FANDOM


  • Alright, so I made a proposal about preventing new users from voting for a few days, and nobody liked the first part of it - which was about preventing new users from voting for a few days. However, the second part - about preventing vandals and spammers from voting - did not appear to receive any opposition.

    So, I'm going to build upon that with this proposal.

    If more than about 20% (it does not have to be exact) of a user's article edits or forum posts are vandalism or spam, respectively, the user will not be able to vote. The edits and posts will be gauged separately from each other - so, for example, if 4 out of 6 of a user's article edits were vandalism, but the user posted on the forum 20 times but never spammed, they would still not be allowed to vote due to the article vandalism. However, a user could redeem themselves by making enough beneficial edits to have the proportion of vandalism/spam drop below roughly 20% (again, not exact). Of course, after this proportion drops below ~20%, they will have to wait a week before they can vote just so we know that they can be trusted and won't vandalize/spam again. Additionally, if a user has been banned within the last 2 weeks, they will not be allowed to vote, either.

    The same rules will apply for anons.

      Loading editor
    • This user votes in favor
      Good for repelling vandals from the forums, and hopefully won't be as controversial as its radical predecessor.


        Loading editor
    • This user votes in favor
      This looks fair in my opinion.


        Loading editor
    • This user votes in neutrality
      Honestly, this seems a bit too complex and it would require doing a lot of math to uphold this but other than that, it's a good idea.


        Loading editor
    • Nekhar wrote:

      This user votes in neutrality
      Honestly, this seems a bit too complex and it would require doing a lot of math to uphold this but other than that, it's a good idea.


      Made a minor edit to the proposal that adds a bit of room for error - and thus, a bit of estimation.

        Loading editor
    • This user votes in favor
      It's much more manageable if we can use estimates rather than going through every forum post and article edit and punching numbers into a calculator.


        Loading editor
    • This user votes in opposition
      Still violates the WP:Operation clause on free speech, as it limits users ability to say their opinion based on editing.


        Loading editor
    • This user votes in neutrality
      I definitely see your point but some people who commit spam and vandalism may as well have a well thought out answer.


        Loading editor
    • Jordan Botelho
      Jordan Botelho removed this reply because:
      Failed template.
      17:01, February 18, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • This user votes in neutrality
      Good, but it seemed a bit complex and a tad tad bit unfair. But good job for the rest.


        Loading editor
    • Jordan Botelho
      Jordan Botelho removed this reply because:
      Failed test of opposition in opposition.
      17:05, February 18, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message