AnilSerifoglu (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)EDIT: the vote is up! Forum:CT:Reevaluating voting eligibility OOM 224 (he/him) 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Wookieepedia operates on a system of community consensus, as defined by Wookieepedia:Consensus and Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy. This is currently limited to registered users who are not blocked, with the rule that "Users must contribute 50 Main namespace edits within the last 6 months under their registered Wookieepedia account to become voting-eligible. Reverted and/or deleted edits do not count toward this total." The account must have been registered prior to the start of a vote as well (This is a summary; see WP:VEP#Additional provisions).
I think preventing blocked users from voting is pretty reasonable, but we should give the other requirements more thought. There was a relevant discussion on Forum:CT:Voting eligibility pt. 2#Additional provisions, pt. 1 last month.
Requirements
50 edits in 6 months
The 50 edits within the previous 6 months rule (excluding deleted and reverted edits, as well as excluding user page and talk page edits) was implemented at the slightly chaotic tail end of a 160-minute (đ¤Ž) January 2014 Mofference at 11 support/1 oppose. As with blocked users, the exclusion of deleted and reverted edits seem pretty reasonable because their likely causes, vandalism and edit-warring, disrupt Wookieepedia. The exclusion of user page and talk page edits is relevant to the Main namespace requirement, as discussed below.
However, 50 edits may seem like nothing to a veteran editor but a monumental task to newcomers who just need some encouragement, and I think we should try lowering the edit count requirement. I understand concerns that it is in place as a safeguard in distinguishing who gets to have a say in changing Wookieepedia policies, but is the 6 months timeframe really necessary?
A baseline of achieving 50 edits without a timeframe requirement would be fairer to less active contributors and be more in line with our file uploading and Discord server eligibility requirement of 50 total edits, accumulated over any time. Removing the 6 months requirement would also remove the implication that users can "game the system" by unnecessarily splitting their contributions into many edits within a short time.
Main namespace edits
Main namespace means any ordinary article, without the "Wookieepedia," "Talk," "Forum," "User," "File," "Template," "Category," or "Index" etc. prefixes.
The Main namespace requirements was pushed forward by a former admin during a June 2014 Mofference at 13 support/3 oppose, after a ten-minute debate and someone bringing up that the productivity issue needs to be discussed further after the vote. Ten years later, and here we are.
Productive use of the Wookieepedia namespace, for instance, includes the entire status article nomination and review system. The nomination pages already state that "in order to support a nomination, you must have 50 mainspace edits," so new users cannot spam votes in order to achieve the 50 edits voting requirement in the first place. WookieeProjects are also part of the Wookieepedia namespace and often include subpages with valuable resources.
Talk and forum discussion pages on the wiki (including article talk pages, user talk pages, and the SH, CT, and TC) are also crucial, though they are not reader-facing content, as with user pages. Files, templates, categories, and Index pages, however, are directly included on wiki articles and are important in maintaining the site structure. Do we want to include some of these, or all of them? Do we want to just exclude user and talk/forum pages?
Discussions forum
Finally, there are recently added provisions that Discord server and Discussions forum rules are also open to users who have made at least 200 valid (i.e. not deleted) Discussions posts within the previous 6 months. Discussions moderators may also include their individual moderator action counts from the last 3 months as part of their total post count (This is a summary; see WP:VEP#Additional provisions).
As per above, do we want to remove the "previous 6 months" requirement as well? Maybe the "last 3 months" requirement for Discussions moderators too?
Looking forward to the discussion! OOM 224 (he/him) 10:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments
- I think getting rid of the 6 month requirement across both editors and discussions users makes sense since the experience gained over making fifty edits means they'll still have understanding of the site, even if its a little out of date or happened through infrequent activity over a longer period of time. Returning users may not be up to date with the current state of the site, but I don't think that's enough to discount their vote. We should also definitely be including non-mainspace articles in that since working on those often argueably shows more in-depth understanding of the site then someone who only knows to edit the mainspace. I would still leave user pages and probably talk pages out though as I personally would like to see a user interact with the actual content of the site more before voting. Finally, I'd personally want to see the 50 edit count requirement kept, especially with the other changes I'd support making that much easier to achieve. By the time someone's made 50 edits they'll likely of interacted with the community in one way or another and also gained some understanding of the workings of the site, while also showing a level of commitment to improving it. This ensures that those who vote have some level of understanding of the wide implications their vote might have on site workings and also avoids any situation where those editors who do contribute to the site end up having to work to rules set by those who don't contribute on a meangingful level, which would only discourage and demotivate the users that the site most relies upon. