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)
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)
- And it then allowed them to accept a similarly themed proposal to this one, which (sorry to be cruel) was, in my opinion, again an awful decision with real potential issues and no real benefit. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 06:01, 8 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 prob worth noting that without the MOB vote, those 21 active users over the past 30 days would be 16. 5 of the 9 MOB voters were users that wouldn't have edited on UDWiki otherwise. You may see this as a bad thing. I think however that it's impressive that with (what I assume was) minimal rallying on other platforms, the vote managed to get a third of the minimum votes just from randoms. Honestly, I see that as fairly in line with the way historical voting has always gone - it's always been dependent on outside rallying from the nominated group in question because the active userbase of UDWiki has not been designed to be the sustaining part of Historical Groups voting for a long time. For example, what you describe as a meat puppet session with East Becktown Defenders, is functionally how almost all non-shoe-in nominations have gone for over 10 years, and again, I see that as an appropriate filter for groups to have to breach to get into historical status. I don't think MOB can't achieve this. Just renominating and having a sysop @all the discord, you'd make 15 votes easily. But I see all of the above as a feature, not a bug. And I see the minimum requirement needs to exist because there's only 15 active users a month, not despite it.
- In a less symbolic sense though, yes, I think there are issues with implementing this and you've touched on the big one with people 'sneaking' through a vote. 16 users in 30 days means removing the minimum may genuinely pose an issue with sneaking through unworthy groups with 3 votes during times of extreme slowness. 16 users in 30 days means extending it from 2 weeks to 4 weeks may not matter. And if it fails, they could probably just put it up again a week later, multiple times. etc etc...
- I'm not against change. The 100% requirement is good, but when the next MOB vote is 90% yes, one no, and still doesn't hit the threshold, what then? We'll presumably end up here again over the minimum requirement. Why not just reduce it to 10 or something? Even 5 is better than nothing. But nothing would be bad. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 06:01, 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)
