UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility

Discussion

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Consensus is, will be better. Guess what will happen to the voting here? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:53, 8 May 2008 (BST)

While i agree that Consensus would be a good idea, i have to agree with another user who pointed out that this is too much of a multi-sided community, where consensus would be hard to reach. This policy helps thwart meat-puppets, which is already a good step... but still not being a final solution for our decision making processes. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:58, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I think I've come up with a decent compromise for that. I do understand that the UD community doesn't quite act like the Wikipedia one. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:00, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I think this will pass--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:59, 8 May 2008 (BST)

You think wrong. This will get voted down like a "You Must Donate a Gonad to Post" Policy without a doubt. Of course, that won't stop the administration team from enforcing this policy even before it has even been enacted. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 17:44, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I know this is an unpopular opinion and stuff, so please don't flame me or anything, but uh... I don't see the reasoning for this. This is basically "you need to do this before you can have an opinion". The policies discussed here effect everyone who views the wiki and browses them. Therefore, everyone who views or lurks on the wiki should be allowed to have an opinion. Is that not fair? Colbear 21:12, 8 May 2008 (BST) (Sorry, sorry; I'm a doofus and not used to editing wikis, and I keep forgetting to add my signature)

Actually, a lot of people feel that the policies don't really affect the general user that browses or uses the wiki as an informational tool, a lot of the policies really do not effect them and more effect the day to day users of the wiki, and those getting more involved. It's fair to say that those who want affect change on the wiki, actually be involved in how the wiki is run. The eligibility should be minimal, but should be beyond just browsing and editing of group page.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:16, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Well, I play a zombie (and smash generators as one and stuff) and I've basically stopped visiting a lot of the wiki because I feel unwelcome, and there are now NPOV policies being voted on that would, in effect, make me feel less unwelcome here. Also, the voting on suggestions and stuff. I mean, personally, I'd much rather not have an account and just use the wiki to reference skills and junk, but in your policy, that means I can't tell people to shut up about anti-zombie sentiment on non-group pages. I don't really want to edit the wiki in general, because I don't have that much time, and can't do stuff like monitor suburb danger zones, or scout locations for news, etc. I just want to lurk and, if possible, only speak up when I have an actual opinion to give. Forcing "rules" for eligibility would discourage me from speaking up, or encourage me to make stupid, trivial edits to fulfill the requirements you have. That's kinda lame, and encouraging trivial, useless updates is just a waste of time/effort/etc. Colbear 21:25, 8 May 2008 (BST)

One liner: wikipedia is harsher than this on who can vote on anything at all. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)

One liner: I've seen the dramabombs that've resulted on Wikipedia, and it already has stringent NPOV requirements to keep things fair and keep from driving away readers. Colbear 21:43, 8 May 2008 (BST)

100 edits in 60 days to qualify = 1.67 edits a day. While that may seem like a lot, it's not really. Colbear, for example, you've just made a bunch of edits discussing this whole issue... Here's the thing... If want say in how the wiki works (policies, etc. etc.) then it's only fair that you demonstrate some kind of commitment to it... essentially, you gotta be a citizen before you can vote... All western democracties enact such rules, and since the argument is about "democratic fairness" etc. etc. ... Why shouldn't the wiki have similar rules to established democracies? --WanYao 21:43, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Why the fuck is this all coming about now? Wikipedia has been around for years. UD Wiki has been around for years. Oh I know! You little shits are scared that you might lose your fucking status and actually have to stop the ciclejerk you have set up here. You have had YEARS to come up with these damn bullshit policies and you are just getting to it now?! That's fucking retarded and a perfect example of why most of these sysops shouldn't have power in the first place. Wait until policies about what should happen to sysops that get MISCONDUCT/VANDALISM verdicts come up. We'll see some whining then, by God. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

For those of us with work to do, that's a lot. Far too much. Not everyone has a hundred spurious opinions to spout on this wiki in a month. --Capt Schwartz 23:01, 8 May 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

This is not Wikipedia. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 21:45, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Thank you Dr, Obvious. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:50, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Well, Haggie, you are slow. He might have thought you needed the help.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

The promotion of mindless minor editing is always great in my book. It's like having a nerdy football statistic handle coaching instead of a professional. Real classy.--ScoobyDooDoobie 21:54, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Absolutely not! while I would say it is fair to require voters to have been here at least a month to be allowed to vote the minimum edits part makes it a big NO for me. Many people join to use the wiki but don't edit anything much, they can still be affected by policy/admin and should be allowed a say. While it is unlikely they would be affected by pure policy it is not so improbable that they feel the need to comment and vote on other admin issues (such as promotions or deletions!)--Honestmistake 22:03, 8 May 2008 (BST)

This sums up my thoughts nicely. +1 to my edit total, just in case!--Actingupagain 22:14, 8 May 2008 (BST)

We could just use Hagnut's wisdom: You can only have opinions on policies that will affect you and your opinion on that matter should weigh more. That would be perfect for this situation! -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Significant contributions to the wiki.

