Anonymous user
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests: Difference between revisions
Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests (edit)
Revision as of 05:48, 19 May 2013
, 11 years ago→Discussion
imported>Pidgeoraptor7 |
imported>LostInRiverview |
||
Line 99:
::Also, I might suggest that the nomination should be allowed to be voted upon, but '''only''' by admins and bureaucrats. They each have ''experience with the tool'' and can decide if they think User X is ready to take on such a task. {{PGRSig}} 21:57, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
:::The general direction that RfAs and RfBs has taken throughout the wiki's history has been towards more "regular" user (i.e. not admin/bureaucrat) involvement. Back when I first applied for Administrator, the requests were simply approved or denied by a bureaucrat. Over time, users would weigh in (informally) on requests and help the bureaucrats make the decisions, then eventually it transitioned into the voting system where action isn't taken until the community consents to it.
:::The reason I bring this up is because implementing your idea of limiting voting to admins/bureaucrats only runs contrary to this pattern, and it's simply not something I could support. I think it's important that we keep these decisions community-focused, and making it admin-only voting detracts from that.
:::I'm also not crazy about the idea of limiting nominations. My main concerns are that a self-nomination could potentially be viewed as less "worthy" of adminship, since 'a user with admin potential would obviously be nominated by an admin if they really had any potential,' or similar thoughts. An additional concern is whether nominees brought forward by admins might be viewed through the lens of 'oh, the admins support them, so I should too.' We've seen this style of thinking broken on a few occasions, so this is a secondary concern of mine.
:::To back-track to your point on whether the comment period is essentially voting... it really isn't. Voting, as is currently implemented, goes through the list of posts made by users and adds up the number of {{t|VoteFor}} versus the number of {{t|VoteAgainst}} and determines the consensus based on the vote totals, augmented with the "strength of argument." In a lot of cases, this system works just fine for the needs of the wiki. However, sometimes there is a disagreement over whether an argument is well-suited for supporting the vote it accompanies, or whether a vote should be counted with more "weight" based proportionally on the strength of the argument that accompanies it. Commenting, on the other hand, allows a discourse to develop ''without focusing on how many "Supports" versus "Opposes" a candidate has.'' There is no counting and no question of 'strength of argument' because those concepts are completely absent from a consensus-based system, as I've outlined above. -- '''[[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>''' 05:48, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
| |||