SmashWiki talk:Requests for demotion (failed)

Just to be clear, this is not a kneejerk reaction - I don't think anyone really needs demoted. But, it does seem like something we should have should we somehow get a clueless wonder rollback or admin. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:06, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I really think that we only need this if there are currently admins/rollbackers who need demotion. As we clearly do not have this problem at the present time, I oppose. Serpent King 21:11, 30 December 2015 (EST)

That seems like kind of ridiculous logic, though. Why would we do nothing until a problem arises, at which point it would be difficult to get it passed if simply because the users in question would be against it or causing too much drama for anyone to be able to focus on the policy, when we can be prepared even if it never happens? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:14, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Fair point. Even so, there are multiple points I disagree with here.

• "The user in question must have had their power for at least a month." Umm...why? If there is an obviously abusive rollbacker (probably not an admin though), they should get an RfD right off.
• "Only one request for demotion should be ongoing at a time." Bit iffy on that one. Perhaps there are more than one abusive rollbackers at a time, working together to destroy the wiki?
• "A request for demotion is not necessary if the admin or rollback has directly disobeyed the rules outlined on SmashWiki:Rollback or SmashWiki:Administrators."...but that's exactly the time than an RfD should be filed.
• This would need to specify that RfDs are not to be filed for one time occurrences and there should always be an attempt to solve the problem without an RfD.

That's all Serpent King 21:21, 30 December 2015 (EST)

1. It was mostly to give time for them to adapt, make sure it's not just nervousness or something. I'm fine with removing it though.
2. Fair point. That could be removed too.
3. I would like to think that if they're actually being ignorant of the rules obviously outlined in the admin and rollback policies, Toomai would demote them without requiring community consensus.
4. I kind of mentioned that with "If the user in question has not been informed or warned that their actions may be disruptive in the past, do not nominate them until there is proper evidence that they do not intend to listen."

---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:25, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I concur with SK's first, second, and third points. I do feel that the end of Rules & Regulations fulfills the fourth point, though. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I removed the "one at a time" rule, and shortened the minimum time to a week and made an exception. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:30, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I can settle for a week. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Also, a point I'd like to bring up here: SW:YAV is in severe need of a rewrite. I have had multiple users get confused by it (claims that newer users are just as valuable as admins who have been here for years and who are capable of contributing more valuable information). It should be rewritten before this passes, to avoid this confusion. Serpent King 21:37, 30 December 2015 (EST)

That is not the place to say that. At all. I don't eant to sound snarky, but this post could've been done with just the first and last sentences and the rest can go on that talk page. Anyway, overall, I like it, and I give a tentative thumbs up. In other words, a mild support. Ganonmew, The Festive Evil Clone 22:32, 30 December 2015 (EST)

I don't see how this is necessary to be quite honest. Aside from one recent incident, I haven't seen any admin/rollbacker do anything that would deserve demotion, and even if someone did, I know for a fact that Toomai would've dealt with it by now if they absolutely 100% deserved to be demoted. With that in mind, I oppose, but I am open to seeing what other people have to say as well. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Just a note, I am still oppose as well, though I think I will change to neutral to oppose. Serpent King 23:43, 30 December 2015 (EST)

Took a quick skim; this looks like unnecessary bureaucracy to me. We already have a demotion system for rollbackers, and demoting admins shouldn't be frequent enough an occurance that we need a procedure of this level of codification for it. Toomai Glittershine The Victorious 00:25, 31 December 2015 (EST)

What's the system for rollbackers, other than ask you to demote them? Serpent King 00:38, 31 December 2015 (EST)

"If admins or bureaucrats believe that someone is misusing rollback, they may decide to deliver a warning or have the offending user's rollback privileges revoked." I don't think we need any more than that. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 08:33, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Support: While I don't think we urgently need to demote anyone here as of now, I think having something like this in place would be useful for the rare times that it needs to happen, and it probably could've prevented some of the major disputes from the past few years. As I once heard OT say before: "Just because something doesn't popup often doesn't mean that it isn't a problem when it happens, and that there shouldn't be a ruling against it; in fact we shouldn't wait for something to become an issue before we implement policies against it." Plus, while overlooking a recent user talk page discussion, I heard Toomai mention that he was considering demoting the old staff members who haven't shown up in over a year. I'm just spit-balling here in terms of the evidence, though. --MeatBall104 01:57, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Support. Good proposition DNK. Let's not wait for something to happen in order to get something like this going. Plan ahead. Me read it, and me likey. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 02:03, 31 December 2015 (EST)

support i do belive that we need a RFD but i dont agree with some of these rules Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 08:38, 31 December 2015 (EST)

