Nature of policies[]
I know these were ratified a while back, but I have say upon reading the section regarding the removal of user rights, I think it is unbelievably favouritist and wrong. The policy of there being a ludicrously high, undemocratic required majority of seven votes to remove someone's special rights is clearly there to ultimately prevent anyone losing their rights ever, and therefore I believe this enforces elitisma and prevents any change from realisitcally occuring when potentially necessary. The only majority ideally in any democratic vote of any nature should always be a majority of one vote, nothing more. Oh well, that is my opinion, but I might question and challenge these proposals in the Wizengamot on a later date; after all, I am perfectly allowed to do so.RedWizard98 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Notified Leave[]
I will be taking Notified Leave from today. RL is very busy at the moment and I will be moving to a new country soon, so I do not have the time to be active. I have also needed a long hiatus for my mental health so I can try and recharge. Hope you're all doing well and I will try to check in when I can. - Kates39 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggested change[]
Isn’t this edit count too low? 119 edits over 29 weeks averages out to only about four edits a week. If all users with special rights were this inactive and still retained their rights, the wiki wouldn’t make any progress. I’d suggest raising the requirement to 1,300 edits over 52 weeks (a year), which averages about three to four edits a day. It’s not a lot, but it would ensure a more active contribution level. - Peregino (talk) 
16:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure if 1,300 edits over a year should be mandatory, but I guess that is able to be met. SeichanGrey (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea where the 119 edits over 29 weeks came from, and I cannot find any discussions about it. It seems like when Ironyak1 created the policy in 2020, he just added that number for his own favour without any consensus. This is not how we do things on this wiki. The appropriate amount — something manageable for admins but also ensuring they are sufficiently active — should be discussed and agreed upon by consensus. - Peregino (talk)
12:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have no idea what was the rationale but I’m sure it is buried somehwere in the forums, when the policy was discussed sometime ago. Honestly, it just felt like it was just created based on some necessarily convulsed and opaque window of time, instead of something like 100 every 6 months or so, which seems much more direct and plain. SeichanGrey (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, the full discussion for this policy is in the Forum, linked to from the policy ratification notice itself - namely Forum:User Rights Policy - draft which was a follow-on from the work done at Forum:User Rights Policy proposal and Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Maintaining Rights specifically for this section. Given that over a dozen people spent around 4 months on this topic, and most of this policy was written by Kates39 and Reverb Frost, and it was voted in by 9 members of the community, it seems like an odd assumption that I personally "just added that number for his own favour without any consensus." I'd suggest to do research before forming beliefs.
- As for the actual requirement, it's based around the numbers 17 and 29 which as Hagrid would say "it's easy enough." :) It was originally going to be 500 edits in 6 months, but got compromised down to the point at which enough people would agree to vote for it (see the extensive discussion for the details). If you would like the change the requirement, you'll want to get enough "community consensus as determined by a renewed discussion of the issue and a vote with participation equal to or greater than the original discussion" as stipulated by Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy. Let me know if there are additional questions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)