Commons talk:Requests and votes/Voting Approval Poll

initial remarks

Hm, is this a solution in search of a problem?

I am sure the closing bureaucrat will be sensible enough to make sure we don't end up with the ludicrous situation that the requirements for voting are stricter than the requirements for standing...

Please ensure this poll is at least minimally advertised at meta. Administrators at Commons can have wide-reaching effects on other projects. Electing admins is one of the times that "community" should mean "Wikimedia community" rather than "Commons community", IMO. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This poll seems much too short time-wise, and much too long choice-wise...might take me a week to read through the choices. ;-)

I agree with pfctdayelise comments. These changes appear to be pushed by users that are currently interested in RFA voting and not the many many users that are part of the Community-at-Large. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Lar who set up this poll. Are you telling me you think that Lar is not part of the Community? Majorly (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion was started by a friend of mine, ABF on the requests and votes talk page. ABF is an active admin, who has been a valued Commons contributor for many months. Are you saying he is only interested in RfA voting, and not part of the community? Majorly (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, re-read what I wrote. I'm not saying that the folks proposing this are not part of the Community. I'm saying that it is likely that most of the Community is not requesting a change and has no idea that one is being proposed because the discussion preceding this poll with very limited. I almost missed it myself even though I participate in discussions regularly on Commons. I took a few weeks off and now see that a major change is being proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes#Poll time? I think it's pretty clear the consensus is we want something in place. Some users are less active than others, we can't help that. And honestly, I don't think it's going to be that major of a change (especially for admin eligibility). Rocket000 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that proves that there's a consensus in favor of having this in the first place; what percentage of active users/admins actually voted in that? We should be very careful about the difference between local and general consensus when it comes to setting site-wide policy.

I also do not like this poll at all. There are simply too damn many choices, for one thing; yes, I know it's approval voting and I understand that, but there was absolutely no need to make it this freakin' complicated. I don't think there was a need to add absolutely every variation in the same poll. I also really don't like the short deadline; in general, I feel, site-wide policy polls that last only a week seem like an attempt to force a solution through. Morven 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This suffrage question has been under discussion, on and off since the middle of last year, if I'm not mistaken. Extending the time could be done but I doubt it will add a lot. As for the number of choices, people have been adding their own, which I think is fine. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the poll only, not the discussion, which has gone on for a long time. The size of the poll itself is fatiguing; I had to give up on voting to come back later and finish. I suspect that the very size of it will discourage some from voting and others will only finish a small part of it before giving up. Morven 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of this poll, the user who closes this poll may very well be a regular administrator, as many, if not, all of the active bureaucrats have voted. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (GMT)

Well, at least it's more of a majority vote, which (hopefully) should easier to read. Rocket000 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also advertised this poll on Meta's main page. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 22:56, 24 March 2008 (GMT)

thanks for that... I see no reason not to close this myself, whether or not I voted, and plan to do so promptly if someone else doesn't beat me to it. This poll is strictly mechanical, it merely requires counting approval votes and declaring which one has the most. If anyone spots obvious socking please bring it to the communities attention, but all votes not from socks will stand, regardless of number of edits or standing/block record, etc. ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hum - is it that simple? Looking at it quite a few people have voted maybe once only. You could have a situation where there are maybe three options with more votes than any others. These might be quite differing answers (v low requirements, high requirements). Should attention be paid to "adjacent" votes as well (half a vote maybe)? Tough to point out to people because they didn't vote for precisely the one that "won" a result quite different from what they felt appropriate was adopted. Partly thinking aloud but....--Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same problem. It would also be possible to end up with the nonsensical result that requirements to be an admin are lower than the requirements set to be a voter in RFAs. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to reiterate that in an "approval poll" voters need to vote for EVERY choice they could live with. I do NOT want to get into any sort of second guessing about adjacent votes or whatever. This is a follown to an earlier process in which a majority vote was tried, and it didn't get to a consensus. Also, I absolutely do not consider formal requirements to be an admin being lower than requirements to vote "ridiculous". (... The situation would then be "anyone can stand, but only serious candidates will get support from the community", where "the community" == people who have some experience here) ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Giving an user admin tools (which is the reason for a RFA) but still not allowing them to vote in RFAs makes no sense to me. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's something the closer of this poll should keep in mind. Agree wholeheartedly. 哦，是吗？(О кириллицей) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (GMT)

