Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/RFA system

This RfC was closed on 02:45, February 9, 2012 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs}. Final resolution of having an RfA system with the decision made by the bureaucrat based on the arguements provided. Please do not modifiy it.

RFA system
As noted by myself several times on this Wiki, the current "80%" rule that's being enforced for RFAs needs to be changed. A summary of my arguments for this can be seen here (http://mibpaste.com/eoQVIX). Mr. Anon 02:53, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Question:" how should Wikitroid decide RFAs

Possible positions: Choose any of the proposals given. The following are the proposals:


 * 1) Keep current system
 * 2) 60% support needed ("compromise")
 * 3) 50% support needed, in case of tie, Bureaucrat will decide based on arguments from each side.
 * 4) No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided

Default: Wikitroid will instate the first proposal in its rules

Discussion

 * No specific vote count needed Forgot to put this. Making my position clear. Mr. Anon 04:36, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep current system - Don't fix what ain't broken. There are very few close RfA's. The problem with Roy's is mainly that he keeps getting opposed by socks/people evading blocks. This is obviously a problem with sockpuppet detection. The only other one was Constant Cabbage, who would have had less than the necessary amount of votes if my vote came in in time anyways. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:13, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Your only reason is "this doesn't happen often" and you ignore the inherent flaws in an vote system. 1. A candidate that's just popular with the masses but doesn't appear good at disputes can get adminship even when they don't deserve it. 2. A candidate who has demonstrated good ability to be an admin but has made a fair bit of enemies (possibly because he or she tries to be as objective as possible when voicing his or her opinions) will not get it. Even your excuses for the existing close RfAs only makes more clear the flaws. Roy's RFA demonstrated the fact that all it takes to prevent a possibly good administrator from getting powers is a sockpuppet who is good at evading blocks. Regardless about how tough you go, there will always be people like this who manage to sneak in a vote in an RFA. As for Constant Cabbage, your reason only shows that if a single user forgets to vote, even if they are not contributing much to what is being argued, the RFA can fail. You have not given a reason why a system where the supports/opposes are only valuable in the quality of arguments they give does not work. The only possible problem I see is bureaucrat abuse, but even then if a bureau makes a bad decision they can be questioned on the RFA's talk page, and if it is clear that they are abusive they can be taken care of. Mr. Anon 02:09, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, I was going to vote against Constant Cabbage. Also, the quality of an arguement is very subjective. It honestly depends on the person who looks at its' views on things. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 02:30, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My point still stands with the Constant Cabbage, as in my system the arguments alone would have decided the RFA. Arguments may be subjective, but the Bureaucrat is chosen to be able to objectively evaluate arguments. It is often clear which side has the better argument. Under your system, 4 users can all have different, really good reasons for supporting a candidate, when all it takes is 1 user who votes on some irelevent reason like "you don't seem to edit mainspace a lot". You have not responded to this theoretical scenario, which came up in Royboy's RFA. Alternatively, I could get a bunch of guys from SmashWiki to all vote for me as admin, and out of sheer swarming of supports, I'd win, regardless of whether I was qualified for adminship or not. Mr. Anon 02:36, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The current system puts no emphasis in quality of support/oppose reasons. For example, on one user's RFA, one vote just said "Support - A good friend, a good editor. Definately!", while another only said "He seems to have mastered the basics of wikis. Hopefully, he is aware of the nightmare that is RC patrolling." Both of these are completely irrelevant reasons, since the main quality looked for in an admin is ability to solve disputes, not knowledge of the wiki or ability to make friends. Furthermore, other votes in the same RFA only said "Has good knowledge and personality. His style fits for an admin.", "What [user who made the RC patrolling comment] said. :P", "Above comments, plus thanks for helping out with MP2:E. That's one of those games that nobody on this wiki really bothered to thoroughly cover.", "Make that three! Hah, but no seriously, it's not so bad. You should make a great sysop...", "Absolutely, He fits the bill, in my eyes.", and "Hard choice. You haven't been here that long, but you sure work hard. You'd, erm, I mean, you'll be a good admin. *coughcough*". In addition, one user didn't even give a reason for his vote. Note:I am not commenting on whether the candidate in this example should have been promoted, merely that relying only on popular opinion isn't a very good way to decide RFAs. Mr. Anon 02:40, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: Exact percentage=fail. I could have a ton of people from other wikis support my RfA, or oppose the RfA of someone I dislike, and the current rule could do nothing to prevent such a thing. Sure, a bureaucrat could call foul on such matters, but if a bureaucrat is going to call foul on such maters, having an exact