Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:42, 3 August 2006

I'm sorry I didn't accept this right away, but I had hoped to finish updating the Cast and Crew articles first. Upon further evaluation, to finish these articles up to the quality of detail I wanted would take over a week, so I'll just do this first :) --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:53, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

It's not like we don't have your questions as answered before on the last 2 RFAs. :) It's a formality, so if the real world gets in the way, don't sweat it too much. --Spencerian 08:20, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

Sorry everyone I was once again occupied by real-world activities for a while; I'll set up my nomination thing now (wish I could have done it immediately). --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 16:16, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

Oddness

Something is seriously messed up with this page, in that the source no longer seems to match the displayed contents. I am going to go through the edit history and re-create it as best I can. --Peter Farago 00:52, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

I had it fixed in my version. I was submitting it and poof. I got a locked notice. :x --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:53, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Formatting fixed. --Peter Farago 01:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

As I noted in the article; I'm sorry if there's some rule against me pointing out that someone didn't qualify as I personally welcomed this person to the wiki when they joined a matter of hours ago, just to vote against me; are only Administrators supposed to do that? If so I'm sorry, wasn't sure how to handle things. Is there a problem? BTW, yes the code seems a bit odd on this page, I had to resort to bracketed b's isntead of bolding stuff using apostrophes. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 00:57, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Yes as Peter pointed out I was just following precedent; very much so; I don't know how to strike stuff out using wiki-code, so I went to my 2nd RFA and cut and paste one of the ones from there, using it as a precedent for this kind of thing. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 01:12, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Just better said. I was getting around to it. Please read the RFA guidelines etc, etc, etc. All you had to say. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 01:19, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Ain't Right

I know that it is the rules, but IMHO it ain't right that a group of users with less than 20 worthwhile contribs (one had none) can come in and determine the outcome of an RFA, then disappear until the next time. Sorry, just had to say that. --FrankieG 06:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Merv withdrew from the RFA, I doubt the KR vote would have counted should the RFA continued. If you were referring to the other people, remember that you can be an active user of a wiki but never make a single change... --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 06:35, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

This is a technical issue we may need to address. Technically the voters in question are valid contributors, but how do (should?) we make additional qualifiers for RFA voting? In a perfect world, I would require at least 50 edits over a fixed period--say, 30 days. That would ensure that lurkers and others have spent a legitimate time in actual involvement with substantial editing in the wiki--which means that their opinion should involve working with the contributor up for RFA and basing their vote on that criteria. There should also be, in my opinion, a 3-month moratorium before a new RFA can be opened for a past candidate. I'm unhappy for this, too, as Merv was ready here, but his reputation DOES make an impact from the outside.

This topic should be brought to Joe's attention and not here since this article will be archived soon. I will bring up the topic as a Think Tank item. --Spencerian 07:56, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:56, 3 August 2006 view source Spencerian (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, interwiki, Sponsors, Chiefs 9,127 edits →‎Ain't Right ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:42, 3 August 2006 view source Shane (talk \| contribs) Senior Chiefs, Marines, interwiki, Sponsors, CAP, Chiefs 17,616 edits m →‎Ain't Right: just for formating issues; fixed link Newer edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	::This is a technical issue we may need to address. Technically the voters in question are valid contributors, but how do (should?) we make additional qualifiers for RFA voting? In a perfect world, I would require at least 50 edits over a fixed period--say, 30 days. That would ensure that lurkers and others have spent a legitimate time in actual involvement with substantial editing in the wiki--which means that their opinion should involve working with the contributor up for RFA and basing their vote on that criteria. There should also be, in my opinion, a 3-month moratorium before a new RFA can be opened for a past candidate. I'm unhappy for this, too, as Merv was ready here, but his reputation DOES make an impact from the outside.		::This is a technical issue we may need to address. Technically the voters in question are valid contributors, but how do (should?) we make additional qualifiers for RFA voting? In a perfect world, I would require at least 50 edits over a fixed period--say, 30 days. That would ensure that lurkers and others have spent a legitimate time in actual involvement with substantial editing in the wiki--which means that their opinion should involve working with the contributor up for RFA and basing their vote on that criteria. There should also be, in my opinion, a 3-month moratorium before a new RFA can be opened for a past candidate. I'm unhappy for this, too, as Merv was ready here, but his reputation DOES make an impact from the outside.

	:This topic should be brought to Joe's attention and not here since this article will be archived soon. I will bring up the topic as a [[Think Tank]] item. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 07:56, 3 August 2006 (CDT)		::This topic should be brought to Joe's attention and not here since this article will be archived soon. I will bring up the topic as a [[BW:TANK\|Think Tank]] item. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 07:56, 3 August 2006 (CDT)