Wikipedia talk:Right to vote

Rejected proposal

I have no idea what this phrase is supposed to be referring to. Please elucidate. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the reasons outlined in the last discussion.

This proposal still does not address concerns that

New editors may still contribute useful ideas to discussions and decisions;
Save for ArbCom elections – which already have suffrage requirements – no Wikipedia processes are treated as straight up-and-down votes;
Current Wikipedia practices and procedures are still quite good at detecting single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, votestacking, and other problems; and
This proposal may discourage newcomers from participating fully in Wikipedia.

Indeed, the proposal is virtually identical to the original, rejected document. Changes made were to wording rather than substance. I'll also note that this proposal's chief proponent Park Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't qualify to 'vote' under the criteria that he has proposed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]