Forum:SH:Voting eligibility policy tweak

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Voting eligibility policy tweak

This has been tossed around a bit in various circles but wanted to converse about a small thing on the voting eligibility policy.

Currently, this clause is present:

"Any user who has placed {{User left}} on their user page, or who has in some other way made it clear that they have departed Wookieepedia, must re-earn the right to vote. From the time that they stated their intentions to leave, whether by the use of {{User left}} or some other means, such users will be ineligible to vote. Before they can vote again, such users must make it clear that they have returned from their absence, with messages and template reverted, and they must earn another 50 valid Main namespace edits."

Which I think we should remove, for the following reasons:

  1. Additional provisions point #1 already requires that a user must have made fifty edits in the six months prior to a consensus vote to participate, which is unlikely to ever change, so everyone voting will still be a Wookieepedian who meets a base threshold.
  2. Imo, the wording is really "us" vs "those people who left" mentality and isn't very welcoming. An individual making it clear they've returned from their absence and "earn" another 50 edits after reverting the template off their userpage—when if they're voting, they'll already have fifty edits in the last six months due to additional provisions #1—seems unnecessary.
  3. "in some other way made it clear that they have departed Wookieepedia…—Seems really vague and a loophole that admins could, in theory, abuse to strike anyone's vote at will, probably left over from old Wook era policies.
  4. "with messages and template reverted…"—If someone still edits but keeps the {{User left}} so that people don't bother them as much that's their deal, but, it shouldn't restrict their voting privledges if they meet the edit requirement to vote.
  5. Due to not being updated, also doesn't account for the Discussions users voting on Discord and Discussions proposals, since they too could use {{User left}} in theory. It would then open up a loophole of requiring them to make fifty edits to become eligible again when their original eligibility wasn't edit based, which doesn't make a lot of sense in hindsight.

A TLDR of the above wall is just that I think anyone who's got the edits within the half-year span should be able to vote more or less, and the admins also don't—in the modern era—really strike for or track user activity that closely. I don't think we should punish people if they leave for a time then come back and have to "earn" anything again; we welcome them back and that's that.—spookywillowwtalk 01:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Taken to CT: Forum:CT:Voting eligibility policy tweak —spookywillowwtalk 18:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I agree with your above points. For a Wookieepedian to vote, you still have to meet the activity requirements to vote, so I don't really see the point of this rule. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 02:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hard agree. This just wreaks of old era Wook hostility and clique-ishness. Besides, if someone leaves the Wook due to an incident that makes them feel unsafe but chooses to return after feeling the situation was handled, why would we discourage them from doing so? If you have the edits, you get to vote. Simple as that. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • There's really no reason to keep this. All of this is exactly the type of stuff Tope used to bully people and control votes-especially the incredibly vague clause noted in Reason #3, which without knowing the background I feel almost certain was written in probably just because somebody left the site after annoying some administrator many years ago and then has remained policy ever since. Voting eligibility should be tied to something concrete and reasonable, not arbitrary rules and vague enforced-how-an-admin-wants policies that feel less like they're based in logic and more like they exist out of spite. Fan26 (Talk) 05:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah this can go. ESPECIALLY point 3. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I've said it before on multiple occasions, that entire passage is petty and unnecessary. Imperators II(Talk) 12:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)