Wikiquote talk:Voting

Proposals
Originally discussion from WQ:VP

I propose to introduce a general rule on voting: "no anonmyous vote may be accepted." It reflects our recent experiences on WQ:VFD. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 04:04 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor. This is also what they use at wikipedia (example). Sams 28 June 2005 09:58 (UTC)


 * I'm troubled by Sams' example above. I read the whole passage, and I didn't find one single citation of a policy that forbade anon voting. The only citent?#Voting, polls, elections, surveys and reps|WP's "Whyd policy text was from w:Wikipedia:Why create an accou create an account?":
 * While in most Wikipedia polls, anyone can express their opinion, whether logged in or not, your opinion may be given more weight if it is attributed to a fixed identity with a record of sensible commentary and informed edits.
 * Not only doesn't that not forbid anon voting, it introduces an undefined weighting factor. Furthermore, several people in that example debate claimed the Wikipedia didn't and/or never did allow anon voting, but provided no evidence to back up these claims. When pressed for details, rather than citing such policies, the discussions devolved into character attacks. It seems Aphaia has good reason to want a clear policy here. But I want to know whether we have the resources to ensure fair voting with or without anon voting. If we allow anons, we can identify them by IP, but we don't know if someone is able to rotate through dynamic IPs (although we can probably use sysop judgment to rule out likely rotators). If we require logged-in users for votes, do we have the ability to detect sock puppets? Or is this not a likely current problem? (I see several new problems arising on WQ every week, and we aren't handling many of them adequately. I don't want to introduce new ones we can't handle.) &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)


 * Regarding abuse, if we allow both anon and logged-in users, then in theory an abuser could combine both methods, i.e. use both dynamic IPs and sock puppets. Therefore if we'd be more restrictive by only allowing logged-in users, there'd be less available options for abuse. Not that there're such problems here, but in specific cases it's possible to be even more restrictive, e.g. by excluding users with low edit counts (example - btw there're probably better examples than the ones I gave, I just browsed wikipedia quickly). Sams 28 June 2005 23:57 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, currently we ...
 * have some anons who want to vote.
 * are not suffered by sock puppets.
 * The demerit of anon vote is described by Sams; an user on a bad faith can combine them, and most of anon don't leave their signature, and some of them tried to fake their sig (or I feel so). It isn't good because vote is based on "one person, one vote" principle in general.
 * As for sock puppet check, I have some experiences mostly on Japanese Wikipedia, and devs can help us, if necessary. And in future we can check it by ourselves using CheckUser feature to some extent. --Aphaia 29 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)

I propose that we create a page &mdash; say, Voting &mdash; which can be used as a definitive policy on who can votes and how votes should be run. (Wikipedia has a similar title that redirects to w:Wikipedia:Survey guidelines, but it seems too cumbersome for our initial efforts.) Our "Voting" article would include a link to w:Wikipedia:Consensus, our current decision and rationale for logged-in vs. anon votes (whatever might be decided), a reminder that all votes must be signed, and an outline of how and where to conduct a vote. This policy article would give us a quick link to remind people of our practices. If folks think this is a good idea, we can transfer the results of this discussion to its Talk page. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 30 June 2005 01:02 (UTC)


 * Nice proposal, I appreciate your initiative. --Aphaia 30 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)

First draft
I try to summarize the discussion the above and our unwritten rules. I'm afraid I miss important parts. Please feel free to rewrite it and put a comment here. Thank you. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)


 * Good first pass, Aphaia. I did some copyediting and expanded on a couple of points, then I made a separate edit for a suggested revision of the sysops-extended-vote idea. I'm sure there's more to say, but that's a first pass for me, too. &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 3 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your copyediting and kind compliment. I agree with you extension of vote is better to be defined more explicitely. And we could make this guideline to encourage folks to be more involved, I assume. --Aphaia 3 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)

Announcement
I found we need to a place for announcement. (and perhaps better to record past votes). Which page is the most preferable - WQ:VP or a dedicated page? How about reviving Vote? --Aphaia 5 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)


