UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
  • Sysops will not be allowed to strike other people's policy, suggestion or promotion votes or comments for any reason, unless they have not participated in the discussion or voting relating to the issue at any stage, have no vested interest in either side, and have declared themselves neutral.
  • In the case of any policy involving sysops or bureaucrats, all sysops instantly have a vested interest. Therefore, only bureaucrats should be allowed to strike votes in these cases.
  • Meatpuppetry (votes that are thought to have been done as a group bloc) should not constitute a valid reason for striking due to the difficulties of determining when this is actually occurring.
  • Sysops should also be be warned that striking anything is a decision that is not to be taken lightly. It should be done only when the case for doing so is very clear, and the striker is willing to respond, constructively and in detail, to scrutiny of their actions. Strikers should clearly sign every strike they make, with a basic reason, and then post more detailed justification on the talk page.
  • Should a user be unsatisfied with a vote striking and the sysop responsible refuses to reverse it, they may lodge a sysop misconduct complaint against that sysop, which should be dealt with in the usual way.

Voting Section

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

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.

For

  1. you're system operators, not super delegates.--The Malton Globetrotters#19 - DrPain TMG 19:05, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  2. --Grarr 17:24, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  3. --/~Rakuen~\Talk Domo.gif I Still Love Grim 17:48, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  4. -- I said my peace on the old TALK page.The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 17:58, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  5. --Doc Bubonico 18:02, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  6. --TheMunchies 18:18, 8 May 2008 (BST) Meatpuppet. First Edit to wiki on a Policy Vote. -- Cheese 19:27, 8 May 2008 (BST) Votes unstruck. There is nothing in the rules that permits anyone from removing anyones votes unless they are made by sock puppets. Until such time as there is something that allows it, kindly piss off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  7. --Jibbit 18:42, 8 May 2008 (BST) Meatpuppet. First Edit to Wiki on a Policy Vote. -- Cheese 19:27, 8 May 2008 (BST) As i said above --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  8. --Cythrelo 18:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Elitism VS Democracy --Butters Scotch 18:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  10. --angrychimp 10:51, 8 May 2008 (PDT) (Why even have a voting system if all you're going to do is allow the sysops to remove votes at will? You may as well allow only the sysops to vote. If votes are to be rendered null/void, there should be a damned good reason for it. So far the only "against" votes seem to be focusing on the fact that meatpuppetry is easy to detect. Okay, then a sysop should avoid casting his/her own vote, declare neutrality in the issue, and demonstrate sufficient evidence that meatpuppetry is being exploited.)
  11. This is a wonderfully crafted policy and I find it hard to believe that any wiki user would be against insisting on impartial rulings or requiring the sysop team to explain their actions. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 19:00, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  12. --Blhue 12:02, 8 May 2008 (MST) Meatpuppet. First Edit to wiki on a Policy Vote. -- Cheese 19:27, 8 May 2008 (BST) vandal
  13. What angrychimp said. --DoohickeyBones 19:20, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  14. I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. --Gardenator 8:28, 8 May 2008 (PST)
  15. Hopefully the Wiki can become more fair and balanced like Christ intended. --The Malton Globetrotters#10 - MONEY TMG 19:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  16. So, I guess my vote doesn't matter because despite having played UD for months, I have mostly lurked on the Wiki? I don't think that's really all that fair. Whatever happened to neutrality? Is there an application process I can go through that would allow me to have an identity? Colbear 19:51, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  17. The first point seems to be a bit counter-productive since it's up to the sysop to determine whether the person has a "vested interest" or not. Otherwise good.--  ZZ Argh.gifEmot-zombie.gif 19:52, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  18. Equal rights for wiki lurkers! --Engagequadlaser 19:55, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  19. Democratic Rules are Majority Rules.--ScoobyDooDoobie 19:59, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  20. Maybe you could just give us 3/5th of a vote for each person. Does that sound more fair?--The Malton Globetrotters#34 - robotsinmyhead TMG Team Captain 19:55, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  21. --TagUrIt 20:14, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  22. Yes, I don't edit pages AND I don't have a user page, but I still read the wiki a lot and would like to keep my right to vote. Alex007 20:30, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  23. Agreed with most of the people above, lurking on the wiki does not make my vote invalid. --Lockon Stratos 20:36, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  24. As above. --Janis petke 20:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  25. For the same reason stated by Alex007. Don diasco 21:06, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  26. Impartial rulings? Holding sysops accountable for their actions? My, what novel concepts these are! --Cryptosporidium 21:08, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  27. ^^^^ what he said DateGrape 21:13, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  28. Wonder if this policy gets strike...--MisterGame 21:38, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  29. Either every vote counts, or none of them do. People in the "against" camp have been stating that admins are "janitors", but they're acting like an elitist aristocracy. I have seen enough Internet communities go down the tubes because of people like that, rather than people like us, so I am for this with everything I've got. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 21:47, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  30. Don't strike my vote.--Thekooks 22:06, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  31. Removing a person's vote should be taken seriously, and there should be clear (and strict) rules for when that can be done. --Max Lord 22:33, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  32. What everyone else said. --Sykic 22:35, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  33. Mean2u 22:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  34. Too long have we lived under a blanket of fear, first from the zombies, now from the sysops. FOR FREEDOM! --Capt Schwartz 22:53, 8 May 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)