If there are rules you don't agree with shouldn't you tell me about them so we can discuss changes? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:41, 31 December 2015 (EST)

actually there is only one rule i dont agree with... the immature one refer to age or acting... because i am only 11... so would i be eligible to be demoted because you should clarify that Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 11:28, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Now i change my vote to Neutral also we need to get this voting into proper format Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 09:10, 2 January 2016 (EST)

@Serpent King and Toomai (and anyone else that falls under this): Per MeatBall104, DatNuttyKid, and Smashedpotatoes, I don't find "we don't have an issue right now" as a reasonable opposition at all. Why wait for something to happen when we could be prepared? That's especially important since if we run under a situation like this in the future then it wouldn't be as easy to pass. I will say one thing against this though: for all the good things it could do, it could be abused. Until further investigation, I'm switching to moderately strong support. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 08:54, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Oppose. If Toomai feels there's a real problem with one of the admins, he can just demote them without this page. I feel this page will mostly be used by vandals who just want to see if they can cause trouble. And would a vandal nominating an admin count as having "been nominated for demotion in the past"? I think this policy will just cause hostility. John PK SMAAAASH!! 10:08, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I have my doubts that anyone would count a vandal nominating someone just to cause trouble would be counted by anyone, that's just dumb. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:41, 31 December 2015 (EST)

This would be very prone to abuse, though it'd be pretty clear if it were being abused. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 14:15, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Let's say that a user, whose username is FakeNamington, were to apply for adminship and get it. However, upon gaining adminship, he starts treating some users poorly (not taking their opinions seriously, shunning them for ideas that differ from his own, etc.) and using his powers to get his way (such as protecting a page so that other users can't change it during a dispute between himself and someone else). Another admin unprotects the page, and Toomai warns him not to do it anymore, but he continues shun other users with the excuse of being an admin so he gets to decide, while not causing huge problems. Under the current system, Toomai might confront him, but likely would not demote him. The rest of the community, however, has a strong disdain for him. So one of them creates a request for demotion, and it gets mostly supports (besides FakeNamington trying to defend himself, but the users in question would only be allowed to do that, not vote for obvious reasons). Now Toomai has a good idea of how poorly the community sees him, and a good reason to demote him.

Or say that FakeNamington were given rollback powers. This is much easier, as all he has to do is provide three vandal reverts, and may not always show their ability to handle the tool. Before getting it, he showed repeated ignorance of SW:AGF and SW:1RV, starting many edit wars and treating several good-faith users as vandals despite their intentions being good. However, this does not matter in an RFR, so he's still given the tool. He continues to ignore the stated policies (occasionally rollbacking a good-faith edit due to this ignorance) and acts immaturely, insulting users when they disagree with him, only to backpedal and apologize whenever he is confronted for it, leaving no good reason for Toomai to demote him. Once again, the community has gained a strong disdain for him, insert RFD with several supports here, now he's no longer a rollback and is less of a problem.

There are other similar examples I could give, but those were the two that made me want to make this policy. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:41, 31 December 2015 (EST)

I'm with Toomai on this; the situations where this would be needed are likely to be very few, and the process doesn't need this much bureaucratic/policy treatment. Miles (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2015 (EST)

Changing my vote to strong oppose, as there's no real need for this. The main problem with this is, and I'm not trying to nitpick at you DNK and I ask you to correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're focusing too hard on past events and not enough on the current matter at hand. There has not been a single incident for a month now, and any incidents are few and far between, if at all. Like I said, if Toomai sees a problem and sees that someone is unfit to have rollback or admin powers, he won't just ignore it after a simple apology. If they repeatedly do it over and over, he will take action no matter what, I'm confident that he will see if people have a problem with someone. Bottom line is we don't need this, and I hope all who is currently supporting this reads this and sees my standpoint on the matter. I'll respect your opinion if you continue to support it, but I ask that you think about exactly why it's being opposed by people like Toomai and Miles. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2016 (EST)

