UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking (2)

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

Because the other one is just bullshit and completely misses the point that any user can strike a vote. Discuss. -- Cheese 20:58, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Striking a group for voting as a group is retarded. Either every human gets one vote, or every group gets one vote. You can't just waffle between the two based on what a biased individual wants.Colbear 21:06, 8 May 2008 (BST)

It should be done as each user getting their own opinion. However, if several throwaway accounts are created purely to influence the result of voting then a users opinion will not matter since the result is fixed. -- Cheese 21:10, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Well, "meatpuppetry" IS each user getting their own opinion--one account, one person, even if that person is normally a lurker. I agree with striking sockpuppetry, which is one person, multiple accounts, but striking meatpuppetry is just prone to bias. What makes one person's opinion more valid than someone else's? Colbear 21:15, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I don't know what you define as meatpuppetry but my definition would be logging on to your group's forum and telling all your members to go and vote on a particular issue to ensure it goes your way. If the members don't have an account already or edit the wiki maybe once a month to change a number then they won't really have much of an opinion as they won't have edited long enough to see the need for the policy in question. All they are doing really is following orders. That is what I think meatpuppetry is. How about you? -- Cheese 21:19, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, my definition is basically saying to people, "Hey, guys; the wiki for UD doesn't have NPOV requirements yet. If you think that's stupid, you should go let them know." But I guess your explanation works too, if you insist. I still don't see why it should be strikable--it's not hard to read something and think, "I don't think people should arbitrarily decide who is allowed to vote". But, uh, I guess I'm a meatpuppet, so I'm not allowed to vote? Colbear 21:29, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Don't get me wrong, I do get what you're saying, but I feel that it's unfair for a particular group of users to influence voting in a way that possibly undermines the wiki community. A user should register on the wiki to help edit pages and add information. At least that's what I signed up for about 2 years ago. Now, the wiki is about bragging rights and new users register to help "their side" win the argument, not to improve the wiki. Which is not what it's about at all. The wiki's going to hell in a handbasket over this whole "sysops vs. the dead" bullshit that's cropped up. I personally have nothing against The Dead and as a sysop, I'm a bit hurt at being singled out just because I'm part of the bad guys. :( -- Cheese 21:35, 8 May 2008 (BST)

This wiki was terrible way before we ever showed up. That being said, any proposal put forward by one of our own does indeed constitute improving the wiki, from our perspective. Are you also against labor unions endorsing a presidential candidate? You're giving us far too much credit if you think we're the first organization in history to vote en masse.--#19 - DrPain ^TMG 23:49, 8 May 2008 (BST)

When I hear someone say meatpuppet, I see an internet racist scared of the internet.--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:43, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I don't see why you think it undermines the wiki community. New members who join ARE a part of the wiki community. You're not being singled out, as far as I can see, but I can't help but point out that your "meatpuppetry" thing is, well, coming across as a bit biased when you're going in and striking out people's votes, just because they're new to the wiki. If you're so scared about people voting in groups, why not make a one-group one-vote policy, like the Senate? That... sort of works, and it's better than being stuck with what's basically a tyranny of the minority.Colbear 21:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Basically an unnecessary rehash of extant policy -- with the exception of the meatpuppetry clause. And the way to deal with meatpuppetry is to require users to have been part of the community for a period of time, and/or made a minimum # of edits, before they are permitted to vote on policies or 'crat promotions. Many political parties in the real world have rules that work in a similar fashion to avoid vote stacking at nominations / policy decisions... The wiki can do the same... --WanYao 21:30, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Much better than the other version but I still think the voter whose vote is struck should be notified on their talk page. A week without response would go a long way towards proving their puppet status!--Honestmistake 21:48, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Along those lines, how about have that be an "activity check"? Notify them on their talk that their validity is being challenged; if they vote again after that, let the vote stand? If they don't respond, strike the vote?Colbear 22:05, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Yes, because everyone lives on the wiki and checks it all the damn time! Hence the term LURKER. Which is what a lot of people are. Can you blame people for just lurking? Look at all the bitching and whining that these sysops do! FUCK.

