User talk:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal

Stuff

A "hiring policy" and the ramifications associated with it have never been my primary concern at this wiki, but I should point out that enforcing one wherein the "RfAs never close" and wherein the winner is decided by a tally of votes, regardless of where they come from and how they are substantiated by the voter, is essentially dooming the wiki to hire every person who wants adminship and has friends to vote for them until the end of time. Under these rules, we'd already have four or five new sysops, including GalaxiaD. And wouldn't that be a party. --RJM ^Talk 20:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why the sysops have editorial input, because no nomination can be open without the sponsorship of a current admin. Semicolon (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's just the way it works around here. Besides, GalaxiaD can't become a sysop, thanks to you banning him. He's automatically ruled out. Now, if I may ask, how did you become a sysop, Randall? Didn't you become through this process as well? MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your attitude problem is with me, MarioGalaxy. I don't really know anything about you, but I have to assume that you've been introduced to this wiki through Galaxia and his buddies and they have the tendency to villify me, so I'm not surprised. But try to understand that I'm really not so bad; I'm just interested in using this wiki as a authoritative source of smash-related information instead of a personal playground for users who don't contribute to actual content. This website is not a message board. It's not free webspace; it exists for a reason. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

But to answer your question, this is how I became a sysop: SmashWiki:Requests_for_adminship/Randall00 and no, it wasn't under this process, because this is only a proposal. Back then, SmashWiki was a very different place and it needed fixing, which is why I became a sysop. Then we merged into Wikia and instead of fixing things, I've more or less been picking up trash ever since. It's frustrating. I used to put a lot of time, effort and pride into this project and it's been reduced to a bunch of teenagers yelling at me as though I'm just on some crazy power trip and the only reason I have adminship is to ban people for no reason. I do have better things to do with my time. Please try to understand my point of view here. --RJM ^Talk 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Randall, you are so off that it isn't even funny. I didn't know GalaxiaD when I joined Wikia. I started at Wikitroid. First of all, you've banned 5 Users in a short period of time, half of them from the Cult of Personality. I wasn't a part of the original SmashWiki, I'm from the Wikia side of this website. What's sad about you, no insult/offense intended, is that you're banning members of a crew who's former leader is 14 years old. You're 24 years old! The Users you banned probably don't even know that (they're confused about your real name, so I don't think they've read your Smasher page). Before SmashWiki merged with Smash Wikia, it wasn't that chaotic around here. Users weren't banned, not many people really hated each other, etc. Now, thanks to you banning everybody, several admins are coming out of hiatus and arguing against regular Users. You said that keeping the bans permanent would stop this. The permanent bans STARTED this. If you could, you'd probably ban everyone who doesn't like you. To end this, I'd just like to say this: No insults/offense intended. If you have anything to say, go ahead. MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't respond. Our conversation is driving away from the point of this section of Semicolon's talk page. MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, the conversation is over--all I gotta do is point out that permanent bans don't happen for no reason, therefore they can't possibly be the "start" of anything. Then there's nothing else to say. --RJM ^Talk 21:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

srs bsns

multi-edit conflict A quote I rather like:

Vote tallies are just asking for users to

1. gather all their wikifriends and get them to vote support and then, if needed
2. get all their RL friends to register and vote support, or if they're really desperate
3. register sockpuppets
   