I'm not thinking about past events at all? Like, this has never been required, I just feel like knowing how Toomai tends to react to stuff vaguely related this if it were to happen I'd like to have an official process for it instead of relying on him making an executive decision (which he isn't known to do very well, nothing against you Toomai you just... don't make executive decisions very often) Like Smashed said, it's better to be prepared and never use it than to need it and not be prepared. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 03:17, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Yes, I do see your point, and I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but in all honesty I still don't see a reason for this. Yes, it'd be nice to have as a convenience, but ask yourself this: Not counting last month, have you ever seen anyone who absolutely deserved to be demoted? Rollback is easy to take care of, but adminship is the main concern. Toomai is very careful about picking admins, and I don't think I've ever seen someone on here who would hide their personality for that long, everyone shows their true colors eventually. And yes, I do understand that Toomai doesn't make executive decisions often, but there's two questions I need to ask you here: 1: When one is needed, has he made one? And 2: Was the decision he made the correct one? I've looked through the history of the wiki a multitude of times, and I've never once seen Toomai make a poor decision. I've always seen him take action when there needs to be executive decisions. That's why I oppose this. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Just a vote count, we have Toomai, Miles, John, Flare, and myself in oppose (5 votes), and Ganonmew, Smashedpotatoes, Meatball104, Nintendofan1653, and DatNuttyKid in support (5 votes). Personally, I feel like the opposing side presents the better argument, but that's just me. As this is would be a very large change in the way we run SmashWiki, I will not pass/fail this policy for a fair amount of time, and I encourage other admins to do the same. More votes from more people is a recipe for a fairer system. Serpent King 21:28, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Also, I consider Nyargle's vote to be neutral, as he doesn't exactly make it clear about which side he's on. Serpent King 21:29, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Considering every staff member is involved in this (except OT, but he would be if he was active), I don't think deciding by "better argument" is really going to work very well here just because of bias.

My only complaint with all of the arguments of the opposing side is that you guys are just repeating the same thing (either "too much bureaucracy" or "it's never happened before") and not even acknowledging the support sides responses to that (particularly with the "it's never happened before"). ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:37, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Consider this: I am probably the last admin for a very long time (maybe one other who I will not name). As I do not see any of us flying off the handle anytime soon, or doing something stupid to result in our demotion, this policy is basically a restriction on rollbackers...all of whom again seem stable. I also worry that this will start more problems than it will solve. Misinterpretation of policy...as you may know... is a VERY common sight. There may be cases where an RfD is filed where it does not belong, and that would only cause unnecessary drama. Serpent King 21:45, 1 January 2016 (EST)

If the admins can't handle something as simple as someone mistakenly filing a request for demotion, that might be evidence that a request for demotion is necessary. Just saying.

Also, again, this is not based on anything that has happened or I expect to happen on SmashWiki. This is simply because if it were to unexpectedly happen as it has on other wikis, we would be completely unprepared for it.

And seriously, you have so little faith in our community that you think something as simple as this will be misinterpreted multiple times? I seriously don't know where you get the idea that no one understands the policies - I can only think of one example of someone misunderstanding a policy lately, and it was quickly and easily sorted out. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 21:52, 1 January 2016 (EST)

You misunderstand me. I mean that others (newer users mostly) may misinterpret other policies and consider that a reason to submit an RfD. Serpent King 21:56, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Also, what's the point of this system if admins are simply able to retract RfDs? Also noted: Nowhere in this policy does it say that admins would have this ability. Serpent King 21:58, 1 January 2016 (EST)

They shouldn't be able to, because that would ruin the point. But if someone is mistakenly making one, it shouldn't be hard to handle explaining that it's not necessary, and if a vandal makes one, that should be counted as a vandal page and deleted. I don't see how this is a proper argument. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:06, 2 January 2016 (EST)

