Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Hello. As I mentioned on Forum:CT:Slight voting eligibility tweak, there are further tweaks I'd like to see happen to the policy. I'm formally bringing them up here in a Senate Hall to gauge the community's interest before moving to CT.
My proposal is the changing of Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy to either remove part of or fully remove clause #2 under "Additional provisions." The clause singles out users that have used Template:User left but also vaguely says anyone that has "made it clear they have departed Wookieepedia" which isn't clear in my opinion and could be left to admin discretion on how to interpret that.
I believe that anyone should be welcomed back to Wookieepedia with open arms (barring actions that resulted in perma-blocking), and I believe ostracizing people that meet all other requirements but have returned to the Wook after leaving for whatever reason isn't helping us. But I understand some users support the User left clause, so when I take this to CT, I will have two votes, one to remove the vague portion and another to remove the user left portion.
I'd also like to open a discussion on changing clause 3's "two weeks" since unbanning to "50 edits" since being unbanned. The only reason I can think of to restrict someone from voting after already serving their punishment is to make sure they get back into the groove of editing again, so I think it makes more sense to ensure they're actually editing rather than extending their 1+ month ban by two weeks essentially. NBDani 
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussions
- Like I said on that SH, clause about User-left should be removed as it's just petty and unnecessary, in my opinion. And I like your reasoning about the 50 edits after returning from a block. Imperators II(Talk) 18:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with your second point per the reasoning you've presented. However, I believe that if a user decides to put {{User left}} on their user page, it is to be considered a clear sign that they have, in fact, left Wookieepedia indefinitely. Since the decision of using that template, and not a more neutral {{Vacation}}, is completely voluntary, I believe that losing voting eligibility is fair. Though, I would agree with removing the more vague "made it clear they have departed Wookieepedia" to avoid possible admin abuse. LucaRoR
(Talk) 18:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Per Luca. I don't mind removing the separate requirement for 50 edits, though, but those who claim to have left shouldn't be simultaneously participating in community matters, because they've supposedly left the wiki for good. 01miki10 Open comlink 18:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with Luca. Rsand 30 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I find this perspective a bit troubling, to be honest. Aside from cases where an editor's actions actually warrant a wiki block, or where they have actually not yet reached the editcount threshold, we should not be seeking further ways to penalize people contributing to this site. Someone investing their time into improving Wookieepedia should be viewed as a gift to our community, and we shouldn't be trying to institute more requirements for someone to continue to do so (in this case, through voting on community and site matters). Which is what this is: we're basically saying "if you've stated you aren't going to be a part of the community anymore, you can't contribute here anymore." To put it bluntly, I find that ridiculuous. We can completely make do with the base requirement of editing activity, i.e., "sorry, looks like you haven't edited in a while - your voting eligibility will be restored once you edit again". That's it. No need for any further commitments to contributing here, or any further penalizing. Heck, we don't even need the User-left template in the first place ("Hey, I'm not going to be a part of this community anymore, but I want to say that in a standardized manner" and "Oh sure, here's a standardized way you can state that you're not going to be a part of this community anymore"), let alone tie it to any silly conditions like this one. Imperators II(Talk) 18:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like requiring 50 edits even after a one-month block is excessive, given that the usual requirement is 50 edits per six months. 15–20 edits would be more reasonable. Alternatively it could be tied to the block length, with the edit requirement increasing for longer blocks. 01miki10 Open comlink 18:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely, we don't need this. People change their minds. And people using the template may not be aware of this restrictive policy. OOM 224 (he/him) 21:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed definitely on the 'made it clear' part of the clause being removed; shouldn't have any policies that rely on admin judgement for sure.—spookywillowwtalk 21:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- As Spooky said above, I agree that bit should definitely go. And I'd also be in favor of removing clause 2 completely since anyone who has truly left the wiki would lose their voting privileges in a few months per clause 1.
Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