  35. Vote striking goes against the whole wiki foundation, in that anyone can and should be able to contribute. Disqualifying votes, even with guidelines in place, because of something as nebulous as opinion is a road towards corruption. --The Malton Globetrotters#63 - NGETMG 23:01, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  36. I may not spend all day crafting intricate details of individual building history, but I am certainly interested in participating in wiki affairs when they do affect me and the topics I am interested in, without risk of arbitrary discrimination. --The Malton Globetrotters#4 - Haberdash 555Manbabies.gifTMG 23:07, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  37. --XMNN 23:34, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  38. There's too much striking on here and it cheapens the value of contributions to the wiki when there's some presumption of a worthiness to vote beyond interest in the policy at hand. --Riseabove 23:36, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  39. The idea of a wiki is that it is free and open for all to edit. Yes, we need management and oversight on the process or else it would become a huge free-for-all. It is one thing to remove offensive content or spam from a wiki. This makes the content of the wiki a better place for all who read it. Striking a vote, however, is completely contrary to the democratic process set up here to govern the wiki. A vote does not harm the wiki, does not deface or defame. It is not slanderous or offensive or cause undue distress to the viewers. A vote is a legitimate contribution to the wiki done through the very rules set forth by collective community. Striking these down is not only counter-productive in terms of the ultimate goal of a wiki (community organized data) but is an outright offense to the democratic system that the votes are supposed to be participating in. I don't see how any one can in good conscious agree with this. Finally, a quote from Benjamin Franklin to help reinforce my point: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". Don't give up the essential liberties of the wiki for some aristocratic, temporary security. Crying McNuggetts 00:05, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  40. Voting for, because I can. Deadmeat Redux 00:30, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  41. Whats the point of a vote if one of those opposing it can just go "hmm not going my way, lets get strikin'".--The Dead 00:37, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  42. Hey, Crying Mcnuggetts makes a good point! I mean, imagine if a sysop could strike out any of the against votes just because they didn't like them! Casull 00:58, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  43. For --Black N Deckard 01:11, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  44. Voting for democracy! Sair 01:38, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  45. Voting for. The meatpuppetry thing is iffy, only because I think it could be very hard to prove that that's going on. Other than that I fully support this idea. --Meh 02:09, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  46. Voting for I'm a new guy here, but I don't want to instantly be dismissed as some meatpuppet. --The Malton Globetrotters#42 - Shambles_Rottengut TMG 02:29, 9 May 2008 (BST).
  47. Voting for I have a stake in this game. I don't want my vote struck down for arbitrary reasons. --Dakej 02:32, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  48. Voting for Just because many people agree with something you don't like, doesn't mean their vote is invalid! --Garbos 03:34, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  49. For this. Yeah, this is my first edit and right after registering; never registered before because the moderation around here is atrociously incompetent. Having an overt rule against one of the more obvious methods of abuse is a major incentive to actually start participating! Let's face it, any sysop who genuinely intends to perform their maintainance job in a neutral and even-handed manner should never dream of vote-striking on a policy on which they have an interest anyway! The fact so many have objected should say everything that needs to be said about their integrity in the job, and only goes to highlight why this is needed. HorsesFly 03:39, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  50. For Absolutely. We damn well need a policy like this. I've seen votes struck under rules that don't exist, and seen a LOT of people say they won't make policy suggestions or even come onto the wiki to support suggestions they like because, and to quote a friend of mine: "On the wiki, if you don't have a ton of time to be on the wiki, but see something you'd like to vote in or talk about? They won't listen to you. They'll wipe your opinion or vote away if you make an account just to voice your opinion." There really IS no way to tell how long someone's been playing Urbandead. If we look at how some "meat puppet" votes were almost struck in the For section, we see the issue. Just because someone is new to the wiki, doesn't make them new to UD. And suggestions and policies are ultimately meant to be voted on by any interested peers from the Urbandead community, not just the Urbandead Wiki community, I thought. At many wikis, your contributions to or time on the wiki do indeed matter, but here, with the wiki so intrinsically tied up with the game, with the system for real suggestions and so many coordination tools and informational resources vested in the wiki... everyone should be equal in this. The assumption should be that new people are just new, until there's reason to think otherwise. There... justify'd. Hope this passes. Looks like it will. Jerith 03:57, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  51. For this, so very much. And I don't think it says anything good about how things are being handled, that a policy like this needs to be proposed. Or that there has to be a watch kept, to prevent people from being automatically labeled as 'meatpuppets' if they're new. Marjorie 04:46, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  52. For I'm new to the wiki of this game but I feel that my voice should heard from the crowds. I don't think this wiki should turn into the internet version of Zimbabwe's government nor North Korea's.--Buckwheatsings 07:48, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  53. For Democracy should not be cast aside once it starts to become inconvenient for the ruling classes. --Deadtanian 07:54, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Against

