Forum:Voting Policy proposed changes

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Voting Policy proposed changes

Contents

1. Overview
2. Proposed changes
   1. Discussion
3. Voting on proposed changes
   1. Voting Discussion

Overview

Prompted by a request from WikiManager TimeShade, this discussion is part of the Harry Potter Wiki's Policy Review and will help shape how the community governs itself in the years to come.

In conjunction with the Forum:User Rights Policy proposal, several users have proposed adjustments to Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy to clarify and improve the requirements needed for users to vote and the process by which a vote is held, closed, tallied, and archived.

I've combined the initial notes offered, grouping and numbering them, hopefully for easier review and referencing during discussion. I've noted who has initially commented on this policy overall and specifically on which sections. Please let me know if I missed anyone's initial contributions.

Any competing suggestions are grouped together and marked with a VERSUS to note where differences will need to be reconciled.

The numbered list of notes below is not considered complete or all-inclusive and new items can be added as needed.

Any parts of the current policy that is not directly discussed below will be considered valid and integrated with any changes in the final version of the policy. This will be reviewed for completeness and consistency before the policy is adopted.

This Policy Review process and format is a work in progress so suggestions on possible improvements are welcome!

Proposed changes

Initial comments by Kates39, Reverb frost, Ironyak1, MechQueste

#Emphasize that an administrator is required for opening a vote and will manage the voting process (Yak) (Yak - stricken 23 July as already part of current policy so no change)

1. Length of time for discussion
   1. Moving from User Rights proposal: Users can make a proposal and formally announce it to Administration via Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention. Up to 7 days of discussion will then follow. An Administrator can open a vote at any point during these 7 days, or at the end of the 7 days can state their reasons for not opening a vote. Other Administrators can then take up the issue should they choose. (Yak - added 23 July)
   2. At the time of announcing a proposal to Administration or the opening of a vote, a user may request attention be drawn toward the proposal via Community lists, Announcements, and such (Kates - added 21 July) (Yak - wording expanded 23 July)
   3. Handling proposals that do not result in discussion:
      1. If no one has discussed a proposal for say a month then we could consider the vote to be dismissed. (Reverb - added 23 July)
      2. VERSUS If no discussion happens during the 7 days discussion period, with attempts made to highlight the proposal, then the proposal is considered closed, but can be resubmitted after 1 month. (Yak - added 23 July)
2. Vote duration
   1. A vote has to stay up for seven days. It ends on the seventh day at 0:00 (UTC). (Kates) (Yak - stricken 23 July - reconciled to a vote being opened for 7 full days via discussion below)
   2. VERSUS A vote has to last at least a full 7 days. It starts from the time stamp of the initial edit for a request. (Mech) (Yak - stricken 23 July - reconciled to a vote being opened for 7 full days via discussion below)
      1. For a discussion for request for permissions, it starts from the moment a user requests it, and it can last 7 days. (Mech) (Yak - stricken 23 July - reconciled to a vote being opened for 7 full days via discussion below)
   3. VERSUS A vote is to remain open for at least 7 days and expires at the same time as it opened after the full seven days have passed, unless Extended or Closed Early in accordance with those provisions. (Yak - added 22 July)
   4. Make clear that certain votes like for Featured Articles can have different vote duration specified at the time the vote is open (Yak) (Yak - stricken 23 July as already part of current policy so no change)
3. The admin or Bureaucrat who opened a vote needs to close, tally, and archive the vote. (Kates)
4. Extending a vote
   1. Perhaps something about what to do if serious concerns get brought up in a vote, and when and why a vote can be closed if that happens. (Kates)
   2. Suggest that whoever is administrating the vote can extend it perhaps by a fixed increment (3, 5, 7 days) should more time be needed to handle ongoing and unresolved discussions. (Yak) (clarifying suggestion for 7 days being the extension used - Yak 21 July)
5. Changes to Voting Requirements
   1. Increase Discussion Voting requirements:
      1. Suggest we increase [Discussion posts requirements] to 100, with 20 being new posts (not comments) and the account's first contribution should be at least a week old. (Reverb) (Yak - stricken 23 July in favor of simply mirroring requirements for now pending Discussions Policy review with that community)
      2. VERSUS Discussion post requirements should mirror those of the wiki (similar to what is currently is done) - so 50 Discussion posts total including replies (if 50 edits across main + file + template + category is adopted) or 50 new topic posts only (if 50 main namespace edits is adopted). Also same time requirement for first post as first edit (e.g. 1 month from first wiki edit or first Discussions post) (Yak - added 23 July)
   2. Increase Wiki Voting requirements:
      1. Recommend the that a combination of time and edits should be applied on the wiki voting policy as well. instead of 20 main space edits the requirement should be lifted to 35 or 50. (Reverb - updated 18 July) (Yak - stricken 23 July in favor of one of the 50 edit options)
      2. VERSUS Other namespaces should be included. Like instead of 20 main namespace edits, 50 edits in main + File + Template + Category namespaces in total (Sammm鯊- added 21 July) (Yak - Category added after discussion with Sammm鯊 22 July)
      3. VERSUS 50 edits in the main namespace should be required to be eligible to vote (Kates - added 22 July)
   3. Minimum time from first edit
      1. The first contribution of the account on the wiki should be at least 2 weeks prior to voting. The account's first edit should be at least 1 month prior to their vote being cast (Reverb - updated 18 July) (Yak clarified wording 23 July)
         1. One month is defined by the date: 15 June is 1 month prior to 15 July, 15 February is 1 month prior to 15 March, regardless of the number of days in any given month. (Yak - added 20 July)
   4. Recent activity requirements: Should the wiki also have requirements for minimal activity in a recent time frame before the vote? See Wookieepedia:Voting_eligibility_policy (Yak)
      1. They should have contributed to the wiki at least 2 weeks prior to voting. (Reverb) (Yak - stricken 23 July based on new suggestion for requirements immediately below)
      2. VERSUS Users should have 7 contributions to the harrypotter.fandom site (wiki or discussions) within the month prior to the vote (Yak - added 20 July) (Yak - amended to 7 contributions in the month prior based on Reverb's suggestion)
6. Should the there be a minimal number of votes required to be cast for the vote to be considered a valid sign of consensus? See Wookieepedia:Consensus (Yak)
   1. Wookiepedia uses 10 votes as the minimum - I suggest we use 7 votes as the minimum both because we are a smaller site and because it has some precedent (+7 votes needed for early closing) and for the HP thematic value. (Yak - added 20 July)
7. Create a Vote template to mark an official Open vote, including which administrator opened it, the closing date, and relevant voting subsections. (Yak)
8. If a dispute concerning a proposal occurs after the vote is started and it cannot be solved, a vote can be shut down by the administrator who opened it. The user has a seven day period to petition for a new administrator to open a new vote. The first administrator cannot be involved in opening and closing the new vote. If another administrator does not open a vote, the matter is considered closed for now and the petitioning user has to wait seven weeks 1 month to re-apply and try again. It's encouraged that any concerns raised try and be improved upon during that period." (Kates, Yak - added 21 July, stricken and amended 22 July after discussion)
9. If a vote has +7 in support it may be closed early by an Administrator as long as at least 7 days have passed from the proposal's original announcement to Administration. (Yak - added 22 July)

Discussion

I think that a vote should stay up for 7 days and then closed, and the administrator that opens the vote has to close, archive, and tally it. I do think that Featured Articles votes do kind of depend, so shouldn't there be a criteria as to how to determine how long that vote is open? That way were aren't just making something up or whatever :). If I missed something do feel free to correct me.

