Forum:CT:Reevaluating voting eligibility

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Reevaluating voting eligibility
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 Parts One and Three: Support; Part Two: Oppose removing editcount timeframe, No consensus for modifying it. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Based on the feedback on Forum:SH:Reevaluating voting eligibility, here are the proposals for expanding voting eligibility. Among the Voting eligibility policy is this rule: "Users must contribute 50 Main namespace edits within the last 6 months under their registered Wookieepedia account to become voting-eligible. Reverted and/or deleted edits do not count toward this total."

Part One: namespace

Proposed rule: "Users must contribute 50 edits within the last 6 months under their registered Wookieepedia account to become voting-eligible. Edits to userpages and talk pages and any reverted and deleted edits do not count toward this total."

The "Main namespace" requirement would be lifted. The rule would also specify that edits to userpages and talk pages do not count, but that actually is already in policy, mentioned under the subsequent "Additional provisions."

Support

  1. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. This is fair, though it'll probably be a real pain for the admins to enforce/monitor. Imperators II(Talk) 22:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 02:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. Sanathestarr (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  16. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  17. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ she/he/zhe/xe/they are Manoof 12:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 (he/him) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC))
  18. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  19. Xd1358 (Talk) 19:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Part Two: remove editcount timeframe

If Part One passes, then I propose amending the first sentence to remove the 6 month timeframe entirely:

"Users must contribute 50 edits under their registered Wookieepedia account to become voting-eligible."

Support

  1. As I had previously argued in the Senate Hall, casual reader-turned-very-occasional editors are invaluable in their contribution to Wookieepedia, and we have enough safeguards in place to permit us to relax the time-dependent voting restrictions and encourage more people to join us in our collaborative decision-making process. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    To say that people who hadn't edited for a decade could "curb-stomp" active editors is laughable, if not for the violent imagery. If such a thing to occur, should the active editors not question why these editors returns in sufficient droves to overturn the sentiment of active editors? Active editors do not make up the entirety of the Wookieepedia community, reader and editor rates show that these users are only a fraction of the community, and I say that the entire community should have equal voice. 50 edits alone is enough for someone to demonstrate they have skin in the game and care about the outcome, active editors and admin should respect that. Voting oppose with this reason is voting out of fear, and I can only conclude that it is a fear of a loss of power. That is a dangerous mindset, and one held dear by former members of admin and bureaucrats in wookieepedia's history. Needless to say, Yoda and others have had much to say about fear and power, so I won't quote or paraphrase any of them, but I see no actual, reasonable reason to oppose this proposal outside of "a group of people may make 50 edits and vote in a way active editors and I disagree with". Actual harmful actions can be dealt with under existing policies, so I'm confused what the big deal is? ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ she/he/zhe/xe/they are Manoof 12:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 (he/him) 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC))
    • So much for the promise that "I thought I had made clear in word and action that I was taking steps to not be antagonistic and contribute as a helpful member of the community, where there are no "sides" only dedicated SW fans." OOM 224 (he/him) 20:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. To also echo some Senate Hall points, I feel this undermines the value of gathering consensus of the true Wookieepedia's current community. We could technically see editors who hadn't edited in over a decade not need to contribute at all, but yet come back and vote down valuable change, while perhaps the entire current community maintaining the site would be curb-stomped. There's something beautiful about being able to trust that a community vote—for CTs, but also for electing our leaders, such as new admins—is truly what the community, right now, wants.—spookywillowwtalk 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Per Spooky Lewisr (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Wok142 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Per spooky but also want to mention that this website is not a social club, it is a fan encyclopedia, and if someone isn't making an effort to contribute to this encyclopedia, I'm very confused why they should be permitted to have the same level as influence as those of us who do regularly contribute here. Fan26 (Talk) 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 02:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  16. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  17. I could maybe see the time window being extended from six months to a bit more, but completely removing it is a bad idea imo Sanathestarr (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  18. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  19. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  20. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  21. I was up in the air about this one, but wook has been around for a long time. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  22. Xd1358 (Talk) 19:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

…or modify editcount timeframe

If the remove editcount timeframe vote above does not pass, then I instead propose changing 6 months to 12 months:

"Users must contribute 50 edits within the last 12 months under their registered Wookieepedia account to become voting-eligible."

