Forum:New voting requirements

Stemming off of Forum:Refining COD:VOTE, I'd like us to here establish just what the prerequisites for voting should be. It's clear that some users favor an editcount system, and I kind of agree, but some have argued that 100 edits is too much. We need to throw some alternate ideas around to see if we can come up with a better system than purely editcount. Joe Copp 09:25, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

75 Edits? :3

But seriously, I'm going to say what I think might work. Either the person has 50 edits in a single namespace (I believe we agreed last forum that only certain namespaces count) or 100 in multiple namespaces (again only the ones that we agreed count). 22:35, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration of all the points raised in the previous forum, I think I'll have to agree. However, I'm not opposed to listening to other, more liberal ideas. Joe Copp 23:08, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

None. No requirements. I don't like promoting the idea that everybody can contribute when in reality you can completely contribute after you've found 50 things to edit. -- 01:43, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to make votes out a lot more corruptible then. 03:59, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * How exactly? 20:08, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with no requirement is that we will have a bunch of newbies and socks voting. 20:17, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole idea behind not having a requirement is ALLOWING newbies to vote. It would seem silly that someone who possibly has a well thought out and smart opinion would not be allowed to vote. And socks could be easily identified by Check User if a vote was being suspiciously swung one way compared to another by several brand new accounts. 20:21, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd have to check user every newbie then. 21:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was not to Check User every newbie, it was that if a vote was being suspiciously swung in one side by several brand new, just opened accounts, check user could be used to prevent sock abuse. 21:13, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Damac1214. DrRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 21:17, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to say, while it would be great to let anybody new or old vote, the factor of experience is still there. A new user to the wikia network (or just wikis that have a set voting system, like us) may not have a very good idea of how our voting process works. They may not know the criteria for voting or even what the main topic of the vote is about. As I know, we have several users with less than 500 edits set up RfAs thinking they already know how the wiki works inside and out. Should users come from other wikis, they should have no problem getting a small edit requirement that permits them to vote.  22:19, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * That notion goes against COD:AEAE. Experience, while good to have, is not a pre-requisite for voting and discussion. Users gain experience from taking part in these processes, so it makes no sense to block them before they acquire an arbitrary quantity of edits in an unrelated aspect of the wiki. Yes, sometimes inexperienced users set up RfAs. There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- if the community doesn't believe they are fit for the role, the RfA naturally reaches that conclusion; allowing users with low edits to set up RfAs doesn't break the wiki or the RfA process. On the other hand, if inexperienced editors succeed in RfA and they turn out to be bad, that is when the process should be revised. In any case, setting up an RfA has nothing to do with edit count requirements for voting.
 * Additionally, it's not as easy as it sounds accumulate edits. Active editors will naturally rack up edits over time, but actually going out of your way to find things to edit is not as easy as it sounds -- especially during time periods between major releases, where most content has already been covered and edits are mostly superficial typos and corrections. --Scottie theNerd 12:42, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Per Smil. 11:05, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think Smils idea sounds good . Necromancer 115   13:14, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Per Azuris. I don't see why an edit count should even be needed — if the user knows what they're talking about, let them vote. Sgt. S.S. 15:31, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

I like Azuris' idea. We should be able to spot anything suspicious, such as people editing the vote immediately after joining their account. undefined 20:16, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