They should get their heads out of their asses and realize they weren't whining about this a while ago. STFU and deal. (not you Colbear)-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:32, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Pretty much anyone who is going to have a legitimate claim of interest in most Admin stuff is not going to be a lurker though are they? If someone only comes on to check maps, group pages and suburb reports then a change in how many 'crats there are will not matter squat to them. They are pretty much not going to care who is a sysop either. If an issue gets them involved enough that they feel enough need to become involved it is most likely going to be either A/VB or Deletions. A/VB isn't a vote so this will not stop them making their opinions known. A/D has never (to my knowledge) deleted a group that has even 1 extant member who makes themselves known so not likely to be a problem there. Peoples concern with meat puppets is that the non-involved can be drafted in to vote at someones behest even though they neither know nor care about what effect their vote may have. Playing the game does not make someone a member of this community (though its about the only thing that will lead them to become one) I don't agree with the striking of votes as a rule but can see times when it is the best or even the only sensible thing to do. I think colbear has taken my suggestion one better for this purpose... don't delete; just notify them that their vote is considered suspect. If a vote has any "suspect" notes on it when it ends then it must wait 1 extra week of non-voting to give those voters chance to justify. That gives them upto 3 weeks to notice and respond, if they don't then they can hardly complain if their vote is struck can they? As a compromise its not perfect but its a hell of a lot better than the acrimony caused by simply striking votes like the recent cases caused.--Honestmistake 09:59, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Exactly... Just playing does not make you a member of the community. Sorry. Members of the community are people with an interest in maintaining the wiki, who will be involved in stuff like deletions, A/VB, etc., the boring admin stuff... Then there are people who are part of the community solely as wiki editors / contributors, who do stuff like edit the community pages fixing them and keeping them up to date, etc... But just lurking and not contributing... makes you a consumer, not a producer. The wiki's "consumers" are important, it's for the consumers that this exists... But we don't let shoppers make executive management decisions for a store, do we? --WanYao 03:51, 10 May 2008 (BST)

This policy is a waste of time

May I direct you to the policy you're trying to pre-emptively replace, which is getting to the point where there are three yes votes for every no, and then ask you feel you have the right to waste everyone's time? --Grarr 22:22, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Didn't you hear? He doesn't think The Dead should be allowed to vote.Colbear 22:31, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I never said that. The other policy is a waste of time as it will change nothing. As I have said at least four times now, any user can strike a vote. As a result, you cannot restrict a sysops vote striking right without restricting that of all other users. A sysop is a regular user with about 4 extra buttons. Nothing more. Therefore, the policy won't have any effect. A sysop can just ask another user to strike the votes, or just do it themselves as they are a regular user as well.-- Cheese 22:38, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Very well. Submit a policy banning ordinary users from striking votes, and I'd happily support it. The only reason I keep it to sysops (trust me, I'd relish the opportunity to somehow not) is so that we can be sure that the strikers aren't just well done sockpuppets. --Grarr 22:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)

So ban others from striking votes as well. But, if you haven't noticed, no "regular users" will have the guts to go against a Sysop that strikes votes, because they'll be afraid of being penalized for opposing the sysop, while there's less of a fear when going against a stupid decision a user makes. Sysops must be held to a higher standard, because they have more power/responsibility. Colbear 22:47, 8 May 2008 (BST)

We have that covered: "[...]excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct."--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:51, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Don't try to peddle that rubbish on us. We've just had Karek and Hagnat try to swing a vote in their favour using meatpuppetry striking, and you lot ruled it not misconduct. --Grarr 22:56, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I haven't ruled anything there... it was shifted to A/VB and I ruled Vandalism. Just because people perceive sysops as uber gods or whatever, doesn't mean we're treating the status as a badge of authority. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:58, 8 May 2008 (BST)

HAHA! That sure doesn't explain why Hagnut is still a sysop! If anyone abuses the status of sysop it's him. But some how he is still a sysop. Wonder if he could be voted out?Hmmmmmm -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:32, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Sadly, your attitude seems to be unrepresentative. --Grarr 23:05, 8 May 2008 (BST)

A slight rewording may be in order

There's something wrong with the first sentence of this proposal: "This is a rewrite of the currently under voting policy UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Vote_Striking due to its ambiguity and general lack of coherence." It would be more accurately written as the following: "This is a rewrite of the currently under voting policy UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Vote_Striking due to Krazy Monkey's inability to accept that other peoples' opinions are equal to his own and is a misguided retaliation after his latest Vandal Banning." If Karek said that the original was "reactionary", would that make this re-reactionary? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 00:11, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I agree. This isn't a rewrite to remove ambiguity. It changes the intent of the original proposal.--TagUrIt 07:25, 9 May 2008 (BST)