and when the 'crats don't promote them they cry "omgwtf y u not promote me policy says so!!1!one!" Other than that: paragraph 1 looks fine. But a week seems a bit short when the sysops are complaining of lack of time. Why set a definitive timetable anyway? What does it accomplish? And I don't understand the line about RFAs never close. --Shadowcrest 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA's are already a vote process, except it's even worse because it's decided on a whim. This change sthat. All the wiki friends are already mobilized to support each other, but just because that is doesn't disqualify their opinions. The sysops already have their input. If they sponsor a candidate, they recognize that a candidate has the understanding, dedication and capability. If the community disagrees, this is overruled. Sleeper accounts and unestablished users are disqualified. That should be an amendment. And the timetable is to ensure the process doesn't drag on, that the community decides, and that is the way Wikipedia does it. If a nomination drags on forever, then there is so much clutter and useless time and effort and space wasted on it. A week keeps it concise and to the point. As far as RfA's never closing, under this system, they don't need to. If sysops are needed, a sponsorships will be conferred to decide the best candidate. As far as people whining about not getting sponsorships, that is easily ignored or taken care of, by the motivation that if whining is necessary, a sponsorship shouldn't be conferred in the first place. And as far as the sysops not having time, then perhaps more sysops are needed. But, since the current sysops keep saying that there aren't, I'd say that isn't good justification. Semicolon (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be a vote tally, period. Quote time: "When people think a vote count matters, they stop trying to provide reasoning. At that point, RfA's become pretty useless as a tool." Why in the world should "+1 --User:Example" count for as much as a well-thought-out and soundly-reasoned walloftext, paragraph, or even a sentence or two as to why User:ABC should/n't become a sysop? "Their [RfAs] purpose is to give Bureaucrats community feedback on the candidates. If the community feedback is nothing more than stuff bureaucrats can tell in two seconds anyway (we can check special:editcount too, you know), then the process isn't worth it. They aren't worth a damn if all they are is a vote count. If I wanted a poll, I'd use that wikia poll maker doohicky; a 'yes/no' box is much easier than reading an entire page of people restating opinions and giving unsupported arguments." Polls don't create any reasoning at all. A vote is basically just whether the candidate has enough friends to get them all to say "S/he's a nice guy, they make lots of contribs, s/he's good at brawl [...]" until the vote swings 5:2. This attempts to be addressed by the "needs sysop backing" clause, which is a good attempt but the entire process (both current and proposed) is flawed anyway. If it's a truly terribad candidate, then no sysop would back them. But what about if you have a biased sysop? What if that sysop can't see past that User:ABC is their friend and that their perspective is horribly skewed and that in reality that person shouldn't be promoted at all? What about if the person is a mehable contributor? They do ok as an editor, but they wouldn't make a great or even good sysop? Mr. Mehable Contributor might be able to find a sysop to back him, and Mr. Mehable Contributor might just have a lot of friends. What then? Then you're stuck with an on-par sysop at best, and if even one of those votes was biased you might be stuck with a horribly sub-par admin and these can cause serious problems. After all, "the margin of victory could easily be less than the number of random people who didn't really care rounded up to vote one way or the other." What this community needs- besides additional policies, but those are needed for a different reason- is an intelligent active bureaucrat that the community knows and trusts- and more importantly, this person needs to not be afraid to make unpopular decisions. I'm not saying that they will become the ruler of the universe- but you guys desperately need someone who will be able to accurately judge someone's character and whether or not they will perform well as a sysop, regardless of what the "vote count" says.

Now, on to the timetable and other things.