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, making it 50 edits without time requirement sounds reasonable to me. I'm also open to including any namespace, including Talk (since productive conversations on article talk pages can still happen) but not User (I realize drafting on user subpages or just various project-related edits on user subpages can both be very productive as well, but unfortunately User namespace edits also potentially include edits that aren't productive at all :P). Imperators II(Talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Odd one out (so far anyway) but I do suspect at least a few people will hold this opinion. I donât think it should be removed entirely. Yes, a lot of Mofference stuff was shady, and I too often go at it when I find it. But simply the way something came to be doesnât necessarily mean thereâs not a point to be had. Lessening the requirement? Sure, open to it. But making it 50 edits for all time means that the entire definition of what a âcommunity voteâ is changed. Of course, if we go that direction, thatâs fine. I do personally prefer the comfort of knowing that every Consensus track, which often decide our day to day policies, is a decision that is soundly made by Wookieepedians. The biggest issue I have with this, aside from even the edit requirement, is that in the event we donât CheckUser every single new user each Consensus track, the lack of requirements here means that people, quite literally could just mass-create brand new accounts and vote. The admins catch obvious sockpuppets based on behavior, but ones that sign up singly to vote have no such markers. Or just VPN accounts to cast votes and we may not always be the wiser. There would be absolutely nothing in the way of that, unless an alternative rule of a Fandom accountâat bare minimum existingâbefore a vote, remained established. To me anyway that would deeply undermine the CT process because, given the meatpuppet clause has been discussed as well to get rid of in the past, if both that and this are removed then any Wookieepedian could go fish on Twitter for votes.âspookywillowwtalk 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think removing the requirement of having a Fandom account prior to the vote is even on the table here (and I would oppose it if it were). Imperators II(Talk) 14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- My point being that we very well could get rid of it in the future because we're (very rapidly, all things considered) eroding the policy piece by piece. Which isn't entirely a bad thing because several of the now-defunct clauses needed to go, but still very much means that once the meatpuppetry clause inevitably gets trimmed too (due to being unenforceable among other issues), we can just recruit people offsite to mass make accounts.âspookywillowwtalk 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think removing the requirement of having a Fandom account prior to the vote is even on the table here (and I would oppose it if it were). Imperators II(Talk) 14:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Probably in the minority here, but I don't think the this should be removed. I agree the points addressed by Spooky, having voting requirements is a metric to make sure not just anyone can vote, only established Wookieepedia users. 50 edits really isn't that much to do in six months. For example, if a user who hasn't edited since 2005 decides to come back, I feel like they should at least have some experience with current mainstream edits before being able to vote on changing site policy. Rsand 30 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Ayre entirely. Though in seeing opposition to removing the timeframe, what about a middleground in extending the timeframe? Maybe 50 edits in a year? NBDani
(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 14:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would be fine extending up to a year, it sounds like a good middle ground. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Dani, 50 in a year works as a middle ground Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Spooky and Rsand, I am not really comfortable removing the 50 edits or six month requirement. I would be fine with a slightly longer time eg. a year, but community matters should be decided by active editors. I know we haven't had much of an issue with something like mass meatpuppetry in the past, but that doesn't mean it couldn't come up in the future, and I think these are important safeguards to prevent such happening. ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 14:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) - I am very much in agreement with Spooky and the other dissenters here, especially Rsand's point about older editors needing to "demonstrate they have returned to help the site's content, and not just to police changes." Voting eligibility ensures those voting in Wookieepedia's votes are Wookieepedians, who have an active interest in the running of this site and the work of our community. Fifty edits in six months is not that big a hurdle to overcome nor is it a big requirement to remain active enough to vote, and I think ensuring that those voting in Wookieepedia's consensus forums are those with an active stake in this site and are invested in our community. If someone isn't interested enough in the site to regularly edit enough to remain eligible, but returns to participate in votes whenever alongside those who do work on the site, I would wonder what their reasons are. Fifty edits isn't a tiny amount for new users, no, but it's much much easier to get help now then it was in 2014, both in terms of site culture being more welcoming than in the old days (and believe me, the old days had problems with being unwelcoming) and in terms of our Discord server having dedicated channels for new users who need help as opposed to there only being our old IRC channels. I will also note that not meeting the eligibility requirements doesn't prevent someone from leaving a comment on a CT that community members can take into account when voting. Fan26 (Talk) 15:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- To not spiral off-topic under my comment above, which is it's own thread: I would support removing the "Discord/Discussions votes only" for Discussions moderators. Seems intentionally gatekeepy. That, to me, is a better way of going about opening the doors to voters who are an active part of the community.âspookywillowwtalk 15:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I find the rules on time and number of edits quite reasonable. It ensures that people have a minimum level of engagement with the community before they can change the rules.SaintSirNicholas (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate all the comments so far; valid points from everyone, so keep them coming! Looks like overall we're pretty happy with the 50-edit limit and modifying the timeframe, either removing the requirement or doubling it to a year. Don't have much of a clear picture on the namespace restrictions and Discord/Discussions issues for me to comment on yet though. OOM 224 (he/him) 17:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per Fan. Wok142 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I share Spooky feelings on the matters, but I think that pushing the timeframe from 6 month to a year seems reasonable enough without creating potential issues. I also think we could include more spaces, exactly as suggested per OOM (excluding article talk pages, I mean). NanoLuukeCloning Facility 12:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The CT draft is here OOM 224 (he/him) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)