So I make a million edits everyday for 5 months, go on holiday for 10 days and now i have to prove my worth before I can vote? Surely this second part just adds confusion. Who is it meant to effect? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:04, 8 May 2008 (BST)

it was meant to prevent users from making several edits in a single month and then having vote rights for the rest of their stay in the wiki. I've changed the values to 12 edits in the last month, which is the same ammount of activity we ask for a sysop to be promoted to bureaucrat. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:28, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Thanks, I felt it was a bit too constrictive. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

You can't compare voting to getting a promotion, you idiot. If that was the case then only 20 of you would have a vote and as you all showed only 7 of you bother to turn out.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:46, 8 May 2008 (BST)

thank you for the kind words... but you seem to have not understood what i meant... if we say that 12 edits is enough to define activity for a sysop to get a shot to become a bureaucrat, it should be also enough for us to define as activity for a user to have his vote considered valid. This rule also applies against sysops, if i need to make that loud and clear for you to understand. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:03, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Say bye bye to newbies

I have to admit, this policy will be incredibly effective. To clarify, effective in:

• Driving away reasonably established users (two months is a lot longer than you seem to think) who want to get involved with wiki politics but are barred,
• Scaring off new users who aren't quite familiar with the rules and have their vote invalidated, and then explained by some sysop wannabe (or, indeed, sysop: it's hard to tell sometimes) with all the tact of a sledgehammer,
• and annoying policy makers who have lots of support from newer players but face the now unbridled wrath of the old guard.

You were complaining about the vote striking being ambiguous. At least you've sorted that problem, if it existed: I can see with perfect clarity how awful an affect this would have on the wiki. --Grarr 22:32, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Wrong in many levels. The wiki newbie usually starts voting on suggestions, filling danger reports and writing about their characters in their user pages. Only a few try to work their way into administrative pages, since there is many rules for one to learn and lot of experience for one to get the job done right. If this policy passes, newbie users will be told if they have voting rights in a template that will be added to every policy voting, just like one explaining how to vote on suggestions exist. And yes, two months is a long time, enough for one to change his mind about a certain group and then changing it again when said group starts trying to force their way into the wiki by using their number superiority (HINT HINT).. but is also enough to drive away users whose only interest is to disrupt the administration process of the wiki. Any concerned user might have their voice heard in talk pages, and that may impact more on the policy under discussion than a single out vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:16, 8 May 2008 (BST)

This is a dumb idea.--Karek^maps?! 23:10, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Haha, if even Karek is against this, you're screwed. --Grarr 23:14, 8 May 2008 (BST)

You say that like I'm for banning of new users, but it still amuses me.--Karek^maps?! 23:25, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Word, this idea is terrible. --Riseabove 23:31, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Agreed.--TagUrIt 07:34, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Where have I heard this before?

Oh, right. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 23:19, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Rule by numerical majority ain't much of a moral high ground when it comes with the suppression of the numerical minority Kid.--Karek^maps?! 23:24, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry, are you saying that the US has been doing it wrong for the past 230 years? --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 23:38, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Less than that but more than 100.--Karek^maps?! 23:41, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Just like the rules of the minority suppress the rules of majority Amirite? Maybe reconstructing the Urban Dead Wiki to a Forum layout might do better for the type of control you desire, Karek.--ScoobyDooDoobie 23:44, 8 May 2008 (BST)

I don't desire any control. I just think that if you want to make a point about Grandfather Clauses it's weakened by making them seem reasonable through your actions on other parts of the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 23:48, 8 May 2008 (BST)

This policy and others like it boil down to reg date elitism prevalent on many lesser forums.--#19 - DrPain ^TMG 00:06, 9 May 2008 (BST)

As Grim said somewhere else... get off the fucking cross already, we need the wood. --WanYao 02:56, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Some real class there buddy. You just demoted the discussion to stupidity and you devalued your argumentative position. Cool your head.--ScoobyDooDoobie 04:15, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Your mom needs her dildo back? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 04:10, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Naw man he said they need wood, not D cell batteries. READING COMPREHENSION ++--#19 - DrPain ^TMG 04:24, 9 May 2008 (BST)

More like lantern batteries. So I take it you've never watched The Exorcist? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 07:18, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I didn't even have to look at the history

To know this was written by Hangnut. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Way Too Harsh

While I agree some kind of limitation is in order, this is just ridiculous. I think the policy should be reduced to pretty much just the "continuous interest in the community" clause. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:34, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I am against the creation of a second class wikizen class of users. Either all can vote or none can vote. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:57, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Why should it be like that? Why should we give every single human in the world the right to vote on our matters, even if they don't give a shit about us?