I do think that if concerns are serious enough the admin holding the vote should be able to close it/refuse to hold it, as long as the concerns meet a certain criteria. The admin should also be able to extend the vote, as long as their is good reason to do so (maybe set up a criteria for this as well?). As for the voting requirements- I personally think that the current ones (20 Discussions Posts for Discussions and 20 edits for Wiki, autoconfirmed user) are strict enough and are very helpful. We should be pushing for more people being able to vote, right? However, I would be okay with an update to the policy saying that the account has to be something like 2 weeks old for the vote to count. Cheers, -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       20:54, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Again for clarity, as there seems to be some confusion about the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy process: Paraphrasing the intro text on the Policy, some discussions on Talk pages, in the Forum, or on Requests for permissions will lead to a vote, but not always. Often during the discussion phase either a consensus will be reached without a vote or the original proposal will be withdrawn, leaving nothing to vote on. I've supported Requests for permissions and various proposals across the site that were ultimately never voted on as either consensus was quickly reached or there was just not enough interest for a vote to be held. I'm not sure we can predefine the criteria that would lead a particular admin to not hold a vote, but if the proposal has merit, and with several administrators generally active, there should be options available for a vote to be held. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:32, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

As somewhat expected, there is some overlap with this and the User Rights proposal discussion, so to expand on the above, not all proposals lead to a vote. Simple examples could include a new user Requesting Beureucrat permissions, or a user requesting an infobox image that has been voted in be changed to something unsuitable, or a Policy change proposal that all article edits be pre-approved by the site's Founder. Votes are only opened when the proposal has merit and some support and a consensus is needed to be reached and recorded.

Given this, I think it is important to clarify when a vote has been official opened in any context on the site. To that end I suggest we create a {{Vote}} template that displays which administrator opened the vote, the date the vote should close (pending our "extending a vote" discussion), and includes the standard For/Against/Comment subsections. This template would be the mark that an official vote has been opened and only should be used by Administrators. Given the history of the site I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is floating out there, but I haven't managed to pull it from the Room of Requirement yet. Anyhow I've added this to this list as item 7 and look forward to any feedback on the idea. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:54, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Would the template include a hidden category like 'Category:Votes in progress' or something like that, or would that just be unnecessary? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  23:15, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

As the Vote template would stay in place and be part of the {{Archive}}, I don't think "Votes in progress" would work, but some included Category for finding all the Votes makes sense and would be helpful (and be faster than WhatLinksHere). For instance, some Infobox image votes get buried in the Archives and are hard to find when people want to know why they can't change a certain image that was voted in previously. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:34, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Well, when the vote is closed, {{Vote}} could be replaced with another template (only by replacing the word 'vote' with something else, like ClosedVote or something like that), an identical template with the same coding apart from it removes the in progress category and adds text like 'this vote is closed' and the outcome or something along those lines. What do you think? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  23:38, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

That's a possibility of course. Generally we haven't had enough concurrent open votes that would warrant the need for a Category to track the one or two happening, but if it's a feature of interest that would help should more open votes be occurring at the same time, such an approach should be doable. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:21, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

The process through which a vote can be started needs to be clear. Voting Policy states an admin begins a vote. But when people get nominated in places like RFP, that doesn't tend to happen. Users have been starting a vote in support or against without an admin. They add the sub-headings. Administrator involvement shouldn't be needed until an initial discussion has taken place, but we don't have a Policy saying so.

Ironyak had one good suggestion of steps needed at Forum: User Rights Policy, and the steps have been based on what's supposed to happen now (and a few new ones). I have included Ironyak's vote template suggestion, which I fully support too:

• A user starts a nomination / proposal.
• An initial discussion starts, admins notified in our administrator attention page. (Should a discussion sub-heading be added now?)
• Admin decides if discussion so far supports a vote.
• They open a vote, and add a vote template to show it has been officially opened, and include the "For" and "Against" sub-headings.
• Vote should be open for seven days, unless the vote needs to be closed due to issues.
• When the seventh day ends, an admin closes, tallies and archives the vote.
• User Rights granted / proposal implemented if needed.

What does everyone think? Should anything be changed/added? - Kates39 (talk) 23:20, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

As the Voting Policy needs to cover more than just Request for permissions, I would suggest the language be changed to initially "A user starts a proposal" and finally "Proposal is implemented or not based on the results". I understand the focus being on RFP, but we will be taking votes on other proposals as well so the policy and process needs to work equally well there. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:47, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

The steps above were just based on what was discussed at Forum: User Rights Policy for votes like an RFP one. I have added your suggested terminology to it anyway to see what it looks like. It appears we need a variety of steps for separate kinds of votes, separated by clear headings and sub-headings (e.g. Discussions Voting Policy, Featured Article Voting Policy).

I still think we could determine a simplified version, cut a couple of steps and get to a vote. If we have initial discussions, everyone will say if they support it or don't anyway so could we cut to the chase? How long should an initial discussion be on voting pages? If a vote will be seven days long if an admin even thinks they get one, an initial discussion will prolong a process to up to ten days or longer. It was an unofficial process people haven't been using, so I've never seen it in action. I can see why you feel we need one, but a vote will tell you what you need to know anyway. - Kates39 (talk) 09:53, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I think yes it should be specified that featured articles should have a separate time frame. I think 20 mainspace edits are achievable easily. We can increase them to 35 at least. The account's first edit should be 1 month old and they should have contributed to the wiki at least 2 weeks prior to voting. (Ironyak1 please update my suggestion. I intended to write this initially.) Any vote should be started, tallied, ended by an admin only. Strictly. Discussions can begin before without the admin but the vote will happen only after the admin opens it and will stay up for at least 7 days. I would also suggest that discussions should be held for a substantial amount of time as well. As per the requirement, they can be 3-15 days but after that, the admin have to either start a vote or decline conducting a vote for valid reasons.

