Forum:CT:Voting eligibility pt. 2

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Voting eligibility pt. 2
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 all proposals. —spookywillowwtalk 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, am towing the relevant SH affecting the voting eligibility policy to CT. Given this affects several different clauses, am opting to make this a multi-part CT to allow most of it to pass even if one or two parts get hung up. Which, may be annoying in the short term, but since each change is almost unrelated to the other, it felt more fair. If every part of this were to pass, the full summary of the changes would be seen here.—spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

General cleanup

Below are three changes that generally fall under the banner of general cleanup, so put them together:

To add Featured article reviews, Good article reviews, and Comprehensive article reviews to "Non-consensus votes" due to them following their own voting procedure.
If additional provisions pt. 1 is kept in the subvote below, to add mention of social media team membership nominations + removals and board membership removals, as well as remove the redundant "Userpage and talk page edits do not count toward this total." due to the prior sentence clarifying mainspace edits are required anyway. If additional provisions pt. 1 is removed entirely, then this would be non-applicable.
In additional provisions pt. 2, to split "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." into its own-sub bullet.

Support changes

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Zed42 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  18. Lewisr (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  19. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  20. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose changes

Users returning from block

Additional provisionts pt. 3 reads:

"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."

Proposed is whether we remove this clause in its entirety, per the reasoning on the SH. A brief tldr is just that it's not necessary for short blocks—if someone is banned for over six months, they'll need to get some edits again just like anyone else who had gone inactive, but it isn't welcoming to continue to have punitive measures against people who perhaps made a small mistake.

Support removal

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Good riddance OOM 224 (he/him) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Fan26 (Talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Asithol (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Zed42 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  18. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  19. Lewisr (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  20. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  21. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Productivity requirement

Section reads:

"Regardless of the overall total number of edits, a user's combined total of content namespace, Wookieepedia:, and MediaWiki: edits must be at least double the combined total of Forum:, User:, and User_talk: namespace edits in order to vote on any of the aforementioned forums. This works in conjunction with all aforementioned provisions required to vote but does not apply to "fun" votes, such as Star Wars Character of the Year."

SH reasoning for removal: overly bureaucratic and generally not an issue, and also doesn't account for people who workbench a lot.

Support removal

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Asithol (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Zed42 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  18. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  19. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  20. Lewisr (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  21. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  22. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Additional provisions, pt. 1

Additional provisions, pt. 1 reads:

"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."

Proposed on the SH was the removal of said clause. The first section of this CT addresses some additions such as SMT noms being mentioned and redundancy cleanup, which will be enacted if this clause ends up staying. This section of the CT, however, is for whether to remove the clause wholesale. Also suggested was that a user's Fandom account must have existed, as can be checked on someone's contributions page or alternatively via logs, prior to a vote starting. The reasoning provided for this was that there's been an incident in recent history of an attempted meatpuppetry effort to have a lot of people create accounts, get the necessary edits, then sandbag a vote. If such amendment was adopted, the changes to additional provisions, pt. 1 would read:

"A user's Fandom account must have been registered prior to the start of a Consensus vote (as defined above)… — in the first sentence
"Users who registered their Fandom account 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."— last sentence

Such an amendment would move the 6 months part slightly upward to the first point of "General rules." What that would look like is shown here.

Keep current clause

Adopt amended version of clause

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. This seems a sufficient safeguard. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. People are still allowed to start SHs, engage in discussion on them, and leave comments on CTs without meeting the activity requirements. I'm not comfortable with a future where people who aren't active on the site have a say in how we regulate our editing and community policies. Fan26 (Talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. I think this is the best option of the three. I'd be open to further adjustments after this vote. I definitely see where OOM is coming from though. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
    Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Per Dani TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Also per Dani. Zed42 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Lewisr (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove clause entirely