If people keep out an eye for suspicious activity, I'm sure this shouldn't be a problem. 22:53, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Per Azuris. The Wikia Contributor  T   C   E  ''' Q  15:24, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Towards the people saying the requirement's unnecessary, would you be okay with somebody creating an account and then voting without making a single edit before they made their vote? 02:05, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The possibility of that happening is incredibly low. I've never seen that happen. 04:41, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there wikis out there that don't have an edit requirement for voting? 05:10, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * If the user shows a clear understanding of the issue at hand, there should be no problem. New users voting immediately would also be very unlikely, as Callofduty4 stated, and accounts can always be checkusered if they are suspicious. 05:43, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * This. DrRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 09:09, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, Wikipedia doesn't require edit counts in their discussion spaces and processes. On the same note, Wikipedia doesn't count votes either. Admins consider arguments presented during discussions and "votes" being only a nominal indicator. If we're concerned about users making sockpuppets to stuff votes, we should reconsider our voting system -- which is flawed, as we generally count votes regardless of whether the user has made a valid point or responded to previous votes. I don't recall sockpuppets being a huge problem in voting processes anyway, and numerical voting counts are primarily used for things like AfDs anyway. Blatant sockpuppetry is easily detectable. Let's assume good faith and open our community processes to more editors instead of requiring people to have an arbitrary number of edits.
 * Also, a lot of proponents of the edit requirement use "We want editors to contribute as well" as a reason to keep/increase the edit count. Keep the processes simple and separate voting processes from improvement/edit drives. --Scottie theNerd 12:34, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing that has bothered me is how COD:VOTE continues to coexist with COD:CONSENSUS when it outlines a completely opposite process. Of late, I have tried to call attention to this, but it was not regarded as particularly important. 12:46, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, having both policies doesn't really make any sense. 00:13, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Also, by everyone, are we included anons? Or will the requirement of having an account still stand? DrRichtofen (  Talk  ) 19:01, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that that requirement should stay. Anons aren't very likely to take an interest in matters like the War Room or RfAs, anyway. Sgt. S.S. 18:41, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing the communities opinion regardless. Still, while it is unlikely, there are anons that are mature and can bring valid points to discussions. DrRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 19:28, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with letting anons vote is that people can just vote on things wherever they go without having to even create an account, so say I have computer access at home, school, work, and the library, I can easily get 4 votes. 22:38, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * The same with allowing any user. Making socks with different IPs is really easy. I think the requirement should be at least 2 weeks or 20 edits. 01:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're also forgetting into account how easy it is to tell a possible sock from a guy who wants to contribute. If some account is made immediately after either an IP or another account votes and they say the same thing the other account said - then I'd say that warrants a checkuser. You're also forgetting to account how easy it is to find ~100 things to edit in order to reach a vote. COD:AGF was made to cover this sort of thing - instead of focusing on those who mean to cheat the system you should focus on those who wish to better the wiki. -- 01:45, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * ^This. Ramping up requirements to vote goes against COD:AEAE and COD:AGF. --Scottie theNerd 07:00, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * We have check users for a reason, you know. 11:49, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my point, we'd have to checkuser a lot of votes. 19:57, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * And Scottie, who is proposing ramping up? 20:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no one said that every user has to be checked. If we follow COD:AGF, we'd only need to check users who are maliciously voting -- but then we'd be striking out non-productive votes anyway. Secondly, given that a fair number of users are suggested 100 edits, that's a significant increase in a barely-relevant requirement. --Scottie theNerd 09:56, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Poketape, check user wouldn't work when someone is at 4 different IPs. 02:47, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is more to it than just looking at the face of the IP addresses... the people who have checkuser here are very capable of finding trends, which can be more helpful than just IP addresses. 13:07, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I frankly believe it's better to have an edit requirement. It allows users to get an idea of how the wiki works, help on maintaining the wiki (or try to) and gather a bit of experience. My idea would be 100 edits on any namespace, including blogs. Leon S. Kennedy AKA Shepard 19:28, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does editing affect a users ability to have an opinion and make an argument? 22:33, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. If you want users to have more experience of how the wiki works, they should be encouraged to take part in community and voting processes, not barred from taking part because they don't have x number of edits in other spaces -- least of all blogs, which have practically nothing to do with the wiki. I cannot fathom why users are arguing in favour of imposing an arbitrary number of edits in order to be allowed to take part in community action that, according to COD:AEAE, all users are allowed to take part in. --Scottie theNerd 09:56, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for having an edit requirment. While new users don't generaly go to the War Room, There have been quite a few that set up (and vote in) RfAs after spending barely any time on the wiki. A edit requirment would force them to gain expirence before voting. Conqueror of all Zombies 03:02, April 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how finding a certain number of pages to edit will help gain experience compared to that of participating in the actual War Room itself? Editing wiki pages pretty much gives little information about how the wiki and its community operates, as it shows nothing about what you should and shouldn't do. If we are to have a requirement to vote, we wouldn't be receiving input from everybody who wants to have a say - which is not what the forums are for. COD:VOTE is nothing but a contradiction to COD:CONSENSUS, the latter of which is the way we should be following. -- 03:56, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how we can expect users to gain more experience when we're barring them from being involved in the processes that we want them to be in. An edit requirement is a clear and flagrant violation of COD:AEAE. It doesn't matter how many edits a user has -- their opinions and input are equally valid. So what if a user has 45 mainspace edits? If their vote is well-informed, then why does it have to be struck out compared to a 1000-edit user who posts inane or blank votes? Why are we judging users on their edit count instead of the merit of their points? Users who are more active in community discussions are going to develop a sharper awareness of how things work -- and that won't happen if we keep striking them out on the basis of "not enough edits". Also, we're talking about voting, not RfA. RfA has its own requirements and expectations, but similar standards apply: users with poor experience will usually fail in their RfA anyway, removing the need for steep edit requirements. --Scottie theNerd 13:00, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Making them edit before voting in the War Room will make them have to be on the wiki quite a bit, and (hopefully) help them become part of the community. Conqueror of all Zombies 01:55, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you have to edit before you can become part of the community now? That sounds very selective. I always thought you were a part of the community once you'd made an account. Sgt. S.S. 09:39, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Even without editing, a person can spend a lot of time on the wiki. Number of edits is not a reasonable measurement of time spent on the wiki. Some users can do a burst of 100-edits in the span of an hour (and if you're doing cleanup projects, that's normal). Others may take a month to accumulate those edits. Neither of these editors are less entitled to vote than the other. Again: COD:AEAE. I haven't seen a single person refute how this selective voting policy doesn't violate one of our core policies. --Scottie theNerd 12:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that any effort to put in input to a community discussion shows more than bare editing could. Input is input, no matter how big the edit counter of the voter is. 13:07, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * While you do prove good points, I am still not fully convinced that it is a good idea to remove the requirements completely. 02:10, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. What's the problem with allowing anyone to vote, exactly, given that we should be considering weight of arguments rather than number of votes? --Scottie theNerd 12:24, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

A flaw
One thing I've noticed that if this passes for Rfas as well then we may have a problem. Some dude who I didnt know and didn't properly know me opposed my Rfa(like everyone) and I think that the voting requirements should remain in Rfas as the stranger was struck out due to a lack of edits. So what would happen? 17:09, April 28, 2012 (UTC)