UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Voting Eligibility (2)

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

Problem

Unlike sysop promotion, where the overall opinion is only taken into account before the bureaucrats choose to promote a user or not, bureaucrat promotions, policy discussions and deletions can be manipulated by users to force their will by asking friends (so called meat puppets) who never used the wiki to vote in their favor.

Policy

Right to vote

For a user to have a right to vote on any administration voting processes (like policy discussions, bureaucrat promotions and deletions) he must have done one (1) single edit to any page before the beginning of the election. For policy voting, this means the day the policy was created.

Any user can strike invalid votes from users who didn't have the right to vote before the election begun.

Appeal

Any user whose vote got struck can ask its vote to be validated by pointing to a page where he made an edit before the beginning of the election. This action should take place on the discussion page of that election process, and the user must wait for a sysop to confirm the veracity of the edit and to validate the vote.

The user must request his vote to be validated before the end of the voting process. If a vote is struck in the 48h before the end of the voting, the voter has 48h to request its validation.

Pages Affected

List of pages affected by this policy

1. policies
2. bureaucrat elections
3. deletions
4. deletion scheduling
5. speedy deletion

Any voting process (where the amount of votes determines the outcome of the administration actions) that occur in any other administration page (those under the UDWiki:Administration namespace) will also be affected by this policy.

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. Keep - Author vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
2. For - I see no harm done if this policy passes. Most wiki policies, sysop positions, deletion votes etc only affect the wiki, and not the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
3. For - Same as Linkthewindow above. -- Ωmega360 ^T 13:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
4. For - I hate Iscariot. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 19:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
5. For - This will keep meat puppeting down at least a little bit, and it'll help the Wiki going strong and updated by motivating people to go and make edits. --Darth Elsij 23:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
6. For - I'm sure this will not solve the problem, but... I figure it couldn't hurt. --Lois Millard 02:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Four - Because this is the absolute minimum to expect from a user before voting on internal wiki matters -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:38 3 December 2008 (BST)

   Fore! - Asking for "proof of the right to vote" is standard procedure. On the wiki, being an contributing member of the wiki is a valid criteria of "citizenship". --WanYao 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I changed my mind... I'm fence sitting now. --WanYao 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

8. For Although not perfect it is better than nothing. I personally would like to see deletions removed from the list and allow meaningful contribution to the discussion preceding a vote count as your voting right... What counts as "meaningful contribution"? I think its a case by case thing which could be too contentious to implement.--Honestmistake 09:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
9. For - In any system in which voting occurs, attemps must be made to cut down on 'meat puppeting'. --Parker Andrews 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
10. For - But change the minimum up to 5 edits. --Angusburger 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
11. For - it's one edit people, he's hardly constricting voting to highly active users.--xoxo 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    _{discussion moved to talk page.--xoxo 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)}

12. For - Same as Angusburger, 1 edit would hardly hinder meat puppetry.--Brian Eetar ^DTD|CFT|GMG 15:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
13. for - ok , 1 edit then u can , that seems fine to me itll help reduce multis and others--Officer tommy 01:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
14. FOR - Absolutely FOR! only made my first edit today, and it was not just so that I could vote on this, although this IS my first VOTE. If someone has interest enough to vote they certainly should have had interest enough to have made at least one wiki contribution in the past. ONE not FIVE! --Bgravatt 00:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    _{Discussion moved to talk Linkthewindow  Talk  10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)}

15. FORE!because I'm sleepy--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Against

1. Against - This policy is detrimental to the integrity of the wiki and is based on the very irrational fear of people we don't yet know conspiring against us.--Karek^maps?! 11:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Against - For two reasons. First, this should have been pretty much confined to 'crat elections. People who have never edited the wiki should still be able to vote on the actual content (deletions and speedy deletions) and things that directly affect the content (policies and scheduled deletions). Second, requiring one single edit, ever, is just not enough to make any kind of sensible distinction. This policy is both too much and too little. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [512,02]} 12:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   It might not be enough to make the distinction, but still helps avoiding meat puppetry... even if by little --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Against - As Karek (and myself on the discussion page.) And Midianian here. One edit is pathetic and won't stop anything. Any requirements for voting discourage participation.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Against - I don't think this policy's going to prevent meat puppetry. A user could tell his/her friends: "listen, we have this policy, make one edit so you'll be cool for wiki's next discussions". Nope. --Janus ^talk 15:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Against - We have no real problems with meat puppetry, and we already have enough tools to deal with it in the most unlikely event that it ever becomes a problem. This solves nothing and only results in lowering legitimate participation. A poor solution for what isn't a problem.-- Vista  T  16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Against - --Thadeous Oakley 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Against - Good thing I can still vote on things like this. I still lurk, and meander through the wiki. If something strikes me (though little has as of late), then I'll comment. --Ryiis 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Against - What Vista said. And people, meat puppeting is not that big a problem! I haven't seen any cases of it looking back thru the archives, and anyone who is determined to do it will create an account and bypass this. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Against - Even if it were a problem, this is a very poor solution. --Pyrranha 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Against - Tries too hard and goes too far. If it was just 'crat elections and polices then yes. Deletions are too far. -- Cheese 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Karek makes a strong point. Amazingly, but yes. I'm with Kerek on this one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Against - I was really on the fence about this policy, but I don't think this is the best way to prevent meatpuppetry. --ZsL 00:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Eh, I don't know. I don't want to vote for the policy, but I don't want to vote against it either. :/ --ZsL 07:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

12. Against - Defeats the very purpose of this wiki.Chill 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Against - part of the wiki is that it allows people to decide on how it works. This here makes the wiki unfriendly to new users. --Lt.G Deathnut | TheStayPuftMan 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Against (See above) --Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Against For most of the reasons stated above, especially Deathnut's. --The God Emperor 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Against --JikWaffleson 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Against --Scurley7 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    clique voting differently no wai.--xoxo 00:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

18. Against as above for all the good reasons listed above. and does voting count as an edit?----Sexualharrison 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

    It'd be hard to vote for something before it's been created, but if you mean in general, then yes i don't see why not.--xoxo 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

19. Against - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Against - The usefulness of this policy is questionable and I think there are better ways of dealing with puppets, like not using a vote system. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Against - Yet another half-arsed and unthoughtout policy by Hagnat in attempt to prop up his attitude that sysops should moderate the wiki (somethinhg he denied in his most recent promotion bid) and with total exclusion of every other process that doesn't effect him on this wiki. Remind me again why he was promoted with less than a 60% community approval rating? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Against - so the meat puppets have to make more of an effort. Doesn't solve the perceived problem. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Against - "When they came for the meat puppets..." -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 23:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Against - In situations where I can't be bothered to read a policy I just go with whichever position is the opposite to Honestmistake's. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Voting closed: 15 For and 24 Against. Policy Failed.