Forum:50 edits for Aotm

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > 50 edits for Aotm
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 September 2009 by Calebchiam.

Many users today are voting in Aotm without 50 mainspace edits. I disagree. Why? Because people can tell their friends, create sockpuppets, do meatpuppetry, etc. This makes it unfair to other articles and nominations. For example, zezzima used meatpuppetry then Azaz had to waste some time running a checkuser and telling him not to do it. And also, one of Zezzima's meatpuppetry accounts voted "Oppose". And they didn't even put the word in bold.

Discuss away! Lovely torso armourSupirion1Talk Contribs #Summoning.png 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


Write it down at the top of the page. Run a checkuser and remove sockpuppet comments. Remove comments from users with less than 50 edits. Simple. --— Enigma 21:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Then how come we just don't remove the sockpuppets comment's for UOTM or RFAs/RFBs? Lovely torso armourSupirion1Talk Contribs #Summoning.png 21:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. People who find and prove sockpuppet comments are supposed to remove them. Maybe just put a little more enforcment into it? --— Enigma 21:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

After a discussion last year it was brought up that anyone should have the right to comment on RFAs and RFBs. Things that are vote based should have limits upon who gets to participate. I have to bounce now but if you get bored check forum archives for something entitled "explicitating who may participate....." from last may thru august I think.--Degenret01 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then. Have anyone be able to comment, but have someone run a daily usercheck to check for sockpuppets --— Enigma 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no no no. Checkusering should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Blocking and desysopping powers are trivial compared to having the ability to possibly find out where an editor lives. Butterman62 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, this tool is not to be taken lightly, there's a reason why only 4 editors in the wiki have this ability.-- 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the discussion Degenret is referring to is here. Butterman62 (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - It would make sense, that anyone whould want to want upon such things be first very involved with the community. So, if you make it 50 edits or 50 Forum posts, then I will Support completely. I see no reason anyone with under 50 would even know what an RfA is. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why does it have to be 50 mainspace edits? What if it's a user who is very active on talk pages, but doesn't edit much? Or someone involved in the community on the Forum namespace? Can't we just make it a minumum of 50 edits total? Minus userpage edits, I guess. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 11:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Often some talk page conversations are indeed useful or beneficial to articles or the community, but a lot of them are holiday greetings or just a way to say hey or some thing. Why the heck should that count?--Degenret01 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support - per D4K and C Teng. I can't see why those on the forums should be excluded - maybe eligibility would be granted with a combined edit/post count of 50 or above? --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Changed to 50 edits. Lovely torso armourSupirion1Talk Contribs #Summoning.png 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that this 50 edits thng is kind of ridiculous. 50 edits make it seem like we are very partial people. Some editors are "behind the scenes" in that they discuss more than edit. ~DerilthTalk 20:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So long as they have 50 edits anywhere on the wiki, including all talk pages and forum posts, they are allowed to vote (personally I think userspace should be excluded, but whatever). Support by the way, will cut down on sock-/meat-puppetry, per above. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Be it this is AotM. UotM was just discussed not long ago to have 50 Mainspace Edits. Just as long as this is not directed towards that direction, I support this proposal.

Bonziiznob Talk

02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Everyone should be entitled to their vote, if a sockpuppet or general unsportsmanship is found on a new user they can be banned/have their vote removed. Some people remain as IP's for a while to get to know the site and what happens before creating an account. D4K, you say they won't know what RFA's are but there are people with rollback that have under 50 edits, so it is possible to know about the community and the way things work without a high edit count. Karis Talk to me 07:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose is not to have more experienced users to vote, the purpose is to not let sockpuppets vote. Unless someone is really patient, they're not going to go through their sockpuppets and edit 50 pages with each account. But even then, when you see six users with exactly 50 edits each you know they're sockpuppets. --— Enigma 15:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we change it to instead of 50 mainspace edits, how about having been on the wiki for at least 4 weeks? For example, Rswfan doesn't have 50 mianspace edits but has been here awhile.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness14:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
If Rswfan can't make 50 edits he faces the same responsibility of every other user who wants to vote. Making the edit count. 4 weeks and 50 edits perhaps, but I still oppose a membership length to contribute. 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe not 50 mainspace edits, but a total of 50 Main, all kinds of Talk (maybe not User talk?) and Forum edits? It's easy to get RuneScape edits (Sandbox). Maybe also Exchange? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:37, 18 June 2009

comment - Does it really matter? I didn't know about what I did was meat puppetry nor that my friends needed 50 mainspace edits. It wasn't even written on RS:AOTM. And Azaz probably tooko 2 minutes to type messages to me. Stop embellishing Supirion. But I couldn't care less whether you need 50 edits because I've already satisfied that requirement long ago. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Honestly I haven't read all of the above, but this has probably been said. Who cares if a person hasn't been here that long? It's just ARTICLE of the Month, it's not like it requires any knowledge of behaviour of personality like RFAs or UotMs do (which is why that rule was imposed in the first place). It's just an article, and it's not like it can directly inflate one's ego if it wins, such as the other two. It's really sad if you feel the need to sockpuppet for an article of the month. Christine 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

