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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's?
{|class="navbox collapsible collapsed" width="100%" style="text-align:left;" !Transcluded discussion "You can't outlaw an opinion."
 * In a Previous Forum on this subject, which was brought up about 4 months ago, I discussed disallowing oppose votes with the reasoning "Too many admins" on rfa's. The idea behind it was that "Too many admins" didn't actually speak of the qualities of the user in question. I had the forum closed when I found out that rfa's are based on consensus, not specifically the number of votes. To sum up how the forum went, there is this quote from User:Shotrocket6:
 * In a Previous Forum on this subject, which was brought up about 4 months ago, I discussed disallowing oppose votes with the reasoning "Too many admins" on rfa's. The idea behind it was that "Too many admins" didn't actually speak of the qualities of the user in question. I had the forum closed when I found out that rfa's are based on consensus, not specifically the number of votes. To sum up how the forum went, there is this quote from User:Shotrocket6:

Recently however, I've seen this issue discussed at least three times. Twice on IRC, and most recently on User:Crazy sam10's rfa. I think it may be time to re-evaluate this little discrepency. 22:20, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm rather split on this. While it can be a valid reason if we have enough active admins and there is no needed gap to fill, it doesn't take into account the merit of the nominated user at all. 22:36, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a legitimate reason. We can't have an overflow of admins, unless someone proves me wrong. 22:38, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this come up before? Either way, I support the use of the "too many admins" argument. If it couldn't be used then every good user would be able to become an admin. 23:40, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Please enlighten me what'd be wrong with that. 07:01, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of admins would be a bad idea. We don't need a load of them, just a manageable set of them. 07:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking why it's a bad thing that a good user could become an admin if there wasn't a huge need for them. 07:06, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * A good user, yes, can become an admin. It's just that we have a big enough set as there is, and they seem to be able to manage the wiki fine. 07:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I had a random thought, where RfAs aren't always open. I know it's probably a bad idea, but I thought I'd put it here anyways... 23:43, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll stick to my guns on this one, but that's subject to change if somebody presents a compelling argument. Shotrocket6 23:53, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a reason this was shot down before, but my opinion in this is that it should be used validly, not just as an excuse to oppose. 23:56, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * But how do we know if it is just an excuse to oppose? Shotrocket6 00:16, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * When it is constantly used as the reason to oppose it, and by using our judgement. 00:30, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * "When it is constantly used as the reason to oppose it" So multiple people using the argument makes it invalid? 00:33, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, when used by the same person over and over in every RfA. 00:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * W/e, the reason is still legitimate. There may be too many too many administrators in a time period, and there is sometimes a large amount of RfAs in that time period. 00:41, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I truly do think the reasoning behind RfAs is being twisted. We're being too generous - we're handing out admin tools to users who deserve admin tools (in which there's nothing wrong with that) rather than handing out admin tools who deserve admin tools solely because there is a need for an administrator. Yes, the user is being rejected admin tools just because there is a substantial amount of other administrators on the field, and that is rather unfair, but it's not a gift we're handing out - it's a responsibility.

And I really don't know if there's any role of irony in me (a rather inexperienced user) saying this, but I do recall a petition somewhere (somewhere, I have no evidence of it anywhere) to close/lockdown the RfAs when there is a consensus that there isn't a need for one, and to re-open them when our admins all are inactive or aren't doing the job right. And frankly speaking, I feel this is the only choice we have - 'course, that's just a tad too cynical for a Wiki such as ours. Thundervolt 11:11, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

If you look carefully you'll notice this argument only really gets used in noticeable volumes on an undesirable RfA; candidates who would indeed make a good admin will often get supports from people who would have used this argument on a previous RfA made not so long ago. While I want to beat people who type "Too many admins" since I think it's a lazy way to oppose without actually having to give a valid reason for opposing, the problem almost rectifies itself automatically. 15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * }

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)