Erik Moeller wrote:
Maybe. But ballot stuffing isn't our only problem
and there are
reasonable ways to detect it. Sysops not having clear directions
what to do is the other problem. Some delete when there is a 2/3
majority, some do not delete when the author of the page
protests. It is absolutely important that everyone can follow the
same standard, and I think the most reasonable course of action is
for Jimbo to set such a standard.
Yes, I think that's right. On this narrow question, i.e. given the
way we are voting now, what constitutes a threshold for action, we can
all agree that it's very important that we have some sort of standard,
while leaving open the possibility that over time the details of the
standard might need to change, or that we might change the entire
process in fundamental ways.
The process actually works reasonably well now, so it would be wrong
of me to try to decree some huge change to the process. This is a
process that has grown up 'organically' over time. All we need *right
now* is just the tiniest bit of formulation of what the final decision
rule should be.
As such, while I'm sympathetic to the notion of excluding votes from
mysterious users who have only edited 1 time, I think that unless it's
a huge huge problem, we can safely ignore it.
(Indeed, although I don't condone people making multiple accounts in
order to cheat on a vote -- I would consider that as coming very close
to a bannable offense, and certainly it's bannable if continued after
warnings, etc. -- I *also* think that if someone is willing to go to
that much effort, we should try hard to see if there's something we
aren't seeing, something that can be accomodated.)
--Jimbo