Support

  1. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 20:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. Not editing does not mean that someone isn't active elsewhere in the community and is not knowledgeable about the goings-on and wouldn't be able to cast an appropriate vote. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Sanathestarr (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. Fifty edits over 6 months isn't hard... for power contributors who are used to doing so. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Any progress is better than none ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ she/he/zhe/xe/they are Manoof 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 (he/him) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC))
  14. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Personally I think 6 months is fine as-is. Rsand 30 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. Two edits per week isn't much. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Lewisr (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Wok142 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. Per Miki. This isn't an unreasonable amount that allows for arbitrary gatekeeping. If someone isn't regularly contributing to the wiki, I don't believe it's unreasonable to prevent them from actually casting a vote on something the community is debating. Fifty edits in six months is not hard. Fan26 (Talk) 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 02:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. Bare minimum. Xd1358 (Talk) 19:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Part Three: Additional provisions

Finally, I propose changing the Additional provisions section, mostly a copy-edit to make it clearer but also to 1) explicitly allow Discussions moderators to vote in proposals that affect Discussions and Discord [EDIT: scrapping this part of the proposal—see Forum:SH:Discussions post requirement OOM 224 (he/him) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC) and 2) to change the 200 posts within 6 months requirement to 12 months]:

View diff here.

The current rule about counting mod actions (deleting posts etc.) hypothetically could be taken as an encouragement for more (potentially unproductive) modding actions for the sake of getting voting rights. What if the forum reaches a point where it doesn't need much moderating? Plus, if Discussions users could vote, then mods (who also have some moderation rights in our Discord server) should defo be included since they're pulling much of the weight on the forum.

As a procedural safeguard, as part of this vote, no additional Discussions moderator is to be appointed until a formal election procedure for that position is put in place via community consensus. A request for moderator rights process is in the works as the coup de grâce in the transition from ad hoc admin-made appointments to a democratic community voting system—the removal process was recently instituted as part of Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights.

Support

  1. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  2. —spookywillowwtalk 20:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  5. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  6. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  9. Wok142 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  10. Fan26 (Talk) 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  11. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 22:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  12. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  13. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  14. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  15. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  16. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 02:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  17. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  18. Sanathestarr (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  19. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 13:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  20. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  21. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  22. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ she/he/zhe/xe/they are Manoof 12:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Blocked user -- OOM 224 (he/him) 20:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC))
  23. I can't express enough how much I appreciate the level of understanding and discretion that the community has afforded to us as moderators, even so far as modifying this proposal at my request to better align it with all the other work going on. Thanks for your support as our own work on the forum continues. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  24. Jedi Order SHCosmos (He/Him ✦ Talk) 01:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • For Part One, I think it would be worth specifying that edits to the Jundland Wastes don't count either. It's not technically a user page or a talk page, so if a user edited the page 50 times, they would have eligibility under your proposed policy. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 23:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
    • Agreed that might be worth clarifying. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
      • I suppose so, though technically all Jundland Wastes edits would count as reverted edits whenever the sandbox is cleared. OOM 224 (he/him) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • For Part Three, I'd like to corroborate the statement about a moderator appointment procedure being drawn up: yeah, I'm the one writing it! I'll have it done after I finish my formal proposal to create the Discussions archive pages. Right now, though, I think this motion makes a serious oversight in changing the Discussions voting timeframe independently of the results of Part Two. I had written the original motion for Discussions voting rights to establish a forum activity requirement analogous to the editing activity requirement, so I think changing one without changing the other would be a mistake, especially for those who opposed changing the editing requirement in Part Two. The goal is to simplify these policies, and defining a different timeframe for forum posts than for edits would just be more confusing. In order for the rest of Part Three to pass cleanly, I've asked for the proposed 200-post timeframe change to be removed and discussed elsewhere, where I'll again stress that it should just match whatever is agreed to be the best 50-edit timeframe. Anyone who already voted will receive a notice here or over Discord if this small change ends up being made to the motion. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)