For the record, I give a weak support to the policy as is. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 22:05, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Look Nutta (can I still call you Nutta?), I know you're really enthusiastic about this policy, but you gotta think about where we're coming from and the reasons why we're opposing. I can tell you haven't thought about the flaws too much because you keep defending the policy, and I apologize if this comes off in any way rude, but you seem to ignore the flaws almost. I will be repeating some factors here, so bear with me. Firstly, there's the issue of the fact that demotion rarely, if ever at all, happens. Yes, you did say that it'd be nice to have as a convenience, and I completely understand your point. But the issue still stands that really it's just going to sit here with no purpose, because like I said, demotion very rarely ever occurs and whenever it does, we just talk to Toomai personally. Serpent has a really good point too. Anyone who misunderstands the policy may use it incorrectly, or, in the rare case, will use it just because an admin ticked them off, when the admin was just doing their job and doing it correctly. I would like to say that yes, in theory, this is a nice idea, but the execution will not work at all. There's too many factors and you gotta understand that it's too easily abusable and even if it weren't, there's still the issue of demotion rarely happening. A policy is only useful when the thing it's detailing is a common occurrence, meaning that if this policy were to succeed, it'd be a completely useless policy, maybe only being used once or twice in a few year timespan. I've remained open to see what people have to say about this and I agree with every point of view they've given, and they're very reasonable arguments too, so I have no idea why you're having trouble seeing that. My advice is before replying to this, take a moment to look at all the issues people have pointed out and think about why they're perceived as issues. Take as long as you need to figure that out, and reply to this with a clear head. I'm asking for this because I've seen arguments come close to breaking out on this one too many times. Hopefully this reply will prevent any future ones from occuring. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2016 (EST)

You still haven't responded to anything I've said about your arguments, so please don't tell me I'm doing that to you.

If it's just going to sit around with no purpose, why is it such a big deal if it gets passed? I don't see a problem with having a policy that may be unnecessary, but if a situation does happen to arise could come in handy.

The page specifically says filing it for a personal complaint is against the rules - if a user did this, it would not be a proper RfD and should be removed or deleted.

I'll say it again - if the admins can't handle something as simple as a new user mistakenly making an RfD, that might be a good sign we need a new team and that this would help.

Again, demotion rarely happening isn't an issue. This was not made because it happens all the time and I'm tired of it not working. This was made because it could happen and I've seen it happen on other wikis when they least expect it and they are never prepared, and it basically shuts down everything. This is a "we shouldn't need it, I hope we don't, but it's best to have it just in case".

And lastly, don't tell me i'm not paying attention when you still haven't responded to any of my own points. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:06, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Alrighty, I oppose. I've been scanning this wiki for forever, and I never found a use for this. Well, except for replaced for user anonymity... 98.157.202.185 00:31, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Strong Oppose. Took my time reading this and proposed policy. I can see various cons out of this. I agree with Toomai and Disaster Flare's point about the request for demotion. This is more of the "What if" thing, since I rarely seen any demotion occurring. It will also invite unnecessary drama as well. Toomai can keep an eye on promoted users, be very wary about promoting admins, and look for any violation that would warrant a demotion. In my eyes, this policy is useless. Luigi540 (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Honestly, if I knew that everyone would ignore my only point in favor of this and act like I'm not saying it, I probably wouldn't have made this. Of course, given that that's what happens every time I make something like this, I guess I should've expected it. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 10:06, 2 January 2016 (EST)

i not ignoring your argument... its just that you didnt anwser my question about one rule... also get this in proper format (sections with oppose support and neutral) Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 11:07, 2 January 2016 (EST)

We have passed policies in the past with the rationale of "we'll need this in the future" (such as the status sytem for restricting userpage edits). That is not at all why I don't like this idea: I dislike it because it will only exacerbate the problem that it tries to solve. If an admin is being a problem, opening up a debate floor for them to toss trash around is not going to help anything (it doesn't matter if that's not the intent, because that's what it will become). Toomai Glittershine The Zesty 11:15, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Let's do this properly.

