This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 20:39, January 26, 2015 (UTC)
As our policies shift over time, there eventually comes a time when old consensus decisions do not fit with modern policies, and those decisions ought to be overturned. The problem that arises in such cases is this clause in the second paragraph of Wookieepedia:Consensus: "(as determined by a renewed discussion of the issue with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion)". As evidenced by comments in a few places, most recently the currently-ongoing Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Star Wars streets in Las Vegas (second nomination), this wording effectively renders some years-old decision impossible to overturn because those decisions were made at a time when site activity was much higher than it is today, and now it is effectively impossible to get the required number of votes to overturn these old decisions.
I therefore propose the following alteration to the parenthetical quoted above: "(as determined by a renewed discussion of the issue with a new consensus and, if the original consensus is less than __________ old, participation equal to or greater than the original discussion)" (new text in bold). The fill-in-the-blank will be an arbitrary amount of time to be voted on below; in the event zero is chosen, the text "and, if the original consensus is less than __________ old, participation equal to or greater than the original discussion" will be removed from the proposal.
With policy changes, old decisions may need to be revoked, and this stands in the way of change. Manoof (talk) 04:48, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. Though I agree with Tope's comments below regarding how you can probably wrangle enough people, and I agree with codifying some length of time that must pass before any valid number in a consensus discussion can allow it to pass, I don't agree with the idea that the "it needs greater or equal participation" policy should last forever. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, it's designed in such a way that discourages changes in past decisions, and I don't think there's anything wrong with revisiting past decisions in a more efficient way when the situation calls for it. Whether this CT exaggerates the issue or not, I agree with it regardless. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:49, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Wookieepedia should reserve the right to change its mind, even in the even of a decline in participation. —Silly Dan (talk) 08:20, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Or else the site becomes exactly what the Galactic Republic became. And quite simply, if policy is changed, then that policy should be applied equally, and not certain stuff left as a legacy simply because a bunch of people who are no longer here and don't care anymore thought sometime years in the past that it should stay. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:58, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
The active community should be allowed to change its mind on policies and other matters without relying solely on sheer numbers. If it's true that the number of editors is declining (and therefore fewer number of CT participants), then we are effectively tying our own hands with this clause, since we will never be able to overturn CT decisions that had extremely large turnouts. Just because a CT had lots of participation doesn't automatically mean that they came to the best decision. If a decision was made a few years ago with a large voter turnout, it shouldn't mean that the decision can never be overturned just because we have less editors now than we did then.--Richterbelmont10(come in R2!) 18:25, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
Basically per Brandon and Silly Dan. I think a certain time period before being able to overturn a decision would be fine, but I don't agree with the current policy. The currently active community that is most likely very different to the community years ago, should be able to reconsider past decisions in the context of the present state of Wookieepedia without being discouraged because of a previously large voting turnout. I really don't see how this would cause issues if the current community has consensus to overturn a decision made X years ago. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 09:33, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
I think you greatly over exaggerate the issue. The problem is not a lack of activity exactly (perhaps my own comments that you cite on the Las Vegas streets TC were poorly worded and partly to blame here). The problem is a lack of interest in CTs and TCs. It seems like it's a chore to get the required 10 users to vote on anything these days. Myself and others who promote CT and TC forums regularly have to prompt people on IRC to wake up and go vote. That has little to nothing to do with site activity numbers and everything to do with people being lazy and apathetic. To use the Streets TC as an example, we have more than 30 regular users running around this place at any given time. Theoretically, even at today's unarguably low activity levels, it shouldn't be a probelm getting the required number of people to vote on such a forum. Look at a few examples of recentforums, and then compare them to otherforums from the Legends/Canon hubbub. Look at both the numbers and names of people voting. Most of these people haven't disappeared, so, forgive my French, but where the fuck are all of you? I see a lot of these people's names in the RCs almost every day, and I know perfectly well who does and who doesn't contribute to votes regularly. The activity levels are there; the interest is not. I don't know how to fix that, but I'm not ready to sacrifice the power and benefit of consensus numbers because people choose to be uninvolved. There is a definite advantage to certain consensus measures that pass with large voting turnouts, because it makes it more likely, and often for good reason, that they will never be overturned. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:18, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Allowing old votes to be overturned introduces a vastly larger number of problems than the problems this amendment might solve.--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 05:22, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Per Toprawa and EJ. CC7567(talk) 01:14, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
After thinking a bit more on this, I agree with Tope and EJ. Especially considering the wiki stats, which indicate the presence of over 100 users with at least 5 edits so far this month. Unless that changes drastically, increased voter participation would suffice. Perhaps a heads up/please participate on user's talk pages about a strongly contested vote such as the Las Vegas Streets TC ? Manoof (talk) 09:33, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Vote on the length of time that equal or greater participation will be. Note the special case above for zero. This vote is dependent on Issue 1 passing. As there is no status quo or policy to revert to in case of no consensus, this will be a simple plurality vote.
This is an interesting clause that is easy to miss when reading WP:CON. So easy to miss why do we have it. As Silly Dan states above the community should have the right to change its mind on an issue. Why I am choosing "zero": Obviously 6 months+ would be a good time frame to allow discussion again to prevent a CT from being reopened for vote the minute it closes; but nobody in their right mind would do this. Second reason is the already mentioned "special cases." Who determines a special case? Then what do we do afterwards? Would a "special case" be the inevitable vote on reversing the canon/legends tabs (a vote that even the orginally CT expected)? All indications point to a reversal but will 45+ people participate the discussion? Maybe, mabye not. In addition, if something is known and generally agreed upon to be incorrect or improper, are we really supposed to wait 3, 6, 12, 24, ect before fixing it? Or if this CT were to fail, perhaps never because of declining participation? I don't think so. Fe Nite (talk) 03:25, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
I think this is the most reasonable. Anything shorter than this and it doesn't seem like enough time has passed to really warrant a decision being overturned (though I am sure there would be special cases where I'm wrong), and anything longer than this feels like a long time for the sake of a long time. This seems to be the happy medium that would fulfill the goals of the CT's proposal while preventing people from constantly seeking to overturn decisions. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:51, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Special cases may include something like the current situation with the Vegas streets, where a change in general site policy may mean that an old TC discussion could be overturned. —Silly Dan (talk) 08:22, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to see the edit traffic of the site? That might give a useful indication as to comings and goings of old and new members, and may indicate a reasonable time frame. Otherwise I think a year or two might be sufficient. I would say a 6-month minimum simply to avoid the topic continually coming up, with little or no change in policies and simply a hope that people change their mind/vote... Manoof (talk) 04:48, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
The most that's available is monthly edit totals, which you can see here. You'll notice the consistent decline in overall editors since 2008 (which is in spite of the popularity of The Clone Wars (released in 2008) and Rebels, the release of many, many novels and comics, the Disney acquisition, etc). - Brandon Rhea(talk) 18:16, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
@Tope, the canon/legends hubbub was a major issue following a huge change in Star Wars as we know it. The bureaucratic vote on friends of the wook isn't really a big vote so that might be one of the reasons why many did not come out. Fe Nite (talk) 03:25, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that this isn't going to pass, but I think it's also obvious at this point that a lot of people think that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed. Perhaps there's some other way we can solve it? Some other policy idea that would allow us at least some leeway, just not this? ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:19, January 20, 2015 (UTC)