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)

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. --Steelviper 09:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Well put, and I agree completely. --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:47, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

So now it's 100 "quality" edits (plus time in service)? This is getting complicated, and probably unnecessarily so. The bottom line is that I trust Joe to weigh the individual merits of each vote/comment when making his decision. I think utilizing Joe's intuition and common sense sounds a lot more appealing than counting individually and finding that user X only has 99 quality edits. --Steelviper 13:00, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree. This is a "qualitative" not "quantitative". My hope is that we can prevent it from being an open forum for personal attacks. I really care about this place and don't care for "strangers" coming in here and trashing it up. Sorry, I'm getting emotional. --FrankieG 13:13, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Oh exactly; it's a qualify not quantify kind of thing. I don't want anything drastically new, just to reinforce our old idea that people who barely post here or are strangers who just pop up to vote should probably not really count. ***I think a time limit is more or less irrelevant (though like some 1 month thing would be fine) as some people can contribute a lot in little time, and with few edits. ***Like I said before, they should be carefully examined on a case by case basis. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:31, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Doesn't Joe already do this, though? --Steelviper 13:35, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

He does, but I think we wanted to make sure it was A) Impartial and didn't look like we were unfairly ganging up on people B) Wanted to make sure it was really enforced, as our worries have been raised. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:43, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

I can appreciate the point on number of edits versus time "served," and I like that idea. It takes a while to do 100 edits, so that alone might be a sufficient level of committment if we go in that direction. As far as Joe's function: Again, although he "owns" the place, would it seem impartial if he moderated an RfA after he's targeted by an RfC? Moving the moderator duties around keeps Joe from being the only one to do it and allows an option when there has been a recorded conflict between a moderator and the candidate. --Spencerian 14:57, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

This is merely my two cents. This minimum votes thing sets up the notion that "all members are equal, but some are more equal than others" and has the effect of being a disenfranchisement mechanism. And the idea of weighing votes is absurd (most of the commentary seems to be against it). They don't do that in real-life elections, and it's contrary to the demcratic principles of the wiki. Also, there's the Gospel story of the wagemaster who promised every worker in his field the same day's wage, and told the disgruntled workers (those that worked longer in the field) that they had all agreed to the same wage. I think a token edit count (between 1 and 5, perhaps) and maybe a month or two of membership should be a barrier enough. Anything behond that tends to rub against my democratic instincts and sets up a clique mentality with different levels of membership. And is that what a Wiki is about? If you look at the last vote, the candidate welcomed a Yes or No vote from someone who didn't make any edits (KR) and sported a neutral vote from the casual (but valuable), Dogger. All things being equal, I think their votes should count and that there should be only one class of vote.--Larocque6689 17:13, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Well I understand your position Larocque but it's not really anything that drastic, just against people who obviously don't do anything. For example, Homeworld616 has been with us...3-4 weeks now? And he's just made a few contribs to the Twelve Colonies stuff (he lists them on his user page) but I think his vote counts as much as my own now. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 19:13, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Democracy is an excellent system under one key condition: the electorate must care. This is the primary reason that elections are in practice frequently more a question of popularity, charisma, and effective mass marketing than substantive judgement of qualifications. (Actually, there is another prerequisite for a proper election: one of the conditions of Arrow's Voting Theorem must be negated. This is met in our case by the fact that RfA's only have two choices.)

Therefore, to protect the integrity of the system we must insure that the voters care and, more, that they care about Battlestar Wiki and its welfare.

Yes, we are discussing disenfranchising people, but that is not a priori a bad thing. Consider the voting rights of the mentally ill and felons in even well-regarded democracies. All things aren't equal here, either. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 22:26, 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?--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. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 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? -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 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. --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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:57, 4 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)

I think that if there is a change to be made, this is a better place to start then throwing out votes. Even though I sorted started this by complaining in the RfA discussion, I don't know if there is a better way to do it. Part of it was ignorance. Didn't realize that Joe reviewed the RfA before final decision. Sorry! --FrankieG 10:06, 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 12:42, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Vote

• Still active discussing going on...

Overall Comments

Shane Comments

Two things I would like to add. I didn't bother contributing anything more to the RFA because I didn't feel it was my business to post anything about it, but in relation to the contrib "standard" does and wikivoting-ettiquite.

Now that people know that all they have to do is be some sort of contributer to the wiki they will have a "weight" in an RFA, they might start contributing to the wiki. What happens if it happens again that merv comes up for RFA? Would you dismiss their votes just because they have been contributing or you know they are just here to make sure merv doesn't become an admin. wikipedia policy on RFA-admin ship: Most people on Wikipedia when they are nominated RFA a second time usually get stopped by a B-crat and promoted to admin status before the time is even up.

Though in my RfA I objected because both Merv and peter objected, but only said "per Spencs's comments". On wikipedia, where the current RFA process is taken from lots of people do "Per Nomenator" and such and usually if it's an oppose vote, they link to the various policies why or why not they oppose or even nothing.

Shortcuts to the policies/projects should be used.

Outside commentary, from people who sign up to give their option should still be allowed to comment on the RFA because someone who visits the site for informationial purposes still must have a word on who would be affected from the potenials admins actions.

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 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. --Peter Farago 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. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 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 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.

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. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:52, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group (TRS: "Water"). It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.