Forum:Refining COD:VOTE

Stemming off Forum:Usage of COD:IAR, we need to refine and possibly re-establish the rules for COD:VOTE. It has been brought up by some other users (and I agree) that the problem is in the voting policy, not IAR.

We need to do three things here:
 * 1) Define an acceptable vote
 * 2) Explain who can vote and when
 * 3) Possibly reconsider the mainspace requirement

Please take time to think of possible solutions to this. Shotrocket6 10:44, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Please put discussion relevant to each bulletpoint in the appropriate subsection. 15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Well, by AEAE any reason should be allowed to be put forward for a consensus. It's partly similar to the CDWC debate in which MS =/= community, for example is TWTIA's recent vote, he had made himself known in the community, and his vote was writen to a degree it was helpful, as oppsed to just a "per nom" or some such. 10:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * No... I vehemently disagree, Sam. We need to have a system to limit voters... Kinda like how in every country there is a voting age. Through getting MS editing, it proves they will know what they are doing. Also, it makes the possibility of making a shit load of sock puppets to turn the tide in a vote much more difficult. -- 11:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mainspace edits don't really make the user aware of how the community works. 11:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, ya don't say... The MS edit requirement is not for making the user aware of how the community works. It is primarily for a need for a user to "prove them self" (if you will) to the wiki. After proving oneself they receive the privilege to vote. That is the way I see it at least. -- 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * At least you should be able to prove yourself other ways, like TWTIA. That includes editing in other namespaces or being an active member in Chat or IRC. 11:30, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been here for over a year and have over 500 MS. I am in chat almost every day. Maybe this will ring a bell. -- 11:35, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * He wasn't refering to you in particular, he meant "you" in terms of all editors. Also, I fail to see how editing 50 pages proves a user knows how to put forward opinion on a community consensus. On the day I turned 18 the planets did not align giving me insight on how politics work, it's the same for MS edits. 11:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for the voting age is because our government reasonably believes that there is a certain age at which we become more informed and are mature enough to start making big decisions on our own. They believe that 18, the age of adulthood, fits the maturity level well enough. Currently, (minus the current controversy in this forum) we believe that 50 MS is the "age" at which we become more informed and are mature enough to start making big decisions on our own -- 11:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * But do we need to roll the same way as different governments? We're a wiki, not a country. 11:55, March 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * (recent indent) As I've referenced before, TWTIA did a very well formulated answer despite his lack of MS edits, and N7 often just puts "per all". The amount of MS edits are in no way a valid way of showing maturaty and understanding in voting. 11:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, like I've referenced before, keep the 50 MS edits but if an admin feels it is necessary, they can allow the user to vote. -- 11:59, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, MLG, do we need to roll the same way as a government? No. However, because of the fact that their system of having a requirement to vote is so effective, we decided to make a system of our own for our needs on this wiki. It wasn't copyrighted or anything after all... -- 12:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an acceptable vote would be one that gives good reasoning. Something like, "I don't like X," or "X did this," and X did not do that, are bad votes and should not be allowed.

People with 50 MS should be the ones that can vote whenever they wish. However, should it become necessary, an admin should be able to allow a user to vote regardless of MS count. We can assume that an admin would only use this power only if necessary based on the fact that our admins are the most trusted users on this wiki. If they cannot be trusted with this power, no one can and we should forget it all together (50 MS or NO VOTE). A circumstance that an admin might wish to use this power is if the user clearly knows what he/she is talking about. Now, obviously this will be subject to the admin's opinion and bias can happen. I see it as a separation of power between admins. If an admin overuses this power however, their right to perform the action to override COD:VOTE may be brought into question in a war room forum.

