User talk:Anonymous Dissident
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Anonymous Dissident (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 11 February 2010. It may differ significantly from the current version .
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Anonymous Dissident in topic Re voter eligibility
Please semi-protection this page, it is outdated and, it should be updated (please from User:Mxn) --minhhuy*= 15:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Reply
Re voter eligibility
Thanks for contacting me about this - I think there are two issues here:
- Firstly any vote that is checked now, may, according to the so-called 'sufferage checker', show enough edits when at the time of voting that was not the case. I have been pretty careful to carry out an additional check to ascertain the number of edits at the time.
- The other issue that has really caused me a headache, though, was where users did have enough edits and sufficient time registered on a qualifying wiki, but had not unified their accounts or provided a suitable link from their Meta page. As we could not confirm their identity, it would have been reasonable to strike their votes. Quite independently of my efforts however someone had contacted all the No voters in that position (26 of them), asking them to unify their accounts or provide a link rather than striking them immediately (see Talk:Global_sysops/Vote#Just_count_the_votes). I felt the only reasonable and equitable solution was to do the same for the 45 Yes votes in the same position. I am uncomfortable about this arrangement, as it verifies their identity after the close. My intention was to strike out those who do not respond (but how long is it reasonable to wait?). The other option I can see would be to strike out all 61 of them now. I would value your opinion on this. --(RT) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
- The other point to consider here is that the requirement to have a unified account or provide a link was not in the original eligibility criteria (ie the multilingual header) only in the edit box instructions introduced after many had voted. --(RT) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
- To put it another way: The requirement to have an unified login or link cannot be regarded as part of the eligibility criteria, but it is still necessary to establish identity. --(RT) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
- Question: Without an SUL login or link, is there an easy alternative way to establish whether a Meta user and one on another project are the same? I would still like to hear your thoughts before deciding how to proceed further. --(RT) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
- To put it another way: The requirement to have an unified login or link cannot be regarded as part of the eligibility criteria, but it is still necessary to establish identity. --(RT) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
- The other point to consider here is that the requirement to have a unified account or provide a link was not in the original eligibility criteria (ie the multilingual header) only in the edit box instructions introduced after many had voted. --(RT) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Reply
I say we should strike all 61 of them now, as well as anyone else who did not unify prior to February 1. It's the simplest solution, and it follows the rules most closely. The instructions were not hard to follow; we shouldn't have to make allowances. Fortunately, the SUL tool provides the information we need about when a given account was unified. —Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Reply