percentage required to pass an RfA is useless in the first place. Don't fix what ain't broken? Well, it's unquestionably broken... Just because you were going to vote against CC or w/e doesn't mean the system is good. D o c t o r P a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 04:43, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: If a user garners a large number of support votes that carry no weight and a small number of oppose votes that have proof the user has a definite character trait that would prevent them from being a good administrator, it should be up to the bureaucrat to decide which argument is more valid. Taking into consideration the number of votes and their reasoning is crucial. Shotrocket6 10:46, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: I don't believe I need to say much more than what has been said by Anon, DP and Shotrocket. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 14:54, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment But there is also no mention of the 80% on Wikitroid:Requests for access as stated before. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 18:35, January 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment My main reason for supporting a percentage based system is that I don't trust that level of power with bureaucrats. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 20:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you don't trust that level of power to a bureaucrat, you are either extremely paranoid or the bureaucrats are very untrustworthy. Bureaucrats are supposed to be respected, trusted members of the community who can handle such decisions. D o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:20, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Power corrupts. I'd prefer for the members of the community to have a direct voice in who recieves admin. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:14, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * (Writing Comment all of the time is mental) How would the community not have a direct voice in who receives rights? They can still comment just the same. The only difference is that a straight 80% is not required to pass an RfA. Instead, b'crats will weigh what the community thinks of the candidate, whether or not they're qualified for the job, etc., and make a final decision. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 01:18, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, if a bureaucrat does not appear to make a decision based on a good reason, they can be questioned about it. After questioning, if they appear to be clearly corrupt, they can be reported to Wikia. Mr. Anon 01:20, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * (UNDENT) You are honestly underestimating the weight admins and the like carry on the community. People often have a mentality of not questioning authority (see the Milgram experiment). While you would do so, future users might not. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:31, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * You indirectly bring up a good point. Other admins and ever other b'crats are users who will be voting on RfAs, and will probably carry the most weight. They can easily cry foul if they see something closed unfavourably. SmashWiki has always had this policy, and we've never had to revoke an admin or b'crat of rights. You've had the 80% rule, and have had to revoke rights twice. Which is the better policy by the numbers? <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 01:37, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... it sorta helps to have those other b'crats and admins. And also, those two admins both received 100% support, so the results would be the same under either system. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:46, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * What? I never suggested that they'd go away... <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 01:51, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying that you suggested that, I'm telling you that they already did. >_< The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:54, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not relevant to the discussion at hand. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 03:17, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * (UNDENT) Tbh, DP is right. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y~ ~B O Y X 16:25, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A point I don't think I brought up is that administrators tend to represent the users of a wiki. You can argue whether or not this should or shouldn't be the case all you want, but this tends to be true. Who do you want to talk to when dealing with inter-wiki relations? The admins. Who are you typically directed to when you need help? The admins. The community should have a direct say in who represents them. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:16, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment True, admins are representive of a wiki. Remember the earlier point about crying foul? Just pick and choose who is best at solving or at least keeping disputes on track to deal with off-wiki problems that tie into Wikitroid. However, I don't see how this is relevant to whether or not we should have an 80%. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to have a percentage. None at all. Or a set timeframe for that matter. RfCs don't have either of these things, so why RfAs? <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:30, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about the set timeframe too much, though I would like to create a minimum time though. A week? To make sure those that are only active certain days of the week get a shot in.


