Bonziiznob (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dragongnexus (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''Support''' - Agreed. I mean we have 10 or so active/semi-active users. Do we really need RfAs to run two weeks for everyone to voice their opinion? I think one week is reasonable enough. Once we get more editors, we should then change it back to two weeks. {{Signatures/Calebchiam}} 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
'''Support''' - Agreed. I mean we have 10 or so active/semi-active users. Do we really need RfAs to run two weeks for everyone to voice their opinion? I think one week is reasonable enough. Once we get more editors, we should then change it back to two weeks. {{Signatures/Calebchiam}} 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | '''Decision''' - This plan will be accepted, blatently obvious, does not require a consensus. {{Signatures/Dragongnexus}} 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:24, 5 May 2009
I am proposing that we reduce the length of run time for adminship from 2 weeks, to 1 week or even lower, perhaps 5 days. For a wiki of this size, two weeks seems unreasonable at this present time. Let's increase it later when this wiki becomes more popular, but in the meantime we can surely reach a majority of our audience within 5 days.
Support - As Nominator. Note, I am not suggesting this as I am presently in a RfA, but it only seems logical to me.
13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - Agreed. I mean we have 10 or so active/semi-active users. Do we really need RfAs to run two weeks for everyone to voice their opinion? I think one week is reasonable enough. Once we get more editors, we should then change it back to two weeks. C.ChiamTalk 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Decision - This plan will be accepted, blatently obvious, does not require a consensus. http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/88/sdwksig.png 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)