I am quite satisfied with the MS requirement. I think it may be in a good interest to increase it to 100 MS, but that's just me. More MS = more experience.-- 11:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. I could easily get 100+ MS edits on my first day on a wiki just by going to articles and fixing small grammar/spelling/formatting issues. The fact that it is MS edits doesn't make them more weighted than any other edits. 15:05, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't MS requirement to prove that the account is not just a sock? 11:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not primarily... It is primarily for a need for a user to "prove them self" (if you will) to the wiki. After proving oneself they receive the privilege to vote. That is the way I see it at least. -- 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually yes it was and still is used primarily for that purpose. Maybe less sonow but still a primary use for the rule. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 11:56, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly sockpuppets votes would not be considered. Also Age=/=MS edits for voting. I'm 18, I can legally vote, yet all I've done is live long enough, whereas MS edits must be earned by a user. TWTIA is a good example of this, he put forward a good vote, and we're discarding it purely because he hasn't edited 50 pages, yet N7 has done over 50 MS edits, and all he ever does is "Per all" so clearly the amount of MS edits have no effect on whether the user knows what they're doing on a vote. And I feel increasing the MS for votes is unfair as I don't believe a user needs to have all that many edits just to get a point in, as I said, it's similar to the CDWC community debate, forums are for a community consensus, not for all the users who have reached a requirement to chose changes to the wiki for the rest of the community. 11:15, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are going with this. However, because we cannot use age for a requirement online, we have the next best thing. MS editing.
 * Also, if we repeal the MS requirement, we will have TONS of votes going in. While that may be a good thing, in the long run, too many chefs spoil the broth. I understand how you said TWITA had a good point. He could have just put in his input without voting. (Which is essentially what happened when his vote was struck). After all, ANYONE can put input and state their point. They just may not use their point to vote. However, other people (if you think about it) could use their reasoning and vote on it provided they have 50 MS.-- 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * On an RfA that's not really applicable, he wanted to add to the consensus by supporting, anything in the comments is never used in the consensus so his points would have not been used. In addition I doubt we're going to be having every user flood the War Room, only really the users who have an understanding of the forums will start voting, even now we have voting regulars and there are quite a few users with 50MS edits. 11:34, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, things in comments are rarely used in RfAs. However, there is nothing preventing them from being used. Why users don't use them is quite a strange thing indeed.... -- 11:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between mainspace edits and knowing how the community works. Why don't we implement a system like we did for CDWC and split the requirement among all filespaces? We could increase the requirement to 75 or 100 since there would be more opportunities to edit, but as it stands, mainspace contributions only educate the user when it comes to votes relating solely to mainspace. If we want voting users to be most knowledgeable without introducing some ridiculous ruleset, we need to provide more ways for the users to earn this experience we're referring to. Shotrocket6 14:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

As long as a user puts forth a valuable/sensible argument or input, I think the vote should stand. Just as age does not define maturity, MS edits really don't show experience at all. 04:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable vote?
I think that votes with an explanation should be counted as an acceptable vote. Votes which are left unqualified (i.e. they have no explanation), votes which bear no relevance to the subject of the vote, and votes which are personal attacks shall not be considered acceptable. 15:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * We already concluded this in Forum:Refining consensus. What I meant when I said "an acceptable vote" was what distinguishes a knowledgeable vote from a <50 MS edit user from a bad vote from a <50 MS user. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever seemed to answer the question of whether or not the RfA that prompted this whole discussion should've passed. In the forum we concluded "per x" votes count as reasonable votes, yet they were not counted as such when the time came to tally the final count. 23:40, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think all votes should be acceptable, as long as a person has an active account. In real elections, they took away voting discrimination based on education, such as literacy tests (in this case, edit count). As far as I see, there's no need to provide an explanation of why you voted for whatever you voted for. Bioniclepluslotr 13:08, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Who can vote and when?
I feel as long as they meet the "what makes a good vote" criteria any user can vote if they have the presence, so either an edit requirment (if one is implemented), or, like TWTIA, if they are well enough known for a good length of time than exceptons can be made. 15:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see the point in an edit requirement. All an editcount does is show how many times you've clicked "Save page", regardless of whether that was fixing a spelling error or completely rewriting a page. My opinion? If a user obviously knows what they're talking about in a vote, then that vote should be counted, regardless of said user's editcount. Sgt. S.S. 19:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

If the user in question is not very active int he community, they should have to pass the edit count. If said user is active in the community, and considered "trusted" it should not be mandatory. The problem however, is what defines trusted. 19:31, March 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * ^That. Conqueror of all Zombies 21:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

