Forum:CT:Editcount Percentage Policy Proposal

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Editcount Percentage Policy Proposal

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose. jSarek 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A growing number of users have begun to treat this wiki as a personal webspace, spending nearly all of their time here editing their userpage and communicating issues unrelated to Wookieepedia on talk pages. These users seem to be oblivious to our most expansive and definitive policy regarding the use of Wookieepedia, titled Wookieepedia:What Wookieepedia is not. The most common violations of this policy include using userpages for lengthy fanfictions and using talk pages as a personal message board for matters unrelated to this wiki.

Several policies have been proposed to try and prevent such issues from growing, to little avail. I feel that while the current policy is too weak, the recently proposed total ban on fanon may be too heavy-handed. Therefore, I have attempted to come up with a more refined system of weeding out those who care not for the goals of this wiki.

Current related policy

The current rule as stated in What Wookieepedia is not and the User page policy, which are both considered official policies for the wiki, states that your user page is not your primary contribution to this wiki, and the ratio given is over 500 user page edits to less than 100 useful main space/template/category edits.

Issues with the current policy

  • The first problem that arises is the number of edits (>600) required for the policy to apply. The amount of time invested before most users reach an editcount of 600 is considerable; many do not get there for months.
  • Another issue I see is the excessive ratio (5 to 1) of userpage edits required for a user to be considered in violation of policy. The frequency of such a ratio occurring is currently, and has been in the past, exceedingly rare.
  • A third problem I can see is that userpage edits are the only types of edits restricted. Certainly, those who spend nearly all of their time on Wookieepedia conversing on each others' talk pages should not escape sanctions which are currently reserved for users who excessively edit their own userpages.

Proposal

I have deliberated over which types of edits to restrict, and what numbers and ratios to employ, and I believe that I have reached a system that is neither too slow nor too fast in deciding when a user seems to have goals contrary to those of the wiki and the community as a whole. I would like to hereby make this proposal of policy:

  • After a user's total edits exceed 150, if more than 25% of the total edits are comprised of User and User Talk edits, the user should be warned. If their percentage of such edits has not fallen below 25% when their total reaches 200, further action should be taken at the enforcing administrator's discretion.
  • Should any user whose total edits number less than 150, but have a similar ratio as listed above, engage in any actions which are deemed disruptive to the wiki, administrators should feel entitled to issue warnings and take actions at their discretion.

Consensus vote

I'd like to request that any comments and/or discussion involving this CT be placed under the Discussion heading, so as not to confuse the voting process or interfere with the appearance of either side's votes.

I would like to note that I fully welcome any further refinements or additions to this proposal, and hope that any helpful new ideas will be listed in the Discussion.

Oh, and play nice.

