| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
I just came here to discuss two things that, personally, I don't understand regarding the rules.
First is the matter on voting on User Rights applications.
Why is it that new users can't vote? I got to thinking and for all we know, a new account could have been from an anonymous user who's been on this website for years, and decided to join. I personally think it's a bit unfair to assume that a new person randomly joined, knew nothing about the Wiki, yet went straight to an admin/bureaucrat request for someone they don't know and vote yes for them.
The issue with not allowing new people or people who generally don't edit/don't have conventional reasons is that it's essentially creating an elitist community where only high-ranking members vote on issues that benefit high-ranking members. Granted I'm exaggerating for argument's sake, but I believe that just because someone has a new account or their reasons for voting aren't elaborated upon, we can't assume that they're entirely ignorant to what's going on and discredit their vote. Besides, at the end of the day the number of votes doesn't matter - it all depends on the Bureaucrats' decision.
Another thing that I don't understand is the archiving talk page rules. I don't know about you guys, and this might just come down to me not paying enough attention, but I have no clue when to archive my talk page. Frankly, my talk page is my talk page and I should be able to archive it when I feel like. I don't want to have to wait for a certain amount of KB or messages to start a new page, do I?
Things were way easier when you could archive your talk page when you wanted to, not wait until the rules dictate you're allowed to. And if I don't even know when to archive talk pages, how are new users meant to know either? I'm fine with the rest of the rules, but if there's one thing I'd like a second-guess on it's the archive process.
- I don't know about the 2nd rule, but one thing I can think of about the 1st rule is someone creating a fake or second account so they can vote twice, or someone using it to vote against their own reconfirmation request. Then again, I don't know if that is/was a problem. Paladin117>>iff bored; 23:03, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
- I think these have been answered numerous times. 1 as paladin indicated is a fraud prevention measure on User Rights votes. 2, well its not your talk page, its the communities' page for contacting you. As for Archiving, its either 32kb in size, checkable in the history, or more easily 40 messages (which is easy to check). As long as the page meets one or the other then its fine. Agent c 23:07, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
- The talk page archive rules are listed in the User Conduct Guidelines, as seen here Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline#User_talk_pages, in which it details the recommended number of TP messages or size of the talk page in KB before it requires archiving. The main reasons why we have the archive process are to make TP easier to load (less KB to load means TP's are answered quicker) and to organise the TP messages clearer instead of one giant block of messages.
- The new user block on voting is a necessary measure to make sure that those who have only recently made an account are not simply making the account to vote for that person or vote without full knowledge of the individual. An anonymous user will only know so much, for a Chat Moderator position, or something of equal stature in rights, would require an account as that would necessitate a user to have visited chat prior and met the user in chat. Of course, this is but one example, but if we took a new users word on "I've been an anon for a long time" as credibility for a vote then all the anons would use the excuse, rendering the point of the block null and void.
- It's a harsh measure, agreed, but necessary to avoid disagreements or votes with ill-knowledge gaining legitimacy. Gothic NekoNeko's Haunt 23:09, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
To assume all new user accounts are "from anonymous users who have been on this website for years, and decided to join" is quite far-fetched." There is no way to prove it. The current requirements are astoundingly easy - make one edit before a request goes up. If a user cared enough about this site to vote on such an important matter, then he should go through the incredible trouble of making one edit. Not an article edit or anything, but one edit in any namespace. Even joining a few days prior to a request with one edit is sufficient. That, I say, is incredibly easy for anyone who truly feels like they should vote on a user right request.
As for the second concern in your inquiry: we had a community vote, the community passed the rule, and the rule has been instated. In fact, you fucking voted yes yourself. I don't see why now that has become a problem. Furthermore, I personally have added the policy into the user conduct guideline and anyone who actually bothers reading it will happen upon it quite easily. --Skire (talk) 00:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Never claimed that every new user has been an anon for years, but the point I was making is that we can't assume for them that they don't know what's going on. What I find less likely than someone being an anonymous user for a while before making an account is for someone who has no knowledge of anything on this Wiki to then make an account and straight away navigate an additional rights forum to vote on. On hindsight I hadn't thought about sockpuppet accounts, so that is a fair point to make - I just fear that it's not really much of a "community vote" if we get to choose who can or can't vote.
