Forum:RfA standards

Moved from unrelated talkpage

"80%" required? Wtf? Since when does the opinion of the masses dictate the admin-potential a user has? Sometimes, the best course of action involves disappointing your friends. This kind of standard indicates that Wikitroid sees that the best users are the most popular ones, which is not always the case. Before I propose reform, I want to see where Fastlizard got this rule from. Mr. Anon 22:10, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Likely Wikipedia, since he always cited their policies. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 22:17, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Either you are trusting the masses, or trusting the individual. That is up for debate. And people should not criticize others for choosing either path. You do realize that. Also, comfort level with an admin is a very important factor. If the community doesn't like the admin, despite having high potential, the community can LEAVE. In addition, I am not comfortable making the decision, or trusting other individuals to make the decision. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 22:28, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * We're only trying to say get rid of the 80%. As said by Anon, "...community approval should be viewed qualitatively, not quantitatively. Say user has 2 opposes, 8 supports. If a single user comes in and says their oppose, the candidate must gain an additional four votes to compensate. This is ridiculous. Community opinion should only be a factor, and even then the Bureaucrat judging should judge based on the overall "gist" of the community, and most importantly, the validity of reasons for supports and opposes. Now, if only one user supports a candidate, but they give a thorough and rational reason for the candidate being promoted, and all the opposers give stupid, personal, off-wiki reasons, that candidate should be promoted." -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 22:46, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: But make up your mind as a rule. Royboy's third RFA had a 2/3 majority supporting, but it was closed. What rule says that? Yes, community consensus is important, but as you said, if the community strongly disagrees with a bureaucrat's decision, they can leave. Having a specific number mandated is unnecessary, and makes it look like this is a vote. Rather, the bureaucrats should take consensus as one account. Even then, bureaucrats can be scruitinized by the public about their decision, and are always expected to have good reasons for their actions. Mr. Anon 22:47, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm the only bureaucrat at the moment. Trying to give me more power than I want isn't going to work. You realize that. Now, if I was given the reason to remove stupid votes, mostly "I'm tired of patrolling him", that would be another story. We can require good reasons for votes easily. But forcing the additional weight of deciding who would become admins would drive a man to suicide. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 22:55, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * MarioGalaxy, you would not have been made a bureaucrat if you weren't trusted to handle decisions for the community. You should keep that in mind before second-guessing yourself. Mr. Anon 22:57, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is "good reasons for votes" is equally subjective to deciding whether the user is admin-quality. Why should a user require an 80% majority? Again, Royboy had a 2/3 majority, and the approval of several longstanding administrators. By the current rule, an opposing vote is worth far more than an approving vote, which is ridiculous. Mr. Anon 23:01, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) One, I was made a b'crat because Richard, the only active b'crat, was essentially leaving. I wouldn't say I was even ready for adminship at this point. Two, I believe b'crats are given  the power because it can be trusted that they won't abuse it. Three, I stress about this place a lot as it  is. You don't know me well enough.
 * It is a safety threshold. It is harder to remove an admin already in existance then to instate one. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 23:03, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, I had PH removed with ease. A few keys pressed, a few clicks and bam, no longer able to use rights. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 23:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Not necessarily. One, that is a global ban, and should not have to be implemented every time we want to demote, and two, that won't last forever. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 23:11, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it apparently does last forever, or he just hasn't come back. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 23:12, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * PH's original ban didn't last and he bombed Smash Wikia. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 23:14, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for another one that is apparently permanent. Anyway, back on topic. Why exactly do we need to keep the 80%? -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 23:23, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * It acts as insurance. To make it more resistent to a whim that could so easily change.


 * And Roy's third RfA is an example of why the 80% should stay, because he honestly wasn't ready at that time. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 23:41, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this has been discussed before. Might want to check out the chances of others wanting this. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 23:53, January 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * Usually when I propose something I get a no, but I'm very persistent and all the users' worries about Joe Anyone requesting adminship are worrying for nothing. It's just a simple change in the RfA. No, I wasn't ready for either of those three, but I am now. My arguments from the RfC do still stand though (even if Cabbage's was destined to fail). We need to stop being so unfair to candidates. Make it any tougher and no one will ever RfA again. And you want at least one other admin since you're the only one around, right? -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:17, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

(UNDENT) No, they aren't worrying for nothing. We've had two demotions thus far and discussed two potential demotions. That is more than most wikis. I'm looking to make sure the mistakes of the past don't reoccur, and they would not happen by making adminship easier. (And for the reference, I'm willing to forgive the mistakes of the past, but I'm not willing to let them happen again) The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 00:25, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Who other than FL is having a demotion discussion? And actually, Zeldapedia has more demoted admins. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:33, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not is, was. As in, PH. And I was excluding demotion due to inactivity. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 00:41, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you say they're worrying because of two demotions and two discussed ones? We can fix that so long as we remove the 80%. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:43, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that their worries are founded by the fact that we had quite a few administrators that didn't exactly smooth over in the long run. 4/13 or approximately 30%. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 00:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Those admins, for the last time, are gone, or at least inactive. I want to be admin again, but do not expect me to be perfect. I have very unorthodox ways of doing things and my arguments and debates often get ugly. Plus, I'm under a more positive influence now, the users of SmashWiki (they are not trolls despite numerous stereotypes) and PH and I have not spoken for months. Now that's not very relevant, but it still communicates a point. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:57, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Roy, are you making this an issue of your OWN adminship? I was under the assumption you weren't, because I was pretty sure that a request at this point would be likely to succeed even under the current standards. Though if you are trying to change the policies to get an easier win, maybe not... The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:04, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I am trying to change this wiki for the better, get rid of policies that are not so good, replace them with better ones, make up new ones, and the 80% is just one of these things I want to change. The whole RfA system could use change. I try to change things but people seem to not like what I want to do. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 01:11, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, though you should stop bringing yourself into your arguement. I wasn't talking about the actual actions as much as the response to those actions. Nor am I evaluating the people I brought up. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:31, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Could there possibly be a way to remove 80%, or would there be some ramifications other than less restrictive RfAs? -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 01:40, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking for? Are you asking for a lower percent or an entirely new system based on, say, bureaucrat decision? I'm not entirely sure at times. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:50, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm going to move this entire conversation elsewhere, because it doesn't belong here. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 02:04, January 23, 2012 (UTC)