- If it's going to be that short, why not just put it on the RFA page? Skill 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree it seems too short and just doesn't have the same feel of a policy. We should simply make a new RFA section to list this under describing the length of an RFA, and who is able to vote. 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that there is a need for a separate policy. Determining if somebody can become an administrator is a part of a more general community consensus concept/policy.
- I also believe that the best "policies", "laws" or similar kinds of regulations are best developed when trying to address a specific problem or situation. What kinds of issues are there that are not properly addressed on RS:RfA? And then more specific, why are "requirements" on the RfA page not fully detailed in this "policy"? It seems redundant to have policies about what should and shouldn't go into an RfA in two different places... making what has become an already complicated process even more complicated and Byzantine. --Robert Horning 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the content should be added to RuneScape:Guide to requests for adminship and RuneScape:Requests for adminship. The proposed standards should be discussed here. I don't think that three separate pages are necessary to describe one community process. The main RFA page can include policies and the list of current RFAs (like it already does) while the guide to requests for adminship can include advice to nominators, nominees, and RFA contributors about how to get the most out of an RFA. Dtm142 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although the outcome of an RFA or RFB is up to the community to decide, I see no reason to deprive IPs of the right to input their opinion. If an unregistered user has a link to an edit that the nominee made why should they not be allowed to post it? It would only hurt the wiki, and you have to remember, this isn't voting, it's consensus. Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)