It would, which is why I'll probably also be voting against this one. Nothing good comes from this type of thing.--Karek^maps?! 07:15, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Meat Puppetry

O rly? Seriously why not just strike dissenting votes. Remove that and I would vote yes. Omega 01:24, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Meat puppetry has gone on ever since I joined this wiki. Survivor groups did it, zombie group... PK groups... and I just can't see any reasonable way to enforce a rule against it. At least in the past, meatpuppetry has been kept to the suggestions pages mostly, where the voters actually would have a fair idea of the value of what they are voting on just from playing the game. Bringing meat puppetry into wiki policy discussions is painful because one time posters are very unlikely to have had the personal experience necessary to make an informed decision on wiki interactions, and nor does the ramifications of a bad policy affect them personally. Just to sum up... take the meatpuppetry bit out, to have a mandate to strike those votes, you need a policy dedicated to that issue alone. It just brings this otherwise reasonable policy down -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:05 9 May 2008 (BST)

Instead of Meat Puppetry or whatever strawman term you've cleverly invented why not just call them what every other video game community calls them. Newbies. Noobs. New Players. You're drenched in your self perceived elitist Kool Aid. You're a parody of an honorary group. A good sign that a community is doing poorly is when the established core groups close their doors to new players and new minds. A bit similar to the effect of old age on the elderly. Close mindedness is their choice of tea and apparently yours too.--ScoobyDooDoobie 05:21, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Newbie is not a synonym of meatpuppet, meat puppets often arn't newbies at all (it just happens to be so in your groups case because you have quite a few members who are relatively new to the game), but people who have been encouraged to come back to the wiki for a special vote. I welcome newbies, but I don't like it when members of the community try to rig votes by encouraging others to vote for things they otherwise wouldn't be interested in. Of course now you can go and say that that isn't what you guys are doing here... more than a little hard to believe, however it is the reason I don't believe that meatpuppetry can or should be outlawed on the wiki. However that doesn't mean I have to like it. As far as I'm concerned, The Dead = DHPD + DEM, x10 in the meat-pubbie factor -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:35 9 May 2008 (BST)

The truth does not require your belief, boxy. Sysops like you that drink the "trusted user" koolaid were the very reason the original Vote Striking policy was proposed in the first place. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 07:07, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Hey boxy screw you with your DEM talk. I've never in the nearly 3 years I've been playing this game EVER asked a DEM member to vote a certain way or do anything that they don't choose to. This sort of crap is why I advocate DEM members avoid the wiki and NOT contribute to it in the first place. It's also why I will, given any chance at all, use brainstock as a podium for why this wiki sucks so hard sometimes. It rarely represents the sort of community the folks that I play with like about UD. It's combative, unintuitive, rules heavy, and generally not very fun to hang around in. And I know I don't just speak for myself in this as there's many many visitors to brainstock with similar complaints about this place.--Kristi of the Dead 10:17, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Link. I voiced my objections on this matter rather clearly on my talk page. Reposted for your pleasure (Please keep in mind its a response to karek, who seems to think the ad hominem is some sort of argument killing club, as thats what his post essentially boiled down to. Click the link to read the thing in context):

---

My position is not stupid. My position has been very carefully explained in terms all but the most juvenile of minds would be able to fully comprehend, but since it has apparently gone betwixt your ears and met nary a neuron, i shall attempt to explain it again.

1: In order to have a fair system, one must make all its decisions based upon objective criterion.

2: On this wiki we have a terrible history when it comes to subjectivity in policies and decisionmaking which has led to widespread abuse by almost the entire sysop team (Some of which actually got punished).

3: There are lurkers who havent signed up, others who have who read this wiki and have an interest in how its run, but because of the atmosphere they do not wish to really participate in the community, or they simply havent felt the urge to comment.

4: It is impossible to seperate such individuals from meatpuppets without a form of mind reading technology. Such is at least 50 years distant, and will likely be highly opposed if it is ever implimented.

5: As such, any criterion upon which such decisions will be made will be subjective by their very nature, as the only way to objectively seperate them is both morally repugnant and not yet extant.

