Forum:CT:Select Voting Eligibility for Discussions Users

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Select Voting Eligibility for Discussions Users
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. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a stack of Discussions-related work that we moderators have been building up with some advice from the administration and other interested users, so we hope this is a turning point from filling in the blanks on established forum practice to building the foundations for new forum policy. First comes a change to our voting eligibility policy.

Background

There isn't much to be said about this specific proposal, except that NBDani had the right idea from the start when the last policy change regarding Discussions and Discord was discussed. As a convenient example of what we'd like to prevent, Eaglewing2444's vote on that proposal had to be struck because he didn't meet the fifty-edit voter quota in the six months beforehand, although he was certainly active enough on both the forum and the server to be informed on the purpose of the change.

Discussions regulars should be able to vote on policies that affect the forum—as well as those that affect Discord, where many forum users are now full server members after that policy change I brought up. Although you've all been extremely supportive of the forum's place on this site in recent years, it would be strange to perpetuate the capacity for editors to, in theory, unilaterally legislate a forum they tend not to use very much. It's time to bring the forum itself into the loop.

Policy change

Below is my proposed amendment to the list of additional voting provisions in order to include Discussions users on votes relevant to them. I've also tweaked the language of the existing first provision at the recommendation of OOM 224 for clearer wording.

Additional provisions (current version)

  1. Users must have contributed at least 50 valid Main namespace edits within the previous 6 months prior to the start of Consensus votes (as defined above), Requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, or review board membership nominations to be eligible to vote on such forums. Userpage and talk page edits do not count toward this total. Users who contribute 50 valid Main namespace edits after the start of a Consensus vote may become eligible to vote on that forum if the forum lasts longer than a period of one month.

Additional provisions (proposed revision)

  1. Users must have contributed at least 50 valid Main namespace edits within the previous 6 months prior to the start of Consensus votes (as defined above), requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, or review board membership nominations to be eligible to vote on such forums. Userpage and talk page edits do not count toward this total. Users who reach this edit requirement after the start of a Consensus vote may become eligible to vote on that forum if the forum lasts longer than a period of one month.
  2. For Consensus votes intended to modify Wookieepedia policies in relation to the site's Discord server or Discussions forum, users may also vote if they have made at least 200 valid posts on the site's Discussions forum within the previous 6 months prior to the start of any such vote. Users who reach this post requirement after the start of such a Consensus vote may become eligible to vote on that forum if the forum lasts longer than a period of one month. Deleted posts do not count towards this total. Discussions moderators may include their individual moderator action counts from the last 3 months (visible to them and administrators through Special:Insights) as part of their total post count.

Support

  1. As proposer. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  2. Finally, Discussions users can have more of a say in what affects them and their experiences on the site. OOM 224 (he/him) 07:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 08:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  4. 01miki10 Open comlink 08:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  5. Fan26 (Talk) 13:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  6. —spookywillowwtalk 13:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  7. Lewisr (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  8. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  9. Rsand 30 (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  10. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  12. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  13. LucaRoR (Talk) 01:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  14. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 19:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  15. As long as I understand correctly that this does not apply to votes pertaining to Wookieepedia policy and updates, but only to Discussions and Discord policy votes. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 19:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Correct, this is the exact intention. The only reason I didn't explicitly restrict the wording to the Discussions and Discord policy pages is because there are a few Discussions and Discord clauses (namely the one we're voting on now if it passes) present in other policy pages. Obviously votes to modify those specific clauses would warrant participation from the forum, but modifying those other policies in unrelated ways would remain a matter for engaged editors. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  16. It's way past time for Discussions users to have a say in how their own forum is run. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 01:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  17. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  18. Per Fred. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  19. Very nice work on this! Supreme Emperor Holocomm 01:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  20. Rakhsh (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

This is a disclaimer noting the small possibility that we might need to lower the voter post quota to 150 or maybe 100 (but never any lower) if the current proposal allows too little forum turnout in future votes. Ironically that user whose vote was struck before might still fall short of the new bar, so I want to avoid any perceptions of instruction creep if changes become necessary. If this motion passes, then one of us mods will announce it to the forum to make the folks there aware of both their new voting rights as well as the next relevant proposal I'll write here about Discord. I'm curious to see the impact of this vote if it passes. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)