UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Personally I'd change it to 250 total edits, because it's going to be a pain in the ass to count all non-user related edits. – Nubis ^NWO 00:07, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Hm, that's true. Do you think it's likely that someone would be dedicated enough to perform 250 user page edits with all of their sockpuppet accounts? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:09, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I'd say some people might, but they certainly couldn't create enough sockpuppets to really change the outcome. At least not without a vastly disporportionate ammount of effort. – Nubis ^NWO 00:12, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I think it needs to be adjusted, the bit about changing the requirements in individual votes. It should add to say that it can be modified so long as it does not make the elligibility harder to obtain. For example, increasing the required amount of wiki edits from 250 to 500 would be a no-no, but dereasing it from 250 to 50 would be fine. This would be to prevent people from making vote requierments that excluded all but a small group of people. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:21, 25 August 2006 (BST)

What's wrong with allowing a particular page to specify more stringent requirements? If there is a page that has a legitimate reason to require 500 edits, I don't want to override its reasons. Similarly, what about a page on which only moderators can vote? M/M is such a page, although the rule isn't actually written there. We certainly don't want any user to rule on misconduct cases. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:25, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Ok then lets say that I had exacly 132 edits (not sure wat it is) so I put up a policy that says only those with 132 edits can vote on it. And the policy is that all members (or just myself) are now mods. Or another abuse of this would be requireing 3,000 edits+. This is to abusable. The Devil 00:30, 25 August 2006 (BST)

You are ignoring the obvious: your policy would be voted on under current rules, not its own, since its own rules are part of the proposed policy change. Such a policy would never pass, and on the off chance that it somehow did, Kevan would almost certainly strike it down. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:38, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Actually - it seems that he has a point. You say a page can specify its own requirements. That PD page would theoretically qualify. Now... it would be a huge abuse, and the policy wouldn't be implemented, but as written, he makes a point. But in general, I'm with Mia on the "no making it harder" unless there's a really good reason. And I'm not sure 250 is the right number, but I don't know what is. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 00:43, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I will add language to specify that proposed changes that specify different voting rules will have their different voting rules ignored, which should take care of the problem. Also, you realize that as things currently stand, a page could specify that voters must have 500 edits, don't you? This policy does not in any way make that situation any different, it just specifies a blanket minimum. I went with 250 edits, as I think almost all users who have been around for at least two weeks will have made that many edits, and it is easy to count via the contributions page. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:55, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I personally think that you're overestimating the contributions of the average wiki user, but other than that, I like it. I would be for this. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 03:15, 25 August 2006 (BST)

What about 100 edits? I think 100 edits/14 days (just over 7 edits per day if they barely met the requirements) is a very reasonable requirement. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:47, 25 August 2006 (BST)

That works for me. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:15, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Its a good policy but I think you need to find a way to make it more appealing. This is because the very people that who you are trying to limit their voting power (and probably others as well) are going to be the ones going directly against it. I don't see how this will pass unless these "experieced users" are willing to commit to voting fraud themselves. Ironic isn't it? The Devil 00:23, 25 August 2006 (BST)

There is no way to make this policy more appealing. We will have to have faith in the voting system one last time once I put this up for vote, unless the wiki is upgraded before then, in which case we will be able to weed out sockpuppet accounts by hand. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:27, 25 August 2006 (BST)

the suggestion page is one of the first places a new wiki citizen goes to. It was for me. Please don't take that away from them.--Gage 04:13, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I was already planning on adding language to exempt the suggestions page. Thank you for putting it down here so that I don't forget to make that change. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:44, 25 August 2006 (BST)

150 is a better number in my opinion. It just seems more acheivable for the average user, remember not everyone starts off on the suggestions page or is heavily involved in projects. The two week requirement is probably sufficent enough I reckon as most votes are done in two weeks. - Jedaz 15:00, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I agree with the "2 week" limit, but not the amount of edits. Just because someone has not done much editing, it doesn't mean their opinion is less valid as regards the wiki. If they've been playing the game for two years, but only done a handful of edits, for example, then their opinion surely is important and worthy. This vote smacks of being an attempt at assuming control by interested parties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funt Solo (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 August 2006 (BST).

