment: I'll try to sandbox a main page which we can discuss at next moot, might help with the FQ/FI stuff.

[Despite the offer, the vote went through anyway, which means that those designing this get free reign to make it however they want without the community then voting whether or not the design actually fits.]

21:32:11: Bluesonic1: We're rushing half baked ideas here that most are lost on

21:32:13: SuperSajuuk: changing it more frequently helps.

21:32:13: Atvelonis: Once per month, yes, neutral, or no?

21:32:14: Bluesonic1: This isn't right

21:32:20: Atvelonis: We're not done

21:32:22: Bronkiin: Looks like 4-2-1

21:32:23: Atvelonis: We'll do a few votes on this

[Context: Users were discussing how often a poll should be changed, what the poll topic should be and how the poll topic is chosen whilst voting for one of these three at the same time. Voting began while the idea was still begin discussed and was still being developed.]

12
Link to moot where the idea of retiring an inactive editor was discussed but no clear decision could be made, so was postponed for further discussion later and no action taken.

13
22:04:17: Atvelonis: in fact sajuuk if you want to start a CT, just start it

22:04:21: Bluesonic1: ^

22:04:22: Atvelonis: don't go through the moot first

...

22:17:15: Bronkiin: I had to get a vote before I started my CT

22:17:17: Bronkiin: ..?

14
21:46:53: Bluesonic1: Sajuuk, this was already voted on in a past CT

...

21:47:02: SuperSajuuk: @Blue: that ct was wrong then :)

...

21:47:11: SuperSajuuk: a ct is not "binding"

[Context: Sajuuk proposed the use of a template where Auto-Confirmed users and higher could edit be placed on the mainpage. Link to the moot where templates used on the mainpage were voted to be locked to sysop-only due to security concerns as the page itself is locked to sysops.]

15
Link to comment discussing concerns over moot boundaries.

16
Link to comment discussing concerns over moot boundaries with regards to additional concerns with the (now previous) moot time.

17
20:36:06: SuperSajuuk: from the recent nomination for Kora Stormblade, it feels as if the wiki is grasping to find more members who are mainspace editors

22:06:13: Atvelonis: we aren't finding it hard to nominate people? I'm planning on nominating azura later

...

22:06:26: SuperSajuuk: I think the nomination of Kora is an indication of that ;)

...

22:06:33: Kora Stormblade: Hm?

22:06:48: SuperSajuuk: Sorry Kora, but it's true :/

22:06:52: Bluesonic1: ....

22:06:58: SuperSajuuk: I don't mean to insult you.

22:07:04: Kora Stormblade: Okay

...

22:07:21: SuperSajuuk: motm is meant really for "noteworthy" editors. not just any random person who just happens to be nice and makes edits.

22:07:47: Bronkiin: Where do we want to go with this, guys? A vote or...

22:07:47: SuperSajuuk: (and that's not insulting anyone for editing the wiki, but if we just started giving motm to every random user who just edited, it would be a waste of time)

22:08:05: Kora Stormblade: Lets move onto something else please

18
Link to moot log where Kora Stormblade asked that the topic be changed considering the uncomfortable nature of the subject, but both this and any comments from other users regarding the user and subject were ignored/never addressed (no moot leader was present to be able to address this either).

19
21:22:09: Bluesonic1: In several of the topics today, we've rushed through voting support on things we may or may "discuss later"

...

21:22:20: Bluesonic1: Sajuuk suggested doing a mock up in his sandbox

21:22:21: Atvelonis: We just voted for it to be under the news section

21:22:29: Bronkiin: 9 want it under news.

21:22:41: Bronkiin: Shall we move on?

21:25:39: SuperSajuuk: here's a better question

21:25:39: Bluesonic1: Agreed with and actually this was brought up in a previous moot already and voted in support actually...

21:25:48: Reva Rio: What is eso?

21:25:52: Atvelonis: How about "Are you getting ESO's new DLC?"

....

21:26:26: Bronkiin: Fewer will even be getting it.

