Forum:CT:Revising the WP:CON Overturning Clause

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Revising the WP:CON Overturning Clause
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 Support proposal with option "two years". Imperators II(Talk) 10:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Per Forum:SH:Overturning Clause in WP:CON, it has been relatively agreed upon that the lack of any addendum or clarification for the passage of time for the Overturning Clause in WP:CON renders the clause unfair in its execution and unreasonable in terms of its expectation regarding the activity level for any vote that would be intended to overturn a prior one.

As it stands, the clause reads as follows:
"In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion. Note that this voter-participation requirement does not apply to modifications of a previous resolution, which is defined as any change to an existing policy that is not a straight repeal."

The proposed change is as follows: The overturning clause would remain entirely the same, EXCEPT that it will now only apply within a proposed timeframe of TWO YEARS. The alternative option of THREE YEARS will also be provided on the vote, though in the Senate Hall thread the majority seemed to be in favor of the former option.

To clarify once again, the passage of this CT will alter the text of the overturning clause from the original text (shown above) to:
"In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution within two years, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion. Note that this voter-participation requirement does not apply to modifications of a previous resolution, which is defined as any change to an existing policy that is not a straight repeal."
or: "In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution within three years, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion. Note that this voter-participation requirement does not apply to modifications of a previous resolution, which is defined as any change to an existing policy that is not a straight repeal."

Part 1: Support/Oppose the change

Support

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Dropbearemma (she/her) 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. 01miki10 Open comlink 12:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  5. —spookywillowwtalk 13:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  6. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
    1358 (Talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Banned user -- OOM 224 18:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC))
  7. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  8. OOM 224 17:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  9. Rakhsh (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  10. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 18:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  11. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  12. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 05:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  13. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  14. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  15. Imperators II(Talk) 08:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  16. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  17. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  18. Lewisr (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  19. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  20. BloodOfIrizi Sabine Starbird (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  21. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  22. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  23. Jarhead002 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  24. Asithol (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Part 2: Span of time

Addendum: Contingent on majority "Support" for part 1.
Please note that you can still vote in the second part of this vote if you voted oppose. It's important for your voice to be heard in all facets of the vote, even if the outcome of the first part isn't what you desired!

Two years

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. Dropbearemma (she/her) 11:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. 01miki10 Open comlink 12:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  5. —spookywillowwtalk 13:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  6. Rakhsh (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  7. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 05:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  8. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  9. Imperators II(Talk) 08:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  10. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  11. OOM 224 15:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  13. BloodOfIrizi Sabine Starbird (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  14. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 15:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  15. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 15:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  16. Jarhead002 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Three years

  1. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  2. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  3. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 18:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
  4. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
  5. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 02:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
  6. Asithol (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Discuss

It's trivial, but given the layout of the policy, with the modified paragraph being part of the policy "introduction" and then the "Infobox image consensus votes" being described under the "Rule" section, wouldn't it have been clearer to mention that this part of the policy doesn't concern infobox images (with a link to the specific section) at all? In fact, couldn't the paragraph be moved under its own subsection under the "Rule" section? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I quite understand. The fact it does not apply to the Infobox consensuses is already stated in the Infobox section. In my opinion, that seems sufficient enough since it's in regards to that policy only. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)