Wikipedia talk:Suffrage

message: I see the advantage of being able to point new users (or potential socks) to a plain policy page that says they cannot vote on VFD (which of course does not prevent them from commenting). I see the disadvantage that setting strict rules makes it possible for people to 'game the system' (e.g. if N edits are required, to make precisely N+1 minor edits and then start voting).
Radiant_>|< 08:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:I see the benefit of a formalized policy, as long as the bar isn't set too high. (For example, I'm pretty active (1600+ edits to date), but I was inelgible for the Board vote because I was cautious about editing until recently.) If the bar is set high enough (100+ edits) then the system gaming problem should decrease, and if accounts created after the start of the vote are prohibited, the sock problem should be eliminated. A question that occurs to me is: Should there be a system wide policy, or should there be a fallback policy that only involves votes where no other policy was set? -- Essjay ·   Talk 08:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*System wide sounds good for consistency. However, we'd arguably need several levels, as the suffrage required to vote on local issues (such as VFD) should be less than that required to vote on global issues (such as policy proposals or board votes). It is debatable whether RFA is the former or the latter. I believe the simplest way of wording it is requiring X edits at the beginning of the vote - that would automatically invalidate any accounts created after the vote started.
*On most such debates it is already assumed that anonymous users can't vote (since an IP address can have been used by a wide variety of people, it's hard to check that). We should make a provision for users changing account names, but that is relatively rare anyway. Radiant_>|< 10:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Absolutely not. Pcb21| Pete 11:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should VFD suffrage be formalized?

message: It can reasonably be assumed that whatever suffrage is the guideline for VFD, will also apply to IFD, CFD, TFD and RFD. It would be easiest (once we have consensus for that) for all those pages to link here. However, VFU presently has its own, very strict, suffrage criteria. Shouldn't those then be dropped to make it consistent with the rest of the lot? [Radiant]
:The VfU criteria is wrong and should be changed back in line with all the others. Pcb21| Pete 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's good to have a set suffrage for the general case to be consistent. VFU has a very strict suffrage because VFU is a very specific case. Undeleting an article is fairly serious because it indicates that an admin (who is a trusted member of the community) deleted something out of process. If I were an admin, I'd rather know that my actions were decided to be out of process by a group of members that passed a suffrage. So, a general voting page could have a little note pointing to the general Suffrage page while another voting page that has more strict requirements may have its own Suffrage section (say, with the VFU, if it still requires a more strict suffrage than the general case). --Deathphoenix 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: There has never been a formal policy regarding sufferage on WP:RFA, though likely socks are almost always discounted.  My policy when closing a nomination and deciding whether or not to promote is to discount any votes by people who are uninvolved in Wikipedia.  Usually this is very clear, because it is unusual for new users to make RFA votes.  The majority of votes are made by people who follow adminship matters regularly.  Most are nearly qualified for adminship themselves if they do not already have it.
RFA is, historically consensus-driven, with the 75%/80% guideline being only a way to quantify consensus. 
In a close vote I consider the rationale for the vote, if stated, as well as the prior voting history of the voter.  In establishing consensus I am less likely to consider voters who apply criteria well outside the mainstream, such as unusually high edit count requirements.  I am also less likely to consider votes made by people who nearly always vote the same way on adminship nominations (such as those who only ever vote "oppose").  On the other hand, I'm likely to consider more strongly those votes that are accompanied by clear, plausible reasoning for the vote.
Other bureaucrats may apply other criteria.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffrage on Requests for Adminship 

message: I changed the sentence reading "This means that, while anyone can vote, votes can be discounted if they are made by a user with a lack of edit history, or a probable sockpuppet" to "This means that, while anyone can vote, votes can be discounted or given less weight if they are made by a user with a lack of edit history, or a probable sockpuppet."  My change was reverted, with the explanation that "discounted" and "given less weight" mean the same thing.  While i think the reversion was entirely reasonable, i disagree.  Discounted, in my mind, means "counted for nothing" or having no effect.  "Given less weight", on the other hand, means counted for less than other votes, but not entirely discounted.  Since i think votes by new users and sockpuppets are sometimes discounted and other times given less, but at least some, weight than other users' votes, i prefer my wording of the sentence. - Jersyko talk 21:20, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
:I've already re-edited it to read similar to what you intended, which I believe is the correct interpretation.  Unfocused 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording in "informal" section