 * I prefer WQ:VP, simply because I imagine most people check it occasionally -- manually or via watchlists. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 5 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so it is not the best to use dedicated page, even it is including VP. I am thinking now the German Wikipedia VP (w:de:Wikipedia:Forum). They conbine some pages and integrate them into one, so you can read VP and VIP in a page at a glance, and if you prefer you can add both of included pages to your WL. As for watchlist, I think we can add the voting information page, if each of us perfer it, but currently don't oppose we have a section of vote information pages on the top of VP. Some Wikipedia have such a special section on their VP. First annoucement and information come, and discussions follow. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)


 * Aphaia, I'm not clear on what you mean by "VIP" for de:WP — "Voter information page" (which we don't have) or "Vandalism in progress" (which we do, but seems completely irrelevant to this discussion).
 * I am also uncomfortable using anything but Village pump for vote announcements at this time, with the votes talking place on the relevant article's talk page. Based on the number of Wikiquotians participating in all of the discussions and related articles from VP in the past year, I'd say that the vast majority of the community doesn't even act on any VP postings, and probably doesn't know about most of the other likely places for votes. I think announcing votes anywhere but VP would drop participation from perhaps 2% (60+ users) to 0.05% (15+) or less.
 * I might go along with a permanent, brief link at the top of VP to direct folks to a voting page, subject to some conditions. I think the title of Vote isn't clear enough. If we used this page, I would recommend moving it to Votes in progress or something like that, and create an archive for anything that was closed, just like VfD. Each vote would then be announced on the talk page of the relevant article when it started, and its results also summarized there when it closed. An initial VP announcement might also be appropriate if the issue was serious enough to encourage general participation. Does any of this sound reasonable to anyone? — Jeff Q (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Jeff.
 * As for German Wikipedia VP, I meant to Vandalism in progress with VIP. VIP itself is not relevant to our current discussion, it is merely an example how separate (announcement or tracking) pages can be integrated into VP.
 * I agree with you on that Vote is unclear in its name. Your proposed names sounds better. Is it however confusasble if there are also pre-announcements of votes? If not, it is okay for me.
 * And perhaps this page is also unclear: Guideline to voting or voting policy would be more preferable.
 * As for announcement way, I think you consider our reality well and it would go smoothly. We could improve the current shabby Community portal but it is not our current issue and better to begin what we can do presently. --Aphaia 03:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand the issue about pre-announcement of votes. The only votes I've ever noticed pre-announced are Board Elections. VfDs and the informal votes to poll consensus that I've participated in all seem to be "announced" when they are created; i.e., the moment the voting starts. To me, the most important things about a vote are that they be announced somewhere interested people are likely to find them; they make clear what is being asked; they give a selection of expected answers whenever possible, even if they leave open other ones; and that they specify a close date so people know when the results will be counted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I removed the following sentence from the text: "An announcement of voting in advance is highly recommended.". While one can do it, since nobody does it, it seems to me the consensus is that it is not that popular. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion stalled
The discussion seems to have stalled. I think the people who edited here are pretty much in consensus, perhaps barring some small issues with specific wording. Specific wording can be edited on "rough guideline" pages, which I propose to move this page into. "This page is a rough guideline on wikiquote. It reflects established practices followed by the community. Except for minor edits, please propose changes through the discussion page." Does anyone have a problem with that? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Closing a vote
Since we're starting to use some of these guidelines, I felt we needed a description of how to close a vote, so I've added "Closing a vote" to the current draft. Note that, unlike the informal practice (and suggested policy) that votes for deletion should be closed only by admins, I've said that any editor who is eligible to vote can close an ordinary vote. I added that an admin might overrule this if they determine the closure does not follow guidelines, mainly because I thought that admins are in a better position to take the heat for reversing another editor's action on something that is controversial enough to call for a vote. I also specifically pointed out that it's a good idea for admins to handle controversial votes in general, and that closure by outside editors or admins is another way to avoid potential problems with votes.

Given my current state of exhaustion, I suspect some of this material may be redundant, conflicting, or just a bit confusing, so I invite everyone to make changes or suggestions to improve it. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks me good. I added one phrase on problematic cases, to close the vote itself but leave the analysis for the community / admin team review, if necessary. My addition may be amended with further review, of course :) --Aphaia 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)