The following request for comments is closed. This proposal is not supported by consensus and simply infeasible. As RfC's are based off of consensus, not voting, preventing IP editors from editing RfC pages will do nothing other than prevent their voice from being heard. In the event editors are attempting to fabricate more votes by using various IP's, it will not be successful as that will be accounted for by the editor reviewing the RfC at closure. Vermont (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement of the issue
I have seen a lot of IP users voting and commenting on local and global RfCs, most notably the one which requests to rename Norsk.wiki to Norsk_Bokmål.wiki (no. to nb.) Also, in certain wiki farms, like Miraheze don’t allow unregistered users to vote on major discussions (like this one) which caused convenience for local Stewards there to have consensus on what to decide on major policies. Disallowing IPs to vote on RFCs will prevent the Meta RFC system being gamed (people going to different IPs to vote anonymously to give up the support. Therefore, for the reason that IPs are tending to try to game the system, I have proposed this RfC as a protection for IPs to not disrupt the flow of any RfC. Znotch190711 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Zppix and Reception123: I have heard you participating on RfCs consistently on Miraheze Meta, and please, this is a practice to see whether the users here want RfCs to flow perfectly, no gaming the system. Znotch190711 (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Let me point out that in the Requests for new languages space and Proposals for closing projects space, the !votes are only advisory anyway, not binding. LangCom (or if it chooses, the WMF Board) makes the final decision based on policy. Accordingly, this is no more harmful than letting IP's comment on any other RfC, regardless of whether they are allowed to !vote or not.
- For what it's worth, we consider the RfC on no>nb and the RfC on nah>nci as falling under these rules. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @StevenJ81: I am not sure on what you are saying. My RfC wants to prevent IPs to vote (IPs will only be able to comment on RfCs). If the WMF board made the decision, it will have a big impact on Meta (if this RfC is unsuccessful) or if this RfC passes, consensus will be easier to track, and people are not getting easier to go across IP addresses to create random accounts to draw consensus, if this RfC passes. Znotch190711 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Znotch190711: My point is that whether or not an IP tries to register a "vote" or not in the no>nb RfC, LangCom will make the final decision. ("Votes" won't really count as "votes".) And since I'm the one who will make the recommendation to LangCom, I can assure you that I will not be unduly swayed by a bunch of IP votes, especially if there is evidence that they are coordinated. How good an idea this is for RfC's in general I am not saying. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @StevenJ81: The scope of this RfC is to find a way to prevent IPs to vote (not comment) on all RfCs. —Znotch190711 (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I understand. I only mentioned this because you specifically brought up the RfC about the Norsk wiki. And I'm only trying to tell you that voting is actually irrelevant for that one. But by all means discuss the question in general. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @StevenJ81: I brought this up about the Norsk wiki because RfCs like that one had a lot of IPs voting, which could have possibilities that the system be gamed by dynamic IPs (although it is a request for review) Znotch190711 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
So how exactly is this RFC necessary? Are there any legitimate cases where IPs have gamed an RFC to the point where it has swung the needle either way? Are you aware of how RFCs work here? Hiàn (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hiàn It is only a prevention if ever, Meta grows bigger, people are abusing IP addresses to overturn/majorly lead the consensus which caused extreme challenges for the sysop/steward who closed the request to decide what to go to in the future Of either local ofr global RfCs. Znotch190711 (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Frankly I just don't see how this is an issue. Unless you're suggesting, on a very slim chance that Meta loses all competent sysops unable to discern consensus properly I just don't see how mass IP voting can actually cause a tangible effect. Hiàn (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
IPs are allowed to vote on RFCs.
- I'm going to jump the gun here and say nothing within this proposal makes any sense and the proposer has so far given no tangible, fact-based argument in favour of any benefits nor presenting any existing issues with the system at present. The status quo works at the moment and there's no reason to think it'll fall apart without warning. Hiàn (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Consensus is not established based on votes, if an IP user want to chip in, then they should be heard. In the case of serious misuse, semi-protection on a case by case basis would work just fine, I don't see any issue with the current "let's just see how thing go" approach. Viztor (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- With some restraints applied to IP users, IP users' comments are also constructive for RFCs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I would now say that we need to create a global abuse filter to prohibit IPs in the IP vote blacklist to vote on RfCs, because they could have a long history of gaming the system. Znotch190711 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
IPs are not allowed to vote on RfCs and they are not allowed to game the RFC flow.
- See my comment on the first proposal. Hiàn (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gaming is really a confusing word in some Asian languages, so why not instead withdrawing all the RFC mechanisms on Meta? We already have Wikimedia Forum, why not use that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: Not based on author, this is instead proposed by: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Create a separate global AbuseFilter, so the listed-by-AF IP users are technically not allowed to vote in anywhere, while others are simply allowed.
--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)