  1. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:51, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  2. the fifth vote shows exactly why meat puppet votes should be stricked out --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:01, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  3. First bullet in this reactionary policy is absurd, last two are needless, and the second one assumes it's impossible to prove something and is only there because this is a reactionary policy to something already being discussed through proper channels without attempting to legitimize abuse of the system.--Karekmaps?! 18:35, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  4. ^ and on talk page. And as Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:36, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  5. Why stop some of the wiki's most active users from doing their job? And meatpuppetry hard to prove? Not always true.......--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:38, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  6. Don't like it. Makes every vote valid, even invalid ones. That didn't make sense. See my point? -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob T 18:45, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  7. As Karek and Davibob. -- Cheese 19:00, 8 May 2008 (BST) EDIT: And WanYao's awesome summing up of the policy below. -- Cheese 20:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)
    your hero did a naughty thing. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 00:50, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  8. The first point is the only reason im voting against. It gives no provision for the removal of sockpuppetry, which should be done by anyone with checkuser. Its easily provable because any sysop can check the checkuser data. Its a shame, because i actually like the rest of it. Also, im removing the striking and reporting Cheeseman for vandalism. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  9. Grimch makes a good point. Furthermore, I think "meatpuppetry" can be used to manipulate votes in a way that works against the best interests of the wiki. Perhaps better policy should be formed on what constitutes meatpuppetry, but it should not be allowed outright. --PdeqTalk* 20:18, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  10. "Sysops will not be allowed to strike other people's policy, suggestion or promotion votes or comments for any reason, unless they have not participated in the discussion or voting relating to the issue at any stage, have no vested interest in either side, and have declared themselves neutral -- The highlighted text is bullshit. This "policy" is bullshit. Here is why: 1) Sysops are regular users with certain "janitorial" powers. This "policy" strips them of their ability to do their job if they happen to be excercising their right to participate as any other user in the regular voting process; 2) ANY user can stike a vote, so why doesn't this apply to EVERYONE?? 3) They are far and few between, but there ARE sometimes VERY good reasons to strike votes... including, for example, lack of justification or not signed or... ZOMG the occaissional sockpuppetry! If this passes, then that due process simply can't happen. Q.E.D.: This is bullshit. --WanYao 20:25, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  11. strongly reject This goes way beyond what is necessary. Barring a sysop from doing one part of his job because he does another is patently stupid. If a vote is struck it should require the striker to leave a note on the voters talk page telling him why, give it a week and if there is no response the strike remains.... simple? --Honestmistake 21:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)
    I notice you say "strongly reject", as though somehow adding an adverb gives you more than one vote. You still have only one vote. --Capt Schwartz 00:03, 9 May 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)
    Its not more than one vote its just one stongly emphasised vote. A bit like all the keep votes with Essays attatched.... just a lot shorter!--Honestmistake 10:11, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  12. As above.--The Hierophant 21:48, 8 May 2008 (BST)
  13. Against --ZsL 00:01, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  14. Against Wan makes a good point. -- Bisfan 00:32, 9 May 2008 (BST)