 * If the bureaucrat decides which side has the best arguement system passes, then all of the blame for who becomes admin will be on the bureaucrat, regardless of how much thought they put in. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 00:53, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * A week is a good minimum, but shouldn't be set in stone, as there are joke RfAs and RfAs with no hopes of passing. How long, and what passes should be up to the bureaucrat. Who the fuck cares if "all of the blame is put on the bureaucrat." Their job is to close RfAs, RfCs, RfRs, etc. Why does there need to be a percentage hindering this?  D <font color=#DC0000> o <font color=#A50000> c <font color=#6E0000> t <font color=#370000> o rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 01:01, February 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * The RfC has been up here a long while and received votes mostly in favor of removing the 80% rule. Motion for immediate passage. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 01:24, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Maybe the bureaucrat?


 * OK, let me be more direct. I don't want to be the only person making the ultimate decision. Some people have been ultra-critical lately even though Wikitroid is running relatively well. I'd say it is even starting back up again. I'm not going to be appreciative if I get criticized over a decision I didn't even want to make in the first place. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:27, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that soon you won't be the only one. Plus, maybe admins will come back. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 01:30, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * @MG2433g5: If you don't want such a responsibility, maybe you aren't fit to be a bureaucrat. The main point of being a bureaucrat is to make such decisions.  D <font color=#DC0000> o <font color=#A50000> c <font color=#6E0000> t <font color=#370000> o rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 02:05, February 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The fact that FL4 outright added the 80% during a time where I believe Wikitroid was relatively active only fuels my arguments. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 15:14, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, JosephK19's RfA was closed early due to Wikipedia's SNOW clause, which was not an appropriate decision even if JK19 had no chance of winning his RfA. The action was performed at 23:32 January 31, 2008, minutes before FL added the 80% clause that lead to this whole thing. The community was active at the time, and that's abuse of power to outright enforce something without a vote, amirite? --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 15:49, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Technically it isn't. We had no real system of suggesting policy changes at the time. A lot of the early policies were created by Richard before he was even an admin. No real discussion. What FL did was reasonable at the time. We didn't really have much structure back then. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:13, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter either way; the consensus here states that there is no percentage needed. If you're too afraid to have Wikitroid's future in your hands... DP's point sums it up. Btw, is that what you want to talk to him about? --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 21:25, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 22:56, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump x2. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 00:02, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is important to note: FastLizard, the guy who created 80% rule, recently spoke out against it (Royboy has the logs on IRC). Mr. Anon 01:32, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Omega Tyrant here from SmashWiki. Normally I wouldn't comment on Wikitroid matters, but Anon linked here, and I decided to take a look. I noticed Mariogalaxy in the IRC log wanted an example of the 80% clause being damaging, and I noticed Anon missed a great example in my own RfA.

Here it is.

In my RfA, in sheer count, I had 7 supports, 3 neutrals, and no opposes. The neutral comments provided no real reason against me, and most of my supports brought up strong points for myself. Outside BNK, no one doubted my potential ability as admin, and BNK didn't provide any examples or reasoning for why he thought I wouldn't be ready. The RfA was passed, and pretty much anyone on SmashWiki will tell you that I been a great admin who helped the Wiki immensely.

Yet, under Wikitroid's 80% clause, my RfA would have failed, and I would be denied adminship, since it technically had 70% support. SmashWiki would then lose what would be its most active administrator, and potentially be stuck with only two active admins when November rolled around.

There's your example Mariogalaxy of the 80% rule being directly harmful to a Wiki. If you still think the 80% rule is justified, explain how it would of been more beneficial to SmashWiki for my RfA to fail than to pass. Omega Tyrant 01:23, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anon has brought that up. You clarified more than he did, but this has been thought of.  D <font color=#DC0000> o <font color=#A50000> c <font color=#6E0000> t <font color=#370000> o rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 01:33, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I brought it up on Wikitroid IRC, not here. Mr. Anon 01:37, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the point is rendered moot because neutrals don't count against the 80%. Of course, there has to be at least 1 support though. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 04:17, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * If there has to be 80% support, and there are only 7 supports out of the 10 "votes", that's 70%, which means that neutrals do count against the 80% rule. Also:


 * Of course, there has to be at least 1 support though.


 * This also contradicts your statement in the same sentence. If you have no real argument for the 80%, and you even contradict yourself in the same post, just drop your opposition. Omega Tyrant 06:37, February 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checked the previous RfAs, and whether or not the "Neutrals" were counted towards the percentage was not entirely consistent (though not counting neutrals towards a support percentage is nonsensical, as those people are still part of the community and not having their support still makes up that part of the percentage). So instead of arguing over if neutrals count or not, as they're not relevant to the issue at hand, I present a scenario for you:


 * Say in my RfA, those neutrals were instead opposes (as the neutral comments can be easily construed as opposition). In that case of undisputed 70% support, the opposition still has no real reason against me, I still have the very strong support that presented valid reasoning for why I should of been admin, and as time shown, I ended up helping the SmashWiki immensely with my adminship. Again though, if the 80% support rule was in effect, my RfA would fail, and everything I said earlier about what would happen with my RfA failing holds true.


 * Now, explain, why would it be more beneficial for the SmashWiki for my RfA to fail in this scenario? If you cannot explain why, you cannot support the 80% support rule. Omega Tyrant 07:05, February 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, here's an example of a passed RfA on SmashWiki that would of failed if the 80% rule was in place, regardless of if neutrals are counted or not:


 * Smoreking's RfA, which not counting neutrals, had 78.57% support. And one of the opposes was a troll post, which would of been counted anyway with the 80% rule's complete disregard for the quality of the supports/opposes. Smoreking, by all accounts, was a proven competent administrator, that benefited the SmashWiki with his promotion, a promotion that would not have occurred with the 80% rule in place.


 * So again Mariogalaxy, if you're still going to support the 80% rule, explain why SmashWiki would have benefited more from these RfAs being failed. Omega Tyrant 07:22, February 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * One last thing to bring up is this. Let's ignore Emmett and the Forgotten Beast's points about DKWiki at the time not needing new sysops, and let's assume our friend DP99 was completely ready for the powers. He still would have failed his RFA under Wikitroid's system, because Doc King and Dixie had personal vendettas against him. How would you justify that? Mr. Anon 02:10, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Actually, having a person with a personal vendetta against you is sorta similar to having an ongoing dispute with somebody... You might want to try to work those out beforehand.

Regardless, I'm going to pass it soon, but I want a quick conversation with a couple people first. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:11, February 8, 2012 (UTC)