Forum:CT:WP:CON Early forum closing

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:WP:CON Early forum closing
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. Imperators II(Talk) 21:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, all. Currently, our Consensus policy has the so-called "snowball" clause, which allows administrators to close Consensus track and Trash compactor votes before the standard two weeks have elapsed in case "the votes overwhelmingly support one option." That's right, there's no set ratio for this clause, and historically the admins were free to interpret it as they saw fit - usually the voting ratios of 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 were considered as an acceptable point where the support for one of the options could be considered "overwhelming."

I suggest we codify one specific ratio, 9:1, for this clause, for reasons that include consistency of procedure, a shred of accountability and clarity of rules-interpretation for new admins' benefit. So under my proposal the first bullet item of "Closing a consensus forum" in WP:CON would be changed from:

"A vote may be closed after seven days if the votes overwhelmingly support one option"

to

"A vote may be closed after seven days if support for one option achieves the voting ratio 9:1"

In addition, I would like to add to this proposal a small optics-related change. The very next clause in the Consensus policy, one that allows the closing of a forum after five days if one option achieves 20-0 support, is currently named "Curb Stomp". Although fictional violence, even graphic one, indeed often plays an important part in Star Wars, it nevertheless seems like a good idea to not have a Wookieepedia rule share a name with such a hyper-violent real-world concept. Therefore, I propose that we rename this clause the "Holdo Maneuver". Imperators II(Talk) 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. Imperators II(Talk) 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  2. Let's Holdo this. OOM 224 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  4. Laughed out loud when I read the solution for the second proposal. Well played. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 20:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  5. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 20:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  6. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 20:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  7. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  8. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-ColliderYeager's Repairs 20:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  9. VergenceScatter (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  11. 1358 (Talk) 21:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  12. Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 21:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  13. The reasoning behind the second proposal is a tad silly imo, but at the end of the day but a more relevant name should always be preferable regardless. Fan26 (Talk) 21:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  14. Rsand 30 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  15. One week should also be enough for dissenting voices to be heard so I'm happy with this Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  16. The Gatalentan flair won me over. Wok142 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  17. Godspeed, Wookiees. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  18. —spookywillowwtalk 22:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  19. The wording has safeguards for ensuring a clear majority (90%) support the motion. Personally, I prefer two weeks to give everyone an opportunity to speak given that some of us may have study, work or family commitments. However, I would support closing a vote within seven days if a clear majority support the motion. Andykatib 10:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  20. May we continue codifying, clarifying, and sensitizing our policies! MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  21. DFaceG (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  22. Corellian PremierRogue SquadronMTFBWY 12:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  23. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 13:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  24. Beaumont Kin will be happy at pulling some Holdo Maneuvers :P Lewisr (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
  25. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  26. Rakhsh (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  27. ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  28. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
  29. Jarhead002 (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • Just in case this may help answer some questions anyone reading this proposal may have, reutilizing something I just said on the Discord:
look at it this way [...] - my proposal involves no change in the status quo of procedure except now the admins would in fact close some votes later than they would have potentially done before. 
so basically - admins have had the right for years now (and believe me, we already execute it quite frequently up til now) to close votes early (after 7 days instead of 14) if:
a) vote has been open for 7 days,
b) 10 people have voted, and
c) much more people have voted for one option than for other(s).

all that this is changing is that it's going to be "9 times more" instead of just "much more". Historically, admins commonly have interpreted this "much more" as "8 times more" or "9 times more".

so by setting this to a set ratio of 9:1, all that's changing is that admins who would have otherwise closed a vote at "8 times more" will have to wait until it's "9 times more".
Imperators II(Talk) 20:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Another reason for 9:1 is that it means there must be a minimum of 10 votes—which is indeed the minimum our policies require for a consensus vote. 8:1 could mean only 9 votes were cast, putting it below that requirement. (8:2 would also be at least 10 votes, but 75% in favor rather than 90%). Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)