I agree with Kates39 that there should be separate sub-headings for voting on different matters. Some may require long discussions here while some can be achieved with mere discussion here.--  Reverb frost   11:18, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the terminology updates Kates39 - I'm just trying to make sure that we have all the different contexts in mind that might lead to a vote under the Voting policy and not just the RFP process. As Reverb frost highlighted (thanks for the recent examples), some proposals, like switching to Messages Walls, might have a lot of discussion necessary to understand the implications, process needed, what policies & procedures may be affected and need to be updated, etc. Much like these Policy proposals, this is not a situation where you just want to get to the vote as it involves much more than just user preferences and can result in extensive work across the site and many changes that may not initially be understood or appreciated - changes everyone should understand before they vote.

The discussions phase that follows a proposal is an important part of the process to determine the merit, implications, and general support level of the proposal. It's a bit of a screening process like debating potential legislation or gathering signatures for a proposed item on a local ballot - you want to make sure everyone understands what is being proposed and the impacts of the potential change and if people are in general support or not. Sometimes the discussion leads to the proposal being withdrawn completely as it's just not feasible or sometimes the proposal is amended and improved in a way that works better and more people can support like with the recent Forum:Birthplace_and_nationality discussions. In some cases it just leads to the proposal being adopted like with the Discord widget - there is no need to take a vote and formally determine consensus when it is already abundantly clear.

While I too like the clarity provided by a formal vote, they take time and resources to properly administer and participate in and should not be automatically triggered by every proposal any more than people should be able to put any item they want on a local ballot. We need some means to converse about the proposal, weigh its pros and cons, suggest possible improvements, and gauge overall interest before considering a vote. Historically that has been the discussion phase (like we are engaged in now) which, while it does extend the time involved, also makes sure that the proposals are worthwhile, well thought out, and fully understood and considered. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:01, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Reverb - I've stricken the previous details of your suggestion and updated them. I want to make sure changes are clear, but also want things to be legible, so I'm trying the strike through for now but may move to a clean copy as needed.

In thinking about your 3-15 days idea, and Kates39 interest in being able to get to the vote, I'm wondering if it would be helpful for there be a time period of discussion after which participants can call for a vote and an administrator must then either open a vote or present their reasons for not doing so and invite other administrators to take up the issue. To be clear on this, no user is obligated to exercise their permissions and so no administrator can be forced to open a vote; however, if there is well established community interest and the proposal has clear merit, most likely some administrator will take interest and help facilitate its vote and implementation. Thoughts everyone? --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:19, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ironyak1. I think the stricken previous suggestion works well.

I think there should be a process or a way by which community can demand a vote. If the discussions have been open for more than 2 weeks, users can demand to begin a vote or giving a reason why the admin doesn't want to organise it.--  Reverb frost   15:48, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I think I have been misunderstood a bit, so to clarify my proposal:

• I agree we need separate sub-headings to detail simple, clear, separate processes for a wide variety of discussions and votes which could occur.

• I am proposing a set of simplified rules specifically for situations like a user opening an RFP, to go under an RFP sub-heading on the Voting Policy. It wasn't for everything like Forum discussions - that's what the sub-headings concept was for.

I think an admin deciding to open a vote should take place within three days of a discussion opening. Then a vote takes seven days - a discussion continues anyway. I think a period of time in which a proposal and a vote could take up to two weeks caters to Forum votes, but not for votes like an RFP. I feel it will get too tedious! - Kates39 (talk) 16:41, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it feels like we as a group are talking past each other at some level on this. For me, it comes down to providing appropriate and sufficient time for deliberation before considering a vote. For some proposals, like these Policy changes, that time needed will be more extensive, but the same principles apply to the RFP process. If a user shows up with no edits and makes a Request for Bureaucrat rights, that shouldn't require much time or necessitate a vote to resolve IMHO. A simple explanation of the general expectations (for formal ones if we go that route) and a few replies in the negative should be enough to establish consensus without a vote. Similarly, a weeks worth of replies in the affirmative was enough to demonstrate consensus on the Discord widget without any vote being held. In general a vote is only needed when consensus cannot be established through discussion or a formal tally of those in support and those opposed is needed to determine the exact level of consensus.

I would suggest that maybe Seven is the magical number of days needed given both the convenience of it being one week, which usually allows enough time for people to check in with the site and provide their feedback, and the obvious HP thematic reasons :) If a RFP/proposal is made, administration notified, and seven days of discussion has past, those involved can call for a vote which an admin can then open or provide reasons why they will not. Bureaucrats can also be notified so they can step in and handle the vote if they feel admin(s) are being unreasonable in their refusal. If no admin or bureaucrat agrees to open a vote, there must be strong doubts as to the merits of the proposal for those tasked with the management of the site. If the Community feels that all admins and bureaucrats are being unreasonable in their refusal to hold a vote, then the "Removal of rights" process, with its high bar of evidence and support needed, would come into play so the Community can potentially remove permissions from those they feel are not serving their interests.

While I can understand how seven days may seem overlong or tedious, I would note, and point to strong recent evidence, that RFPs and other proposals can have a major and lasting effect on the site and its community and potentially taking a few extra days to weight the considerations is beneficial for everyone and time well invested. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:51, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to specify a specific time period of seven days for an initial discussion. I think it should just be decided within seven days. Every case won't be the same and what happened at RFP has been a first, so I think admin discretion could be used instead to open it earlier if a proposal has enough support. A discussion continues in a vote anyway, so people will still have a full seven days to voice any concerns. It can be extended or closed if needed. I just don't think every proposal and vote will need to take two weeks, and that we need to cover everything in one longer process.

So how do you feel about: an initial discussion has to take place, and a decision to open a vote should be determined within seven days. An admin can open a vote earlier if they see fit. A vote and a discussion then continues for a full seven days and closed at the end of the seventh day. An admin can extend or close the vote at any point if needed.

I think that would be general and simple enough to cover everything. If anything has been decided in a consensus or vote, it needs to be added to policy before it can be enforced. Going forward, any unofficial rules need to be in policy to avoid what happened again. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to handle votes when serious concerns get brought up? At what point can it be closed early by an admin? - Kates39 (talk) 18:16, July 19, 2020 (UTC)

I agree - up to seven days of discussion are allowed and then there is a reasonable expectation that a vote is opened or an administrator can state their case for why not. Administrators can always open a vote sooner if they want.

I'm kinda stuck on seven now so I would suggest that if an admin extends a vote due to unresolved discussion that it be in only seven day increments and the reasons for any extension are clearly stated. I've found that many users show up on the same day each week, e.g. it's part of their Sunday morning routine, so by sticking to 7 day increments it sets a schedule that allows most users to participate and makes a clear expectation for when the next step of the voting process will happen.

