UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Revised Historic Group Policy

I would double check that there's no errant low-vote-but-100%-positive historical group nominations other than the one in question. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we make it retroactive only through 2024, so we don't have to do an archeological dig? --VVV ^RPMBG 04:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the minimum vote requirement should be abolished entirely. The functionality of the system should not be allowed to decline as we go deeper into the long tail in the years to come. If there's a concern about this making historical status too easy to achieve, we could increase the required supermajority from 2/3 to 3/4. To preserve turnout, I also propose extending the time limit from two weeks to one month. There's no need to rush this kind of vote. --VVV ^RPMBG 04:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with this change too. Maybe I have a preference for 3/4 if there's no minimum vote number requirement. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspected this is what the policy would suggest and honestly, I disagree. The potential effects of removing a bare minimum standard like this on a dead website could open up all sorts of potential for abuse. To me, this isn't a problem that needs fixing. It's 15 votes for god's sake, just make a new vote for MOB and ask a few more people on discord. I'll even @ everyone on #udwiki. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 11:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what they said about the APD voting change. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This may have been a bare minimum standard a decade ago, but nowadays, it's the most difficult criterion to meet. Today, Special:ActiveUsers only lists 21 non-blocked users. As that number continues to decline, a vote minimum is only going to get harder to meet. Our duty is to keep this wiki as functional as possible for as long as possible, even when there are only 10 active users, even when there are only 5 active users. You said you worry about potential for abuse. What form of abuse are you concerned about? Perhaps we can design a policy that can reduce those risks. If you worry that a vote will sneak by unnoticed, we can extend the voting deadline beyond two weeks. If you worry too many groups will qualify, we can increase the required supermajority beyond 2/3. If you worry that it will become too easy for groups to meatpuppet themselves into historical status, I worry that under the current system it is only possible for a groups to become historical if the meatpuppets show up; See the vote for East Becktown Defenders. Tell us what problems you worry about, and we'll work to address them, just like we're working to address the problem of there being too few users to meet the vote minimum. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that, with the current criteria, 14 yeses would fail, but 10 yeses and 5 nos would succeed. Surely we do not want a system in which people showing up to vote no causes the vote to pass and people refraining from voting no causes the vote to fail. If we end up deciding to keep a vote minimum, we should at least change the minimum from 15 votes to 10 yes votes. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)