6: This opens the door to widescale abuse which is essentially unpunishable because the individual doing the striking can always claim good faith.

7: The presence of a ruling clique, especially among the sysops as we have now, essentially makes such abuses not only possible, but exceedingly likey, especially against such factions that have the potential to simply overwhelm them with sheer numbers in voting.

8: Not only will such abuses happen, but the aformentioned clique will not punish its own for such clear violations (There are examples of this in the misconduct archives). Everyone who disagrees with them will essentially be second class wikizens, especially if they do not have a high number of contributions.

9: Long story short, this ends up being a tyranny against which nothing can be done by anyone, except a person with executive authority to simply pull the plug. Otherwise, nothing happens.

10: Everyone has the right to have their say. Even if a voter is from Something Awful,. or Portal of Evil, or 4chan, they still have the right to their say. Not only this, but its not accurate to blanket them all with the meatpuppet label. Some may have clicked a link to the wiki regarding the policy, and formed their own genuine opinion about the matter that happens to be in agreement with the collective. In fact, given the way something awful operates, something best described as a mega herd of cats, such things are not only possible, but exceptionally likely.

To sum up, this is an attempt, finally, after several years, to pave over a hole in the democratic system simply because you and your cohorts no longer have the biggest fist full of ballots to stuff in the box. Its pathetic. There are also far more malicious attributes i could ascribe to this latest push, but i fear that you and your buddies lack the intelligence to have come up with this with them in mind. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:37, 9 May 2008 (BST)

---

Theres the post, it fits this just as well as any other meatpuppetry banner policy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:25, 10 May 2008 (BST)

No kidding. Click on any thread in GBS and count the number of fakeposts. Better yet, post an E/N thread in GBS and you will see how quickly we turn on you. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 00:46, 10 May 2008 (BST)

What the fuck is GBS? or E/N?? Ah, who cares... But Goons turning on me??? Ahaha, I'm quivering in my space boots... --WanYao 03:55, 10 May 2008 (BST)

GBS is a subforum on the Something Awful forums, im not familiar with what E/N is, but from the context its a discussion that has either been done to death and/or is deeply upopular. Users who would create such discussions would logically be Swarmed. Kid Sinisters post isnt a threat or anything of the sort, if anything i took it as a confirmation of my description of Something Awful as "mega herd of cats". Please refrain from provoking a confrontation where none need happen. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:27, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Hey look, you managed to ignore me then post it here while slandering me. Ad hominem indeed, you raise it to an art form when you don't want to discuss something.--Karek^maps?! 07:17, 10 May 2008 (BST)

You act like your position was deserving of a response in the first place.
In clarification, "GBS" stands for "General Bullshit" where the most discussion takes place on SA. Here's a definition for "E/N". Basically they are drama threads, usually girl-related. Usually everyone just laughs at and insults the original poster for his patheticness. Then there's always the subforum called FYAD (Fuck You And Die). Post in there and the FYAD crew will hurt your feelings. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 17:21, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Seems to try to do too many things at once

• "Lack of justification" - last I knew justifications weren't required for Policy Votes, so this seems specific to suggestions and has no need to be included here.
• "Suspected Sockpuppetry" - seems like the votes shouldn't be struck until confirmation.
• "Meatpuppetry may also be used as a valid reason for vote striking but this is will judged on the talk page of the particular page on a case by case basis by all users." - The term "meatpuppetry" is way too ambiguous here. No, not everyone in the world is entitled to a vote on a UDWiki Policy. There should be basic voting requirements. Even actual elections require things such as "must be this old" and "must be a resident of", so that you can't just waltz into some other state and vote on things that won't effect you. So, make criterion that outline what makes a voter eligible on the UDWiki. Something like "wiki account must be at least 3 weeks old or have at least 15 edits to be eligible to vote on policies"
• "Strikers should clearly sign every strike they make, with a basic reason, and then post more detailed justification on the talk page." - People are going to have to go into detail on the talk page for striking an unsigned vote?
• "Should a user be unsatisfied with a vote striking and the user responsible refuses to reverse it, they may lodge a complaint against that user, which should be dealt with in the usual way." - How should they lodge such a complaint? In arbies?

--Pdeq^Talk* 10:36, 10 May 2008 (BST)