Our current Voting policy has "If a clear consensus, (+7 votes) is reached before the allotted time has expired than the administrator may close a vote early." While this is fine, and abides by the "rule of seven" ;) I do worry that a vote could get stormed by supporters and pushed through before some people have a chance to participate. I would suggest maybe that the +7 rule of closure is allowed only if at least 7 days has past from the proposal's announcement (to Request for administrator attention, not the vote opening). This way all proposals have to be formally on the table for at least 7 days before they can be closed even with overwhelming support.

I would also suggest that 7 be the minimum number of votes needed to be considered a valid vote. Having a site-wide policy change or major permissions granted on just 3 votes does not seem to me to be a sufficient measure of community consensus. +3 is still needed to win but at least 7 votes total need to be cast or the vote is not valid. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:51, July 19, 2020 (UTC)

This sounds very unnecessary and designed to make it much, much harder for people to gain rights. There is nothing wrong with how the current voting system works and it has proven to be effective, time and time again. Considering we have some people in positions of power who were not even elected in the first place (something which I and others think should no longer be allowed), we should seeking to widen wiki democracy, not strenuously limit it for no one's gain. We need much more accountability of those currently in charge, not a system where it is difficult to win elections; elections should not be rigged in anyone's favour, that is not democratic. Also, shouldn't the wide community also decide upon these rules changes as opposed to one person or a small few?--RedWizard98 (talk) 01:04, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

If there is nothing wrong with how the current voting system works, why has WikiManager TimeShade asked for a Policy Review? Seems like a lot of unnecessary work if the process has been shown "to be effective, time and time again" - can you please directly let TimeShade know your feelings on this?

How is having at least 7 people participate rigging the election in someone's favor? A minimum vote requirement appears to work well for Wookiepedia in determining consensus as it actually requires sufficient community participation so as to avoid a major site-wide changes from being implemented with just 3 people agreeing and an admin potentially quickly closing the vote to prevent other voices from being heard. More participation is a good thing when determining community consensus and a sign of a healthy democracy.

As for these Policy changes, currently we are just discussing and drafting possible changes, but yes, a community vote ultimately will be needed to adopt any changes. However, during this process we may have some small drafting votes that everyone can participate in to figure out how to reconcile proposals for different subsections. My current thought is to take a week to gather input and ideas, then take a week to perform the votes necessary to reconcile the different section proposals, then based on the results, draft a complete new version of the policy that should be available for a community vote to adopt or not (if not, the reasons against the policy changes can be used to draft another new version for subsequent consideration). Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:36, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

I think we should be seeking to make it easier for users to access these features and get elected than seeking to limit then. The voting system seems to working adequately considering its purpose, and it usually gets a lot of attention anyway whenever a proposal is made so there is no real need to place an arbitrary limit on the number of votes required when it is usually very active anyway. What I think is more important is making sure those in power are held to account by the users they are supposed to serve.--RedWizard98 (talk) 01:40, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

To prevent the following from being longwinded, before I get carried away, I'm just going to straight up share what's slightly different or hadn't been mentioned that I had in mind. For "Changes to Voting Requirements", I like a lot of Reverb's input ("The account's first edit should be 1 month old" at least;) I'm also for "Increase Wiki Voting requirements" though in some sense, decrease at the same time: Pitching for File and Template namespaces to be included. Like instead of 20 main namespace edits, 50 edits in main + file + template namespaces in total; to clarify, if one's happy to only edit in main namespace and has 50 edits there, then they'd not need additional edits from the other namespaces, vise versa. Image categorizing and template tweaking is no lesser effort comparing to article proofreading or enhancing; I felt that should anyone wish to focus on those areas rather than main namespace, this enables them to be recognized should they wish to participate in voting. (Mostly for the benefit of newcomers, I suppose; I don't think anyone who were eligible and voted in the past few years hadn't had 50 edits anyways.) (Won't be offended if the pitch was denied. lol) Everything else, at the moment all seemed applicable, I don't have particular preferences just yet. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:38, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

There definitely should be a requirement for voter eligibility. I think there should be one set of requirements for discussions users and one for those who edit the wiki. MechQueste 11:40, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

I agree, I like sticking to the number seven. I think sticking to it will be easy to catch onto. So, up to seven days to decide to have a vote, seven days of voting, seven votes being needed per vote, and so on. And the majority of 3 rule still works, so I think we should keep that. What happens if a vote doesn't get attention, and seven people don't try? Could we try to encourage community attention towards a vote when it opens? And what if an initial discussion for say an RFP doesn't happen? Do we just deny a chance of a vote to that user, or try to encourage feedback?

We should try and set an eligibility standard too and I think 50 edits shows a good effort to be involved. Ironyak, do you have any thoughts on when a vote can just get shut down due to disputes or serious concerns? I know you had to do that once. I was thinking words to the effect of: "If a dispute concerning an ability or proposal occurs and it cannot be solved, a vote can be shut down by an admin until any concerns have been improved upon. The user can then apply / try again". - Kates39 (talk) 19:45, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

In general, it has usually been the candidate that solicits other users for their input on an RFP discussion. However, I tend to make a site-wide Announcement when there is a new vote open as well. I think both are probably useful for bringing attention and participation to any given RFP or vote. Again, the more participation the better for determining community consensus IMHO, but if there is just not interest, then there is just not interest.

Closing a vote due to unresolvable disputes or serious concerns is of course not desirable and only should happen in reaction to the strongest of issues being raised after a vote has been opened. As mentioned, this has only ever happened once for me, but should a similar situation arise in the future, I would suggest that the admin has the option to close the vote they opened and recuse him/herself from the process. There could be a seven day period allowed for the candidate to petition for another admin to take up the RFP/proposal and open and complete a new vote. However if another admin does not open a new vote, the matter should be considered concluded for now, but can be proposed again at a future date. Although 1 month seems almost enough time needed to wait before retrying the same RFP/proposal, it seems maybe 7 weeks works a little better? :) Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:23, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a user can ask for a site-wide announcement when they put in a proposal or a vote opens, instead of having to go on loads of talk-pages asking for attention to try and encourage people to get involved. It would be good to clarify the option in our policy. I think people could find it helpful and encouraging. Then if people don't get involved, they just don't.

I think the shutting down a vote process will work like that. How about: if a dispute concerning a proposal occurs and it cannot be solved, a vote can be shut down by the admin who opened it. The user has a seven day period to petition for a new admin to open a new vote. The first admin cannot be involved in opening and closing it. If they don't open a vote, they have to wait seven weeks to apply and try again. It's encouraged that any concerns try and be improved upon in that period". — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kates39 (talk • contribs) 20:48, July 21, 2020.