• "All the wiki friends are already mobilized to support each other, but just because that is doesn't disqualify their opinions." You're right- it doesn't. At least, not by default. If the only reason User:ABC's friend User:DEF has to vote support is "He's a nice guy you should promote," then unfortunately User:DEF's opinion is largely unimportant, and contributes nothing towards the subject of whether or not User:ABC would make a good sysop or not. It should be noted that voting only makes it easier for User:ABC's friends to do exactly that- swing the nomination because they're ABC's friend.
• "Sleeper accounts and unestablished users are disqualified." Good, but that's subjective. Needs specifics. For example, users that haven't contributed in X amount of time or that have less than Y edits outside User/Smasher namespaces. However, if RfAs are steered away from polls and towards intelligent discussion (+1), this becomes unnecessary.
• "And the timetable is to ensure the process doesn't drag on (1), that the community decides (2), and that is the way Wikipedia does it (3)."
  1. What is the matter with the process dragging on? If anything, it promotes thought and reduces the strain on people to determine whether or not User:ABC would make a good sysop. Pressure causes skewed judgment. As for wasted time, I'd like to think that time spent determing whether you trust User:ABC to be fair/just/logical/etc. and whether or not you trust him to allow him to ban users at his own discretion to be time well spent, don't you think? You see presidential campaign commercials running half a year before the election for a reason.
  2. In an ideal wiki, people should be able to trust their bureaucrat's judgment as to whether or not User:ABC will make a good sysop and RfAs wouldn't be needed at all. Unfortunately, it would be unreasonable to ask everyone to just go with what the bureaucrat says because they say it. As such, RfAs are necessary for the community, but RfAs should be to help give insight to the bureaucrat(s), not obligate them to promote User:ABC because he's popular.
  3. ...so? We're not Wikipedia (this is actually a policy on guildwiki); we don't share their huge userbase, we don't share their gigantic sysop pool, and we barely share any content. While we do (should) share many of their policies because they're universal to all wikis regardless of size, the RfA process depends dramatically on userbase size, and thus should not be just straight-up copied from Wikipedia.
• I still don't understand the bit about nominations not closing. Why would a failed RfA not close? Why would a successful RfA stay open?

Also, since I don't know how harsh this sounds, please don't take this personally. I'm not directing this at anyone personally, I'm just arguing for the sake of the wiki. --Shadowcrest 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that the most vocal critics of this policy are people from different wikias whose backgrounds with their proposed policies are not analogous to the position of this wikia. Any comparison drawn is a fallacy and ipso facto invalid. That having been said, I will address your critique.

1. Because in a universe of anonymity, the only justice is equality. People don’t have to answer for their reasoning or their actions. People will think how they will. Internet arguments/discussions do not accomplish anything. The other problem is who can be the judge? At present, this process is entirely subjective. It’s just how the sysops ’’’feel’’’ about the reasoning, or ’’’feel’’’ about the number of votes. Who has the right to determine what critique is valid or what critique is invalid, or what support is useful and what is not? Even under the present system, five poorly reasoned supports outweigh a single well reasoned critique. This system does not discourage explanations. It discourages the interpretation of critiques as grounds for nomination by any sysop because that gives them too much power. Say there is a controversy over the quality of the explanation and reasoning, and the community desires a candidate that the sysops don’t like? They can merely interpret the comments and reasoning differently and refuse the conferment of powers. This system circumvents that. And don’t suggest a poll; polls are easily corrupted by proxies and sleepers. I think you underestimate the inability of the present system to accomplish anything. Practically all of your critiques can be applied to the current system! I’m not suggesting mine is a flawless system, but I’m saying it’s an advancement, and I’m willing to amend it upon good suggestion. There are several amendments I would make already, see below.

2. As far as corruption on the part of the sysop, you merely have to trust them, and if you can’t trust your sysops then you have a bigger problem then simply the nomination process. Let me make an example; C-Hawk and I are good friends. We’re rooming together at college. I would never ask him for a sponsorship even though I would enjoy the powers of a sysop because (a) that would be a conflict of interest (b) my edit count is too low ( c) I don’t have the time to spend on this wikia (d) I’m not particularly popular among users; meaning, thusly, that I am a poor candidate. I don’t think any sysop would confer on me a sponsorship because I am a poor candidate, least of all my friend because he is honest and dependable and wants to better this wiki, and he knows my nomination and promotion might be to the determent of this wikia. Say perhaps, then, that I get a sponsorship for Dtm. I am then put to the community. They want good sysops, and they will recognize that I am not a good candidate, and I will receive too many negative votes. This system has checks and balances. The sysops cannot make a candidate a sysop by subjective evaluation, but neither can the community. I think you lack trust of both the sysops and the community; your comments betray this. You mistrust the admins, that they would even allow a sub-par candidate to be sponsored, and you mistrust the community that they would let a candidate become a sysop even if they know they aren’t good. Sure, friends stick with friends, but, as I said before (and you agreed) that doesn’t disqualify their vote. They are allowed to vote because of a friend. This system actually fixes the problem. Suppose you have a self-nomination of a very popular member who has contributed little to nothing to this wiki, but everyone loves him. Their votes vouch for his character, and that he gets along with everyone. Suppose nobody comes forward with a good critique. You have a person who doesn’t understand the tools to be a sysop, voted in because of how subjective and disorganized the RfA’s are. Under this system, this candidate would never have become one. He may well in the future deserve to be a sysop, but he is not worthy.

