UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy alters the circumstances in which a user may vote on the wiki. As things currently stand, the voting system is open to rampant abuse. Users who have never contributed anything of substance can vote on major policy changes. Users with absolutely no experience are allowed to vote alongside the most experienced wiki veterans. Users with an agenda to push through can create dozens of sockpuppet accounts just to force an issue they feel strongly about to pass or fail.

Under this policy, any user who wishes to vote on an issue must:

  • Have had his or her account for a minimum of two weeks, as measured from his or her first edit.
  • Have contributed at least one edit to a page not in the User or User talk namespaces.

The exceptions to this policy are:

  • Community pages that state conflicting voting requirements — excepting unratified policies — in which case the requirements of those pages will take precedent over this policy where the rules conflict.
  • The Suggestions page proper (not including its talk page), in which case this policy will create no new requirements to vote.

This policy would not affect voting retroactively. When this policy is enacted, any valid votes that have already been cast on pages on which voting is still taking place, where the vote would be invalid under this policy, will be allowed to stand. Similarly, votes that would be invalid under this policy that have been cast on pages where voting is no longer taking place will not be altered.

In short, this policy would ensure that voting is done only by real wiki users, and would stop abuse of the voting system. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 00:05, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


  1. Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 05:18, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  2. Cyberbob  Talk  05:19, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  3. Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:28, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  4. Vikermac 05:29, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  5. Abi79 AB 07:24, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  6. CaptainM ((Talk)) 09:55, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  7. --Kiki Lottaboobs 14:18, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  8. Sabre1 15:11, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  9. ∴Gage 18:36, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  10. Axe Hack 18:58, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  11. Darth Sensitive Talk W! 21:36, 29 August 2006 (BST)


  1. --Centerfire 05:52, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  2. It's now pointless since the IP check change has come in. If people are found to be using sockpuppets on voting then they can and will be struck out. Lurkers should have the same rights to vote on policies just like everyone else and not have to worry about if their vote will count. - Jedaz 10:05, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  3. Jedaz, it's not that this policy is redundant, as it is useless in the first place. I'll go create 14 accounts. Use a proxy for each one to avoid CheckUser. I make a few small edits with them, and wait 2 weeks. There we go, voting fraud for the rest of eternity. This policy is little more than a false sense of security. –Xoid STFU! 10:08, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  4. TheDictator 05:42, 29 August 2006 (MCT)
  5. Isn't the whole point of the wiki that anyone can input? I personally browse a lot more than I post, because that's what I use the wiki for. I agree that alts should be regulated, but let everyone have a vote- universal suffrage! Flammaster II 13:27, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  6. --YbborT 13:28, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  7. --Some guy 15:08, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  8. What Xoid said. – Nubis NWO 15:14, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  9. Yeah, I feel sometimes that my vote is being obscured by countless anonimus guys voting as their gut tells them, but elitism is just wrong in any form or way. Mods can get rid of most primitive ways of sockpuppets now, and the other ones are just obvious. This policy not only fails to cover its true objective, but doesn't permit lurkers (that are way more than you can guess, and I can tell because I spent some weeks being one) and other potential members of the community to sum up their oppinion to the lot. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 16:01, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  10. I agree with most of the above arguments. This policy fails to correct the true problem. --Coldflame 16:36, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  11. Doesn't solve any problem. You can get a fake account and use it to vote on one thing and then wait for another to come around to get by that two week thing and you can just make some petty change to a random, unimportant page to get by the other thing. Track IPs! --Ron Burgundy 16:44, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  12. Recommending that a normal wiki user spend a couple of weeks voting on suggestions before participating in voting in other areas is not a bad idea. This policy does not seem to be directed at or to the benefit of normal wiki users. --Max Grivas JG,T,P!,Bob06! 18:17, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  13. Wow the anti-hate speech proponent supports making second class citizens on the wiki. How sadly ironic.Jjames 19:35, 29 August 2006 (BST)
  14. I think everyone should be able to vote. Just by reading the wiki, they are a part of it.--Funt Solo 00:06, 30 August 2006 (BST)
Personal tools