v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Request for Adminship"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:AS someone who has 6 supports (need 7 before it closes) I think this is a good idea. Then again I'm obviously biased :). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | :AS someone who has 6 supports (need 7 before it closes) I think this is a good idea. Then again I'm obviously biased :). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] <sup>([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]])</sup> 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I'd suggest something like 2-3 weeks. This is following the adminship should not be a big deal idea from Wikipedia. Admins can block other admins, so if someone is actually abusing admin tools that badly, it's fairly easy to deal with. What that means is that (I think) as long as there is a significant supporting trend, and it's been two or three weeks (to give people ample time to vote), adminship should be granted. Of course, I may also be a bit biased, but I'd suggest this regardless, as overly restrictive RfA process was one of the things that drove me away from Wikipedia. [[User:Emi|Emi]] 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | ::I'd suggest something like 2-3 weeks. This is following the adminship should not be a big deal idea from Wikipedia. Admins can block other admins, so if someone is actually abusing admin tools that badly, it's fairly easy to deal with. What that means is that (I think) as long as there is a significant supporting trend, and it's been two or three weeks (to give people ample time to vote), adminship should be granted. Of course, I may also be a bit biased, but I'd suggest this regardless, as overly restrictive RfA process was one of the things that drove me away from Wikipedia. [[User:Emi|Emi]] 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :If you want to find people who you can rely on to know what they are doing, a popularity contest isn't a good approach. You're better off just making a unilateral decision. Put up an RfA to test the waters before you decide, but don't treat it like a vote. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :The issue is that I want to move away from "Briess says it's so, thus, it must be" to a more editor-centric and run wiki. Yeah, sure, I may control the server hardware, but in my opinion, the less overarching power I have, the better. How can we accomplish that goal, without turning it into a popularity contest? --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::That's why you use a 2 week rfa as a guide. If people are overwhelmingly against, then you decide no. If people are generally for, and you don't see anything worrying, then you say yes. If you use a strict voting scheme, then it's a popularity contest. If you have fairly strict length/numbers rules, you get RfA's like Mason's. It's not a "Briess says it's so" scenario -- it's more like, "a few people have said stuff, and Briess is moving it along because it'll take too long otherwise". [[User:Emi|Emi]] 00:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:42, 3 April 2010
30 days max run?[edit]
I'm thinking a 30 day max run would be appropriate. What do we think? --Briess 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- AS someone who has 6 supports (need 7 before it closes) I think this is a good idea. Then again I'm obviously biased :). Mason (T-C) 20:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest something like 2-3 weeks. This is following the adminship should not be a big deal idea from Wikipedia. Admins can block other admins, so if someone is actually abusing admin tools that badly, it's fairly easy to deal with. What that means is that (I think) as long as there is a significant supporting trend, and it's been two or three weeks (to give people ample time to vote), adminship should be granted. Of course, I may also be a bit biased, but I'd suggest this regardless, as overly restrictive RfA process was one of the things that drove me away from Wikipedia. Emi 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to find people who you can rely on to know what they are doing, a popularity contest isn't a good approach. You're better off just making a unilateral decision. Put up an RfA to test the waters before you decide, but don't treat it like a vote. VengefulDonut 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- The issue is that I want to move away from "Briess says it's so, thus, it must be" to a more editor-centric and run wiki. Yeah, sure, I may control the server hardware, but in my opinion, the less overarching power I have, the better. How can we accomplish that goal, without turning it into a popularity contest? --Briess 00:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's why you use a 2 week rfa as a guide. If people are overwhelmingly against, then you decide no. If people are generally for, and you don't see anything worrying, then you say yes. If you use a strict voting scheme, then it's a popularity contest. If you have fairly strict length/numbers rules, you get RfA's like Mason's. It's not a "Briess says it's so" scenario -- it's more like, "a few people have said stuff, and Briess is moving it along because it'll take too long otherwise". Emi 00:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)