UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility (2)
Discussion
Right now, any user can vote for a bureaucrat, with no limits for edits or time in the community. What about if we limit the voting ability to users whose first edit where made atleast before the beginning of the election ? This would help sort sockpuppets and other assorted cronies. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Policy discussion would be needed to change it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:36 25 November 2008 (BST)
- I'm fine with the principal, but we would need a crack team of janitors to sort them out, and then a determine who can strike votes (presumably sysops?) But, yeah, Boxy is right. You would need to take this to a policy discussion. Linkthewindow Talk 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would support this.... I would prefer if the voting rights were pretty much the same as the requirements to stand; ie: 12 edits in the 30 days previous to elections start--Honestmistake 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the principal, but we would need a crack team of janitors to sort them out, and then a determine who can strike votes (presumably sysops?) But, yeah, Boxy is right. You would need to take this to a policy discussion. Linkthewindow Talk 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
HOLY FUCK! Didn't we already go through this shit? Didn't you get a misconduct case for striking votes? Wasn't Grim up your ass about this before your little "vacation"? Stop fucking trying to pretend this is a fucking "open wiki" when all you assholes are bending over backwards to keep your little cliques fucking alive.
Nice to see J3D is towing the party line like a good little nigger and trying to fit in with one of the few people that actually supported him. Also nice to know that you didn't seem to have an opinion on any of this (no votes on the previous incarnations) until Fagnut came out with something. It's a good thing your cronies are all established on the wiki already, J3D, otherwise you would have to rely totally on your tongue up Hagnut's ass. --
#99 DCC 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- yep that's pretty much it. it's a pretty lax restriction, don't really see how it excludes the community. Anyone who has made one edit before the election starts can vote. So what you're trying to say is that every user who has made an edit to the wiki is in hagnat (and by extension mine, and your) clique? how odd.--xoxo 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- take out the tinfoil hat, dcc. Unlike the previous policy, this one asks for a single edit to any other page before the election starts. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh, let the people vote. Even if you bar users from voting due to them not editing enough or whatever, it doesn't change the whole "popularity contest" thing. Nor does it really matter.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- actually, if such rules were to be enforced in other votings, such as policy vote, this could help twart many voting rigs that could occur. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 01:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think this will have much of an effect if it does pass. A policy of some sort to prevent meatpuppets is needed, but this isn't it. A requirement of 1 edit can be easily met by anyone who cares enough about a policy to make an account for the express purpose of voting on that policy, so that will have little or no effect on the problems this seeks to address (especially if edits to user pages are counted.) On the other hand, if the requirements are made too stringent, this will be unfair to new members, as was mentioned many times in the discussion that DCC linked to up above. --Pestolence(talk) 03:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Edits must be made before the policy was CREATED, not put for vote. Therefore, if anyone has interest in the outcome of a policy, he must work with those who had registered and edited the wiki before the discussion of that policy begun --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
History Purges
How would you ensure that people weren't denied a vote because they had edited the wiki before, but not after a history purge (which makes it look like they have no contributions in some cases) -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:53 27 November 2008 (BST)
- if the user has content in its user page its already a simple edit and no further proof is needed. If he doesnt, its his job to search for a page where he made an edit (prolly his sig in a talk page) and ask for re-validation of his vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- There will need to be a process for appeals spelled out then. First on the talk page of the striker, and then perhaps the vote's talk page, then a "random" sysops, I guess -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:10 27 November 2008 (BST)
- There, rule added. I restricted the ability to confirm the votes to sysops because otherwise a user could point to some page, another meat puppet could drop by and say its true, validate the vote and then simply nullify the whole policy. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- There will need to be a process for appeals spelled out then. First on the talk page of the striker, and then perhaps the vote's talk page, then a "random" sysops, I guess -- boxy talk • teh rulz 02:10 27 November 2008 (BST)
As I said in the opening of the discussion I would prefer the need to be 12 edits in the previous 30 days. Even if left as just a single edit i do think that restricting it to the previous 30 days is a good idea as it shows active involvement in the wiki as opposed to someone who registered an account 12 months earlier and only checks in occassionally to look at the maps/danger reports. Thats not to say that such folk are not part of the community but i am suggesting that they will not know or care enough about the policy/candidate to vote unless outside influences guide them--Honestmistake 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