The users would only be "second class" by their own choice. Making 12 edits takes less than 10 minutes. If you're not ready to sacrifice 10 minutes of your time once a month, then you quite obviously don't care. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:12, 9 May 2008 (BST)

This policy was crafted as a kneejerk reaction against meatpuppets. You're saying that it only takes 10 minutes to not be seen as a meatpuppet? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 16:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)

10 minutes of time sacrificed prior to the beginning of election/discussion about the policy. It's definitely not perfect, but it would at least cut down on kneejerk meatpuppetry. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:45, 9 May 2008 (BST)

That's a terrible example. If every single human in the world had rights, I know for goddamned sure that there would less suffering in the world. I know that the Urban Dead wiki is fairly insignificant in realistic terms, it's still rather disheartening that stupid shit like silencing voices occurs on a daily basis. --ScoobyDooDoobie 17:55, 9 May 2008 (BST)

The reason that there is an age limit of 18 (usually) for voting is because that is roughly the end of the human biological maturation process. At such a time, everyone has the capability to form an informed opinion regarding a matter and have a say in it. Some may be mature enough before then to have a say, sure, but thats irrelevant to this wiki. The point is that everyone here is capable of making their own decisions based on the facts. They just often choose not to, both here and in the world. The US contains many good example of such failures of reason (For example, the evangelical vote is a block vote made up essentially by "meatpuppets"). The system fails the people because the people fail the system --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:13, 10 May 2008 (BST)

This really wouldn't work like an age limit. I'd rather compare this to nations not letting foreigners vote, and consider the 12 edits as a kind of naturalization process. And you didn't answer my question; why should everyone be able to vote? If all they do is view the wiki occasionally (essentially tourists), why should they be able to vote on matters that mostly affect writing to and modifying the wiki? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:46, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Because its a public resource and not just for those who write it, but everyone who drops by to read it, and their opinions as readers matter because the wiki is an information source first and community second. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:57, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Then I propose a differentiation between policies that only relate to the wiki as a community and policies that actually affect it as an information source, with everyone being able to vote in the latter. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:22, 10 May 2008 (BST)

The last thing this wiki needs is even more bureaucracy and red tape. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:49, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I fail to see;

1. how this would add any significant amount, and
2. where exactly we have so much of those that it's a problem.

Please do enlighten me. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:39, 10 May 2008 (BST)

How far up your ass is your head exactly? If you instigate rules about number of edits and length of time on the wiki and amount of activity before or during a vote then who in the fuck is going to waste their time checking all that bullshit? You? Is this the little lapdog job you want to take on to prove to the sysops you are a good sheeple and should be one of the golden children? That is exactly the kind of crap that this WIKI CITIZEN bullshit will cause. You know, I think it would be funny to "meat puppet" a vote for real just to make one of you dick heads waste your time searching through post histories and figuring out if they have been active enough according to the formula of WIKI CITIZENSHIP.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 19:08, 10 May 2008 (BST)

What I'm suggesting is only the 12 edits a month. That isn't very difficult or time consuming to check, and can be done quite easily when closing the voting on the policy. With the current rate of policies and bureaucrat elections, it's really not that much work. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 08:58, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Again who would check it? -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:00, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Since it'd be done when closing the voting on the policy, I'd say it'd be the one doing the closing. You can check yourself who's been doing the closing recently. However, if they'd be unwilling, I could do it. I'm pretty sure there would also be others who'd be willing to do it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:50, 11 May 2008 (BST)

I agree that it is too harsh, but I like the idea that something must be done prior to the start of the voting. Maybe what Midianian said, but with the addendum that the wiki account must have been created prior to the start of voting. And to reiterate, this policy is needed. Voting systems have requirements for voter eligibility for a reason. You can see why it'd be silly if people in one country could vote for the president of another, or some such thing. You must show at least some evidence that you have a vested interest in the well-being of this wiki. --Pdeq^Talk* 10:58, 10 May 2008 (BST)

You can see why it'd be silly if people in one country could vote for the president of another, or some such thing. Any attempt at defining what a "wiki citizen" is ridiculous. Just more of the elitist crap that has made this "community" so fucking inbred. I love the fact that many of you think people that edit things like the Suggestions page (actually put up Suggestions) would be some how more informed or better voters (WIKI CITIZENS). Truth is most of them can't even read the FAQs, Dos and Don'ts, or even the same page they are posting on (to check for dupes). And these are the people you want deciding policies?-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 15:09, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat has lost it

