Forum:CT:Single-issue voters amendment

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Single-issue voters amendment

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, no change to policy. JangFett ^(Talk) 01:29, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

---

At the recent Mofference, we voted in two updates to the Single-issue voters policy to take care of some loopholes. Today, I noticed yet another loophole that needs to be fixed. I propose we add the following to WP:SIV:

Any user who has not contributed any valid Main namespace edits within the last twelve months must reearn the right to vote. From the time that they return to the wiki from their twelve months or more of inactivity, they must earn another 50 valid Main namespace edits before they can vote.

I believe most of us already believe this to be the case at least in practice. We already have much precedence in this direction. According to the {{Inactive}} template, if someone is gone for more than twelve months, they lose their user page rights until they return and contribute some valuable edits again. Why wouldn't it be the same for voting (something even more important than a user page, in my opinion)? Also, I'm sure we all know that the Wook changes quickly. If someone is gone for a year and then returns, they might not be fully aware of the exact situation the Wook is in. Making 50 edits (a very moderate amount, I might add) would help them get back in the swing of things.

As I said before, I think this merely adds solidity to what most of us already think should be done. If this passes, it will clear up a loophole in the system.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 13:43, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Support (add the above text to WP:SIV)

1. As nominator.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 13:43, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
2. Definitely a good idea. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
3. --Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 13:55, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 14:16, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

   Looks good. Menkooroo (talk) 14:21, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

5. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 14:30, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
6. I honestly wish there was a time limit, but this is a good first step. Cade Calrayn 16:53, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:37, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
8. I thought the initial amendment was too strict, but this makes sense. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 21:39, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

   —MJ— _{War Room} 02:18, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

9. Makes sense enough. IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 02:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
10. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 03:17, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
11. Coruscantfan ^(Talk) 05:09, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
12. JangFett ^(Talk) 04:24, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
13. Trip391 (talk) 04:41, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
14. WP:DUH -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 00:50, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
15. Per MJ in the comments. Making ONE mainspace edits during 12 months isn't, to be frank, that much. It literally takes one minute. 1358 ^(Talk) 13:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
16. Gotta go with this one. And as for Silly Dan's comment below, I don't think an established user will be offended at this requirement being the same for noobs and such, and if they are, I don't really care to have them voting on things anyway. MasterFred^(Whatever) 16:26, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (leave WP:SIV as is)

1. The point of having the initial 50 mainspace edits is mostly to make sure that the user understands how the wiki works, has seen the community, and is not a sockpuppet. To me there isn't a valid justification for older users to lose rights so gratuitously. Stake black ^msg 14:21, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
2. Fe Nite (talk) 23:12, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
3. Per Stake (especially the sockpuppet point; the edit limit was originally instituted to minimize the influence of meatpuppets). As for userpages, they lose that "privilege" mostly so we can delete old user images from our servers, not as some kind of punishment (though many administrators have been acting like that's the case). If people want to treat Wookieepedia as a job that they need to clock into, that's fine, but I don't think we need to be going out of our way to punish editors who see it as a hobby to be enjoyed when time and circumstances are suitable. jSarek (talk) 05:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
4. No, I have to agree with Stake here. I don't see this as a loophole at all, and it most definitely comes across as unnecessarily punitive. I also can't help but notice that this comes on the heels of a couple of users reappearing over the last few months, and voting in directions which are not the preferred outcome of certain other users. Contrary votes need to be debated and convinced to change, not blocked from being counted by procedural bureaucracy. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 11:56, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
   • Yup. Stake black ^msg 21:03, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
5. Actually, per John and Digi. Menkooroo (talk) 04:02, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
6. I have to agree with Stake and jSarek. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 04:07, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
7. It seems to be that it should be easier for a temporarily absent user to become reestablished than to start from scratch. This amendment would put users returning in good faith on the same level as complete newbies and repentant flouncers. —Silly Dan _(talk) 14:48, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
8. Actually, I've changed my mind. Per Silly Dan. —MJ— ^Holocomm 22:36, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
9. Per Silly Dan. -Thunderforge (talk) 01:00, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
10. NaruHina ^Talk 03:40, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
11. ToRsO bOy (talk) 08:05, July 1, 2013 (UTC)
12. Nearly supported but I've voted this side. Commander Code-8 ^{You lost the game!} 03:38, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
13. Per Silly Dan. --LelalMekha (talk) 19:10, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
14. I agree with the above. ~Savage 10:02, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
15. Per jSarek. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:24, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
16. 501st dogma^(talk) 16:16, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• What about in instances of excused absences, by placing templates or wording on their user page that indicates that they may not be as present as they hope to be, and what if they pass 12 months before reaching 50 edits? -- Riffsyphon1024 02:32, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • It's 50 mainspace edits total; it doesn't have to be 50 mainspace edits in 12 months. And 50 mainspace edits only becomes a requirement again if they fail to make ANY mainspace edits at all in 12 months. In other words, once they earn the right to vote for the first time, users only have to make a single mainspace edit every 12 months to keep the right. There's no realistic reason that I can think of that anyone shouldn't be able to do that. —MJ— _{War Room} 02:41, June 29, 2013 (UTC)
    • So at the very least a previous voter could wave their hands, claim, 'I'm not dead yet', and get right back into voting? -- Riffsyphon1024 07:26, July 1, 2013 (UTC)