  1. So uh, I might end up the only one voting for this option :P Radical in concept? Maybe. I get that losing this clause seems like doing without a sense of security, but that's a threat-oriented perspective. Do we really know what we're missing out on with the current clause in place? Remember that 50 edits may seem like nothing to a veteran editor but a monumental task to newcomers who just need some encouragement, not a very discouraging implication that if you aren't confident and competent enough to make "productive" edits, then you're not worth a voice. Any user can make comments on SH and CTs without voting, but that doesn't matter if someone is already turned away by the so-called "requirements." We rely on our readers, so they're stakeholders too. We should be bolder in opening up voting and listening to more voices, and letting them comment in discussion sections isn't enough. Having spoken with and helped many newcomers to the Wook, I have learned that many of them are more interested in reading than writing, and they are happy to just make a couple of edits here and there. They also often feel a lack of certainty on the site and in the community. Restrictions on votes only adds to perceptions of Wookieepedia's attitude as an exclusive community, which was certainly the case several years ago, and the combined impact of our history and current policy means the unintended consequence of limiting participation. The policy of not counting certain votes is well-intentioned but flawed; I understand why people think having safeguards is essential but I believe this is the better option in the long run. The more contributors we have, the merrier. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I have to agree with OOM here. For years we have tended to restrict any attempts by anyone to influence the site, without stopping to look at the reasons why they want to, or if it would influence us in a beneficial way. If we make a mistake so massive that people *need* to come in and speak up, perhaps we should listen to the reasons why. Wookieepedia depends on *all* contributors to succeed, not just the ones with massive edit counts, or the highest activity levels. Anyone who helps the site should feel like they can have a voice here, regardless of how many edits they have within a certain period of time. Let's keep in mind as well that our overly legalese policies such as this can have the effect of pushing away anyone who cannot understand it. As they say in The High Republic, "We are all The Republic The Wookieepedia". Incidentally as well, if someone does create a massive amount of fake accounts to skew a vote, they would be blocked for sockpuppetry anyways. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 06:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Rakhsh (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Per every point made above. Asithol (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Been thinking about this ever since I saw OOM's message. I'm inclined to agree with both him and SE on this. Wasn't originally sure where I was going to side with this, but I'm inclined to agree with the above based on my own experiences with Wookieepedia, both past and present. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. I think this risk is highly unlikely to occur, and not sure what this incident could refer to other than the deadnaming issue, which only showcased the benefit of removing this clause due to votes that are important to the entire community, not just the active editors with high edit counts who are on discord and/or discussions. Without explanation of this mysterious incident, having this policy is overly beaurocratic and more detrimental than beneficial. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 01:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just to put on public record, I'd entirely quit the site for the year (2020—2021) spanning those the deadnaming/Tope debacle so I don't know how that vote went down. This is not at all to change anyone's mind or to argue either side, but solely to clarify. The incident referenced is not the deadnaming CT nor would I ever defend any of that at all, and though I can't talk about the other thing, wanted it to be abundantly clear that I genuinely (per my contribs logs) was not present for that event and don't have firsthand knowledge of it in any form. Didn't hear about the 2021 happenings till half a year after it happened—though from what others have said, it was abhorrent to be in those moments.—spookywillowwtalk 01:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    I reviewed the incident with Spooky and determined we can discuss it so I will lay it out. There was a coordinated effort by a group of Supernatural Encounter fans to create accounts and reverse the decision on the work of fiction. Their plan never continued further than the planning phase. As an aside, the meatpuppetry clause is bullshit in my opinion and should be removed. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
    While I understand some trepidation if that was the case, I would suggest that the 50 edit requirement is enough disincentive (or incentive?) for people who are here for the sole purpose of a vote like that. If that was the case (that numerous people created accounts and made 50 edits to get SE content on Wookieepedia) then maybe we as a community should consider the ramifications of such action and take it on board. The other part is that the content would need editors to update, I would think that most people who were not supportive of such content would not actively make edits including that content, so those voters would need to stay active in order to update the content they voted on. That's bound to be beneficial outside of that content as well. In short, while some people here may be vehemently opposed to that course of action, we should always respect the entire community in such decisions, understanding that the vote outcome doesn't force anyone to edit something they don't like or agree with. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ he/him/his 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

  • I mentioned being open to further adjustments in my vote and I figured I should lay those out somewhere. I think at the end of all the CTs our voting rules should have basically one rule, have 50 edits (And maybe Fandom account made before vote, but honestly I'm willing to drop that). A lot of our policies affect how we go about editing so I think it's fair to ask someone to edit just a bit before they're able to participate. But once you have those 50 edits, you're set for life. I joined Wookieepedia because I needed to grind 50 edits so I could upload the Rebels magazine covers, and during those 50 edits and subsequent upload spree, I got hooked. So my hope is, asking participants to get 50 edits, even if its during the vote, would open us up to more participants and hopefully more editors, small and big. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 12:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Forgot to leave a reply here but aye, that would be better. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)