I've added a proposal for how the 7 days of voting should be measured - at least 7 full days providing for any possible extensions or early closures. If Kates39 or MechQueste want to reconcile our various proposals I would be open to that. Sections with multiple proposals could take multiple rounds (and weeks) to vote on if a clearly majority isn't established so if the differences are just a minor matter of wording or nuance it's probably worthwhile to work those out now before any voting. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:38, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

Yes of course, I'm open to sorting out any minor, differing proposals.

I suggested a vote closing at the end of the seventh day at 0:00 (UTC) because it will be easier to keep tabs if we have a standard time for every vote. UTC would be +1 for me. Everyone's day will end at separate points depending on our time zones, so I thought Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) sounded good. It was based on a Wookiepedia guideline. Could you expand on why you feel different?

I like the idea of a vote staying open for at least seven days, unless it gets closed early or needs to continue. It fits in with what we have stated for an initial discussion at the User Rights debate. So I will be happy to adopt that suggestion too. - Kates39 (talk) 19:55, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

If I understand the proposal correctly, my slight worry with closing at 0:00 (UTC) is that depending on when the vote is started some votes may differ in length by almost a day. For instance, if a vote is opened on Monday at 12:00 (UTC), on the next Monday (day 7) should the vote close at Monday 0:00 (UTC) (vote open for 6 days 12 hours) or on Tuesday 0:00 (UTC) (vote open for 7 days 12 hours)? More dramatically, if a vote is opened at 1:00 (UTC) closing it 0:00 (UTC) leads to up to an extra 23 hours for that vote depending on which 0:00 (UTC) is used.

My thought is instead to simply have the vote open for 7 full days so if it is opened on Monday 12:38 (UTC) then it would close next Monday at 12:38 (UTC). This time frame should be clear to everyone as the Vote would display the opening and the closing dates and times as part of the Vote template (or just in the text added by an Administrator if the template is rejected for some reason).

As you mentioned the RFP process, we'll want to understand how that vote process differs (if at all) from the standard Voting policy so we many need to resolve these changes to the Voting policy first to make clear how the RFP might differ and why. As the User rights is new policy and has some more difficult issues in it, I could see it taking longer anyway to sort out. Thoughts on how best to handle this overlap and dependence of the policies are welcomed of course. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:12, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining it. It's not something I'm attached to, so I'm happy to switch to a seven full days depending on the time stamp of a vote opening if that works for you. 0:00 (UTC) was a policy on a couple of other wikis so I thought I would suggest it, but a full seven days could work too, so count me in. I think that solves the only differing proposal I have on Voting Policy.

You and MechQueste have a very identical concept. So now it just depends on how MechQueste feels about a vote being closed earlier in certain cases, and being extended if needed. MechQueste, how do you feel about that? I will leave that to you two to decide. If that can be determined, everyone could be on the same page about vote duration. Then hopefully we can focus on how an RFP process could differ to others. - Kates39 (talk) 10:13, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

about a discussion being closed early, I'd say, it can be closed earlier. If it needs to be extended, I would prefer at most 3 days for a bit more thought. MechQueste 10:50, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good Kates - I will update the proposal text shortly. I appreciate you bringing in examples from other wikis on how they handle these issues. Generally I don't think there is a need for us to reinvent the wheel, although in this case, some minor tweaks may allow for a little better consistency in the allowed time for every vote and allow for a minor matter of convenience as if an admin is able to open a vote at a certain time they are more likely to be able to close it around the same time as well (although waiting for the stroke of midnight as tolled on British bells would have some serious thematic value :)

As for extending a vote, I still feel 7 days is preferable as it would be consistent with the allowed discussion time and the allowed time for the vote and it makes sure that the once-a-week editors have a chance to fully participate in any extended votes. I also feel that if there are unresolved and contentious matters on the table at the end of a vote that 3 days is unlikely to be a sufficient amount of time to properly handle them.

However, MechQueste if you think 3 days is the proper time for an extension, I can add this as an alternative proposal and it can be resolved via the drafting votes coming up. As long as there is an agreement that an extension is possible, the details of which can be sorted out as needed. If there is a need for the RFP to have a minimum length allowed for a vote extension, I think that can be specified there and if it ends up being the same as the Voting policy we can just resolve that text as needed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:09, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

7 days is fine with me. MechQueste 14:12, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

I've added a proposal that Discussion post requirements mirror that of the wiki edits so they are treated equivalently. Thoughts from Reverb and the Discussions Mods, and others, are appreciated. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:23, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

---

I've begun the process of striking out proposals where agreement has been found and clarifying wording in preparation of taking some votes to resolve the remaining items. Please double-check this work and let me know if anything needs to be fixed or improved upon during this process. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:45, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days for personal reasons but now I am back and all caught up on this forum.

I like Sammm鯊's idea about 50+ edits on main + file + template + category. Although I am not quite sure on the category part.

Kates39 made this comment And what if an initial discussion for say an RFP doesn't happen? Do we just deny a chance of a vote to that user, or try to encourage feedback? I would suggest that if no one has discussed on it for say a month then we could consider the vote to be dismissed. The user proposing can seek admin advice on the matter in the meantime but I would say 1 month and no discussion is meaning the vote is dismissed.

MechQueste made this comment I would like to think that a 2,500 edit count, and 5,000 edit count for content moderator and admin respectively would be good. I think the edit counts should be discussed further in the future to make sure they are fair. For me, it would be 3-3.5k for Content Mod and 7k for Admin. (HP 7 theme). But 2.5k and 5k seem fair. As I said, it needs further discussion.

Increase Discussion Voting requirements. I would really appreciate if any and all votes regarding Discussion board are taken on the Dboard, But I guess we can have an update here and it could later be modified as(and if) needed with a vote that we can conduct on Dborad. The reason why I emphasise on this is that I'd want users on Dboard to be able to have a say in policies that directly affect them. Explaining the 100 post requirement, I think we can adopt the 5.1.2 over 5.1.1 proposal. That makes more sense now and is a little easy to go about. Mirroring the requirements.

I have a question. Do users need to have 50 edits and 50 posts together to be able to vote on the wiki? Or either one to vote on both sides (like 50 Dboard posts make you eligible to vote on the wiki)? Or 50 on the wiki for wiki voting and 50 on Dboard for Dborad voting?

I quite agree with 5.3.1 and 5.3.1.1.

As for 5.4.1 feel free to strike it off. I think 5.4.2 seems better. We could make it such that they should have made at least 7 main + file + template (and category if adopted) to be able to vote.

As for proposal 7, I think having that as a process would make sure that Discussion happens prior to voting so it would be a good addition!

Proposal 8 is a must-add IMHO!

I think proposal 9 and proposal 6/6.1 are similar. Correct me if I am wrong.