3. I resent your insinuation that we are not good judges of character, and I deeply resent your distrust of our community. This is an insult to all who are here. Perhaps we do need a bureaucrat, but it will be someone who does not distrust the community and its administrators. I fear that your policies may be influenced by this distrust as well.

On to your bullets

• 1. You fail to realize that this is how it is in our current system, not in my proposed system. In our current system, the validity of comments does not influence the decision. It is more the presence of consensus. I’ve already explained that the right to distinguish the validity of the comments puts too much power in the hands of the sysops. It is not that I distrust them, however; it is merely that the right to nominate a sysop comes from the community, not the admins.
• 2. This is the referenced amendment. The specifics I would impose is a time restriction, but I am open to suggestions on the duration. Top of my head says present for a week or two.
• 3.

• 1. The idea is that if a candidate is worthy of the promotion, the candidate has already made his contributions seen/understood/noticed. There is a provision for poverty of input before the closing of the nomination, so your criticism is unjustified if it is based on, as you say, the possibility of a lack of votes or of thought put to the nomination. The matter with the a process dragging on is, as I said, a drain on resources, time, space, drama, etc. It also irritates the candidate and the community, particularly if a new sysop is desperately needed for a merge or other large project and the availability of present sysops is trifling.
• 2. As you have pointed out, this is not an ideal wiki, and this is not an ideal policy. Yours is not an ideal policy. I admit the system is flawed, but I am willing to trust the community and the sysops to do the best for themselves and for the wiki. This policy enables it by providing checks and balances between the two.
• 3. While wikipedia and this wiki I agree are not analogous, theirs is a successful system. Your proposed system with Defiant whatever is practically the same as our present one, which is unsuccessful.

The bit about nominations not closing is a misunderstanding. At present, our RfA’s are closed. Nominations are not enabled, meaning that candidates are not even being considered. RfA’s should be considered at all times. A nomination, once it is placed, ought to be considered and at the outcome it is closed. But nominations, themselves as considerations of candidates, do not close.

