Forum:CT Archive/Single issue voters

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Votes by any users that have less than 50 main namespaces edits will NOT be counted, with special limited votes such as Mr./Miss SW and Coolest/Lamest being the exceptions. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 18:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As evidenced here, here, here, and also by looking at the Offical Friends nom page, we have a problem with people registering just to vote on a particular thing. If it's something temporary like Coolest/Lamest or Mr/Miss SW, it seems to be generally accepted (as those tend to cater to the entire fandom, not just Wookieepedians), but for community sitewide voting such as QOTD, FAs, GAs, Official Friends, CTs, etc, I just don't think it's right.

I know we have a vague rule in place dealing with this type of thing on VfDs, but my proposal is to refine it and implement it sitewide. This proposed rule is mainly to protect us against vote farming, sockpuppet/meatpuppet votes and single issue voters. Not that these people won't have a say...they can still leave comments if they don't meet the voting requirements, but they cannot vote until they do. Note that if the reform does go through, it will NOT apply to special votes such as Coolest/Lamest or Mr/Miss SW, only to mainstays such as QOTD, FA, GA, CTs, etc.

[edit] Option 1

Anyone with less than 25 (useful) main namespace edits should not be allowed to vote on anything, or if they do, the vote is stricken.

[edit] Support

1. Fnlayson 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. To quote Count Rugen from The Princess Bride, "NOT TO FIFTY!" Enochf 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Count Rugen . . . erm, Enochf. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
4. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Sure, but what exactly does "useful" mean in this context? Charlii 15:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
   • Presumably, non-vandalism edits which don't require someone else to come in after them and clean up. For example, creating an article for some henchman with, "Luek killt this man affter Return of the Jedis" as the text would probably not count as useful. Havac 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
6. I think it's usually easy enough to tell the difference between a useful edit and a worthless one. Red XIV 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
7. They should have to have their feet wet at Wookieepedia; they shouldn't have to be up to their neck in it. jSarek 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2

Same as above, but with 50 main namespace edits instead of 25.

[edit] Support

1. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 12:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Be easier to just ban the little varmints but it's not my call.Redemption^Talk 17:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
3. I'd like to go harsher, but don't know what that would be. Havac 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Chack Jadson 20:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
6. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
7. JMAS 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
8. Ozzel 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
9. _{Sith Council} ^{Sith Campaign} 09:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Good idea. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 14:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Adamwankenobi 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
13. General Mandofett Wrist Holoprojector 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
14. Stake black ^msg 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
15. Sounds reasonable. Evir Daal 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Option 3

Leave as is.

[edit] Support

1. If it was only for QOTD and RFU, maybe. For everything, no. The CT is about consensus, not vote counting. Sikon 09:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QOTD amendment

[edit] Include QOTD in proposal

1. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Changed my vote. QOTD are on main page like the FA. -Fnlayson 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
3. If you don't do the work, you don't get the perks. Havac 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
4. Per Fnlayson. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 02:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Per Havac's Cochranism. And if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
6. Per Fnlayson. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Per Havac. Adamwankenobi 23:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Stake black ^msg 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't include QOTD in proposal

1. Per jsarek's comments below. Gonk 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
2. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Main page or not, QOTD isn't part of the essential function of the site. It's still a just-for-fun vote, the only real difference between it and stuff like Miss Star Wars is that it's ongoing rather than a temporary event. Red XIV 23:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• I'd prefer option 1 (the least restrictive), but with no bar for QOTD. I don't much mind that one or two users only participate by voting on QOTD, Miss Star Wars, etc., and don't really think those votes are crucial enough to worry much about sockpuppetry. —Silly Dan _(talk) 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Given that we now have the faster and more compatible Special:Editcount in addition to the original User:Editcount/editcount.js, this shouldn't be too hard to enforce. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 20:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We have an Edit Count page? Sweet, I'm up to 5000 in the main section. Mostly spell-checks, but still Enochf 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I also don't have a problem with newbies voting for QOTD; it doesn't really have anything to do with the function of the site. -- Ozzel 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ...except that it appears on the main page, just like FA, ID and WOTM do. I don't get why people say that QOTD doesn't matter as much as the others. It's a community vote just like the rest of them, and (IMO) should be treated as such. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• If we do this for voting, we should do it for Mofference participation too... if there's any way to enforce it... Gonk 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly ambivalent on this, but I prefer the least number of restrictions as possible. Except on Mofferences. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 03:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• I concur with Silly Dan and the others above. Most of our "fun votes" (QotD, X Thing Ever, Mr./Miss Star Wars, etc.) are just as much promotional ventures designed to draw people in to Wookieepedia as they are things for our own benefit. We shouldn't set the bar too high on them, or they'll stop fulfilling that function. jSarek 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This reform proposal is only for the mainstays, and does not include Coolest/Lamest, Mr/Miss SW or other "special" votes. In the past, those votes (by their very nature) have had people sign up just to vote on them, and we have encouraged people to do so. I see no reason to put the restriction on the "special" votes, just the mainstays. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This proposal currently includes QotD voting though. Which is really another fun vote. -Fnlayson 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It's included because of issues raised here. I've added a new vote on whether QOTD should be given exemption from this policy or not. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• P.S. I don't think I'd lump TripleSticks in with the suspicious ones. Take a look and you'll see his first contribution was creating the Quote:Rogue Planet article. That seems totally legit. He had a personal fave novel that he read, added the article, then naturally got interested in QOTD. Enochf 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.