Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship

Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:33, 16 December 2005 (EST)

: Yeah. I'm already confused... Where are the questions for all condidates, or are they yet to be imported? I'm all for building things to be future-proof, but we voted on the Spoiler Policy without templates and that turned out okay. I am admittedly not familiar with this event, but is there some reason we can't vote on these the same way? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:36, 17 December 2005 (EST)

:: I'm still working on refining the policy.  I wouldn't comment on it until it's done, so as to avoid confusion (and other minor issues that may arise because of it).  Thanks! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 11:41, 18 December 2005 (EST)

:: Addendum: The generic questions for the candidates are part of the {{tl|RFA}} template.  Once it is imported into the proper nomination subpage, then they can be answered. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 02:52, 20 December 2005 (EST)

== Stick a fork in it because I believe it's cooked... ==

O.K., as far as I can tell, I'm done with what I need to do.  Now, if there are any outstanding issues, I'd like to start nominating some folks.  I've got a few in mind and I'd like to delgate some responsibilities to 'em. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 02:52, 20 December 2005 (EST)

== Er... Victory Margin? ==

Did I miss it, or do we have any kind of policy about how many votes you need to be admined or what percentage of approval or... whatever? --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:19, 21 December 2005 (EST)

:Over at the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship|Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]], they suggest "In general, candidates with over 80% support are likely to succeed, and it is unusual for those below 70% to succeed, but all cases are weighed on their merits."  In reality, the decision is made by bureaucrats which, at present, isn't a role here.  So it likely comes down to the "Executive privilege" and Joe's discretion.  Which I'm fine with.  This whole process has taught me a LOT about how things are run over at Wikipedia.  Reading through some of the OTHER RFA's (request for arbitration) makes me appreciate how (relatively) little conflict we see over here.--[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:37, 22 December 2005 (EST)

== Well, I'm done ==

Folks, unless there's any large issues looming over this, I am done and the process is live. (And it looks like the people I was going to nominate were already nominated.  Wonderful!) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:16, 24 December 2005 (EST)

== TOS Czar? ==

I know this position doesn't exist, but... can't we somehow make Steelviper something like "TOS Czar"? Steelviper's right. He's a little young (BGwiki-wise) but he DEFINITELY deserves recognition for an outstanding body of work. 

Ricimer, as well I think, would fit nicely into an intermediate position like "Battle Czar."  When I look at the amount of discomfort expressed over his nomination for Admin. set alongside what I believe anyone would admit is an encyclopedic knowledge and an unparalleled ability to hunt down new information, it just seems... It feels wrong not to honor him somehow. (I'd also wager that he would enjoy such a title :) )
Thoughts anyone? --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 19:32, 27 December 2005 (EST)

: I like the sentiment. However, what would such "assistant" admins do? What privs would they have? What responsibilities? Or is this more of an honorific for Meritous Service to the Wiki? I'd not be opposed to that latter, but think being perfectly clear is best. --[[User:Day|Day]] 23:08, 27 December 2005 (EST)

::I think it's a deeply silly idea. Although we may have favored areas of contribution, we do not have "territory" here, and I think that introducing the concept would be needlessly factionalizing. IMO, Steelviper is well-qualified for adminship anyway. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:37, 28 December 2005 (EST)

:::All, very good points. Hey it was worth a shot. Now... how about making the wiki's background color change at random? Ya know. Like a strobe light? ;) --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 03:19, 28 December 2005 (EST)

:::: Or we could also introduce a Random User Face-Stab "Bug". ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:17, 28 December 2005 (EST)

==Consolidate failed requests==
I'd like to consolidate failed/declined/withdrawn requests on a single page. Any objections? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:59, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
:Might be easier to check past results but youd have to name it somehting a bit more neutral. I mean a declined RFA is completely different to a failed one. Withdrawn is kinda in the middle. Perhaps ''Unsuccessful Requests''? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 03:00, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
::That was my plan. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 07:57, 30 June 2006 (CDT)
: This would be fine. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 08:47, 30 June 2006 (CDT)

== Contribution standard for RfA voting ==

I believe there should be a (quite low) contribution requirement to vote on RfA's. It should probably include some discretion on the part of the vote tallier (i.e. Joe) to guard against legalists.

Shall we discuss it here or should I make a [[Battlestar Wiki:Think Tank/Contribution standard for RfA voting]]? --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]])</sup> 01:39, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'd say this is a fine location. Personally, I'm not sure if a contribution standard is necessary, for the very reason you mention above. The result of RFA's are at the Bureaucrat (Joe)'s discretion. You'll notice that there's no minimum support %, or any other standard written in stone. I trust that Joe weighs each opinion for what it is worth.

:People get hung up on how many supports/opposes/neutrals there are but as I've said before, a well thought out comment or neutral can do more to convince me than any one word "vote". I welcome '''anybody's''' opinion, but it's easier for me to know what your opinion is if you actually write it out.

:I think the most common misconception about the process is that people think it's a vote. It's not. RFA's are used to find out what the consensus is. Yes, votes are involved in the process, but the comments are much more important. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

==More admins needed?==
I'm not sure where the best place to discuss this is, so I'm going with here. I was thinking that, with Razor and Season 4 on the way, we could probably use a couple more admins, since some of the ones we already have are inactive and have been for a while. --[[User:BklynBruzer|BklynBruzer]] 11:05, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
:I think we have enough at the moment, and also enough for Season 4. It's true that some old-timers are inactive, but since then new admins were instated. I can see one more maybe, but not "a couple". With Mercifull, Catrope and me we also have good European coverage now. --[[User:Serenity|Serenity]] 11:09, 1 September 2007 (CDT)
:For now, I have to agree with Serenity. I have a feeling that some of the "inactive" admins will become active again once Razor and Season 4 hits. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] - [http://www.sanctuarywiki.org Sanctuary Wiki &mdash; ''New'']</sup> 11:32, 1 September 2007 (CDT)