--  Reverb frost   19:20, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

I have stricken the 35 vote requirement in favor of one of the 50 edits requirements.

I have added a 1 month open discussion period, along with an alternative to focus just on one week of potential discussion, then the ability to resubmit 1 month later.

The comment about 3.5k & 7 edits required should be part of the Role requirements discussion to happen elsewhere.

I agree that Discussions needs to be involved with the voting that affects Discussions, which is why Discussions-only specific proposals will need to be gathered up and brought up with those users in Discussions. However, the Voting Policy (and User Rights policies) affect all users so for such Policy votes I feel that posts and edits should be treated equivalently for voting requirements. That is, when voting to adopt the Voting Policy or not, a user will need 20 mainspace wiki edits OR 20 Discussions posts.

For items that are specific to just one side of the site or the other, then the requirements will be based on the contributions to that area. For instances, changes to the Layout Guide / Style Manual will need the minimum number of wiki edits to vote, whereas changes in allowed types of Discussions posts would require the minimum number of Discussions posts.

Proposal 9 is about closing a vote early - the whole process from the announcement to the vote closing needs to be at least 7 days long and there needs to be clear +7 in support. Proposal 6 just requires that at least 7 people participate in a vote for it to be valid so there is clear community interest and support for any change, so the minimum a vote needs is 5-2 to pass (7 total votes, +3 in Support). Hope this helps make the difference clear - let me know if there are still questions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:21, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

I would like to get everyone's idea on these two things that occured to me recently.

1. Outsiders on HPW votes.
2. Users adverting their own discussion and/or vote.

I personally think that there should be some norms or guidelines in our voting policy that restrict outsider influnce but doesn't block it. I have seen many votes where outside influence was very helpful and informative while I have also seen some where it derailed the task at hand and made matters not so good. So yeah. These are two of my concerns. I'd like there to be a small but definitive guideline outlining/ covering this aspect as well. --  Reverb frost   19:26, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Am adding the suggested up to 7 days of discussion to be part of the general Voting policy. Should work for all proposals not just User Rights. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:01, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

along with an alternative to focus just on one week of potential discussion, then the ability to resubmit 1 month later. Seems fair enough.

The comment about 3.5k & 7 edits required should be part of the Role requirements discussion to happen elsewhere. My bad. I may have mixed them up.

For items that are specific to just one side of the site or the other, then the requirements will be based on the contributions to that area. Makes sense. Thank you!

Now that you have cleared the 6th proposal, what would happen in the case when there are no 7 users participating in the vote? And the +3 majority has to be in presence of 7 voters or more? What if 6 or 5 voters take part and they vote, 4 For/2 Against OR 3 For/1 Against? It gives a +3 vote but is still not strong enough to give user rights or approve policies or any other important matter. It may seem to work for small and not-so-important matters but definitely not on big issues, IMO. So if you could help with that. I assume a similar system was followed until now just not defined properly, so it would be better if we could either describe it in the policy or atleast discuss and write the idea behind this line so that users can not find a "technical" way to go around it. Thanks. --  Reverb frost   05:14, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

On the "leave discussions open for 1 week vs 1 month", do you want to strike the 1 month proposal or leave it open for a vote to decide what people prefer?

On the 7 votes minimum - in reviewing recent RFPs most votes were in the 6 - 8 people range, which feels like a healthy amount of participation and should be generally obtainable. If a vote has only 6 people participating and is nearing a close, I would expect the nominee and/or administrator would make some efforts to find an extra person to weigh in and reach the minimum needed (which also generally happens when someone needs just one more person to reach +3 in support).

For the vote tally issue - the +3 means 3 more For than Against, not just at least 3 For a proposal, so 4-2 or 3-1 don't reach the +3 requirement. If 7 were the minimum number of votes needed, a vote could pass by 5-2 (at the minimum), or 6-1, or 7-0 (which would also be eligible for Early closure as long as 7 days had passed from the proposal's original announcement, should that suggestion be approved). Any total of votes over this 7 minimum would still have to have +3 or more in Support than Opposed to pass.

I've been thinking about the question you posed before about outside influence - I can see the concern about having individuals who aren't able to vote trying overly to sway or possibly disrupt the voting process. I would be interested in hearing what others think about this issue. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:48, July 24, 2020 (UTC)

Voting on proposed changes

---

In order to determine consensus on the proposed changes voting will now take place.

Ironyak1 will administrate these votes. They will remain open for 7 full days and then be closed and tallied.

The current Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy applies with the clarification that as these potential changes to Policy affect all users of the site, autoconfirmed registered users with either 20 article edits OR 20 Discussions posts are eligible to vote.

Users should vote by declaring whether they are For or Against each proposed change. In the case where there are multiple Options, please sign under the one Option you support. A comment can also be included with any vote if a user wishes.

Any proposed change that has a clear majority of at least +3 votes in support at the closure of the votes will be integrated with the text of the current Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy. A new complete draft of the Voting Policy will then be generated, reviewed for completeness and discussed, and then a final vote held for either the adoption or rejection of the entire new policy.

For clarity, the term administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

Please let me know if there are any questions in the Voting Discussion area below. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:00, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

As there was one item with more than 2 options that did not reach a majority, the option with the least votes has been stricken and voting reopened. Also one last item for consideration has been added based on an additional review of Wookieepedia's policies. Please take the time to vote on these matters. The vote will close in 7 days and the proposals that have passed will be added to the Voting Policy for final review and community vote for adoption. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:40, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Formal process for proposals and discussion (+7)

Users can make a proposal and formally announce it to Administration via Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention. Up to 7 days of discussion will then follow. An administrator can open a vote at any point during these 7 days, or at the end of the 7 days can state their reasons for not opening a vote. Other administrators can then take up the issue should they choose.

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:49, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 04:58, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+1)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:03, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Community attention for a proposal (+7)

At the time of announcing a proposal to Administration or the opening of a vote, a user may request attention be drawn toward the proposal via Community lists, Announcements, and other related tools.

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Sam Hermione(It's meSam_Hermione!) 05:01, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+1)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:05, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Proposals that do not result in discussion - Option 2 (+4)

Option 2: (+7) If no discussion happens during the 7 day discussion period, with attempts made to draw attention to the proposal, then the proposal is considered closed, but can be resubmitted after 1 month.

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. MechQueste 21:43, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
3. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:38, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Option 3: (+3) No change to the current policy - proposals without discussion are left unresolved.

1. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:10, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Vote duration (+7)

A vote is to remain open for at least 7 days and expires at the same time as it opened after the full seven days have passed, unless Extended or Closed Early in accordance with those provisions.

