Forum:CT:Voting eligibility pt. 2: Difference between revisions | Wookieepedia

Story

Forum:CT:Voting eligibility pt. 2: Difference between revisions | Wookieepedia





 

Line 25: Line 25:
 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  +

#[[User:Rakhsh|Rakhsh]] ([[User talk:Rakhsh|talk]]) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   
 

===Oppose changes===

 

===Oppose changes===

Line 49: Line 50:
 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  +

#[[User:Rakhsh|Rakhsh]] ([[User talk:Rakhsh|talk]]) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   
 

===Oppose removal===

 

===Oppose removal===

Line 72: Line 74:
 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  +

#[[User:Rakhsh|Rakhsh]] ([[User talk:Rakhsh|talk]]) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   
 

===Oppose removal===

 

===Oppose removal===

Line 100: Line 103:
 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#”'[[User:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #FA8072″>Bonzane10</span>]]”’ [[File:Sabine Starbird.svg|18px]] <small>([[User talk:Bonzane10|<span style=”color: #000000″>”holonet”</span>]])</small> 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 

#[[User:Ayrehead02|Ayrehead02]] ([[User talk:Ayrehead02|talk]]) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  +

#[[User:Rakhsh|Rakhsh]] ([[User talk:Rakhsh|talk]]) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

   
 

===Remove clause entirely===

 

===Remove clause entirely===


Latest revision as of 18:19, 6 March 2024

Hello, am towing the relevant SH affecting the voting eligibility policy to CT. Given this affects several different clauses, am opting to make this a multi-part CT to allow most of it to pass even if one or two parts get hung up. Which, may be annoying in the short term, but since each change is almost unrelated to the other, it felt more fair. If every part of this were to pass, the full summary of the changes would be seen here.spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

General cleanup[]

Below are three changes that generally fall under the banner of general cleanup, so put them together:

To add Featured article reviews, Good article reviews, and Comprehensive article reviews to “Non-consensus votes” due to them following their own voting procedure.
If additional provisions pt. 1 is kept in the subvote below, to add mention of social media team membership nominations + removals and board membership removals, as well as remove the redundant “Userpage and talk page edits do not count toward this total.” due to the prior sentence clarifying mainspace edits are required anyway. If additional provisions pt. 1 is removed entirely, then this would be non-applicable.
In additional provisions pt. 2, to splitDiscussions moderators may include their individual moderator action counts from the last 3 months (visible to them and administrators through Special:Insights) as part of their total post count.” into its own-sub bullet.

Support changes[]

  1. spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani Team Fireball(they/them)Yeager’s Repairs 18:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. TommyMacaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose changes[]

Users returning from block[]

Additional provisionts pt. 3 reads:

Users returning from a block of one month or longer are not immediately eligible to vote on Consensus votes (as defined above), requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, review board membership/removal of review board membership nominations, or social media team/removal of social media team nominations. They regain their voting eligibility after two weeks from the expiration of their block.

Proposed is whether we remove this clause in its entirety, per the reasoning on the SH. A brief tldr is just that it’s not necessary for short blocks—if someone is banned for over six months, they’ll need to get some edits again just like anyone else who had gone inactive, but it isn’t welcoming to continue to have punitive measures against people who perhaps made a small mistake.

Support removal[]

  1. spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani Team Fireball(they/them)Yeager’s Repairs 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Good riddance OOM 224 (he/him) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Fan26 (Talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. TommyMacaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal[]

Productivity requirement[]

Section reads:

Regardless of the overall total number of edits, a user’s combined total of content namespace, Wookieepedia:, and MediaWiki: edits must be at least double the combined total of Forum:, User:, and User_talk: namespace edits in order to vote on any of the aforementioned forums. This works in conjunction with all aforementioned provisions required to vote but does not apply to “fun” votes, such as Star Wars Character of the Year.

SH reasoning for removal: overly bureaucratic and generally not an issue, and also doesn’t account for people who workbench a lot.