If they don't know how to edit the wiki, why should they vote on the wiki rules?--Thari ^{S T F U} 15:05, 25 August 2006 (BST)

Clearly there's a difference between not knowing how to and choosing not to.-Funt Solo 15:11, 25 August 2006 (BST)

I have invested time and effort into the wiki yet my total edits are less than 200. I'm not going to needlessly edit the wiki just to get my stats up so I'm considered an "experienced user".--Cartoonlad 19:44, 25 August 2006 (BST)

For some reason, this reminds me of the whole Checkerboard Nightmare thing over on Wikipedia. Some wikipedian put Checkerboard Nightmare's page up for deletion. One of the reasons for deletion was lack of coverage at Websnark, an online comics discussion site. When Eric Burns, Websnark's co-owner and creator, voted to keep, his vote was discounted because of a low edit count. Also, when several people in the webcomics community came to Wikipedia to defend CxN's inclusion, despite being "experts in the field of webcomics", every single one of their votes were discounted because they did not have a history of editing Wikipedia. One was even discounted because his edits were primarily in the webcomics section of the Wikipedia and not in Wikipedia at large.--Cartoonlad 19:44, 25 August 2006 (BST)

No Way. I may be relatively new to the wiki, and just barely able to vote under your new guidelines, but I still think this goes way too far. For instance, on the recent policy on hate speech, is someone who's reading the wiki but chooses not to contribute going to somehow be less offended than someone who does? And what happened to the entire premise of using a wiki instead of a forum, because a wiki trusts its users (like Odd Starter said)? --Ybbor^T 21:02, 25 August 2006 (BST)

No, but someone who only reads the wiki and never contributes to it isn't really in a position to say "even though I have never contributed anything, I should get to affect the policies." No, I don't think it works that way. There is a reason that there is a minimum voting age: persons under that age presumably don't have the experience and maturity to select a representative. This is the wiki equivalent of that. Frankly, if you haven't contributed at least 100 edits, you're not going to have the experience to know whether or not the policies work, and why. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C•B!} 23:04, 25 August 2006 (BST)

How much "experience" do you need to have before you can recognize hate speech as hate speech? Does the 100th (which is not what is proposed in the policy for the record) edit suddenly mean a magical wiki-fairy comes down and says "now you understand how the wiki works and can be offended when someone says your races is responsible for all the wars in the world"?

This policy also could contribute to wiki "spam" if people do useless edits to get to 250. Like purposely make a typo on their first edit and make a second edit to correct it. What if someone gets 200 of their edits from the sandbox? Do you cry foul? --Ybbor^T

This sounds like the old Stroth's Law from Desensitized. "If you aren't someone who writes posts just to hear himself talk, your game suggestions (or in this case opinions at all) aren't valuable." I've been a wiki user for months; I've made...four edits (five with this one). Two spellcheck edits, one correction to a Mall page, one vote. Doesn't mean I don't have a strong -investment- in the contents of the wiki as an Urban Dead player; I don't want all the possible info on the various fascist groups in Malton to become effectively inaccessible just because somebody thought that banning hate speech would be a cool idea. --Ivan Romanov 22:02, 25 August 2006 (BST)

You have made five edits. Okay. I'm sure that you care a great deal about the contents of the wiki, but apparently not enough to contribute anything. The entire point of having a minimum number of edits is to ensure that people who actually work on the wiki are the ones who can shape its policies. If I take that requirement away we're back to the original problem that inspired this policy. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C•B!} 23:04, 25 August 2006 (BST)

BobHammero - the comparison with the voting age requirements is spurious: you even point out that there, the law is due to experience and maturity, which isn't the case here (as another contributer to this wiki has pointed out re the vote on hate speech that is currently underway.) Further, if we're going to compare voting for government with voting on the wiki (as you have done), then your logic is suggesting that only politicians should be allowed to vote on who gets into government - which of course isn't (and shouldn't ever be) the case. This policy is a reactionary affair against people who abuse the voting system - and what you're suggesting is that we should punish lots of people for the crimes of a few - and, coincidentally, I suppose - leave you (and other people who contribute a lot) in ultimate charge of this wiki. This kind of elitist takeover will be, I believe, to the detriment of the UD community. -Funt Solo 11:47, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I agree with a lot of the trepidation expressed here by users who object. This policy proposes is a sharp deviation from Democracy. The appropriate word for this new system is Elitism, "a belief or attitude that the people who are considered to be the elite — a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, wealth, specialised training or experience, or other attributes place them at the top of any field (especially politics and business, but see below) — are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously, or that these are persons whose views should be regarded as carrying the most weight, or, more simply, these people are best fit to govern."
I agree that people should not be able to simply create wiki accounts to inflate votes, but this would more easily served by policies against wiki-alts than by removing the right to vote from people less experienced than you. I would support the 2 week part of this policy, but will vote against it if any number of posts are included. --Kiki Lottaboobs 12:39, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I am arrogant enough to believe that a good percentage, if not a majority of voters are too stupid to know what's good for them. Even so, I have to agree with Kiki on this one. Bob, I like you and all, but this policy is everything I despise. It's everything that I know you despise, too. Think about it, the parallels between the US Election and this. You know where I'm coming from. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:20, 26 August 2006 (BST)

