Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/RfA Amendments: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:44, 3 August 2006

Eligibility to Vote Discussion

I propose that RfAs voters must:

Have contributed at least 100 substantial (not minor) edits
Have been a registered user of the wiki for no less than 4 months

Please begin discussion below, and keep your comments relevant to this topic in this section. --Spencerian 08:37, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Discussion

Wikipedia doesn't have any such requirements, and they handle a lot more RFA's (and users) than we do. I think the important thing to remember is that all "votes" aren't created equal, and that a well thought out comment can (and should) have more sway than a one word support or oppose. The RFA process is more to determine what the consensus is than to generate a vote. After that, it's up to Joe. --Steelviper 08:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

100 edits and 4 months membertship seems far too much. Perhaps 2 months registration and 50 edits? People that do not meet this criteria are more than welcome to give comments but should not be eligable to actually place a vote. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:43, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Moderator Proposal

I propose that the wiki create the concept of the RfA moderator. A moderator:

Is any administrator.
Does not vote in the RfA they moderate.
Remains impartial and does not add any commentary to an RfA, except in noting edits to the RfA page content in the performance of their duties.

The moderator's responsibilities are:

To validate eligibility to vote for any contributor who votes in the RfA.
To truncate or edit vote comments that exceed 200-300 words.
To edit, move or delete commentary placed submitted by a eligible voting contributor after the contributor's initial vote, unless the contributor is changing their vote within the RfA vote timeframe.
To oversee the overall formatting and readibility of the RfA page.
To protect an RfA page after the voting time has elapsed to await tabulation of the vote by the wiki's bureaucrat.

Please discuss below, and keep your comments germane to this topic only. --Spencerian 08:44, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 Wikipedia doesn't have any such requirements, and they handle a lot more RFA's (and users) than we do. I think the important thing to remember is that all "votes" aren't created equal, and that a well thought out comment can (and should) have more sway than a one word support or oppose. The RFA process is more to determine what the consensus is than to generate a vote. After that, it's up to Joe. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:41, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 :100 edits and 4 months membertship seems far too much. Perhaps 2 months registration and 50 edits? People that do not meet this criteria are more than welcome to give comments but should not be eligable to actually place a vote. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] <sup>([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]])</sup> 08:43, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
+== Moderator Proposal ==
+I propose that the wiki create the concept of the ''RfA moderator''. A moderator:
+* Is any administrator.
+* Does not vote in the RfA they moderate.
+* Remains impartial and does not add any commentary to an RfA, except in noting edits to the RfA page content in the performance of their duties.
+The moderator's responsibilities are:
+* To validate eligibility to vote for any contributor who votes in the RfA.
+* To truncate or edit vote comments that exceed 200-300 words.
+* To edit, move or delete commentary placed submitted by a eligible voting contributor after the contributor's initial vote, unless the contributor is changing their vote within the RfA vote timeframe.
+* To oversee the overall formatting and readibility of the RfA page.
+* To protect an RfA page after the voting time has elapsed to await tabulation of the vote by the wiki's bureaucrat.
+''Please discuss below, and keep your comments germane to this topic only.'' --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 08:44, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
+===Discussion===