Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 03:08, 4 June 2013
, 10 years ago→Shifting gears
imported>Auror Andrachome |
imported>Pidgeoraptor7 |
||
Line 135:
:Bullet point #5 wouldn't necessarily be a major cosmetic change if we went that route, just a change in the RfA system and structure. {{LabSig}} 13:12, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
::I agree with bullets #2 and #4 whilst I disagree with #1, #3, and #5. I see no sufficient reason to limit the "Rfa" to a single user. That would subsequently cause delay in action when concerning user rights. Changing the way votes are counted because of individual description and reasoning is (from perspective) biased. What could be adequate reasoning for a particular vote might be insufficient (from another perspective). For the last bullet; No, no, and no. There is absolutely no need to remove the voting system. I'm indifferent to changing the way votes are measured, but the voting system should not be removed altogether. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 02:44, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
:::Auror has a point in saying that limiting the RfX to only one would slow down the process of discerning between who does or does not deserve rights, but limiting it to one allows for a neater page and I think it's a very rare occurrence for there to be more than one at a time. I <s>am</s> was indifferent to the commentary period, but I think it is a much better alternative to the voting system altogether, actually. You count votes, but you don't count comments that make no sense, which actually is very clear to me. So, you know what, I'm gonna support Bullet #5. I really have no preference on making a subpage for each of the Requests, because I see how it could tidy things up a bit and keep it all in one place, but it could also get a bit confusing. But commentary = win. {{PGRSig}} 03:08, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
| |||