Forum:Updated Voting Requirements

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Updated Voting Requirements

After the "non-vote" competition colaboration proposal, I realized that our current requirements for voting are extremely weak and are open to exploitation to ensure a voting outcome. The current requirements for voting are that anyone who makes an account and makes a single edit can vote on a proposal. This means:

• Older users who are no longer active, can come back and make proposals/vote without any consideration for their length of inactivity or the repercussions of their vote, despite not knowing current events or the situation of the proposal.
• New users with no prior knowledge of the working of Nukapedia or the people who edit here can be created right prior to the vote, make a single edit and sway the outcome of said votes, despite not knowing current events or the situation of the proposal.
• Malicious users and corrupt users could potentially create numerous proxy accounts and stage proposals and votes that would negatively impact the wiki or sway in favor of a proposal that is not favored by the majority of Nukapedia users.

I believe that this leaves a serious weak spot in ensuring that the sanctity of our voting process is upheld and for that reason, I propose the following:

• Increase the minimum edit requirement from 1 to somewhere between 10 and 50 edits (exact number to be determined)
• Require that the voter has created their account at least 1 month prior to the proposal.
• Require inactive users to have been active at least 1 month prior to the proposal.

I would like to discuss this further with the rest of the Nukapedia community, gather ideas and opinions and eventually come up with a proposal to increase voting requirements. <br\> <br\> Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 02:21, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The possibilities for abuse exist, but I have yet to see it actually manifest itself, so I'm afraid I'm leaning on no-change from the get-go. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:27, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

A security risk is still a security risk. it is better to tie up liabilities before they become a problem than it is to deal with the wreckage afterwards. Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 02:40, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I could make an infinitely long list of possible risks of all sorts of things, but I can't/shouldn't/won't address every single one of them but rather, the ones whose likelihoods are significantly high.

The likelihood of what you are describing doesn't seem that way to me. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:56, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be quite that tight, I think that will put off the chat crowd, but something to prevent "bussing in" of old lapsed users I think is worthy of consideration. Agent c (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be quite that tight, I think that will put off the chat crowd, but something to prevent "bussing in" of old lapsed users I think is worthy of consideration. Agent c (talk) 02:30, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, and I'd welcome something like this with open arms. Votes regarding serious aspects of the wiki should be made by people who actually have extensive knowledge of this community and how it works. And to Ever, it's happened quite a few times before, I'm surprised you don't know about the incidents, and as for the possibility of abuse, there is a possibility. Just because you yourself haven't seen it manifest itself or whatever, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. In fact, with this thread being made, would-be abusers of the system will probably end up getting ideas now. Safe than sorry.   OfficialLolGuy  Talk  Blog  02:31, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

The closest I have seen/can recall to any sort of malicious voting were those asinine, "And that's the god's honest truth" chain of users and they quit months ago and seldom changed or accomplished anything before they did. Chad touched upon those users in his comments as well as the detrimental effects of making restrictions too tight for users who rarely edit but do offer sound insight to wiki-politics. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 02:38, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was worried that this would give people ideas but someone would do it eventually without my bringing light to the potential problem and I want that potential problem fixed sooner than later. Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 02:40, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well, and I hate to bring up a closed discussion, but in a recent event we know at least ne "lapsed" user was invited on another site to come and support a proposition. Whilst I am glad to see that user return as he was a good friend and dare I say mentor (and I hope he sticks around), I get the impression he was not the only old hand invited to do so. Agent c (talk) 03:00, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

While there is a threat for abuse or something along those lines, I do not see the need for a more stricter set of guidelines for voting. The way the voting is structured now is just fine, and I don't agree with fixing something that is not broken. The threat for abuse is always there but is there a need at this moment? Not at all. ^{Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate} 03:24, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Greater security is a fine thing, but it can also lead to community stagnation and the ostracism of new users. I'm a new user, I came here because of my interest in Fallout 4, and I was motivated to make an account so I could vote on a recent proposal. If the restrictions proposed above had existed earlier, I wouldn't have bothered to become a member. Maybe I won't be here forever, but that doesn't mean my intentions are malicious or I have no desire to improve the wiki. I shouldn't be seen as a second-class citizen because my account is younger than most or has a smaller edit total. The higher the bar for participation is raised, the more you alienate decent people who were on the fence about joining in, so is that worth it to counter a problem that is presently only hypothetical? Clockpuncher (talk) 05:11, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

You feel that 10 edits would have been too much for you to consider becoming a new member? Also, how long of a probationary period do you feel would be long enough without intimidating new users? This isn't about ostracizing new users either. It is about updating our security within a tolerable level. if you feel the 1 month time limits I proposed are too long or that 10 edits are too much please tell us what you feel would be appropriate, what of my idea you want to do away with completely, and any additional things you would like to see added. Lord Onions: Dat Onion Ring Luvin Fox! (Talk) 17:00, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for increased barriers to voting. The only reason we even require an edit was due to a known troll voting no on a moderator request because he was upset at being chat banned, and did not like the user running. As it stands, and as I understand it, while the community votes on things, the BCs have the final say and generally inform their decisions based on the vote, but have not always gone with it depending on how close the decisions are, etc. I seem to recall that Tezzlacannon once lost an admin request despite getting the vote, because the BCs did not feel he was ready to be an admin. 17:29, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the past, we haven't had an issue with people randomly spamming votes or causing issues in voting. Voting restrictions are always a bad idea if they get to restrictive. As it stands now, the bc's will notice votes from new accounts and make them invalid. That's how that has always been. But anything outside of that hasn't really had the need to be more restrictive.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:17, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well I feel this idea is meant more for the user to see how things work in this Wiki. Everyone can make an account and claim they are part of the community, even if they don't know a thing about this community. I guess visiting chat, making a couple of edits here and there should give some awareness to them. ☢ Energy X ☣ 20:29, August 11, 2015 (UTC)