Support removal[]

  1. spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. NBDani Team Fireball(they/them)Yeager’s Repairs 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. SnowedLightning (they/them) 06:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. TommyMacaroni (he/they) 12:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal[]

Additional provisions, pt. 1[]

Additional provisions, pt. 1 reads:

Users must have contributed at least 50 valid Main namespace edits within the previous 6 months prior to the start of Consensus votes (as defined above), requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes, or review board membership nominations to be eligible to vote on such forums. Userpage and talk page edits do not count toward this total. Users who reach this edit requirement after the start of a Consensus vote may become eligible to vote on that forum if the forum lasts longer than a period of one month.

Proposed on the SH was the removal of said clause. The first section of this CT addresses some additions such as SMT noms being mentioned and redundancy cleanup, which will be enacted if this clause ends up staying. This section of the CT, however, is for whether to remove the clause wholesale. Also suggested was that a user’s Fandom account must have existed, as can be checked on someone’s contributions page or alternatively via logs, prior to a vote starting. The reasoning provided for this was that there’s been an incident in recent history of an attempted meatpuppetry effort to have a lot of people create accounts, get the necessary edits, then sandbag a vote. If such amendment was adopted, the changes to additional provisions, pt. 1 would read:

A user’s Fandom account must have been registered prior to the start of a Consensus vote (as defined above)… — in the first sentence
Users who registered their Fandom account after the start of a Consensus vote may become eligible to vote on that forum if the forum lasts longer than a period of one month.“— last sentence

Such an amendment would move the 6 months part slightly upward to the first point of “General rules.” What that would look like is shown here.

Keep current clause[]

Adopt amended version of clause[]

  1. spookywillowwtalk 17:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Rsand 30 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. This seems a sufficient safeguard. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. People are still allowed to start SHs, engage in discussion on them, and leave comments on CTs without meeting the activity requirements. I’m not comfortable with a future where people who aren’t active on the site have a say in how we regulate our editing and community policies. Fan26 (Talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. I think this is the best option of the three. I’d be open to further adjustments after this vote. I definitely see where OOM is coming from though. NBDani Team Fireball(they/them)Yeager’s Repairs 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. LucaRoR (Talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. TommyMacaroni (he/they) 16:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Rakhsh (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove clause entirely[]

  1. So uh, I might end up the only one voting for this option 😛 Radical in concept? Maybe. I get that losing this clause seems like doing without a sense of security, but that’s a threat-oriented perspective. Do we really know what we’re missing out on with the current clause in place? Remember that 50 edits may seem like nothing to a veteran editor but a monumental task to newcomers who just need some encouragement, not a very discouraging implication that if you aren’t confident and competent enough to make “productive” edits, then you’re not worth a voice. Any user can make comments on SH and CTs without voting, but that doesn’t matter if someone is already turned away by the so-called “requirements.” We rely on our readers, so they’re stakeholders too. We should be bolder in opening up voting and listening to more voices, and letting them comment in discussion sections isn’t enough. Having spoken with and helped many newcomers to the Wook, I have learned that many of them are more interested in reading than writing, and they are happy to just make a couple of edits here and there. They also often feel a lack of certainty on the site and in the community. Restrictions on votes only adds to perceptions of Wookieepedia’s attitude as an exclusive community, which was certainly the case several years ago, and the combined impact of our history and current policy means the unintended consequence of limiting participation. The policy of not counting certain votes is well-intentioned but flawed; I understand why people think having safeguards is essential but I believe this is the better option in the long run. The more contributors we have, the merrier. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. I have to agree with OOM here. For years we have tended to restrict any attempts by anyone to influence the site, without stopping to look at the reasons why they want to, or if it would influence us in a beneficial way. If we make a mistake so massive that people *need* to come in and speak up, perhaps we should listen to the reasons why. Wookieepedia depends on *all* contributors to succeed, not just the ones with massive edit counts, or the highest activity levels. Anyone who helps the site should feel like they can have a voice here, regardless of how many edits they have within a certain period of time. Let’s keep in mind as well that our overly legalese policies such as this can have the effect of pushing away anyone who cannot understand it. As they say in The High Republic, “We are all The Republic The Wookieepedia”. Incidentally as well, if someone does create a massive amount of fake accounts to skew a vote, they would be blocked for sockpuppetry anyways. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 06:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discuss[]

Leave a Comment