And after consideration. Xoid is right... again. I am in favor of keeping the time limit, but I lurked here for a while before starting to make edits - I still cared about how the wiki was run. --Darth Sensitive ^C•T•W! 15:26, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I'm against this one also, it smacks of the continued attempts to exclude people from the wiki that have been so common of late. Just because someone does not edit so much does not make their opinions any less valid or insightful. If there is a group who want to control this wiki and keep it for their own uses, why don't they just create one of their own and leave the rest of us in peace? -Dog Deever ^T•Nec 15:40, 26 August 2006 (BST)

How are "we" trying to keep "control" of the wiki? Last time I checked, there were a lot of people who would still be able to vote. Cyberbob  Talk  15:56, 26 August 2006 (BST)

By specifying extra post requirements, like 3000+ posts. The Devil 16:32, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I did say if, and I didn't name names. Is this a confession? ; ) -Dog Deever ^T•Nec 19:45, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Revised version

I am seeing quite a lot of dissent on the current version, especially the post count requirements. I have posted a tentative revised version; please review that and comment on it. This policy, you should know, mainly stems from the fact that Kevan has repeatedly ignored our requests for the necessary software that would allow us to detect alt abuse when voting; this policy would serve as a measure to reduce the damage that we are currently suffering. If he installs that software, I will withdraw this policy completely. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 18:49, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I'd vote a close yes on the revised one; and a definate no on the original. I've made hardly any edits outside the suggestions page; but just because I haven't edited doesn't mean I can't read or have opinions on any of the policy. Let's face it, I'm still going to be affected by the policy; so why can't I vote on it? Jonny12 ^{Talk | W! | Hunt!} 19:53, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is- "why is he ignoring this request?" -Dog Deever ^T•Nec 19:55, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Good question. Why don't you ask him? He ignores all of us (the moderators) when we ask again and again, so it's really hard to say. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:57, 26 August 2006 (BST)

This seems a far more reasonable approach, given the (potential) problem of fake accounts being used to bolster voting. I assume the requirement for one edit is another security against vote-nerfing? (I'd like to note that, by definition, a wiki user need not contribute anything to be classified as a user, with a vested interest in the content, and the policies which drive it.) --Funt Solo 20:27, 26 August 2006 (BST)

The problem is far from potential. It has happened in the past, and probably continues today, that users create throwaway accounts to swing the outcome one way or the other. And you thought that disallowing some users from voting was an assault on democracy! The one edit requirement is to ensure that the voter is legitimate, and not just a throwaway account who edits his talk page to read "I am a real user!" A user, by definition, is a registered account name on the wiki. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:31, 26 August 2006 (BST)

I considered myself a heavy user of the Wiki, and have probably never created a single edit on another page aside from my own and one vote page. A lot of time and effort has gone into many pages, and I don't feel the need to always add something. For example, I haven't commented on Suburb tags because I am content with the current system However, as a user of this wiki, I definately prefer input into how it is organized. For example, I did add my vote against hate speech on the wiki, because...I want my children to be able to read the material, and I don't want to be assaulted with that type of material. The UDwiki is an open community. Let's keep it that way.B Rubble 21:17 , 26 August 2006 (MST)

I like the currect revision of the policy, regardless whether Kevan installs the Checkuser extension or not (which he seems to be doing btw). The way UDWiki voting works (i.e. it is a voting, not discussion, as in Wikipedia) makes sockpuppets very effective. Don't like a policy? Google some open, anonymous proxies and you are ready to go. IP checks won't be of much help there. It seems that it has already been happening: Check here. --Brizth ^{M T} 09:23, 27 August 2006 (BST)

I'm dubious that sockpuppetry is a crisis of such magnitude that a policy like this one is really necessary. Sure, there are undoubtedly goobers who create throwaway accounts in an attempt to influence the outcome of this or that vote, but absent evidence tending to show that vote outcomes have in fact been prejudicially influenced by sockpuppets, this seems like a solution in search of a problem, even in its revised, watered-down form. I'm also wary of anything that creates tiers of Wiki users, inasmuch as that's contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wiki. If you could show me that this was a real problem, Bob, which couldn't be addressed through Vandal Banning, I could probably, grudgingly, sign onto the revised version. --Centerfire 10:15, 27 August 2006 (BST)

I am in favor of the revision, since it allows new people who are active the ability to vote. I'd be really disappointed with the first version. -- Steele Glovier 10:17, 27 August 2006 (EST)

