Anonymous user
Forum:RFA reform: Difference between revisions
Closing thread
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>LostInRiverview (Closing thread) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
{{closed|nr|Community shows some support for proposals but no consensus exists for implementing changes at this time. The topic can be re-proposed in a new forum thread if desired}}
I think it's time we got down and made some changes to our [[Project:Requests for administratorship|requests for administratorship]] process. I'm well aware of the debacle surrounding Wikipedia's [[wikipedia:WP:RFA|RFA]] (I will leave finding out more about Wikipedia's system as an exercise for the reader), but as [[wikipedia:User:Kudpung|one user]] repeatedly states: ''"Fix the !voters and RFA will fix itself."''
Line 30 ⟶ 31:
The system you've proposed doesn't seem much more complex than the system we have now, and anything that brings more order to the discussion is in my mind a good thing. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 04:19, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
:I'm in favor of changing the RfA time from 5 days to a full week. Otherwise, the current nomination process seems adequate as is. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 12:37, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
::I like this way, as it works well on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough users involved in the community side of the wiki for this to work - let's take [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/RickinBaltimore this] request for example: that very request had 203 users vote on that user becoming an administrator. We don't have that number of currently ''active'' editors, most of them not participating in discussions, either. I just don't think it would suit TSW, ''yet''. I would hope that it does one day, as the system does work. ~ [[User:Beds|<font color="purple">'''Beds'''</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''talk'''</font>]] - [[User_blog:Beds|<font color="#66CDAA">'''blog'''</font>]])</sup> 19:06, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
:::It sounds like a good idea to me, although I'm not entirely certain whether or not it would pay off, given that the social side of the wiki has dropped significantly over the last year. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 21:29, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
| |||