The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was allow instant re-request only if a positive vote score is present at time of withdrawl (score of 0 undecided)
A recent look at my request for QCG Member has me contemplating whether or not line "If the request is unsuccessful, the user will be unable to lodge a request until two months after the date the request concluded" fully complies with my decision to withdraw my nomination.
- User withdrew nomination
- Nomination did not fail as a result of opposes
I interpret it as a failed nomination resulting from opposes within the One Week period.
•myk 19:32, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
- Oppose, these rules could likewise be abused, but I think that common sense needs to prevail here. If a user who was obviously going to pass withdraws on their own initiative, I don't see why the 2 month rule would come into effect. As to how these rules could be abused - what if someone were to withdraw right before their request failed? Then we'd need to make more rules... and common sense could just as easily be used. ajr 19:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment What about trusted users? (Remember Fudgepie's RfA? [I know that was a day early.:P]) Skdhjf(Talk!) 19:39, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Then we use common sense, like what I just finished saying. ajr 20:08, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Don't we have to use the new style of voting for this Forum? Skdhjf(Talk!) 19:35, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Yep :D ajr 19:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, to be e-lawyer, I'd presume that technically, withdrawing is not the same as an unsuccesful request in the sense that the request has not been completed, as the nominated user has withdrawn it before such-time that it could be completed. Therefore, technically, the request has not been unsuccesful as it has not finished the time period allocated for a verdict to be concluded.
 Kingcjc 19:52, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I would vote that withdrawls count the same as failures- otherwise we can get constant re-requesting. You could withdraw on the last day of the vote, when you're 10 votes down, then come straight back again otherwise. NightblazeSaber 23:54, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
- We should make some rule with exceptions- the user decided to withdraw. I do understand that one may request, withdraw, and so on- making excessive nominations, exactly what we don't want to happen.
•myk 00:02, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
- If the user withdrew with a plus vote count they could re-apply. If they withdrew with a minus vote count then they have to wait two months. - nxt 09:35, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 12:38, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ajr 13:50, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Per NXT, NHL, SKP (who was per NHL) and Ajr. Jag 08:42, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
- What about a net score of 0? NightblazeSaber 09:03, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Per Ultrasonic. Zero? Well, if zero, the comments and that stuff would determine the outcome- an admin would have to review them. If no comments, a time period would have to determine the outcome. •myk 01:35, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Supports NXT's proposal. Skdhjf(Talk!) 15:15, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Does it really matter whether we get repeating requests? I mean, it's not like it's a pain to reject them every time. Let's follow the KISS principle here. FB100Z • talk • contribs 16:17, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it is the current policy to limit nominations. •myk 19:30, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
- KISS principle? Kingcjc 08:03, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Keep It Simple Stupid. - nxt 16:08, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I say we limit the nominations. •myk 16:39, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- What shall be the verdict? •myk 00:19, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
- "Allow instant re-requests if the net vote score is positive when withdrawn, enforce the 2 month waiting period if negative. If 0, we'll worry about it when it comes to it"? NightblazeSaber 23:56, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. We can start another forum later if a 0 event comes to past. •myk 00:09, June 26, 2011 (UTC)
|
