Requests for Comment/Changes to the RfC policy

As you know, Requests for Comment is a proposal-type discussion where people suggest changes, and others give feedback on whether or not this idea should follow through. However, there doesn't seem to be a policy for this, so here are my proposals.

Proposal #1: Accounts must be X days old and have Y global edits to vote
This should come off as no surprise. If someone made a vote as their first edit it would obviously be fishy and calling for a sock puppet investigation. For this proposal, if you support, put the amount of days and the edits.


 * 1)  - 14 days old, 50 global edits; as proposer. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  - autoconfirmed on any of the wikis. This is to avoid people creating sockpuppets to vote.    23:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Autoconfirmed in any wiki, but have a minimum of 20 edits in at least two and 5 days old.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Autoconfirmed in at least one wiki, a minimum of 50 global edits, and at least 1 month old. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) at least 14 days old, autoconfirmed in any Qualitipedia wiki and a minimum of 20 global edits  -  03:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) This could work, but we should not make it too harsh. How about a minimum of 10 global edits and at least 1-week old? 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  11:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) I'll leave my vote in this section only for now. All the other sections seem too overloaded with content that might instead harm the RfC system rather than help it, since all the requirements they suggest end up leaning towards limitations/restrictions than anything else. I'll go with the proposer's version: 14 days old, 50 global edits.  18:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, there should not be any limits. Anyone should be able to vote. I do agree that making a vote your first edit is suspicious, but it is not always disruptive. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely not! Everyone should be allowed to vote on a proposal! Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) if everyone can’t vote then it could make it feel like they only care about users that have been on the wikis for a long time. TheBambiBasics30 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What the proposer suggested was a bit farfetched, but how so? Shouldn't users be familiar with QP before voting? Plus, this cuts down on sockpuppets, vandals, etc.   14:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I would like to note that it is already a practice that deeper involved users have a higher weight of vote, as shown in the vote of the websites wikis. Given this, I will rather not having a strict policy here as all users should be able to express their opinions as votes as long as they have given a reasonable rationale, and experienced bureaucrats can be more free to evaluate consensus. Matttest (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Meh, sounds unnecessary, itself the majority of Qualitypedia users do not use Meta. Rem69 22:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per Matttest. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #2: Accounts must be X days old and have Y global edits to propose
Same as last one. However, these requirements should be doubled, maybe tripled. Again, why should a new account immediately propose something?


 * 1)  - 30 days old, 100 global edits; again, as the proposer. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  - autoconfirmed on any of the wikis.    23:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Autoconfimed on any wiki, but have a minimum of 50 edits and 15 days old.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I disagree with this even more than the last one. If people have ideas for Qualitipedia, they have the right to make a proposal whenever they want. Also, 30 days and 100 global edits is a complete exaggeration. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another reason why is because they might not be experienced with Qualitipedia. Also, 100 global edits isn't really that hard to reach. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 01:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Same reason as the last one. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nah I think that would be going too far, as I don't think votes should be limited to seasoned contributors  -  03:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you might have got this confused with the previous one. This is about proposing. The previous one is about voting. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant propose. Should probably be the same requirements as voting -  15:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The same as I said before, but this is even more exaggerated. Rem69 22:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) A little bit of overkill, don't you think? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #3: Proposers can choose a custom time, but with a minimum of X, and a maximum of Y
Although it is implied that RfCs end after a month, it is not stated. Still, the title is self explanatory. However, we shouldn't have a 12 hour or year-long proposal.


 * 1)  - minimum of 1 week, maximum of 90 days; may be too long IDK. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I actually agree with this. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)    23:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems reasonable, given that proposals have no current time limit and this specifically was something I was suggesting. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  - Minimum of 10 days and maximum of 45 days, with some exceptions.   15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I agree but they should last a maximum of two months. Rem69 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I actually agree with this. It could end as little as over 90 days. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #4: Users are only allowed to make X amount of RfCs in the span of Y
Seems pretty obvious why. Don't want spamming.


 * 1)  - 2 RfCs for every 3 days; I was split but this seems fair. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I suppose so, this could possibly prevent spamming. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) ' - 1 RfC per week    23:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) 1 RFC per 15 days.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) 1 RfC per fortnight is enough. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  11:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) It's a reasonable limit. Rem69 22:43, 16 July 2022


 * 1) Limiting the amount of proposals a person can make violates the freedom of speech, just like proposals 1 and 2. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #5: Point scores
There are different levels like Regular, Weak, Strong, and Strongest. So I suggest they should have individual amount of points. So if there are more oppose votes than supports, but with three regular opposes and 2 strongest supports it's technically still outvoted 4 to 3. 4-3=1, so it has 1 point.


 * 1)  - 25 for weak, 50 for regular, 100 for strong, and 200 for strongest. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) See the (provisional) scoring system for RfCs on gaming wikis for reference. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! ⚡ Thunder Gale Katsumi  ⚡ KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) The things that should qualify should be the arguments not the level of support/oppose. Some people may have Strong oppositions/supports, but make weak and invalid arguments, so they shouldn't count.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, I don't really care too much but for the most part I agree with . FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The final judgement by closing admin should be done with qualitative judgement over strength of points mentioned, rather than counting up votes.  -  03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with King Dice, also, weak, regular, strong and for strongest can be easily counted each for a Category (Support and Oppose). Rem69 22:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) These should only be used to get a general view of the consensus. They should not be relied upon solely.    18:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #6: Abstain overtimes
Suppose an RfC ended in a tie. We would then have to extend it to an overtime for a certain time length. And like baseball, it can go as much until the tie breaks.


 * 1) - Overtime for 1 extra week; SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) depends on the RFC and how clear the result was.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) If there is reasonable time given and consensus is still not reached, it should just be closed as "no consensus". Also, what if the proposal just died out and not many people voted? Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Bluba, that is how it typically works. Also, you can just make a new RFC if you want the discussion to keep going (again, this is how it usually works). FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with the comments above. Rem69 22:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal #7: You are not allowed to repeat proposals for X amount of time
Like #4, it should be pretty obvious why, but overtime opinions do change, so here is what I have to say.


 * 1) - Six months; SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) - One month; six months is a complete exaggeration, and while I do agree repeating it every month would be annoying, repeating it once a month later should be fine. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 20:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, one month isn't really enough time for the opinions to change. SleepParalysisDemon (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) About a week. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Between six and nine months, with some exceptions.  15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) About 5-6 fortnights. 超ヤバいっす! 豪雷と嵐で New Style! <span style="font-size:1.15em;display:inline;padding:.1em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;text-shadow:0 0 6pt white,0 0 6pt white;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,#ff94bc,yellow,yellow,yellow,yellow,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5,#1ec2f5);">⚡ <span style="font-family:FOT-Rodin Pro,sans-serif;">Thunder Gale <span style="font-family:FOT-RodinNTLG Pro,sans-serif;">Katsumi  ⚡ <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  talk  <div style="background:black;display:inline;padding:.3em .65em;border-radius:1.2em;font-size:.88em;font-family:FOT-Skip Std,serif;">KamenRiderRevice-logo.webp  contributions  12:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) A week is fine. Rem69 22:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) A month for unsuccessful RFC with opposes, a week for unsuccessful RFC due to lack of interest or consensus  -  15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)