21:26:29: Atvelonis: And yeah, not many people even have ESO in the first place

21:26:30: Bluesonic1: Guys

21:26:31: ~*LilithRayn*~: (I can't vote on this topic, so I'm just sitting back. ^_^)

21:26:34: G0LD3NF1RE: No, but voting on getting a DLC is like the lamest poll

21:26:35: SuperSajuuk: @Atv: we could select 5 fixed options, and a "I don't know option" or something

[Comment about having been previously discussed in the moot was lost.]

21:33:09: Flightmare: Once a month is not enough :)

21:33:10: SuperSajuuk: ct imo

21:33:15: Atvelonis: No, I think it's perfect

21:33:20: Atvelonis: no saj this is good

21:34:52: ~*LilithRayn*~: Can we vote on a few different options on how often to update it?

[No reply was ever made to this comment despite other users still discussing the time frame idea while other users pushed for voting.]

21:35:50: Cheatcodechamp: 2400 votes compared to how many views? The poll is how old and that is all we have? It will get seen less as we add more to our front.

...

21:36:00: Atvelonis: omg

21:36:01: Atvelonis: CCC

21:51:39: Cheatcodechamp: I say to save time and keep peace, we handle that on that page we just said we should handle votes on

...

21:53:14: Atvelonis: or something

21:53:15: Bronkiin: ^We've discussed this.

21:53:16: Atvelonis: With the code on that template

21:53:23: Bronkiin: We're onto the question, surely?

21:53:28: Flightmare: Template:Portal/Component/Poll

21:53:28: SuperSajuuk: is the common poll area, but it's done and dusted for that

21:53:37: SuperSajuuk: ...

21:53:38: SuperSajuuk: wtf

21:53:41: Flightmare: Please read the history ;)

21:53:43: SuperSajuuk: there's already a fucking template poll

21:53:46: Cheatcodechamp: We just said we would handle it like featured images and quotes, we have pages for those now, have for weeks. Lets vote for it there and save ourselves the time instead of arguing over this for another 20 minutes.

...

21:55:14: G0LD3NF1RE: Orsinium is the next ESO DLC, what area do you hope for in the next ESO DLC" ?

21:55:18: Atvelonis: ehhh

21:55:24: SuperSajuuk: too long.

21:55:25: SuperSajuuk: suggestion:

21:55:32: G0LD3NF1RE: Well, you can re-word it

21:55:34: Bronkiin: It should involve Orsinium, but be open to those without ESO.

21:55:34: G0LD3NF1RE: To be shorter

21:55:39: Atvelonis: How about just "Are you getting The Elder Scrolls Online's newest DLC, Orsinium?"

21:55:39: SuperSajuuk: "What are you looking forward to most in Orsinium, the next ESO DLC?"

...

21:56:58: Bluesonic1: Just a question; are there other more important topics left to discuss or are we just onto the poll question and featured quote + image before closing up the moot?

...

21:57:07: SuperSajuuk: @Blue: I've got two minor points

21:57:13: SuperSajuuk: I'll just focus on one of them

21:57:22: Bluesonic1: The discuss that and choose a topic on the page as was voted on!!

...

21:58:25: Bronkiin: I don't think enough play ESO for an Orsinium question to be relevant

21:58:36: ShineCrazy: I think so, too

21:58:38: Bronkiin: We can tie it in to Orsinium

21:58:47: Bronkiin: But not necessarily the DLC>

21:58:49: SuperSajuuk: ^ true, but we should at least "pretend" to be watching the latest stuff xD

22:00:03: Bluesonic1: Sajuuk has other stuff to discuss and I have shit to do, can we get on with the actual moot as we voted on?

...

22:00:24: Bronkiin: But yeh, featured image

...

22:00:58: Bronkiin: And we were.

22:01:04: Bronkiin: And will. But now featured image,

...

22:01:28: G0LD3NF1RE: Did Sajuuk want to present his last two things, or do we wait til next moot?


 * }