Forum:CT:Slight voting eligibility tweak

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Slight voting eligibility tweak
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. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Discovered a slight loophole from some of the recent policy pages that we'd forgotten to formally codify. Briefly, Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy states:

  • Users returning from a block of one month or longer are not immediately eligible to vote on Consensus votes (as defined above), Requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, or review board membership nominations. They regain their voting eligibility after two weeks from the expiration of their block.

I propose that this be updated for requests for removal of review board membership, and requests for/for removal of social media team by being:

  • Users returning from a block of one month or longer are not immediately eligible to vote on Consensus votes (as defined above), requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, review board membership/removal of review board membership nominations, or social media team/removal of social media team nominations. They regain their voting eligibility after two weeks from the expiration of their block.

And then finally, for the list of "Non-consensus votes" that lists these be updated to add the below as bullet points, as by definition they fit into this category by way of having their own voting processes:

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 20:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  2. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 20:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  4. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  5. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  6. OOM 224 (he/him) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  7. Lewisr (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  8. I want to see this policy further tweaked to remove the second rule under provisions (Concerning Template:User left and related) as I feel the second bit is too vague- if the first rule is 50 edits within the last 6 months, I fear an admin could abuse this portion of the rule to remove a vote they dislike from a user that hasn't edited in 4-5 months. I also don't see the point in ostracizing people that had User lefted, provided they meet the other 2 provisions. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  9. Rsand 30 (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  10. Imperators II(Talk) 08:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  11. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  12. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 16:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  13. VergenceScatter (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • Agreed with Dani's point above. OOM 224 (he/him) 10:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Same, that point is arbitrary and a relic of past attitudes and should go. Imperators II(Talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)