Also, I don't understand the hostility regarding my inquiry. "You fucking voted yes yourself" - I'm not trying to start an argument, but was that needed? I'm just saying that I don't entirely understand the need for the archive limit, and I wanted to clear up if it's needed. I never asked to change the rules or anything, I was just curious to see if anyone else was second guessing the need to have rules for something as trivial as archiving a page. I must say I am terribly shocked and somewhat disappointed at the hostility of your message. 05:34, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Danny I'm surprised. Your usual psuedo-civility contradicts this. Was that necessary at all?-- 06:07, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe he was in a bad mood. Don't take it personally, he's acted slightly out of character, granted, but try to move on and look at his points. He is right. One edit is not restrictive, and like Neko said, even if it was a tad harsh, it is necessary. Furthermore, I agree with Danny in that it is odd that you have brought up talk page limits when you voted yes. I'm not going to continue making points that have been made, so I'll stop now. What I would ask before this goes off point and decends into choas and unreasonable anger, just ignore Danny's tone and look at his points. I agree he was wrong to phrase it how he has, but everyone has a bad day every now and then, and I think both of you two can acknowledge that, so stick to the debate. -- GOTW User | Talk 10:30, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not angry at Danny. Contrary to popular belief I don't often go off on rage-induced tantrums, other than that one time with Cartman. But as you said, I'm not going to get into this argument, and if anything I'm more concerned about Danny than upset with him, as it is fairly out of character.
Onto the matter of why I brought this up, yes I voted to implement the rules - but I was voting for not allowing people to remove messages from their talk page and the sort. The whole process dragged on more than it ever should, and I among others wanted it to be over and done with. I don't want to make this a huge debate or anything, it's just that looking back on the ordeal I find it slightly silly to go as far as to make rules on archiving when things worked perfectly before we started imposing penalties and rules regarding it. It was just something I wanted to bring up along with the primary issue that seems to have been cleared up regarding new users not having their votes counted - something I noticed on Ghost's bureaucrat request. I understand that there are issues in letting new people vote that have been nicely articulated by others; I still can't say I entirely agree with it because we are meant to assume good faith, but if it must be done it must be done. 11:30, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Yessie, most of it has been said already, but let me just expand on it a bit further. With the voting it is all about safe guarding the honesty and integrity of the whole voting process. This is covered two fold, in that it prevents falsifying votes and uneducated votes. It isn't about the assumption of bad faith at all, just the simple fact that if a person wants to take part in the community then they have to be part of the community. In this respect there is no real hardship to obtain such a standing. You're right in saying that we shouldn't assume that a anon isn't aware of what is going on within the community. But if they have that level of understanding, then they should also realise the requirements to actually take part as well. If they have chosen not to make an account, then they are willingly forfeiting their right to vote.
- Now with the archiving of talk pages. To be honest, it has been discussed and voted on to recently to start questioning its effectiveness already. While I understand where you are coming from, as an avid opponent of the whole rule, the opportunity was given to discuss it and was voted on by the community. We have to accept what the community has decided, regardless of how we may feel about it. That's not to say that it shouldn't be questioned, discussed or voted on again at a later date. But we must first allow it a chance, to see how effective it actually is at achieving what it was intended to achieve. Which, with the current level of activity of the community, would be for a good few months yet. 15:25, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Just for me, I didn't really consider the archiving rule in the vote. I did vote for it, on the whole, for the no removing messages thing. The archive thing I don't really understand the point in - if a user has 40+ messages they can make embarrassing message 41 disipear into an archive, indicating to me that if the goal behind that part of the rule was to keep admin messages on pages, it isn't going to work. Is it just to stop there being a crazy number of archives to trall through? Agent c (talk) 16:50, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Elitist is a bad word to use here. In reality, every community is at least a little elitist when considering community decisions. You don't see the homeless or any wards of the state making any important decisions, and here in America, you have to register to vote. (For just a couple examples.) The truth is, while we appreciate everything that the anonymous do for us here at Nukapedia, they have crippled themselves in the sense that they have chosen to remain faceless. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, except for the fact that we have tens of thousands of faceless people viewing this site on a daily basis. And as long as any person decides to remain faceless, there's no real way to differentiate between those who have the best intentions for this wiki and those who only wish to cause harm to our community. All we ask is for any person who is truly interested in our community, to create an account here and make at least a basic name for themselves. This is not unreasonable. The process is free, relatively painless, and they can still choose to remain an unknown by going under an alias.
- The talk page policy was enacted for transparency reasons. Without this policy, the undesirables that frequent here would essentially have the right to wipe their past away, and would allow for aggravated results in future incidents by them. I mean, really think about it: How else are we supposed to gauge a situation properly without all of the necessary information available? For instance, we might have a user who has multiple warnings and incidents, yet has managed to avoid a ban so far. In these cases, finding the information needed isn't as simple as checking their ban history. And let's be honest, in hindsight we'd all say that we would check through their talk-page history, but in reality, I can honestly say that the thought almost never crosses through our minds unless we had already specifically had an incident with said user in question. So as an end result because we've been blind-sighted, we might give the user in question a slap on the wrist where an extended ban might have been necessary. I know this might not sound like a big deal, but you have to understand just how many incidents we have to take care of on a daily basis. It adds up. As for the archiving issue, I see sense in it, although it's certainly not the important part of this policy. Personally, I think it belongs more as a guideline than anything else. My thoughts on the matter. Skål! 17:22, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, guys.
I still can't say I entirely agree with the 40 message archive, and feel like it was tacked on at the end of the talk-page vote process, but a rule is a rule. 04:34, June 29, 2012 (UTC)