"Note that a well defined argument during the discussion process of a policy can alter the shape of it and its chances of approval more than a single vote during the voting process." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
_{(p.s. you still can't vote on your handiwork!)} --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 17:28, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Boxy was the one that whined to Kevan about the threat of his possible loss of power over a browser based zombie game. Folks if that isn't a cry for help in the real world, I'm not sure what is. I'm sure Haggy had a part in it as well--ScoobyDooDoobie 17:52, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Where was this posted? --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 19:10, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I too am interested in this sauce. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:47, 9 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, but what's worse? Whining about losing power or giving in to the whiners instead of saying Buck up and take it. Nice to know that Kevan still only responds to whining instead of reason. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:56, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Stop with the stopgap

This policy remembers me of oh-so-many anti-zerg suggestions that get spammed down because they would unfailrly and disproportionately punish false negatives as well. While I do understand why Hagnat wrote it (more exactly, in wich state of mind' he did it) I do not endorse its precepts at all.

Hagnat, it's shameful for a Sysop as yourself to fall into this dramafest so easily, showing that you are capable of losing your cool and make this newbie-killer wikilawyer-fodder policy without realizing how uncalled for it is. Every measure you take (100 "community" edits minimum, 12 edits on the last month, two months old before the voting started) is prone to be wikilawyered by a user with bad intentended enough and targets not only your perceived enemy (meatpuppets) but any wiki newbie as well.

I understand that you feel compelled to stop what seems a flood of users making unintelligent decissions on a wiki they don't completely understand as of yet (sorry SA guys, but it's the truth and it can be easily seen on your policy's wording), but you'd have to accept them as another UD stage (and by stage I try to emphatize the temporal attribute of any stage) and rather educate them than oppose them as you have been doing for a while...

I'm sorry to concentrate on you, as there's so many ppl doing wrong or plainly trying to take advantage of the situation right now, but this is the kind of thing that I wouldn't normally expect form a leveled wiki user, while of some others I always expected the worst and they didn't let me down on that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:16, 11 May 2008 (BST)

You idiot, our member Katthew was one of the founders of this wiki before she was cast aside in one of Kevan's first "the drama goes away if I close my eyes" episodes. The student can't educate the professor when the professor has his head so far up his ass that he can feel the teacher's pets kissing his ass with the back of his neck. And it's because of "tenure" that the problem professors can never be removed from their positions. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 03:37, 11 May 2008 (BST)

What are you ranting about? I didn't mention you guys of SA at all except from a brief and understanding statement, let alone insult you. As of Katthew's attributes, it's good to have back a founder of the wiki but Katthew hasn't been around for a whole lot of time and it's just natural that he/she missed the whole process of pefection (if we can call it that way) and implementation of the wiki's rules.

If you want to enforce a way to make Sysops more accountable, let us see the policy and if it's apropiately worded I'll be for it, but until then your rant about problem professors will go unnoted, as you are talking about that but in the other hand you tried to pass a policy that did nothing about that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:55, 11 May 2008 (BST)

If you had the common sense to read the rest of this page and other recent policies before flapping your jiztrap in a rush to pretend that your opinion matters, you would find the answer to your first question. As for your second, you seem to be on the right track. Now just put things in order. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 04:13, 11 May 2008 (BST)

It's funny how you imply that matthew opinion doesnt matter, while you go around saying that the opinion of all users matters. Yay. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:17, 11 May 2008 (BST)

His opinion? No, he's an idiot. His vote would matter though. ..And was that supposed to be some kind of burn, Hagnut? Is that the best you can do? Are you sitting back going OOOOOH! Suck that! when you just showed how retarded you are? -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 14:08, 11 May 2008 (BST)

It's fucking hilarious that you think your policy has a better chance than a ham sandwich in Oprah's dressing room of passing. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 04:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Can You Please Write Down

What the problems you are trying to solve with this policy are? Like, a detailed list of the issues that this seeks to address, with links to history/whatever where those issues manifested, and an explanation of how those things hurt the wiki? Because looking from over here, this idea looks delusional. #31 - TastyNougat ^TMG 18:12, 14 May 2008 (BST)

You want a link? That's what they are trying to "fix". It is delusional, but that's what we have come to expect around here.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:07, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Don't bother voting no.

Kevan is going to pass it through anyway, so don't bother. --#10 - MONEY ^TMG 23:16, 15 May 2008 (BST)