Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/RfA Amendments

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)

That's probably agreeable. The goal is to allow voters who have actually worked with the RfA candidate to give a legitimate say. As such, I set the bar high on the minimum initially. As far as commentary, that can get ridiculous, so 200-300 words should be more than sufficient to put a person's two cents in. --Spencerian 08:48, 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. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:54, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Vote

• Still active discussing going on...

Moderator Proposal Discussion

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)

Discussion

How about not an admin, who remains neutral. Admins usually have a say on if they love to work with the person. The protect duties would still fall to admins and/or the "trusted" group. I feel the 200-300 "limit" might be a problem. On my vote, I listed each item, in why I was opposing. This has to be if it's a excessive comment. Not just any. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 08:48, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

That won't work. Only an administrator has the tools necessary for quick rollbacks, or to protect an article. Administrators, by their appointment, also have already demonstrated the capacity for neutrality, minimizing any personal issues in an RfA. You have made me think of one point: A moderator should not be an administrator who has had a RfC submitted against them and the candidate to avoid bias. --Spencerian 08:52, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Vote

• Still active discussing going on...