Hello all! It's been some time since Forum:CT:Revising the WP:CON Overturning Clause took place, during which we voted that the overturning clause (which previously had nothing resulting in the required number of votes to go back down to the minimum after a set time) would reset regarding a previous CT or TC's topic after two years. This is excellent, and I believe it opens Wookieepedia up to fresh consensuses and ideals as the active editors on the site change over time and the opinions of everyone here shift and become more refined. This kind of change is good and it should always be reflected in our policies.
That being said, there's one minor rut that we failed to address in the aforementioned CT.
I pointed this out to Imperators II earlier today after seeing that Forum:TC:Grievous's mother was created a mere day before the expiration of the topic's adherence to the overturning clause. I have no concern that the results of the TC will be affected by this as it's essentially already met the requirements to overturn the previous result, but it brought up the potential issue of very precise edge cases like it. How exact does the two-year timeframe have to be?
It could be argued that no exceptions should be made. Exactly two years, no more, no less. However, I would personally argue that some leeway should be granted to edge cases such as the above TC. Perhaps a margin of a few days prior to exactly two years, or perhaps even a week or more.
Of course, any changes made would need to be specified in the clause, but I think it's best we discuss this as a community, and ascertain both whether it's worth addressing and how we should address it. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
- Personally I feel like a buffer in this instance will become the new benchmark. I'd support removing it entirely, anyone raising a new vote for something in a short time period without new information that might affect the outcome can be addressed using existing policies around disruption and edit warring... it would also remove the requirement to overcome results where new information comes to light, adding an unnecessary hurdle. PLUS it simplifies things for everyone, which is always a good thing where possible! Manoof (he/him/his)
03:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I'd like to wait for more users to weigh in before I decide about the two year thing, I think having new info should override the waiting period (if we keep it), same as it does with the infobox image thing. Thanks for bringing this up, Thannus! Dropbearemma
(she/her) 04:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- On reviewing the policy in depth (and chatting with Imp ^^' ) I realised there is a 6 month period on the infobox section. My suggestion (noted on the concurrent WP:CON SH) is to expand that as a general overturning rule. So this would reduce the period from 2 years to 6 months, with the aforementioned clause that new info can allow a new vote prior to the end of the 6 month period. Manoof (he/him/his) 11:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- On reviewing the policy in depth (and chatting with Imp ^^' ) I realised there is a 6 month period on the infobox section. My suggestion (noted on the concurrent WP:CON SH) is to expand that as a general overturning rule. So this would reduce the period from 2 years to 6 months, with the aforementioned clause that new info can allow a new vote prior to the end of the 6 month period. Manoof (he/him/his)
- While I'd like to wait for more users to weigh in before I decide about the two year thing, I think having new info should override the waiting period (if we keep it), same as it does with the infobox image thing. Thanks for bringing this up, Thannus! Dropbearemma