In closing, it seems we are doomed to disagree. With the understanding that we are likely not to resolve, I believe it is up to the community to voice their opinions on this matter. You may surely offer further rebuttal, but I am resigned to accept only suggestions, amendments, improvements to this policy and let its acceptance be the only matter thereafter with which I concern myself. Seeing as you are diametrically opposed to it and prefer to maintain the present policy, I do not expect you to offer amendment but rather favor its scrapping. This is fine; if you have further amendments that do not strike at its core premises I would be pleased to entertain them. Semicolon (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• "I would like to note that the most vocal critics of this policy are people from different wikias whose backgrounds with their proposed policies are not analogous to the position of this wikia. Any comparison drawn is a fallacy and ipso facto invalid." ...what? Yes, we're all from a different wiki, and I don't mean to sound narcissistic but.. us vocal critics (DE, Auron, LoaT and Mendel in particular, they're all universally more intelligent than myself) know our stuff. How are policies that apply our wiki not analogous to your own? If you're telling me things like NPA, YAV, AGF etc. aren't needed here than I might as well just stop trying; if that were the case, then this site is beyond any hope I can try to offer. Denying any comparison's validity on the basis of SmashWiki isn't GuildWiki is just fallacious in and of itself.
• "Because in a universe of anonymity, the only justice is equality. People don’t have to answer for their reasoning or their actions. People will think how they will." This isn't a universe of anonymity, we all know each other and what each other are like to an extent. People should have to explain their reasoning is certain cases- such as these. Following your reasoning, I could oppose User:ABC's sysoption with the reasoning of "I don't like his username" (and under this policy I wouldn't even have to write why- I could even support/oppose whoever I wanted for the lulz and nobody could prove or DQ me at all) and it would count for just as much as if I could provide dozens of links on evidence why User:ABC wouldn't make a good sysop.
• "Internet arguments/discussions do not accomplish anything." So we might as well just be arguing about whether I should buy a flowered tablecloth or a blue one? Kk, I'll let you know what I decide tomorrow. They only accomplish nothing if you refuse to listen to them. Even if nothing changes, you'll at least understand the opposing side, and if you do that, then the argument was worth it.
• "The other problem is who can be the judge?" I wish I could say me, but it'll never happen, so I can't. DE, Auron, LoaT and Mendel are equally valid and also equally unlikely to be promoted. At the moment, I have chosen to support Charitwo.
• "Who has the right to determine what critique is valid or what critique is invalid, or what support is useful and what is not? Even under the present system, five poorly reasoned supports outweigh a single well reasoned critique. This system does not discourage explanations. It discourages the interpretation of critiques as grounds for nomination by any sysop because that gives them too much power. Say there is a controversy over the quality of the explanation and reasoning, and the community desires a candidate that the sysops don’t like? They can merely interpret the comments and reasoning differently and refuse the conferment of powers." Valid point, but if you have a community-supported bureaucrat who you can trust to make the right decision (after all "if you can’t trust your sysops then you have a bigger problem then simply the nomination process" applies to bureaucrats too) then you can trust their judgment.
• " (a) that would be a conflict of interest (b) my edit count is too low ( c) I don’t have the time to spend on this wikia (d) I’m not particularly popular among users" A is valid; B isn't very relevant, edit count doesn't prove anything and it also suggests adminship is a reward for editing (I can see the spam crews now); C is a matter of your own judgment, you seem active enough to me; D isn't a requirement (if unpopularity were cause for demotion Auron would have been exiled ages ago), though it might be a hinderance if you implement a vote count. But if you trusted you bureaucrats to judge whether or not you'd make a good sysop, you wouldn't have a problem with how unpopular you are.
• "I think you lack trust of both the sysops and the community; your comments betray this. You mistrust the admins [...]" I do not inherently lack trust in them, their actions have proven to me that I can't trust them. DE hit the nail on the head with his comment on the community portal; I wish you had seen the IRC conversations from yesterday. If I can pique the interest of 1) A bureaucrat on gwiki, gww, and pvx (the 3 guildwars wikis), 2) a bureaucrat on pvx, 3&4) two non-sysopped users but who are both very intelligent anyway with one sentence about one admin and get them to come investigate an entire community (I didn't even ask them to, they were interested enough on their own), there's a dire problem. And the conclusion #1 came to? "If I ever have even the slightest doubt about my own course of action, I should go read their talk pages again." That shouldn't be someone's reaction to any wiki. Ever.
• "friends stick with friends." They can, and they will. This I have no doubts about. This can and will overrule "that they [the community] would let a candidate become a sysop even if they know they aren’t good." This isn't unique to SmashWiki, it happens on GuildWiki all the time- but we don't sysop them because of a vote count. I said "that that doesn’t disqualify their vote"- by default. If the only reason they think User:ABC should be a sysop is because ABC is their friend, then their vote is most certainly not contributing constructively to whether or not ABC should be a sysop. Votes such as these shouldn't be valued for the same reason you wouldn't ask Clarinet Hawk to back you as a sysop; it's a conflict of interest.
• "And don’t suggest a poll" I would oppose a poll with my dying breath if I had to, even more than I am opposing this vote count now. :P That was merely an example for my argument.
• "I resent your insinuation that we are not good judges of character." Where did I say this? Regardless of whether or not it is true, I don't recall implying such a thing. If that were truly the case with every single user here, I can assure you I would not have supported Charitwo's b'crat nomination, nor would I be contributing here. If I though every user here was a failure as you have suggested I do, I would not contribute here; it wouldn't be worth the time.
• "I deeply resent your distrust of our community." I resent its necessity. I do not enjoy distrusting people; it's far easier to assume good faith. However, tis is not possible when you have mountains of opposing evidenece shoved in your face.
• "I’ve already explained that the right to distinguish the validity of the comments puts too much power in the hands of the sysops. It is not that I distrust them, however; it is merely that the right to nominate a sysop comes from the community, not the admins." How does this not imply distrust in the bureaucrat's judgment? That's what the bureaucrats are there for: to promote candidates deserving of sysophood. The community is free to nominate the cndidates, as you say, but they do not in any way hold the right to promote them. If you disagree, I'd like to point out that's why not every user has bureaucrat rights.
• "There is a provision for poverty of input before the closing of the nomination, so your criticism is unjustified if it is based on [...] lack of thought." It says only the sysops have the ability to extend the nomination; normal users should have the ability to extend the nomination somehow, likely through a sysop (since no other viable method presents itself to me atm.)
• "I admit the system is flawed, but I am willing to trust the community and the sysops to do the best for themselves and for the wiki." Your method imposes restrictions and red tape on the bureaucrats (in addition to obligating them to promote if certain circumstances are met); mine gives them the ability to use their own discretion as to whether or not a candidate would make a good sysop.
• "But nominations, themselves as considerations of candidates, do not close. " Thank you for clarifying that; I had thought you meant individual nominations would never close. As I am opposed to nominations as a whole being closed at all, I would support this line.

