Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/RfA Amendments - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:25Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::The "time" has to be less than first time someone can be renominated for RFA. Otherthan that, 50-100 contribs seems fine with me, in any namespace though. Not just main space. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 08:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::The "time" has to be less than first time someone can be renominated for RFA. Otherthan that, 50-100 contribs seems fine with me, in any namespace though. Not just main space. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 08:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
	:::Why introduce more rules and regs to be enforced about which votes "count", and which don't? I mean, if Joe is having trouble filtering through them, I could understand. But in the previous case there were only a little over ten votes. I'd be perfectly fine with Joe making an admin on a 1/10/0 vote if the one "support" was a really well thought out comment from an editor with only 1 contrib, if all the "oppose"'s were just the template with no explanation. For me, the "support/oppose" is more of a sorting mechanism for the comments and opinions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:::Why introduce more rules and regs to be enforced about which votes "count", and which don't? I mean, if Joe is having trouble filtering through them, I could understand. But in the previous case there were only a little over ten votes. I'd be perfectly fine with Joe making an admin on a 1/10/0 vote if the one "support" was a really well thought out comment from an editor with only 1 contrib, if all the "oppose"'s were just the template with no explanation. For me, the "support/oppose" is more of a sorting mechanism for the comments and opinions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
	::::Well put, and I agree completely. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::::Well put, and I agree completely. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	100 votes is fine with me, but 4 months is grossly excessive. I think the current three-week limit is adequate, but we could also push it up to a full month. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		100 votes is fine with me, but 4 months is grossly excessive. I think the current three-week limit is adequate, but we could also push it up to a full month. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	I'd have initially thought 3 months, but even 1 month or whatever is fine; the time limit isn't reallt an issue for me. What is an issue is the edit count; it's not a simple matter of reaching a given number like 100, even, the important part is that we have a system in place where the merit of the person's contributions are reviewed and their vote eligibility determined (i.e. just dotting i's and crossing t's, or just making minor edits like reposting links to news site information which anyone could see, should not be considered meaningful. I say this because in the case of Ribsy, futoncritic reported that the Season 3 premiere was October 6th, I was working that day so I didn't get online until 6 hours after he did and he "reported" it on the messageboard at Skiffy (I wouldn't have put it into battlestarwiki, as I don't trust the futoncritic as a reliable source, etc.)--->He proceeded to sort of, brag about "reporting" this public information like some sort of badge of honor, shouting "hahah, look at me, I'm a trafficker of information!" (that's my catchphrase, he was basicly parodying me for spite) but this didn't really involve much decision making or observation, other than that he simply saw some news at a tv site on a day when I was busy; so I'm concerned that people like that will, well see front page news on GalacticaStation.com and "report" it even though it's just a matter of who got to their computer first that day (rather than hard-to-find news items we've had to hunt for) and that they'll abuse the system by doing that. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		I'd have initially thought 3 months, but even 1 month or whatever is fine; the time limit isn't reallt an issue for me. What is an issue is the edit count; it's not a simple matter of reaching a given number like 100, even, the important part is that we have a system in place where the merit of the person's contributions are reviewed and their vote eligibility determined (i.e. just dotting i's and crossing t's, or just making minor edits like reposting links to news site information which anyone could see, should not be considered meaningful. I say this because in the case of Ribsy, futoncritic reported that the Season 3 premiere was October 6th, I was working that day so I didn't get online until 6 hours after he did and he "reported" it on the messageboard at Skiffy (I wouldn't have put it into battlestarwiki, as I don't trust the futoncritic as a reliable source, etc.)--->He proceeded to sort of, brag about "reporting" this public information like some sort of badge of honor, shouting "hahah, look at me, I'm a trafficker of information!" (that's my catchphrase, he was basicly parodying me for spite) but this didn't really involve much decision making or observation, other than that he simply saw some news at a tv site on a day when I was busy; so I'm concerned that people like that will, well see front page news on GalacticaStation.com and "report" it even though it's just a matter of who got to their computer first that day (rather than hard-to-find news items we've had to hunt for) and that they'll abuse the system by doing that. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
Line 99:		Line 99:
	--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 09:12, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 09:12, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	:In that case, Spencerian had summed up my feelings on the issue perfectly, and I truly had nothing further to contribute. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:29, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:In that case, Spencerian had summed up my feelings on the issue perfectly, and I truly had nothing further to contribute. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:29, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Discussion */ reply

2006-08-04T23:02:38Z

Discussion: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 4 August 2006
Line 78:		Line 78:

	::Well I'd have thought that Joe would be the non-voting Moderator; I mean Administrators are often the regulars/veterans of BattlestarWiki who have valued opinions on why someone should or should not become a fellow Administrator. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:42, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::Well I'd have thought that Joe would be the non-voting Moderator; I mean Administrators are often the regulars/veterans of BattlestarWiki who have valued opinions on why someone should or should not become a fellow Administrator. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:42, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
			:I'd have no problem with this, in theory. Everyone has his or her own biases, so I think an odd-numbered quorum would be better. However, how do we determine who is up for the job? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 18:02, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

Gougef: /* Discussion */

2006-08-04T21:21:27Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:21, 4 August 2006
Line 47:		Line 47:

	:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

			:::: What if we just don't call it a "vote"? It's not really. Just by changing from a "vote" to a "discussion" (or some other word) would eliminate the need from a lot of this. And, still, in the end, Joe decides what is valid. --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:21, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

Gougef: /* Discussion */

2006-08-04T21:09:21Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 4 August 2006
Line 44:		Line 44:
	: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
	::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
			:::My only hope is that the process becomes more civil. I have no problem with Joe just saying your vote is valid/not valid without some written policy. It just seemed to me that the whole process was "hijacked". --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:09, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

The Merovingian: /* Discussion */

2006-08-04T20:57:43Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:57, 4 August 2006
Line 44:		Line 44:
	: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
	::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

			:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

Steelviper: /* Discussion */ + thoughts

2006-08-04T20:35:02Z

Discussion: + thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:35, 4 August 2006
Line 43:		Line 43:

	: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
			::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Discussion */ my reply

2006-08-04T20:15:08Z

Discussion: my reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:15, 4 August 2006
Line 41:		Line 41:

	:::::::::That said, if the consensus is for stricter standards, I'll happily support it. I feel it would be helpful to note that you seem to be conflating suffrage in government and franchise in selecting adminstrators here; they are barely similar enough to support an analogy, much less a parallel argument. A fan wiki isn't someone's government, and there is no inherent right to a voice in one. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:42, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		:::::::::That said, if the consensus is for stricter standards, I'll happily support it. I feel it would be helpful to note that you seem to be conflating suffrage in government and franchise in selecting adminstrators here; they are barely similar enough to support an analogy, much less a parallel argument. A fan wiki isn't someone's government, and there is no inherent right to a voice in one. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:42, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

			: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

Mercifull: /* Wiki Style RfA process vs Forum Moderator Process */

2006-08-04T07:53:06Z

Wiki Style RfA process vs Forum Moderator Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:53, 4 August 2006
Line 95:		Line 95:

	===Wiki Style RfA process vs Forum Moderator Process===		===Wiki Style RfA process vs Forum Moderator Process===
	To be perfectly honest and frank, the whole idea of a RfA process like it used here is compoletely new to me, I know its what it done on other wiki's but it this purely because thats the way Wikipedia does it?		To be perfectly honest and frank, the whole idea of a RfA process like it used here is compoletely new to me. I know its what is done on other wiki's but is this purely because thats the way Wikipedia does it or is this because its the best?

	In all other cases RfA's are done quite differently in a process which I will attempt to describe. On all the forums I have been on and forum that I have run, Moderators (equivalent to Wiki Sysops) are chosen only by the current administrative staff privately and out of the public eye. There are no self nominations and instead a current admin/moderator will make a proposal to the rest of the staff outlining their opinions and why this person should be considered. A lengthly discussion is then held before a decision made. There is no time limit on this and nothing is rushed through. Once people seem to have agreed a decision on this the head administrators (beurocrats) then privatly ask if the person wants to be a moderator, if they accept then it is all made official.		In all other cases RfA's are done quite differently in a process which I will attempt to describe. On all the forums I have been on and forum that I have run, Moderators (equivalent to Wiki Sysops) are chosen only by the current administrative staff privately and out of the public eye. There are no self nominations and instead a current admin/moderator will make a proposal to the rest of the staff outlining their opinions and why this person should be considered. A lengthly discussion is then held before a decision made. There is no time limit on this and nothing is rushed through. Once people seem to have agreed a decision on this the head administrators (beurocrats) then privatly ask if the person wants to be a moderator, if they accept then it is all made official.

	The only problem with this kind of system is that you cant have private discussions on a wiki as everything is made public. Its a system that works incredibly well on a forum where you can set up groups and permissions but im not sure how a system like this would work unless we had a forum or discussed over IRC. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 02:52, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		The only problem with this kind of system is that you cant have private discussions on a wiki as everything is made public. Its a system that works incredibly well on a forum where you can set up groups and permissions but im not sure how a system like this would work unless we had a forum or discussed over IRC. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 02:52, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Mercifull: Different way of trying the RfA process?