The latest revision that I see (on for two weeks + 1 edit that isn't on your user pages) allows users who show the barest interest in the wiki a voice in policy decisions. I like this version of the policy - one edit is lenient and unless you've made at least one, you can't really consider yourself involved. This, coupled with Check User will give this community the means to counter potential voter fraud. While recent events have not proven that said fraud exists, these policies will patch the loopholes that could be exploited. Perhaps a sunset provision could be written in, Bob? Something that makes this policy expire 30 days after the installation of the software you are wanting? Perhaps that would shore up support. As is, you'll get my vote. --Kiki Lottaboobs 23:37, 27 August 2006 (BST)

Kevan actually installed the software for us yesterday. But by "us" I mean Bureaucrats only. Which means Xoid and Kevan. Xoid is working on convincing Kevan to allow all of the moderators access, and if he agrees, I'd be willing to drop this completely, unless you think that it would be useful in and of itself? A sunset provision isn't a bad idea, though. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:40, 28 August 2006 (BST)

If we have a mechanism that we can use to certify votes, then we've solved the problem. So long as reporting suspected sockpuppets to M/VB isn't viewed as frivolous then I'm satisfied. --Kiki Lottaboobs 12:36, 28 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see why such a policy is needed. Any wiki is created and guided by its users. If this wiki has so many passionate people that they want to spend time created additional accounts to skew voting, it will happen no matter what hurdles you present. Some people simply have more time on their hands than others. Maybe the real solution is to have less policies to vote on in the first place. --otherlleft ^W! 00:19, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Exactly, just like the answer to "too much gun violence" is "have fewer children to be shot." –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 02:24, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Bob - I think it's a good idea. If you proposed the policy, I would vote For it. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:36, 29 August 2006 (BST)

Voting commentary

Moved from voting:

1. There has been absolutely no showing that prejudicial vote fraud (i.e., fraud that has materially affected the outcomes of votes) is a real and significant problem, let alone one that existing policies could not adequately address. The proposal is evidently the product of Bob Hammero's paranoia with respect to votes against his Hate Speech policy proposal: unwilling to accept the likelihood that that is simply a contentious issue which brought lurkers out of the woodwork, he's spun a conspiracy theory about fraudulent votes. Just one problem, though -- Kevan's recently installed the Check User functionality on the wiki, which Xoid has used to verify that all the suspect votes against Hate Speech are facially legitimate. Further, Bob himself concedes that with Check User installed, the policy might well be unnecessary, since suspected sockpuppets can be checked on a case-by-case basis. So: policy aimed at a problem that exists only in the abstract, and which is likely redundant in light of recent code changes to the wiki. Why are we voting on this at all? --Centerfire 05:52, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   You will no doubt immediately jump to conclusions and blame my moving this on my "paranoia" as well, but rest assured that I'm simply clearing your exceedingly long clutter from the page. When you say something worth responding to, I'll respond. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:42, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   Uh-huh. My comments were validly formatted as per the voting instructions. Comments of similar length have been left in other votes, with no moderation. If you don't feel my remarks merit a response, that's fine, but that doesn't entitle you to arbitrarily deem them "clutter" and move them. There's no need for me to ascribe to paranoia what can adequately be explained by officious vandalism, which I'll be reporting momentarily. --Centerfire 08:09, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   Have fun. I moved your comments because they were longer than my entire policy and all the rest of the votes. Hence, no vandalism. But if you want to waste the time of my compadres, be my guest. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:14, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   I know I look forward to shutting this Blowhard's report down. Cyberbob  Talk  08:17, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   Thanks for your support. :) In case you need any evidence in blowing this latest potential sockpuppet out of the water, here are a slew of diff links that show his continual distaste for authority, and dislike of me in particular: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Be sure to also mention that he has accused me of paranoia, along with being a conspiracy theorist, and that he claims that voting fraud is only theoretical on the wiki. For good measure, don't leave out the fact that he is a suspected sockpuppet who only had one edit before he started attacking all of us on the policy pages. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:26, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   Good Lord, Bob. Distaste for authority? No, just a distaste for overmoderation. Dislike of you in particular? Get a grip; you're not that important. I've been critical of your proposals and questioned your motives. The continuing effort to label me a "potential sockpuppet" is remarkable only for its inanity, inasmuch as my login's around eight months old and my posting history's sparse due to purges. --Centerfire 08:37, 29 August 2006 (BST)

   Agreed. Bob? Drop it. Centerfire was entirely correct as to why there are a number of users popping up out of nowhere for that policy. People can and will disagree with you. I'm changing my vote to against on this, as I've just seen a potential problem. One that simply cannot be overcome without yet another extension and an unrelenting vigil. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:34, 29 August 2006 (BST)