This kind of stems off of the edit requirement; however, I do think we might be able to use a system in which admins may decide if a user without the required editcount is able to vote. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should just the admins get to choose it? (blah AEAE blah blah) Either you have some set requirement (like an editcount) or then you let everyone whose vote is valid vote. (per sam above) 1358  (Talk)  20:29, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have to agree with that. Shotrocket6 21:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be particularly clear, the original reasoning behind having an editcount requirement to vote (unless I'm remembering incorrectly, as it is going on three years ago) came from the intent of eliminating the possibility of sockpuppetry and preventing random users—both new in general and established members of other wikis—from coming in and voting suddenly. Now, as for the practice of allowing some users to bypass the edit requirement, typically that was done with users who already participated heavily in community affairs but somehow didn't have fifty mainspace edits. I want to say Scottie theNerd was someone who this applied to—correct me if I'm wrong about that—but the scenario would be one where it was obvious to all parties that the user in question most definitely knew what they were talking about. Personally, if it's not obvious enough to everyone that someone knows what they're talking about when they decide to raise points in a vote or discussion that an admin has to approve of their vote they shouldn't be going around the edit requirement as it currently stands. 02:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Edit requirement?
I'm all for a 100 flat edit requirement to vote, without bias towards a certain namespace. 15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst not greatly keen on an edit requirment, I do agree that the edits should not be confined to MS should one be put in place, after all, many with not enough edits could gain these by commenting on WR topics before the vote begins. 15:07, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm all for making it similar to the CDWC requirment, where in all edits count. 100 also sounds like a fine number. 18:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

100 in all namespaces. 19:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; I would much rather implement a 100 any-space system than keep the one we have now. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

So if I have 100 blog comments, with many of them completely nonsense, I can vote? Seems legit. 21:15, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well right now you can improve the grammar of 50 pages and vote. 21:46, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * At least you show dedication. 21:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I do think that 50 grammar/spelling fixes are more worth than 100 random blog comments. 1358  (Talk)  08:26, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the extremes. Someone who only cares about blogs is highly unlikely to even know about community discussions going on anyway. 13:30, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should count userspace edits. Mainspace, project namespace, filespace and even blog edits show that, if not assisting the project, you're at least participating in the community if nothing else, but edits to your userpage do neither of those things. All other namespaces show at least one of those things to some extent. 02:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. 1358  (Talk)  08:26, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems fair, I prefer it being similar to CDWC requirements as voting is community based rather than MS alone. 10:31, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with chia. Including blog comments seems like a risk though. 10:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like the CDWC entry requirements, because allowing blog edits leaves this open to abuse and are mostly unimportant. 23:31, March 28, 2012 (UTC) Didn't know the CDWC requirements were any and all edits. 22:02, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

If we included blog comments for the CDWC, then we should probably do the same for this. Shotrocket6 19:42, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why we need an edit count. Decisions through voting can also affect non-editing members. Some users may come here just for info, and not make edits. Remember, this wiki is for everyone, not just editing people. Bioniclepluslotr 13:13, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the rule was originally instituted to prevent (or at least hamper) the use of meat and sock puppets. 14:33, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

What about at least 100 edits in at least 2/3 mainspaces, with a possible requirement to have at least one forum edit and one mainspace edit. That could work considering one can check where the user has posted with a few quick clicks but the only downside is the sheer complications that would arise as a result. Just a thought. 17:09, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Much too complex when compared to other more simple and equally effective requirements. 21:28, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's?
Following off from Forum:Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's

I still rather think we shouldn't even be considering disallowing a reasoning. We use consensus; there's no way saying "we have too many" is going to change the outcome of an RfA. Shotrocket6 19:42, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I beleive that a user should gain rights if they have the ability to do so, as it stands I often beleive it may just be used as a scape goat to oppose without saying why. If a user has shown the ability to use the tools why should the number of admins effect that users ability? In the end an RfA is about judging the users ability, not for having a set amount of admins at any one time. 21:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Same as Sam. The number of admins does not determine the potential admin's worth. Even if we have a good set of admins, how is one more necessarily a bad thing? If a user can use the tools well, then there should be no problem with them using the tools. 04:46, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

