Forum talk:RfA policy?/proposed policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Forum:RfA policy?/proposed policy page.

Banned before[edit source]

I noticed that users can't vote if their previous account has been banned infinitely, does my account count? User:Cashman286 is banned permanently, but I asked for it to be banned for this account to be used. Do I still have the ability to participate in the discussions by adding votes and does this mean I'm never eligible for another RFA?

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You were not banned for breaking rules, your not ban evading, and this wiki pretty much follows a "common sense" approach to things versus an "rules are rules and thats all there is to it" approach. You should be fine, and if your not, we'll get a yew grove discussion going.--Degenret01 23:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a policy anyways Cash. Christine 23:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I found out that this wasn't a policy about 5 minutes ago =P.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

13:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Instant, it's still proposed.--Derilith 14:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why IPs can't vote... That's nonsense. If it's going to move the community towards a consensus then what's wrong with it?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

quality vs quantity[edit source]

I've noticed that some would be admins seemingly will edit a slew of articles just to have an edit count. The requirement of 500 edits, although good in intentions I'm sure, is a possible place of misunderstandings. As such I'm going to add one little word, which itself might require a better working definition for the purpose of this proposed policy. ~kytti khat 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinions on the proposals[edit source]

  • The user must have a good amount of quality edits. These edits do not include Userpage edits. About 500 edits are needed. (Proposed). No. Just no. Some people who could potentially become great admins might not have many edits.
  • If the user has been blocked indefinitely, they cannot come back under a new username and request adminship. (Proposed) If that new username has not caused any trouble, they should not be denied automatically.
  • If they have been banned from editing another Wiki, they cannot request here. (Proposed) I support this one. We don't want any two-faced admins.

The voters/nominators must meet all these requirements before voting:

  • IP addresses may not vote. Oppose this one. They could potentially help reach consensus.
  • The user must have been here for 4 days. Oppose as well. What if an IP wanted to vote, found out about the above rule, and created an account, only to find out about this BS rule?
  • Banned users under a new user name cannot vote. Again, if they haven't caused any trouble on their new account, they should be able to be treated like anyone else.
  • Users evading a block may not vote. Support.
  • If you start a flame war, you may not vote. (Proposed) If the flame war is on the RFA, void the vote. Otherwise, oppose. 14:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Request closure[edit source]

This proposed policy does not show much promise. I have faith in our 'crats to know what counts and what doesn't. Furthermore, edit count shouldn't really matter in an RfA (to some degree). HaloTalk 04:02, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Consensus[edit source]

Why are there these lines on this page?

  1. IP addresses may not vote.
  2. The user must have been here for 4 days.

while RfA the place is where reasons are counted the most of all discussions of the wiki? Even though this is only an old proposed policy, I suggest it is changed not to have those lines, because it is very much against our consensus policy.

JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:32, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oh and in the tips section are things like "deserving to step up" and "leadership position". I don't know what should be done with old proposed policies, but this looks a little odd to me. It's not like admins are "a step up" from a regular user, and they are not the leaders of the wiki either. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:39, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, anyone should be aloud to vote, as anyone can vote on the yg, rfd's etc. Also if someone wants to vote they easily can, a rfa runs for 2 weeks but the account only needs to be 4 days old, you could easily make an account during the rfa and still vote. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:57, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

And then what exactly is the point of having it? It was probably thought of to prevent sockpuppets to vote, but because your point is indeed very true, people could still use sockpuppets anyway. imo, there's no point of having this even listed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:49, May 19, 2011 (UTC)