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. MechQueste 21:43, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
3. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Sam Hermione(It's meSam_Hermione!) 05:11, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+1)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:11, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Vote handling (+7)

The administrator who opened a vote needs to formally close, tally, and archive the vote.

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:44, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+1)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Vote extensions (+6)

The administrator who opened a vote can extend its duration by 7 days should more time be needed to handle ongoing and unresolved discussions.

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. MechQueste 21:43, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
3. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
7. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:45, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+2)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum time between first contribution and casting a vote (+7)

A user's first contribution (edit or post) should be at least 1 month prior to their vote being cast (one month is defined by the date e.g. 15 February is 1 month prior to 15 March, regardless of the number of days in any given month.)

For (+8)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. MechQueste 21:43, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
3. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
7. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:50, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+1)

1.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal rejected - no change in policy --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Discussions Voting requirements (-4)

Option 1: (+1) Discussion post requirements for voting on Discussions-related topics should mirror those of the wiki (50 new topic posts only (if 50 main namespace edits is adopted OR 50 Discussion posts total including replies (if 50 edits across main, File, Template, Category is adopted) . Also Discussions voting requirements should have same time required before a vote for a user's first post as for a first edit, should that measure be adopted for the wiki.

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Option 2: (+5) No change to policy - "For Discussions-related topics, only autoconfirmed registered users with more than 20 Discussions posts may participate in voting."

1. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. --  Reverb frost   17:56, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:52, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
4.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
5.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal rejected --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Recent activity requirement (-2)

Users should have 7 contributions to the Harry Potter FANDOM site (Wiki or Discussions) within the month prior to the vote opening in order to be able to cast a vote.

For (+3)

1. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:55, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
3.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+5)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 18:04, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
5. MechQueste 12:23, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Minimum number of votes needing to be cast (+4)

7 votes need to be cast for a vote to be a valid measure of Community consensus. Any vote without at least 7 votes cast by its closing date will be closed with no changes taking place.

For (+6)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:57, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+2)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Vote template (+9)

A Vote template should be used to officially Open a vote, and should display which administrator opened it, the opening date, the closing date, and contain the relevant voting subsections.

For (+9)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
6. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 06:01, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
8.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
9.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Administrator recusal after a vote is opened (+4)

If a dispute concerning a proposal occurs after the vote is started and it cannot be solved, a vote can be shut down by the administrator who opened it. The user has a 7 day period to petition for a new administrator to open a new vote. The first administrator cannot be involved in opening and closing the new vote. If another administrator does not open a vote, the matter is considered closed and the petitioning user has to wait 1 month to resubmit their proposal It would be encouraged that any concerns raised during the vote try and be improved upon during that period.

For (+6)

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 06:22, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Against (+2)

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Early Closure of a vote (+8)

Option 1: (+8) If a vote has +7 in support it may be closed early by an Administrator as long as at least 7 days have passed from the proposal's original announcement to Administration.

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:18, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
7.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
8.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Option 2: No change to current policy - "If a clear consensus, (+7 votes) is reached before the allotted time has expired than the administrator may close a vote early."

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed - Option 1 --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Resubmitting a proposal that was voted down (+6)

Any proposal for which a vote is completed but not passed must wait a specified time before being resubmitted:

Option 1: (+7) 1 month from the closing of the vote

1. Kates39 (talk) 21:36, July 25, 2020 (UTC)
2. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
5. Sam Hermione(It's meSam_Hermione!) 05:12, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
7.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Option 3: (+1) No change to current policy - no time specified before a proposal can be resubmitted

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:03, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Voting Requirements - Option 2 (+3)

====Option 1: (+1) 50 edits, in the Article namespace only, are required to be eligible to vote on wiki-related matters.====

1. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:20, July 29, 2020 (UTC)

Option 2: (+6) 50 edits, counted across the Article, File, Template, and Category namespaces, are required to be eligible to vote on wiki-related matters.

1. Sammm✦✧(talk) 13:32, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. --  Reverb frost   17:45, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
3. Yoontae^{(Inconvenience me here!)} 17:59, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
4. - Kates39 (talk) 11:12, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
5.  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:04, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
6. --Dragonfly2178 (talk) 21:23, August 9, 2020 (UTC)

Option 3: (+3) No change to policy - "For wiki-related issues, only autoconfirmed registered users with more than 20 article edits may participate in voting."

1. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       17:28, July 29, 2020 (UTC)
2. Sam Hermione(It's me Sam_Hermione!) 05:49, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
3.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Administrator notes

Per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, for votes with more than 2 options, if no option reaches a majority, the option with least number of votes is stricken and voting reopened. As such, Option 1 has been stricken and voting is reopened. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:40, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Proposal passed --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:03, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

Waiting period after a user returns from a block on their account (+5)

Users returning from a block on their account are not immediately eligible to make new proposals or nominations or participate in any votes. They regain their ability to participate in these activities 1 month from the expiration of their block.

For (+5)

1.  Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 17:43, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
2. --  Reverb frost   17:46, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
3. - MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:26, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
4. - Kates39 (talk) 20:40, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
5. --Dragonfly2178 (talk) 21:24, August 9, 2020 (UTC)

Against

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Voting Discussion

I'm just curious to know that do these changes reflect to Dmods as well? I mean, take for instance the dispute thing which occurs during a Dmod selection then what measures are we going to take? I am not with the idea that the admin should overrule the community vote and close the vote just based on a dispute raised by a particular group of users who might have personal grudges with the candidate.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 09:59, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned repeatedly, Discussion Mods have a separate process that was voted for by that community which will continue to be used until that community votes to change it. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:07, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of this but my question is not that. Dboard policy donot deal with specific circumstances like the one mentioned above. So, what would happen in such a case on Dboard? I'm sure there is no such detailed policy on the Dboard about such situations. That's why I asked if this policy could reflect the discussion as well? If not then clearly we need some detailed Dboard policy as well. Also, we have voted for a possible change to requirements of Dboard posts above to vote in an election. Why was it voted here in the first place cuz according to Dboard policy it has already been established that autoconfirmed users with 20 Discussions posts can participate in an election then what was the need for this change to take place on here and not on the Dboard? Thanks.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 20:39, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

What "specific circumstances" and "such a case" are you specifically talking about? The previous Discussions vote was for how "Discussions Mods are nominated" not how the entire voting policy works so any changes to the Voting Policy would apply to all votes including those held in Discussions. Every vote in Discussions has linked to the Voting Policy as it applies to all votes on the site.

Originally the Discussions post requirements for voting was simply mirrored from the wiki edits requirements. The vote here was to see if that mirroring should continue or just be left alone until any Discussions Policy review happens. As the results is to leave it be for now there really isn't anything for Discussions specifically to have to vote on.