As with Sam, a number of people with said powers can't inhibit the RfA nominee in question as an admin. They will still use the tools the same way as if they were admin #3 or admin #13. I would also like to throw in that the time space between which two users are made admins should not matter either, as that also in no way affects their abilities to use the tools. 18:46, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

One point I want to raise, would eliminating "Too many Admins" also eliminate "Too many Crats" on an RfB. I bring this up, because based on the job of a crat (which is more or less centred around user rights and community leadership), we really need no more than one. However, 3 or 4 would be ideal for a wiki this size. And we have Callofduty4, Azuris, Sactage, WHISKEY35 and Chiafriend12. And I am aware that not all the crats are very active, but for a crat, it's not as much centered around activity as much as how well they can manage their job. 21:21, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * And Bovsies. 21:33, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * The user rights ability of bureaucrats makes concern over number of blue names a little more valid, but still remember that RfAs are individual requests for adminship. Users who show interest, commitment, and dedication toward doing the dirty work of wiki-editing, and other applicable criteria for adminship, are those that will receive it. Denying the request in full because some number of admins would be exceeded is not taking into account the individual characteristics of the user, and suddenly we're entering the same territory that the editcountitis of two years ago could be found. 23:24, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Edititis* 03:18, March 29, 2012 (UTC)  Don't mind me.. kat

My concern is exactly what the reason illustrates: there will be too many admins. There's not really anything on the wiki that requires an admin that needs doing. If there were, then the admin requests page would be filled. 23:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * By right there's nothing stopping the RfAs being flooded right now, so I don't see how disallowing this reasoning now will have any kind of knock-on effect. 00:13, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to what the "right" number of admins is? 02:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 42. 1358  (Talk)  15:27, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * If there seems to be a need for more admins, then there should be more admins. Unless every other admin is getting an unmanageable number of user requests, there's some big vandalism problem, or some other thing I can't think of, then there's no need for another admin. I'd like for people to state why we need another admin. 03:08, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

You all are missing the point of this section of the forum. This section is to decide whether we should disallow the reasoning, not whether the reasoning is good. Shotrocket6 00:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't making that decision, of whether or not it should be allowed, branch off of whether it is sound reasoning or not? 00:04, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we want to hear some voice on the topic and not jump right into the vote blind. 00:45, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not even voting, and we have discussed it in the previous forum. Shotrocket6 09:20, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Is a forum that lasted for a day really going to help us make a decision? 16:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that this isn't a good reason to oppose an RfA. I've seen a person get chewed out for using this reason, if we were to outlaw this i doubt much will change. 03:22, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I feel at the end of the day it all comes down to the nomination itself. If the nomination gives no reason as to why they should receive admin at that time than it can be said that they have not got any reason to be admin at that time, as opposed to claiming to have too many admins. Per an example on both mine and Redskins RfAs, both stated the need for the admin and gave reasons why, if both of these can be included in the nomination, and the user does meet qualifications than it should be as easy as that. In contrast an RfB such as Smuffs (written by YellowRiolu) did not meet these requirements and as such this was picked up on by the opposes. 19:55, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * So this is essentially covering both RfAs and RfBs? I agree with that. 22:34, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

So we have clearly established that it would be illogical to vote with this reasoning, but few have addressed in this forum whether they would support outlawing it. I personally do not. Shotrocket6 21:48, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * If I was asked to close an RfA, I would not consider this point ("too many admins," "we don't need another admin") in the consensus. 23:54, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. The title of the forum was asking whether we should disallow this reasoning, and now that we have deemed it to be irrational, we need to decide if we are to actually disallow it. Shotrocket6 20:00, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

What about too many new admins? Conqueror of all Zombies 23:57, April 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically the same thing as to many admins. 07:55, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * If they meet the nomination criteria and the community does not find anything regarding their character, behavior, or edit history that might affect how they handle administrative tools (this means careful scrutinizing of the individual), then I do not foresee a problem. 19:49, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Bovell. Like i said before, not much would change considering most of the time people get chewed out in RfA's for using "To many admins".  08:47, April 3, 2012 (UTC)