Support

1. Mild support. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 11:55, 2 January 2016 (EST)
2. Weak support. While it will have to be used very rarely, I feel we should have a standard procedure for these kinds of things. Also, I can't really see much drama being created, as it will be obvious when the RfD violates policy and whoever creates it will either be able to have the problem with the RfD explained to them or will probably be violating other blockable policies on top of it (i.e. vandalism). Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 12:27, 2 January 2016 (EST)
3. Strong Support: I'm not gonna bother reposting my earlier thoughts! --MeatBall104 15:24, 2 January 2016 (EST)
4. I read through this again and i think i will change my vote to a little bit more than mildsupport also we can use freaking rollback most of you guys have itNintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 21:24, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Oppose

1. Per Toomai. Miles (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2016 (EST)
2. Oppose. This is pretty much only going to be used by vandals and people who are angry with an admin for a bad reason. I think this will just lead to hostility among the userbase. And as I see it, if Toomai sees a real problem, he can just demote users without this. If you have any problem with an admin, just take it to a talk page and get it settled there. People will see if the admin is actually a problem and can ask Toomai to look into it. It's worked before, and I see no reason to change it. John PK SMAAAASH!! 12:35, 2 January 2016 (EST)
3. BIG time oppose per Toomai, Luigi540, and SK, and John. 98.157.202.185 15:10, 2 January 2016 (EST)
4. Going to agree with the opposing users. It is really unlikely that an admin or a rollback are going to get demoted on this wiki anyways. Dots (talk) The X 15:14, 2 January 2016 (EST)
5. Strong oppose: I've given my reasons above. Serpent King 15:39, 2 January 2016 (EST)
6. Strong oppose: See my reasons above. This policy will hinder and not ameliorate. I can see hostility happen if this were to pass; it would generate new users becoming hostile. If this were to occur, we would deal with newer problems. Toomai is beyond the new proposed policy. Luigi540 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2016 (EST)
7. After giving this further thought, strong oppose. This opens though door for blatant abuse, and will only enable more people to piss and moan about issues they have with someone with power, when they should really be dealing with their problem themselves. Also, seeing as how there's already a system in place to demote when needed, I don't see why we'll need a system of impeachment. Smashedpotatoes (Talk) 18:52, 2 January 2016 (EST)
8. Oppose: Since they would still be able to be demoted by a bureaucrat, I don't think it is necessary to have a community vote. If a admin becomes a vandal (which seems highly unlikely to happen) than a bureaucrat can take care of it. -- Ethan (Discussion) 19:21, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Neutral

1. look above Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 11:46, 2 January 2016 (EST)
2. Both sides have good points. I can honestly not decide. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Comments

It's probably too late for that. But if anyone wants to sum everything up here, thank the IP for the idea. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Yeah, I saw that NF1653 said to organize this,so.... 98.157.202.185 11:48, 2 January 2016 (EST)

Good call either way. Counting votes is always tedious, especially if they're scattered. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2016 (EST)

ya thats my problem (counting votes) Nintendofan1653 (talk) the true north strong and free 11:53, 2 January 2016 (EST)

This is going to be a little out-of-character for me but...

It's amusing how the only two people who opposed and who had any valid points without completely ignoring everything said by the support side were Toomai and Luigi540. As for Disaster Flare, given your response I'm not sure you read the entire policy, nevermind what people had to say. On grounds of what Toomai and Luigi540 brought up (unnecessary drama), my support is once again mild support. It's a great concept and a nice idea, but we don't want to start a flame war. Even then, the community is a little bit capable of knowing a bad faith admin/rollbacker, not just Toomai or Porple. The flaw with most RFAs in the past few months was being gun-jumpy, so why should there be a refute because it isn't? As for Serpent King, not only are you only beating down one point (we don't need it now), you are not paying attention to what DNK has to say. I wish the best of luck for this policy. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 11:55, 2 January 2016 (EST)

...I am not sure that you read my entire argument...I clearly address Nutta's points and refute them. Serpent King 13:44, 2 January 2016 (EST)

One may be much more hesitant if to promote someone if they can never demote them. -- Ethan (Discussion) 14:14, 2 January 2016 (EST)

I think I'm just going to stay out of this one now. I seem to only be making the situation worse. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2016 (EST)

How, in any way, are you making this "worse"? This is a proposed policy. Debate is sure to happen. 98.157.202.185 18:13, 2 January 2016 (EST)

I won't exactly place an official vote, I'm fairly indifferent, but if the bureaucrat himself finds it needless, I don't see any point in pursuing this any further. Toast ltimatum 18:21, 2 January 2016 (EST)