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