Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 17:11, 17 August 2013
, 10 years agoI think this thread has broken the record for longest running discussion in TSW history
imported>Pidgeoraptor7 (-_-) |
imported>Lost Labyrinth (I think this thread has broken the record for longest running discussion in TSW history) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
Please forgive me if I don't write an incredibly long wall of text about the recent issues we've encountered with requests for rights (i.e. [[TSW:RFA]] and [[TSW:RFB]]). I doubt I need to rehash the cluster-''you-know-what'' we just experienced with the most recent request, and I don't want to turn this thread into a place to complain about the opinions of others in that RfA. This is the place to solve the obviously flawed RfA and RfB system. Because there are a couple things which are broken, clearly.
Line 238:
I feel this is worth some kind of discussion. {{LabSig}} 14:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
:Eh.. I like the idea of a timeout period, but even having that could still prevent another user from nominating themself or another user. I mean, if we have a 1-week deadline, and that user does not respond even within that one week, other users who were willing to nominate wouldn't get the chance to for at least the week that the user did not respond to the other nomination... maybe we should think about having multiple, but maybe no more than 2 or 3 at a time...? but even that could be a hassle to deal with. {{PGRSig}} 14:25, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
::The way I had been thinking, and the way I ultimately edited the RfA page to say, is that multiple 'pending requests' can be there at the same time, awaiting a response from the nominee. If an applicant wanted to apply in the meantime, they could still do so and their application would be taken first. In other words, we take the RfA (or RfB) applications in order of when the application/nomination was "ready" to be discussed.
::That would also allow us to form a queue of RfA applicants/nominees if multiple people wanted to apply or be nominated at around the same time. The list would be first-come first-served, based on the order in which the applications or nominations were "ready" to be discussed. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 15:21, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
:::I guess the queue system could work. If as an alternative we thought about multiple requests, I wouldn't mind imposing a cap of 2 or 3 nominations at one time as Pidge suggested. I'm not hoping for a silver lining on that one though so I guess the queue system is probably our best bet, unless anybody else has another idea. {{LabSig}} 23:18, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
::::I have no problem with the queue system, but will we be putting a limit on how long a nomination can go without a response from the nominee? {{PGRSig}} 02:22, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
:::::I like the idea of having a queue/the multiple pending requests, and I think what Pidge is saying about putting a limit on the amount of time between a nomination and an accept to that nomination, is a good idea too. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 07:06, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
Bumping this thread, it looks like having requests queue is accepted. As for having a time limit on pending requests... how long are we thinking? Two weeks, a month perhaps? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:59, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
:Two weeks seems reasonable enough. In my opinion, there's really no point considering a user for an RfX if they're never here and, unless they're declared absent via their user page or other extreme circumstances, it really shouldn't take any more than 2 weeks for somebody to respond to their nomination. {{LabSig}} 23:58, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
::Two weeks is more than enough time to accept, so if that isn't enough time I don't know what is... I'm down with that. {{PGRSig}} 03:18, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
== And one last thing... ==
Forgive me for bumping once again with something else but as it's directly related to the new system, I may as well bring it up here before we put this forum to bed.
The old system required one to have 50 edits before they could vote and that was explicitly stated in the ruleset. One of the abuse filters is currently regulating this but nonetheless I'd like to propose we apply the same restriction on the new system for both discussion and voting. My reasoning for this is that we've had cases in the past where users have had users from other wikis vote in support based on personal ties and those users aren't active members of the community. This could easily be seen as swaying the vote to the nominee's favour if the users who are actually active here aren't in support of the RfX.
I'd also like to propose that those 50 edits are explicitly made within the project namespaces (Mainspace, Fanon and Game Guides). I think this would be useful as somebody with little to no community presence shouldn't really be weighing in on an RfA and somebody who, for example, only makes 50 blog comments before trying to join in with the discussion doesn't really constitute as part of the community.
I can already anticipate mixed opinions on the second point but I'd still like to know what everybody thinks. {{LabSig}} 19:59, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
:I agree wholeheartedly with both points. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 20:24, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
::Per LiR, however if a user is voting inter-wiki, should we be counting their edits on that wiki and also taking into consideration their connection with the user whose request/nomination for RfX is being discussed on said wiki? {{PGRSig}} 03:41, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
:::Per LiR. No questions from me. [[User:Beds|<font color="#6B1D51">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''parlare'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#512d17">'''da leggere'''</font>]])</sup> 09:33, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
::::@Pidge Probably best not to. It can be seen as a conflict of interest on personal grounds if somebody with 5,000 edits on another wiki shows up and voices support for one RfX candidate based on personal ties whilst having very few, if any, meaningful edits here. That and being part of another wiki's community =/= being part of TSW's community. {{LabSig}} 11:14, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
== Conclusion ==
After three months, we have a new system and a new ruleset for user rights requests. We also have consensus to put into place a multiple requests queue where the nominee must respond to their nomination within two weeks. We also have consensus to restrict discussion to users with at least 50 edits on content namespaces. The queue system and edit requirements will be written into the RfA/RfB ruleset shortly. If anyone wishes to propose any further changes to the system, you're welcome to start a new thread. {{LabSig}} 17:11, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
| |||