AVID:Requests for Comment/Require new Requests for Comment to be verified by admin staff before putting it out: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 08:23, 28 February 2023

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closing as passed. HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Require new Requests for Comment to be verified by admin staff before putting it out

I'm seeing a lot of nonsensical proposals being put out lately. It got me thinking, Why in the world do we not have a system to screen these before sending them out? So, I'm putting this proposal in right now, hopefully we can get this implemented in due time. I want a system where proposals are put in a queue to be checked in by bureaucrats or administrators. If it's not approved, the RfC is immediately thrown out and closed, otherwise it gets added to the main page. What's your thoughts?

-Compooper 19:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

Support Some of these RFCs are really getting silly, however I would like to suggest that several admins have to agree on approving/denying a case if possible to avoid any potential bias. Luke2505 (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Support · Talk · Edits 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Support A lot of these proposals aren't well thought out and sometimes misleading. Should be an additional measure for quality control. --Shakla (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Support with Compooper's clarification, I feel much more confident in this proposal. (name change coming soon) 03:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Support (• USER TALK! •) 18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand, this would prevent pointless RfC's such as the one for re-merging the image and video tabs. But, on the other hand, this could devolve into another BoD situation, where great ideas don't get forwarded to the public because the admins don't like them. As such, I won't vote one way or the other until more arguments have been placed either way. (name change coming soon) 03:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a reporting system, where users can forward RfCs to the admins if they believe they are pointless would work better. However, this proposal also opens up the possibility of trolls abusing such a report system.

(name change coming soon) 03:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The screen will check for validity on an RfC. That's the only thing it needs to be approved for before being sent. It's not about the admin's personal opinion on it, if there is sufficient logic to justify the proposal, then that's all it needs for approval

- Compooper 03:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

- I see where you're coming from, if this is implemented, which I'm sure it will be, I reckon this should be made as clear as possible to prevent any such situation.

(name change coming soon) 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

I can see the intent, but this should be a last resort. Barely any attempts to mediate the issues with RfCs here have been made. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 12:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #F2F4FC; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
-{{RfC|status=open}}
+:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
+::Closing as '''passed'''. [[User:HibiscusCrown20|HibiscusCrown20]] ([[User talk:HibiscusCrown20|talk]]) 15:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
+----
 == Require new Requests for Comment to be verified by admin staff before putting it out ==
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 #{{Support}} A lot of these proposals aren't well thought out and sometimes misleading.  Should be an additional measure for quality control. --[[User:Shakla|Shakla]] ([[User talk:Shakla|talk]]) 03:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 #{{Support}} with Compooper's clarification, I feel much more confident in this proposal. [[File:MinistrycraftEntertainment-EternityEntertainmentsignature.jpg|50px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 03:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
+# {{Support}} [[File:Charlie fiddlesticks signature.png|200px|link=User:CharlieFiddlesticks]] ([[User talk:CharlieFiddlesticks|• '''USER TALK!''' •]]) 18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Abstain===
@@ Line 21: / Line 24: @@
 :- I see where you're coming from, if this is implemented, which I'm sure it will be, I reckon this should be made as clear as possible to prevent any such situation. [[File:MinistrycraftEntertainment-EternityEntertainmentsignature.jpg|50px|link=User:MinistrycraftEntertainment]] (name change coming soon) 03:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Oppose===
+#I can see the intent, but this should be a last resort. Barely any attempts to mediate the issues with RfCs here have been made. --''[[User:Blad|<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad</span>]]'' ([[User_talk:Blad|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Blad|contribs]] • [[mh:meta:Special:CentralAuth/Blad|global]])  12:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 ===Comment===
+----
+The above discussion is preserved as an archive. '''Please do not modify it'''. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
+</div>
 [[Category:Requests for Comment]]
+[[Category:Passed Requests for Comment]]