    your hero did a naughty thing. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 00:50, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  15. Against Only the meat puppet part I dislike. Omega 01:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  16. Against - I wouldn't be worried about this policy passing, except it isn't just a policy to stop meatpubby votes being struck, it's a policy to stop any vote being struck by any sysop unless they haven't even discussed the issue being put to the vote themselves. Pure, unadulterated idiocy that is in danger of getting in simply because people have been told to come here and vote because it will "piss the pubbies off". Lame -- boxy talk • i 02:49 9 May 2008 (BST)
    You should make sure someone actually said something you attempt to quote before you do so. No one has ever said we're doing this to "piss the pubbies off," either on our public or private forums. We just want to be counted. --Butters Scotch 03:39, 9 May 2008 (BST)
    "unless they haven't even discussed the issue being put to the vote themselves" - you mean they'd be... impartial?!?!?! WOAH --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 03:51, 9 May 2008 (BST)
    They wouldn't be any more impartial... they'd just have to be totally uninvolved in the wiki at all. How ridiculous is it requiring that in order for a sysop to be able to strike anything whatsoever that they don't take part in discussions or votes -- boxy talk • i 04:07 9 May 2008 (BST)
    We've said it before, if you can think of anyone that would be more impartial than an uninvolved sysop, we're all ears. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 04:14, 9 May 2008 (BST)
    The alternative is the status quo, which works because the fact is that there is no vote that remains struck as meatpubbitry (despite the blatant examples above). The system has worked and all this policy will do is attempt to hamstring some of the most active users from striking votes that arn't related to meat puppets -- boxy talk • i 04:28 9 May 2008 (BST)
    Wait, what? You say that something doesn't happen and then say "well, if you ignore the blatant examples of it". I must've completely misinterpreted you, because the way I'm reading it, you simply wrote "It never happens, except when it does" which is about as useful as telling me whether you are wearing pants right now.--TagUrIt 07:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)
    Votes were struck, complaints were made, and the votes have all been unstruck and a precedent set. All without the need for this ridiculous policy that goes far beyond the meatpubby issue, trying to effectively ban sysops from taking part in suggestion (or other) discussions if they are to ever strike an unsigned vote, sockpuppetry or trolling. If this was simply a vote about meatpuppetry, I wouldn't be so opposed to it -- boxy talk • i 07:57 9 May 2008 (BST)
  17. Strongly opposed, see Wan's reasoning above. (against vote #10) Gus Thomas 04:59, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  18. This policy is the work of people that are not very knowledgeable about the inner workings of this wiki, and it shows on its text. Striking votes has never been a Sysop-only attribution. The only vote strike that could be considered a Sysop-only attribution would be the one made to a sockpuppet vote after running Checkuser, and this policy wasn't made thinking about that. --Starplatinum 05:09, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  19. Against - Because inactivity does not equal impartiality. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:38, 9 May 2008 (BST)
  20. Against - and well done on the sensible use of the veto. There's a crowd of baying lunatics at the gates, trying to drive their meatpuppet steamroller through the wiki, and they need to know that they won't be allowed to do it. Please, all the sheep that are voting For this policy - just go and read Katthew's response to Kevan. One of them's being polite and sensible, and the other one is having a tantrum. See if you can figure out which is which, and which one of those you'd happily stand beside. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:01, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Veto

  1. I'm bringing out a carte blanche veto on this one. It'd be good to have a clearer policy on what counts as abusive vote striking, but we really don't need the floodgate-opening, start-your-engines clause that endorses meatpuppetry (and sufficiently diligent sockpuppetry) for policy votes. --Kevan 10:40, 9 May 2008 (BST)
discussion moved to talk page
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Vote_Striking&oldid=1135963"