April Arcus (talk | contribs) →Er... Victory Margin?: er, wow, I can read. |
Steelviper (talk | contribs) Victory margin at wikipedia |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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) | 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) | |||
Revision as of 13:37, 22 December 2005
Is the complicated template system really necessary for us yet? We're a small wiki and we all pretty much know each other. --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? --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! -- Joe Beaudoin 11:41, 18 December 2005 (EST)
- Addendum: The generic questions for the candidates are part of the {{RFA}} template. Once it is imported into the proper nomination subpage, then they can be answered. -- 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. -- 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? --Day 20:19, 21 December 2005 (EST)
- Over at the 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.--Steelviper 08:37, 22 December 2005 (EST)