After discussion on Discord regarding potentially overturning the majority Oppose TC on Breast and Breast/Legends (discussion for which is for another day), the topic came up that, at least to some, WP:CON contains a clause regarding overturning previous votes and the number of voters that is required to do so.
That section reads as follows:
"In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion. Note that this voter-participation requirement does not apply to modifications of a previous resolution, which is defined as any change to an existing policy that is not a straight repeal."
This clause has its place, and that is not entirely in question. The issue lies within the span of time in which this clause should apply in its full effect.
As an example, the first TC vote for Breast/Legends—Forum:TC:Breast—, which was majority keep Addendum: no decision, was in 2007. The second TC, Forum:TC:Breast-related articles, was also majority keep, and in 2014. It has been fifteen years since the first TC, and eight since the second. Brief discussion on Discord concluded that, to overturn these votes and even have a chance of removing them via TC, we would need nearly 50 votes in participation alone, and that's disregarding whether or not those votes are even in opposition of or in support of removing the pages.
This SH isn't about the breast pages in specific, and I use them as an example solely because they are what spurred this discussion. This policy affects potential overturning or further voting on ANY past policy or decision, regardless of the span of time that has changed, the change in which votes were and are active, and the overall attitudes and principles of the wiki (see Forum:SH:Sexism and Misogyny on Wookieepedia). (Regarding that last bit, some of the votes on the prior Breast TCs are nearly as concerning if not equally as concerning as the votes on the Miss Star Wars votes of old.)
As this is a SH, I'm not making any formal proposals just yet, but in my personal opinion, there should most definitely be a clause that allows for the number of required votes for a re-voted or overturned past vote to occur to decrease over time, or perhaps just nullify the existing clause for certain votes after a specific span of time. One such change suggested by User:Erebus Chronus in Discord could potentially be having the existing clause apply after no longer than two years. There is no reason we should need 50 voters to overturn a vote from eight years ago. It's unreasonable to expect that level of activity when our average number of votes on any thread is typically no more than about 20 individuals total, regardless of side.
Thanks for participating, - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Discuss
Manoof's suggestion
"In order to overturn a previous consensus resolution within two years, a renewed vote must be held with a voter participation equal to or greater than the original discussion. Note that this voter-participation requirement does not apply to modifications of a previous resolution, which is defined as any change to an existing policy that is not a straight repeal."
- I think a simple tweak like above would be sufficient, the clause thus only takes effect if the previous decision was made in the last two years. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. The purpose of the rule was to prevent policy from changing all the time, and limiting the clause to two years would prevent a ruling being changed to many times. -ThrawnChiss7 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed as well. Obviously constant changes would be counterproductive. However, the Wook doesn't have as many members in CTs etc. as back then, which locks in some really necessary votes from being overturned even though a healthy consensus in terms of ratios could be achieved.—spookywillowwtalk 00:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I believe this would be the best solution, as it allows the clause to still work its magic while also not being absolutely overkill for votes that take place almost a decade later. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the less I think it makes sense to say that a vote to overturn a previous decision has to have more votes than the original one. However, I strongly believe that overturning community decisions should require more than just a simple majority vote—although I think it might make sense to make it easier to overturn if a significant portion of the voters in the original vote are no longer active. If we are to implement an expiration date for when a vote can be overturned, I think two years is too short a time, but regardless I think that it makes more sense to focus on how many people are still active rather than how long ago it was. I also think that, if nothing else, we need to add a clause stating that votes by people who have been permabanned are not counted towards the number needed to overturn a previous vote; there's no reason that the votes of people who have been permanently prevented from contributing to the site should limit current editors' ability to change policy. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think that to capture this would make the policy quite wordy and more confusing, when we should strive to make things as easy to understand and follow as possible Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Almost certianly true, but that doesn't mean it would be a worse way to do things. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think that to capture this would make the policy quite wordy and more confusing, when we should strive to make things as easy to understand and follow as possible Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I might say 3 years just to be safe, but an expiration for this does make a lot of sense (though as pointed out on a concurrent SH, it isn't often an issue that comes up). JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Per Macaroni OOM 224 13:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Two years sounds OK to me. Imperators II(Talk) 17:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer two years. Three years just seems too long for me. Maybe I just don't have that kind of patience anymore. :P MasterFred
(talk) (he/him) 20:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Admin override
The thought occurred to me that we may need to make adjustments where it is identified there is a problem with a policy. I was thinking maybe a unanimous admin vote could override this clause, giving flexibility if something needs to change quickly for whatever reason.
Do we need an escape clause of sorts to have some flexibility? Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- On second though a unanimous requirement would be problematic as it would take one grumpy admin to block a decision that might be needed. I do think some sort of escape/emergency clause is needed though... Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think any immediate admin action is necessary in this specific case, as nothing addressed in the SH above is of the uptmost urgency - simply a general policy change being discussed. The only thing in there that possibly dictates urgency is the concerning or outright disgusting votes on the older Breast TCs. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I very much oppose this idea. Admins are supposed to enforce policy, not create it. WP:A even says "they are not imbued with any special authority" and I really don't think it's a good idea to change that. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Something to be mindful of is that the admins of a decade (and more) ago did create policy without any community vote, including giving themselves the power to interpret policy as they saw fit (WP:AA). It was initially proposed by a now-permabanned admin, then expanded (with community vote this time) by another now-permabanned admin. I don't know what an escape clause might look like that isn't a potential problem. Immi Thrax
(she/her) 01:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that AA is very problematic and should be removed. And like you said, I just don't see a way to write the clause that couldn't be exploited to cause future problems. I trust our current admins not to do that, but we unfortunately can't be confident that all future admins would be as restrained. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I also feel that an admin override doesn't feel like the direction we're trying to go as a site. Regarding WP:AA, while I think "No administrator may unilaterally overturn another administrator's decision," per the nutshell description, is a good principle, having it codified the way it is has given rise to problems over the years. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that AA is very problematic and should be removed. And like you said, I just don't see a way to write the clause that couldn't be exploited to cause future problems. I trust our current admins not to do that, but we unfortunately can't be confident that all future admins would be as restrained. VergenceScatter (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Something to be mindful of is that the admins of a decade (and more) ago did create policy without any community vote, including giving themselves the power to interpret policy as they saw fit (WP:AA). It was initially proposed by a now-permabanned admin, then expanded (with community vote this time) by another now-permabanned admin. I don't know what an escape clause might look like that isn't a potential problem. Immi Thrax
- Sounds bad. :P Imperators II(Talk) 17:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)