In closing, yes, it does unfortunately seem we must agree to disagree. You are, of course, welcome to keep refuting any of my comments/questions/criticisms etc., as knowledge can't be a bad thing. I will see if I have anything to add to this sometime, as writing this walloftext has been quite the endeavor, and I am now quite exhausted. This took two hours to write :(

I do resent the view that the policies I'm trying to implement are skewed by my distrust of the community, however. If the community as a whole can't see just how much those policies (NPA, AGF, YAV in particular) are worth to this wiki, then like I said before, there's nothing left for me to do. I'm doing my best; if I get shot down, I have nothing left to offer.

I hope you realize that I'm not trying to demolish the wiki, I'm trying to help it the best I can. I'm sorry if I come off that way, but walls of cold logic are the only way I can explain. --Shadowcrest 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps at a point I could contend, when I have half a day to drop on this :). However, for the time being, I hope the ongoing debate in some part acknowledges the existence of a reasonable position for the supporting of this policy. At the very least you are a worthy foe. I do hope you acknowledge, however, that the final decision is up to this community, and while you may participate in the debate, the adoption of this policy is independent of your direct intervention. Semicolon (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I do realize that (much to my displeasure, but that's neither here nor there) I can not just implement my RfA policy in addition to my other policies and expect the community to be happy. And I assure you, I will likely be partaking in any and all discussions related to the adoption of a new RfA policy. --Shadowcrest 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but why on earth do you care what policies are implemented and what aren't? Semicolon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to answer for SC, nor do I mean to be (particularly) facetious, but would you accept an answer of "he wants to improve the wiki"? – Defiant Elements 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflictBecause I am just as capable of contributing here as you are. And the lack of policies and the sysops blatantly ignoring the policies you have decided to implement is just sad. --Shadowcrest 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semicolon, you write "1. Because in a universe of anonymity, the only justice is equality. People don’t have to answer for their reasoning or their actions. People will think how they will. Internet arguments/discussions do not accomplish anything." and on the other hand you write "I resent your insinuation that we are not good judges of character". The anonymity stops when you become part of an internet community. Why is it that people choose sockpuppets to wreak havoc sometimes? Exactly because they have lost that anonymity with each edit they've made to the wiki, piece by piece. Exactly that is what makes you think you can judge character. So you have to recognize that in a working community, not all opinions are equal because those of better-known users have added dimensions. This is a good thing.