Support

  1. Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 03:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. I support this proposal. Something like is brought to new users' attention, and we should have something to refer to if we warn them. If this proposal is passed, then I think this page should be referred to. However, this should be mentioned, perhaps in bold in the standard welcome message. - TopAce (Talk) 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    I like it. Better than the other proposal. If we wanted to fudge around with the numbers some more, that's fine. But this is getting where it needs to be. CharlieTheUnicorn (To vote you have to be registered or signed in, and meet the requirements decided per Forum: Single issue voters)
  5. Better thresholds, I think. -Fnlayson 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Numbers don't change WP:NOT. We're an encyclopedia, not a webhost for fanfic. -- Ozzel 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Fewer number-based policies, not more. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Though this would be better than the current policy, I'd prefer to leave it up to admin discretion -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Must be kept as simple as possible. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. I agree with the premise, but I can't exactly support this as it currently stands. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Per Gonk. Unit 8311 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. 25% is excessively low. - JMAS 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. In a perfect world, admin discretion is perfect. But we don't... ah forget it, it's too old and repeated too often. Chack Jadson Talk 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Jedipilot94 *Fo-Shizzle* 12:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 04:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I could go for an even tougher policy, i.e. drop the required numbers and simply state, "No more than 25 % of total edits count should be on User (or User talk) pages at any given time". Then block their fanon bios (or whatever it is they're so terribly interested in) from further editing till they comply and ban them if they are deliberately obstructive. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 25%? That's pretty large, especially "at any given time". There at least has to be some buffer, be it as low as 25-50 edits. The first time this was brought up, I crunched some numbers. 15% seemed to be the most harsh but most fitting for punishment, 25% the midpoint, and 35% pushing the envelope. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 10:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • IMHO, the first thing to be interested in when starting on the wiki shouldn't be writing up a snazzy fanfic or whatnots, but making useful contributions, though I guess enforcing the rule from the start could be a little harsh. How about basing it not on edits count, but time from registering, i.e. not starting to enforce it till, say, one week after the account has been established? Or perhaps that'll be too hard to administer... Otherwise the 50 edits you suggested could be a good number. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 11:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, the thing with the "enforcing the rule right from the start" would mean if I were to make a new account and use my first edit on my userpage, and someone noticed it was my only edit, I'd be banned (or at least punished). 50 edits lets you see a beginnning trend. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 17:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do we need a rule involving set numbers? Can't we simply vote to remove these limits from the policies in question, and judge situations on a case-to-case-basis? --Imperialles 17:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Case by case is exactly what we should have. But no, administrator discretion is a bad thing and we need to have an ironclad policy for everything. Bah! Havac 18:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not entirely opposed to a harsh or strict number, but I think we would need to be careful with that especially if we include talk pages. I'm at 13% combined (User and Talk), according to the discussion, would I be punished if I had to have a major discussion with another Wookieepedian about an article we are collaborating on? I would hope not! I've had over 240 constructive edits to the site in my short tenure here and I would hope that the 35 edits to the other pages wouldn't over shadow it - especially since I do not waste time on my user page like what is being called into question. Plus, I'll bet some of the Admins and other active Wookieepedians such as Ataru, jSarek, SFH, Acky, etc. have tons of User:Talk edits. Are we going to punish them in spite of the thousands of edits they've made? Again, I'm not against the number policy, but this is really a case where case by case should be done, especially if we include talk pages into the mix. Master Aban Fiolli (Alpheridies University ComNet) NR Seal 18:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're saying, and this is all the more reason to leave it up to admin discretion. User X might make an FA a week, with only several edits, but get into big conversations with other users, using many edits. Yet they are still an asset to the wiki. Then there are users like user:Tracynsenaar, user:Commando38, user:FemaleCommando25 and user:LethalReflex who do nothing but talk about Mandalorians, Karen Traviss and their "upcoming novels" on their talk pages. Under the current policy nothing can be done against them because they don't have excessive user page edits. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Per Acky. I can live with 15% as a guideline if it is accompanied by "admin discretion" and a warning. Gonk (Gonk!) 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't mind 15% (for user page edits) as a guideline if it is accompanied by "admin discretion" and a warning prior to that, but I cannot support admin discretion alone knowing that certain members of the administration have been waging a "war of attrition" in an (so far) ill-fated crusade against limited freedom on userpages. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, you're right -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 20:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Yep, your priorities are clearly in order. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Written policy is the only way to avoid arbitrary judgments. This isn't meant as criticism, just a truth history has proven. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After a user's total edits exceed 150, if more than 25% of the total edits are comprised of User and User Talk edits, the user should be warned. If their percentage of such edits has not fallen below 25% when their total reaches 200, further action should be taken at the enforcing administrator's discretion.
    I think 25% is way too low on this. I would go for this if the number was 50%. - JMAS 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • 50% is ridiculously high. Half of one's contributions are . . . not really contributions at all? Half your edits to your userpage and user talk? That's absurdly generous. A case could perhaps be made for 33%. But 50? That's just excessive. Havac 06:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I disagree. This is not a myspace or blog substitute for the user. I think expecting half their actual editing here to be actual contributions to the wiki articles, images, categories and templates is very appropriate. - JMAS 17:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I think only 50% for "real" edits is very inappropriate. It's not high at all, as Special:Editcount will tell you. I do oppose anything less than 33% for combined user and usertalk, simply because that will ban or result in sanctions on me! *waits while everyone immediately flocks over to support a 15 or 25% combined rule* In all seriousness, I contribute more to Wookieepedia than just userpage and user talk edits, despite the admittedly low percentages, and don't take my word for it- go check my contributions. Okay, I'm done with my soapbox for now. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Something this discussion doesn't seem to be taking into account are users (like Ataru, I'd suspect) who know how to use the "Show preview" button. Granted, I've never been a very active contributor, but my "useful" edit count would be much higher if I took 5 or 10 edits to accomplish what I have always done in 1. I use the preview button to make sure there's nothing about my edit I need to correct. Should I stop doing that in the future, to ensure I don't run the risk of letting my contributions/talk page ratio dip too low? If hard numbers need to be established, they need to be used only as a guideline, nothing more. Admins need to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter-- in other words, at their discretion. -- SM-716 talk? 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, percentages aren't the best way to regulate this type of stuff. Complicated rules only leave for glaring loopholes. Cull Tremayne 00:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And numbers, while suggestive, do not definitively indicate whether a user is contributing or not, as the above conversation illustrates. Let me put it this way: before deciding whether to warn/block/permablock anybody, my personal approach would be to examine the content of the userpage/talk page/Wookieepedia namespace edits. Is there any admin who wouldn't? Is this so rampant a problem that we can't invest the time to look beyond the numbers? Gonk (Gonk!) 15:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Karohalva asks that "percentage" be expanded to take into account the volume of each userpage edit. Counting net edits alone is deceiving since edits to articles often consist of single sentences whereas edits to userpages (or talk pages as we are doing here) tend to be far larger. Karohalva Karohalva 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)