RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Forums: Yew Grove > Shortened RfAs?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 March 2009 by Azaz129.

Shortened RfAs?

Everyday, I look at the RfA page, they all stay the same for 2 weeks. And after about a week, I don't see any activity. I'm here to propose a shortened RfA, I want it to be only one week. Most of the voting is done within three days, but I will let an extra 4 days for comments. That is my proposal. If anyone would like to tweak with my proposal, feel free to comment about it. ço¬Ø 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see why you want to shorten it, but why not leave it at two weeks? It doesn't hurt, and it allows users more time to get in their votes. For example, C Teng said he forgot to vote in Jediadam's RFF, which lasted for two weeks.  Tien  22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
C teng was a bit inactive for a while
Support, but with one condition - all RfA's and such have to be announced globally. That way, People don't miss out. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Support, but with D4k's addition, 2 weeks is too long, if its announced via sitenotice 1 week is more than enough. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support - Many RfAs are left untouched for days and putting up notices for them will increase their chances of being voted on. Per Aburnett, 1 week should be long enough as long if the RfA is advertised via Sitenotice. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
After seeing what others input is, I now see that 2 weeks should be plenty. But could we vote on possibly putting current RfAs, RfBs, RfFs on the Sitenotice? I think that will help speed up the process.

Oppose 2 weeks is good, it gives a better chance to watch a candidates actions. For example, I have not commented on D4k RFa, but now I see above that he has no clue about admiship or what its about. The two week lenght is useful. Don't be in such a rush.--Degenret01 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Two weeks is not some arbitrary number we thought sounded good, it evolved over time to give a balance between being long enough to give people a chance to voice their opinions while not being too long and complicated by bureaucratic red tape.--

00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - People need time to think about what they voted for, opinions and as such votes can change easily in two weeks for worse and for better. - TehKittyCat (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am a heavy RfA checker, I know not all of you check the RfA page everday, but I do. I can see why some of you oppose, and I respect that. However I think that 2 weeks is more than enough. ço¬Ø 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. I think that 2 weeks is fine. It gives enough time for the community to think about it and decide to support/oppose. User:C Teng/sig 13:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per all. Two weeks is not a very long wait, and besides, if the person is right for forum admin/sysop then they won't be in a rush to get it. Sometimes bureaucrats will end RfAs early because there is already a clear consensus, but most RfAs require the full two weeks. Andrew talk 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think we need to hurry the RfA's along any more than they are. We're talking about promoting someone to an admin. I think two weeks allows all interested parties to get thier two cents in. Anything shorter might mean valuable opinions might be missed. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - One week is too short. Two weeks is good enough. Besides, there is no reason to hurry the RfA:s any way I think. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)