| abstract
| - Since it was suggested it be put up for discussion, I propose the following...
* Users must receive a 60% 'yes' percentage to be awarded Rollback.
* Users must receive a 70% 'yes' percentage to be awarded Administrator privileges.
* Only active users in good standing may vote. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 22:50, June 8, 2011 (UTC) Agree with the first two, but disagree with the last. I feel any user should be able to vote. Dan the Man 1983 23:29, June 8, 2011 (UTC) Dan do you remember how Bully Wiki got moved because two different guys registered sockpuppets and spammed the vote? If we don't have some sort of barrier in regards to who is and who isn't allowed to vote, people like KOA and At0micb0mb could get their buddies and even their sockpuppets given powers. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 04:12, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Yes I remember. But due to that and other cases, I like to think we can now spot sockpuppets a mile off. I sometimes think that 90% of the time, they only did it to annoy us. Everyone should be able to vote, but if we suspect sockpuppetry or even meatpuppetry(some user get someone else to vote in their favour), then we can void those votes. Dan the Man 1983 13:55, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Don't really agree to be honest - we never did catch At0micb0mb, he only got busted because he harassed a checkuser who then ran it on him. And GTAwiki's about ten times the size of Bully Wiki, just because I recognize all of BW's chronic sockpuppeteers doesn't mean I'm going to be able to identify them. McJeff (talk this way)/(stalk this way) 14:35, June 9, 2011 (UTC) I've got to agree with Jeff, the rule about only active users in good standing makes sense to me. Tom Talk 14:43, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Sorry but I never will agree with it. I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, where everyone who uses this wiki can have their say, regardless of what they done in the past. This should not be a dictatorship where a chosen few can only have their say, due to paranoia on people abusing multiple accounts. What are we gonna do? Keep a list of names that are black listed? I have never heard of anything so daft in all my life. Dan the Man 1983 18:13, June 9, 2011 (UTC) I just don't think users who have only made a few edits or have been blocked or have a history of been a bad user should really get to vote on who becomes an admin. Tom Talk 18:18, June 9, 2011 (UTC) So now you're saying users with only a few edits cannot have their say or vote? Daft. Dan the Man 1983 18:35, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Ok, I guess that one's not such a big deal but do you agree with the other things? Tom Talk 18:41, June 9, 2011 (UTC) No. Dan the Man 1983 18:46, June 9, 2011 (UTC) It doesn't mean I won't go along with it though. I believe in doing things in what the majority want, even if I don't agree with them. Since you and Jeff are for it, and I am against it, well the majority is for it. Dan the Man 1983 18:53, June 9, 2011 (UTC) since i am in the running for rollback rights I wouldn't go along with the tom or Dan but IMV we should put voting rules to the comunity it seems silly voting on voting rules but it mean everyone has a voice.--Owen1983 21:43, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)