Instead of having it for a certain amount of edits, why not a certain amount of time? For example, Rswfan has only 43 mainspace edits but has been here awhile. It seems abit unfair to not let him vote in rfa's. So I suggest to vote in rfa's etc, you have to have been on the wiki for at least 4 weeks or so. -- are fluffy! 19:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone could make a bunch of accounts earlier and then sockpuppet with them later. Having to actually help the community eliminates that. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 20:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Doucher is right. If anything, both an edit minimum and a time minimum should be used; 50 edits (or even 50 mainspace edits) can be easily gotten in an hour, just spell check a bunch of articles. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, when voting for UoTM I spent an hour getting a load of edits to push towards 50. Support time and edit limit Though time limit would have to be quite short (like less than a month) --Serenity1137 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Why so short? I think that many people do not even know the wiki and/or its users very well after only a month. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Apart from the period that I forgot I had an account, I've only been here for a month or so, and I feel I know the users well enough atleast if not all the policies of the wiki itself--Serenity1137 06:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I fully believe you, but many others would not, especially people who have never been on a wiki before.
And anyone who would want to do meatpuppetry would just make some accounts, get some edits on them, and just wait a month. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 07:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
As I see it, we have 2 options here with a slider between them. Number one is to attempt ensure that everyone who deserves a vote gets one, risking more meat puppetry in the process. The second is to attempt to eliminate meat puppetry, risking denying some people a vote who deserved one. I would tend towards the former, meat puppetry is annoying, but I don't think it is too serious a risk. Anyone who attempts it on any scale would have to invest huge amounts of time, and if they get caught they - i assume this is what happens - would be banned, all their accounts banned, and all accounts thet've used in r s banned from the cc.--Serenity1137 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about banning from the CC (unless they seriously dirupted the CC or multiple logged-in (or broke any other RS rule)), but yes, that would be correct.
I'd agree with the 'slider' analogy. Maybe 50 edits to any namespace except User: and User talk: or 50 posts on the wiki forums (or any combination of those), and a minimum of 2 weeks since first edit to the wiki. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we have a consensus for Gaz's idea then? I think it is a good ideology, but I have a question? Does it mean a total of 50 edits added up, or 50 in at least one?--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 07:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point, Serenity. What about not doing this, but just being alert. When you see multiple suspect meatpuppets, you strike through their comments. If you see one, you ask for a checkuser (if it's very important) or you ignore it? I think I prefer Gaz's way though. However, it's easy to get RuneScape edits on the sandbox. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Mm, yeah, forgot about that, i was mainly thinking of the CVU at the time. 50 edits across any namespaces except User:, User talk: and RuneScape: (sorting through contribs to sort out edits to the SB and not to the SB may be going to far...). The 50 edits would be any combination of the edits to the namespaces and forum posts; example: 20 mainspace edits, 5 Talk: edits, 12 Forum: edits, 2 File:, 3 File talk:, 4 Template: and 4 forum posts is cumulatively 50 edits/posts. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New proposal (again)

Essentially Gaz's proposal, people may only contribute to Aotm when they have been users for two weeks, and when they have made 50 edits in total not including user pages or user talk or the sand box. Serenity1137 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And excluding Sandbox edits, I suppose? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
modified --Serenity1137 19:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


Support as nominator --Serenity1137 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Pretty much what I said above. Will this also cover VFDs (and VFUs), RFAs, FIMG (and any other vote-style things that I missed)? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense for it to, I suppose --Serenity1137 21:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good, and I can not think of anything to add to it. I agree it should cover all other vote-style things, per Gaz. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 03:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - This should be better than just 50 mainspace.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - This will allow users that don't find editing the namespace their thing to vote in processes. ~MuzTalk 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - In all things that make sense to me. ShinyUnown T | C | E 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Seems fair. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - A good way to ensure fairness. Retribution.png Chaos Monk Fire cape.png 01:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - For all vote-type things (like what Gaz said), you could be here for a year but if you haven't made at least 50 edits, well then you really haven't helped enough for your opinion to matter. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds quite a lot like a violation of RS:AEAE... Anyway, I Support, because someone who hasn't edited has no way to know the mechanics behind the Wiki, and therefore could not know what would be helpful or harmful to it. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Its my interpretation that all editors are equal when it comes to editing articles, but as for deciding things like who should be a sysop, what articles to delete, etc, etc, you really do need to have been active for a while in order to have a viable opinion on the subject. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Awesome, lets get this thing closed out.--Degenret01 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - In case you haven't noticed recently, User:Mybff (ign Mybff) is purely here to vote on aotms. The vast majority of his edits are to AOTM, and he has barely learned to sign his name properly. Plus, he has little or no knowledge of wiki policies and such. Making 50 edits a requirement will stop people like him from voting. Dragon claw.png Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 23:27, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Closed and passed with 100% support. Voters for AOTM must have 50 constructive edits and been members of the wiki for at least two weeks.--Degenret01 06:15, September 9, 2009 (UTC)