2006-08-04T07:52:05Z

Different way of trying the RfA process?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:52, 4 August 2006
Line 93:		Line 93:

	:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

			===Wiki Style RfA process vs Forum Moderator Process===
			To be perfectly honest and frank, the whole idea of a RfA process like it used here is compoletely new to me, I know its what it done on other wiki's but it this purely because thats the way Wikipedia does it?

			In all other cases RfA's are done quite differently in a process which I will attempt to describe. On all the forums I have been on and forum that I have run, Moderators (equivalent to Wiki Sysops) are chosen only by the current administrative staff privately and out of the public eye. There are no self nominations and instead a current admin/moderator will make a proposal to the rest of the staff outlining their opinions and why this person should be considered. A lengthly discussion is then held before a decision made. There is no time limit on this and nothing is rushed through. Once people seem to have agreed a decision on this the head administrators (beurocrats) then privatly ask if the person wants to be a moderator, if they accept then it is all made official.

			The only problem with this kind of system is that you cant have private discussions on a wiki as everything is made public. Its a system that works incredibly well on a forum where you can set up groups and permissions but im not sure how a system like this would work unless we had a forum or discussed over IRC. --[[User:Mercifull\|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull\|Contribs]])</sup> 02:52, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

CalculatinAvatar: /* Discussion */

2006-08-04T06:42:57Z

Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:42, 4 August 2006
Line 35:		Line 35:

	::::::::So let me toss out a very specific question. With these as-yet undecided new rules that you are discussing putting in place, in the last RFA vote, would you have thrown out and effectively disenfranchised the votes from Dogger, KR and myself?--[[User:Larocque6689\|Larocque6689]] 22:40, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::::::::So let me toss out a very specific question. With these as-yet undecided new rules that you are discussing putting in place, in the last RFA vote, would you have thrown out and effectively disenfranchised the votes from Dogger, KR and myself?--[[User:Larocque6689\|Larocque6689]] 22:40, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

			:::::::::I objected to Ribsy and KR getting votes, so I would have, in the hypothetical, thrown out their votes. KR had no prior edits, and Ribsy's prior edits were exclusively talk page edits (not even offering advice on content).

			:::::::::Dogger's neutral vote isn't actually a vote; it's an abstention. If he had voted either way, I would have, in the hypothetical, let it stand since his account doesn't look like it exists just to vote on RfA's. I would have, in the hypothetical, let your vote stand since it doesn't look like it exists just to vote on RfA's. If I thought either of your votes should be invalidated, I would have objected to them.

			:::::::::That said, if the consensus is for stricter standards, I'll happily support it. I feel it would be helpful to note that you seem to be conflating suffrage in government and franchise in selecting adminstrators here; they are barely similar enough to support an analogy, much less a parallel argument. A fan wiki isn't someone's government, and there is no inherent right to a voice in one. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar\|CalculatinAvatar]]<sup>([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar\|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar\|T]])</sup> 01:42, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	===Vote===		===Vote===