Again, this is the Policy drafting process for which everyone was notified. Once these proposals are resolved then they will be integrated with the Voting Policy and the entire new policy voted for or against. The vote for this will be announced site wide again so that everyone is equally notified and can participate. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:01, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about this specific circumstances which we just voted upon:

If a dispute concerning a proposal occurs after the vote is started and it cannot be solved, a vote can be shut down by the administrator who opened it. The user has a 7 day period to petition for a new administrator to open a new vote. The first administrator cannot be involved in opening and closing the new vote. If another administrator does not open a vote, the matter is considered closed and the petitioning user has to wait 1 month to resubmit their proposal It would be encouraged that any concerns raised during the vote try and be improved upon during that period..

So, what happens if such a dispute occurs during nomination of a Dmod, will the organising administrator shut down the nomination?

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 01:29, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

That is up to the organizing administrator, but it would be a possibility in any vote including those held for Discussions Mods as the Voting Policy applies site-wide. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:51, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

You finally got it. Huh! That's what I was asking. Thnx anyway although I'm not with this idea but what the majority says. Cheers!

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 05:16, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Not replying to Newt but a comment above; my response feels way too long to be appropriate for putting at the voting area, hence replying here. Just pointing out that the current number of files on HPW is at 55,204, and file-uploading is not what all there is to the file namespace. Even file replacement is less frequent than the occurrence of main namespace spam edits, and main namespace edits are what currently used as the bar. As someone who has over 40% edits in file namespace, my final word is that, had Users been properly editing their own uploads, my percentage in that namespace would not have been this high. It should be encouraged for Users to take care of their own uploads, and when efforts are actually made, it ideally should be recognized. The "nonsense uploads" take up like, what, 5%? Probably less because I don't think there's 1.8K junk images lying around. If there is though, you are welcome to avidly place {{delete}} since I've obviously missed the memo :D. Happy editing. (I'm not upset or anything, would just rather there be no misconception about what editing the file namespace entails.)

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 14:20, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

When I said 'nonsense images' (and I admit 'nonsense' was a poor choice of word), I meant problem images such as duplicated images or images that are nothing to do with the franchise. Have you taken a look at Category:Candidates for deletion recently? It's chalk full of such images. And that's just the ones that have been noticed. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  15:09, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Exactly (though currently the number isn't considerably all that high,) and for people taking the time finding and placing the notice, their efforts are efforts. For people creating problems, problems occur not just in file namespace but potentially anywhere sans MediaWiki; the fixers and helpers of the problems, wherever they are helping out, is appreciated. If one is credited for correcting category or tagging deletion (still an edit count) in main namespace articles, I don't see how one doing the same in file namespace (or others) should receive less. That was the point of including the other namespaces. Cheers. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 15:22, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Please note that seven full days have now passed since the vote was opened so the voting on these proposals is now closed. I will tally the votes and post the next steps shortly. Thanks to everyone who participated! --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:07, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I've tallied and archived the votes. There is one proposal with multiple options on which the consensus is not clear, so per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy the option with the lowest number of votes will be stricken and voting reopened.

And yet you marked the 'Recent activity requirement' one as rejected despite the consensus being split in exactly the same way...- MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:54, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

The "Recent activity" proposal doesn't have "multiple (more than 2) opinions being voted on" per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy - it was just a straight For or Against vote in which there is not a +3 For majority so it did not pass. "Wiki Voting Requirements" has 3 options, so "where there are multiple opinions (more than 2), a vote for an option is a positive one, and a vote for any other option is a negative one for all other opinions." As such the top option (+5) is only (+1) over all the other options combined. As such the option with one vote will be dropped and the vote reopened to see if the either of the remaining two options can gain a majority. Hope this helps - Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:25, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Before I do this however I wanted to get some feedback. I think it is important to clarify in the Voting Policy that for site-wide changes, such as Policy changes or Voting for Administrators & Bureaucrats, minimum requirements for either Wiki edits or Discussions posts should qualify so both communities of users can vote on matters that affect the entire site and its administration. While I am comfortable making this clarification to the Voting Policy as a obvious matter of equity, I can also add this as a vote here if people feel that would be better.

Also in reviewing Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy I noticed a potentially useful item: "Users returning from a block of one month or longer are not immediately eligible to vote on Consensus votes (as defined above) or Requests for user rights/removal of user rights votes. They regain their voting eligibility after two weeks from the expiration of their block." If at least a couple other people agree that this is worth considering and should be voted on I could see adding it, or any other strongly supported last considerations, during this final round of voting. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:14, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Last call for any new suggestions to consider. We have to reopen the vote on the one multi-choice item that didn't reach consensus, so there is an opportunity to add any last items that have clear support as important and worth considering before we finish up. Any items considered will need to be a straight For or Against vote so they resolve by the end of this last round of voting. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:38, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think there are a few points that haven't been discussed as much yet:

1. Time required after a block before being able to vote: I think a user returning from a block should not be allowed to gain their voting rights back immediately. First of all, a user has to fulfil all the requirements for being eligible to vote in the first place. Since that has been stated if the said user has been banned temporarily then no matter how long their block was, they will be able to regain their voting rights only after 1 month or expiring of the vote. (1 month is 12 feb- 12 march also 1 month is 12 July- 12 August and so on.)
2. Time required after a block for being able to make a proposal or a nomination: Again I think we should have a 1-month time period for this and the definition of 1 month is same as I mentioned above.
3. A definition for Nomination, Discussion, and Vote and any other such parameters or terms mentioned in the policy. --  Reverb frost   14:00, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think this can be summed up in a single item that users returning from a block have a 1 month waiting period before they are are able to submit proposals & nominations or participate in any votes. I'll add this shortly and then reopen the voting on these last couple remaining items. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:51, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

As a heads up, this vote will be closing in a couple days (Monday 10 August 17:40 UTC). If you haven't voted on the two remaining items, please do so now. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:45, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

can i vote? --Dragonfly2178 (talk) 21:13, August 8, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in this reply. Yes, you have enough edits to vote on the couple items that are still open. Just add your signature --~~~~ under the section you wish to support. There are other votes that will be opening soon so I'll also reply to your talk page as well so you can be kept informed in case you want to vote on them as well. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:20, August 9, 2020 (UTC)

The last round of votes has been tallied and archived. The approved proposals will be integrated into the Voting Policy, reviewed here, and a site-wide announcement made and a final vote taken to adopt or reject the new Voting Policy. I'll make an announcement once the new version is ready to review. Thanks to everyone for their participation with these updates and improvements! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:03, August 10, 2020 (UTC)

The complete draft is now available for review at Forum:New Voting Policy draft. As this process of proposed changes is now complete, it will be locked as a permanent record. Many thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:49, August 11, 2020 (UTC)

---

---