As I'm sure most of you who will be reading this are no doubt aware of Slopijoe's current RfA, I'd like take the point I was making within commentary on his unanimous support to the next step.

It's clear that Joe will become an admin at this point. As of writing this, he is currently supported by ten users who have voted and nobody is opposing his impending admin-ship. Current policy requires us to wait a week for a decision to be made as to whether or not the editor in question will become an admin (or bureaucrat) or not. Now, I didn't even know there were plans set in motion for him to become an admin, but that doesn't concern me. He's a great friend and an excellent editor here.

My concern is that we are making this more difficult than it has to be. And this isn't the first time this has happened. As my (horrible) memory serves, nearly every admin we have here - including myself for both my admin and later b'crat vote, has been unanimously or nearly unanimously voted in. It's ridiculous that we wait a week for this to be put through by a b'crat/assessing admin for the final decision when it can become clear in just a few hours that the vote will be successful.

A proposition of mine is that we come up with a solution to make this easier on everyone in the future. I've thought about this a great deal over the past few days during Joe's ongoing vote. And my idea is that perhaps within the first 24 hours, if there are five or more supports with no opposition - or the reverse of five oppositions and no support in the same time frame, that we close a vote early as a unanimous decision in favor of or against the editor in question's voting session.

However, if anyone does oppose - or support in such a reverse case - and has a fair enough reason (decided upon by b'crat/assessing admin) as to why the editor in question should or should not receive their position, then we can either extend the time frame to three days and ten votes in the greater of the two depending on the case or just bring it out to the current decision process. Note that I only bring up the possibility of a reverse case as we have had RfAs in the past that were definitely out of the question of being successful, and this is meant to cover both sides of the coin.

I understand a few of you - or even many of you, may feel this is unfair, especially if you had to deal with such a case of becoming an admin and waiting a week when it was clear of the inevitable decision. It may seem like I'm just trying to put people in power just because I can. But the point of this is to make it easier for those who have spent their own free time here as wonderful editors to improve their great work and make it easier for them to do what they need to.

I'll leave it up to you all to decide on how we should approach an agreement on an amendment to our current voting process.

As a restatement, my current proposition is that within the first 24hours, if an RfA/RfB has five or more votes in favor of or against the editor in question of a promotion with no votes in the opposite category, that the session is closed early and the decision is made to speed the process along. However, if anyone votes the opposite way of the trend within those 24 hours and has a fair enough reason that would be decided upon by the b'crat or assessing admin if it is a decent argument, then the voting period is moved up to three days and ten votes will be needed in the greater category or the existing system can be used.

I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not we will implement something like my proposition by the end of the month. PresidentEden78 18:59, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR: Joe's obviously gonna be an admin, why don't we make is simpler for obvious choices like him in the future?

Discussion

I agree, although I've probably gotten the closest ever vote on this wiki. 7 - 5 IIRC. Юра 19:19, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Was it really that close for you? I seem to remember early on you bludgeoning your way through stuff, but you've certainly shaped up since then. Must've been rage at the system or something. Regardless, that's why I said most of our admins got there unanimously. I knew there were some that weren't, but just not exactly who. Plus, you passed it anyways, lol. Like I said in the OP, this is meant to help cases we are really sure of, rather than those that are up in the air.

I figure that'd leave for some animosity towards those that pass with flying colors when others don't, but its more in the interest of saving time then dragging something out. Plus, if someone really wanted to be a douche in my proposed system, they could unearth something like a previous block, vandalism, or something else to give reason for opposition in the case of unanimous support. Just like in real politics, lol. PresidentEden78 20:28, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think 24 hours is way too short for all major editors to react, much less the 'regular' ones. I suggest a 3-day period if the vote has flawlessly strong support. If a valid concern is added in the vote's Discussion, the vote should be delayed to the standard 7-day period. I honestly think this type of policy has a "rushy" nature, and I don't really believe that it is necessary to wrap up the votes that early, but I don't think there are any problems with it either, so no opposition to it from me. - Pedro9basket (talk) [ ] 13:18, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I believe that a similar flawlessly strong opposition (this could be a "extreme"-type example of what I'm saying) should end the voting process earlier in the same manner, as it is pretty much settled that the RfA isn't really going anywhere. - Pedro9basket (talk) [ ] 13:49, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the case I was referring to when I included strong opposition along with strong support. But maybe 3 days is a better idea. I figured a day since that's what happened with Joe, but its still better than a week. Hopefully more people will weigh in on this though, since you and Yuri are hardly enough to get consensus on this, lol. PresidentEden78 14:05, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm just back from my summer break and thought I'd check in. I hope it's not too late to take part in this discussion? I like Eden's suggestion, but I also agree with Pedro that 24 hours is rather a short period of time. I'd personally suggest 48 hours might be more reasonable. I would also caution against the bit about admins/b'crats deciding whether a dissenting vote is 'fair enough' to delay the process. I'd suggest lowering the maximum length of votes from 7 days to 4, passing after 48 hours if unanimous and leaving it the whole 4 days for a majority decision if not, regardless of how many people dissent or their reasons... Of course, it's worth remembering that we have some guideline requirements for becoming an admin (500 mainspace edits and active for at least 3 months), so most outlandish applications can be cut short immediately anyway. Anyway, off I go to vote for Joe... - Bondpedia (Contact) [ ] 17:06, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestions would be the better way to go. And welcome back. :) - Pedro9basket (talk) [ ] 17:56, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Should we put it up for a vote or just let this sit here for an eternity? I get it's the forums and all (nobody goes here...), but I'd like to see this through. Sorry if I sound angered, but I'm on a shit-ton of meds ATM as I got two of my wisdom teeth taken out on Friday. Not fun. PresidentEden78 22:04, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

If no more objections come up during the night, I'll write it down on Vote policy, don't worry. :) - Pedro9basket (talk) [ ] 00:15, August 20, 2012 (UTC)