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::The "time" has to be less than first time someone can be renominated for RFA. Otherthan that, 50-100 contribs seems fine with me, in any namespace though. Not just main space. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 08:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::The "time" has to be less than first time someone can be renominated for RFA. Otherthan that, 50-100 contribs seems fine with me, in any namespace though. Not just main space. --[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 08:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
	:::Why introduce more rules and regs to be enforced about which votes "count", and which don't? I mean, if Joe is having trouble filtering through them, I could understand. But in the previous case there were only a little over ten votes. I'd be perfectly fine with Joe making an admin on a 1/10/0 vote if the one "support" was a really well thought out comment from an editor with only 1 contrib, if all the "oppose"'s were just the template with no explanation. For me, the "support/oppose" is more of a sorting mechanism for the comments and opinions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:::Why introduce more rules and regs to be enforced about which votes "count", and which don't? I mean, if Joe is having trouble filtering through them, I could understand. But in the previous case there were only a little over ten votes. I'd be perfectly fine with Joe making an admin on a 1/10/0 vote if the one "support" was a really well thought out comment from an editor with only 1 contrib, if all the "oppose"'s were just the template with no explanation. For me, the "support/oppose" is more of a sorting mechanism for the comments and opinions. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 09:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
	::::Well put, and I agree completely. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::::Well put, and I agree completely. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	100 votes is fine with me, but 4 months is grossly excessive. I think the current three-week limit is adequate, but we could also push it up to a full month. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		100 votes is fine with me, but 4 months is grossly excessive. I think the current three-week limit is adequate, but we could also push it up to a full month. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	I'd have initially thought 3 months, but even 1 month or whatever is fine; the time limit isn't reallt an issue for me. What is an issue is the edit count; it's not a simple matter of reaching a given number like 100, even, the important part is that we have a system in place where the merit of the person's contributions are reviewed and their vote eligibility determined (i.e. just dotting i's and crossing t's, or just making minor edits like reposting links to news site information which anyone could see, should not be considered meaningful. I say this because in the case of Ribsy, futoncritic reported that the Season 3 premiere was October 6th, I was working that day so I didn't get online until 6 hours after he did and he "reported" it on the messageboard at Skiffy (I wouldn't have put it into battlestarwiki, as I don't trust the futoncritic as a reliable source, etc.)--->He proceeded to sort of, brag about "reporting" this public information like some sort of badge of honor, shouting "hahah, look at me, I'm a trafficker of information!" (that's my catchphrase, he was basicly parodying me for spite) but this didn't really involve much decision making or observation, other than that he simply saw some news at a tv site on a day when I was busy; so I'm concerned that people like that will, well see front page news on GalacticaStation.com and "report" it even though it's just a matter of who got to their computer first that day (rather than hard-to-find news items we've had to hunt for) and that they'll abuse the system by doing that. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		I'd have initially thought 3 months, but even 1 month or whatever is fine; the time limit isn't reallt an issue for me. What is an issue is the edit count; it's not a simple matter of reaching a given number like 100, even, the important part is that we have a system in place where the merit of the person's contributions are reviewed and their vote eligibility determined (i.e. just dotting i's and crossing t's, or just making minor edits like reposting links to news site information which anyone could see, should not be considered meaningful. I say this because in the case of Ribsy, futoncritic reported that the Season 3 premiere was October 6th, I was working that day so I didn't get online until 6 hours after he did and he "reported" it on the messageboard at Skiffy (I wouldn't have put it into battlestarwiki, as I don't trust the futoncritic as a reliable source, etc.)--->He proceeded to sort of, brag about "reporting" this public information like some sort of badge of honor, shouting "hahah, look at me, I'm a trafficker of information!" (that's my catchphrase, he was basicly parodying me for spite) but this didn't really involve much decision making or observation, other than that he simply saw some news at a tv site on a day when I was busy; so I'm concerned that people like that will, well see front page news on GalacticaStation.com and "report" it even though it's just a matter of who got to their computer first that day (rather than hard-to-find news items we've had to hunt for) and that they'll abuse the system by doing that. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
Line 99:		Line 99:
	--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 09:12, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 09:12, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	:In that case, Spencerian had summed up my feelings on the issue perfectly, and I truly had nothing further to contribute. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 12:29, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:In that case, Spencerian had summed up my feelings on the issue perfectly, and I truly had nothing further to contribute. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 12:29, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

	:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		:Exactly, I simply couldn't say it better than Spence did. No, people who just read and don't contribute ''whatsoever'' to BattlestarWiki should ''not'' have a say in RFA that carries as much weight as that of people who have actually contributed edits. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 4 August 2006
Line 44:		Line 44:
	: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		: The 100 votes thing is fine with me. Four months is excessive, however. I would also like to discuss a provision that details that people who are known in the fan community, but may not meet the 100 minimum edits, may vote as well. Obviously, the person would have to be somehow special, and I'll use two posters as an example: KR is known for his reporting via the old galactica2003.com site (and the new bsgtns.com site), and Larocque is known as one of the oldest BSG researchers to the community who worked on the Battlestar Galactica FAQ, and for his work on the old, old kobol.com site. (Yes, I remember kobol.com... LOL.) Also, do note that all votes are not weighed equally, but are weighted by their content. (Again, that quality over quantity thing asserts itself.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.\|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support\|Donate]]</sup> 15:15, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
	::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		::I think it might help if you explicitly outlined WHY we'd be making such changes. There are those who believe that the changes are along the lines of "get Merv elected", which I know isn't the case, but it might help if it was spelled out in writing. As for the changes... I'm just wary of trying to quantify everything in writing. The actual process is rather fuzzy, and trying to capture that (precise) algorithm in writing might be difficult. Even at Wikipedia there is no published support margin %, for RFA's. It's really up to the Bureaucrats' discretion. I'm fine with that, but I understand the impulse of trying to codify the decision-making process. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 15:35, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
			:::My only hope is that the process becomes more civil. I have no problem with Joe just saying your vote is valid/not valid without some written policy. It just seemed to me that the whole process was "hijacked". --[[User:Gougef\|FrankieG]] 16:09, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

	:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)		:::Well it's not "get Merv elected", even established Administrators like Spencerian or Day have voted against me when they were concerned about stuff. With those interview things they've already just added, I think KR and Larocque have already contributed enough for future votes to count (quality over quantity thing) and would be of equal value to my own in any subequent votes. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 15:57, 4 August 2006 (CDT)