Um, let's be realistic here, shall we? I am thinking that the way things are running now, the suffrage will come out somewhere between 50 and 300 edits (that's the way to bet...) probably at the low end. I strongly doubt the community is going to support an editor with less than 50 (or even 100, or 200) edits for admin, even if we passed a "0/0 and let the community decide" admin requirement. And if a user did pass, I strongly doubt that a 'crat using reasonable discretion would subsequently discount the vote. So this "can run but can't vote" scenario isn't really very realistic in my view, and not worth worrying about. I don't see it as a show stopper. I'm a lot more concerned about the people who are saying things like "0/0 but let the 'crats decide which votes to count". That's a recipe for chaos if you ask me, because I'd probably decide differently than the next crat Some guidance is better. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Time/edits comment

I'll likely link this to a vote at some stage. My concern with admin eligibility is whether people really know much about Commons (a wiki that I am rather fond of!). You can either get to know Commons by spending a decent amount of time here or by doing quite a bit of work. I can only use my own knowledge on this but when I became an admin I had around 500 edits & around 500 deleted edits (from tagging stuff). There was quite a lot of Commons I knew nothing about. I have a few more edits (& deleted edits now) and there are still aspects of Commons I don't know enough about. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too -- there are still aspects of Commons I don't know enough about -- but that hasn't stopped either of us from being useful and doing good work. The thing is respecting the boundaries of your own knowledge and not assuming authority you don't have. Let's be honest: all admins learn on the job. I don't see that putting a higher edit count limit on nominees is going to change much there. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good thing. :) Rocket000 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving comments

There are a fair few number of comments (a few words, a line, 2 lines) attached to votes. I plan to strictly enforce the request that there be no comments which is in the instructions on how to participate. To make it fair, I will copy ANY approval vote that is more than JUST a signature to this page (even if it's a word or two), in a section titled the same as the vote section on the main page, and remove the comment but leave the signature itself. I will do this later today. After I am done I will have some comments of my own. ++Lar: t/c 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is Commons that crippled by the vote then move along mindset that we're not even allowed to attach an explanation to our view? I think it's time to import Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Superm401 - Talk 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving comments does not mean suppressing comments. This is an approval poll.... that is, it IS a vote, because we didn't get to a clear single outcome consensus. That does not mean that commons has all of a sudden switched way from our consensus model of doing things, it means this one thing is an approval poll. I haven't actually moved the comments the way I said I would, but when I do I will make sure they're linked. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

As this is a poll, shouldn't this be numbered? Majorly (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I was going to do that when I moved comments over here, if no one beat me to it. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Identity verification

Is there any possibility of identity verification? Some people have suggested using some sort of online financial service that requires people to pay some token amount. Having done so, they can then vote. Is it conceivable that we might eventually have dues-paying members? Maybe it could be a once-per-lifetime thing. You pay your $25, and you're in.

Alternately, people might send a scanned copy of their government-issued photo ID, as they do on Citizendium.

Of course, anything that makes voting less convenient could hurt turnout. I'm not sure what to do about that. Any ideas?

I just really, really dislike basing it on edit counts. Some people take more edits to accomplish the same stuff (e.g. they forget to sign or whatnot). An edit count threshold could punish people for using the preview. 71.63.91.68 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence why basing a vote simply on edit count is always a bad idea. Majorly (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that that's a bad idea, but I hope you're not implying that's what this poll is about. The result (whatever it may be) should not affect the way we assess candidates. Just like how it is currently, even though the candidate meets the minimum requirements (or doesn't), we still review the contribs and judge them for ourselves. I see this as just an update to our stated community standards as most of us have higher personal standards anyway. Might as well let them know. It saves us time and saves them a failed RfA. And if we start charging people to vote in RfAs, I'm quiting the project. :) Rocket000 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)