"I fear that your policies may be influenced by this distrust as well." As far as these policies have been copied from another wiki/wikipedia itself, they cannot have been influenced by distrust of administrators on this present wiki. It isn't true in the general case, either, because typically adminstrators have written these policies or at least significantly contributed and consented.

You sponsorship deal make admins responsible for judging a candidate before a community opinion about them is known. This is not a good thing. Wikis work by leveraging community input, and thus community input should be solicited before the admins decide whether they want to work with a certain candidate. Of course anyone could make a User: page where suitable candidates could be discussed by the community, and thus provide the needed community input; once a community-supported candate had found sponsorship, the vote would be a mere formality. The flaw of such a system is that it is overly complicated; if the vote is a formality, you can do away with it and reduce the process to a page of community discussion about any admin candiate anyone can come up with; and promotion to admin is then based on the discretion of the admis or a buraeucrat. And voila! your system has been improved into SC's proposal. --◄mendel► (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? There is still anonyminity everywhere. Because you can continue to recast yourself as you wish, you could be anyone and everyone. That is the essence of anonymitiy. If you fear the creation and abuse of sleepers, there are provisions for it in a time requirement, but I am open to suggestion. I don't know if it's a good thing that users are treated differently in their opinions. I thought one of the principles of wikia is that the administrators, by the policies and admission of SC, are no different than the lowest member. This is in that spirit. Your suggestion is not.

As for the policies, they may not have been designed specifically for that purpose, but their suggestion is certainly of that design.

I would contend that it is a bad thing for the community to input before the administrators. With that scenario, as I have pointed out, sysops can be nominated as popularity contests. This is a serious flaw and an actual problem that the SmashWiki had and has to face. My policy addresses it. Yours provides the status quo. Semicolon (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that the anonymity isn't total, it is anonymity by degrees. And because it is so, it invalidates your premise, and thus, that part of your argument.

The YAV policy means that in editing disputes, users are not to be treated differently because of their "rank"=their role as admin,bureaucrat etc. If you have your eyes open, you'll observe that users are treated differently, nonetheless. Most openly because they don't log in (IPs are pond scum in some people's eyes), but there many non-rank discrimitors, such as their grasp of the language, or their place in the community. This is normal and beneficial.

Well, even if the act of suggesting the policies was motivated by distrust, that doesn't mean they're bad. It just means that their adoption has the potential to raise trust in the admins, and that is good.

Sysops can be nominated as popularity contests. But they won't be promoted based on that, because a RfA is not a vote, it is a discussion - and every admin can take part in it. If a candidate's RfA is popular with both users and admins, he's ideal - great! If the RfA shows dissent about the candidate's admin abilities, promoting that person will raise a lot of community lashback (speaking from experience here). If you consider yourself able to judge the character of a person, surely you are able to judge the character of a RfA: is it a discussion or a popularity vote?

Calling a popularity contest as a "problem" seems to me to be exaggerated, even if it is held on an RfA page.

Turning your argument around, if all you need is a single admin's sponsorship, all you need to do is to get popular with a single admin. Being a yes-man seems to be a very simple way to do it; select the admin that most closely matches your values and behaviour and get started. If you manage to sway that admin to sponsor you, you then get promoted based on a "vote" that is exactly the popularity contest you abhor. By your own criteria, your proposal is inferior. It is better the nomination be abusable as a popularity contest than to have the promotion be one. --◄mendel► (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Provided that complete anonyminity is always available, the resultant behavior is unchanged. In regards to users being treated differently and the 'YAV' one could be forgiven for thinking differently. The policy unequivocally states "No matter how much time you've spent here, whether or not you are an admin, or even whether or not you are logged in or banned, you are valuable. More importantly, you are not less valuable than any other user- not even admins...You are just as entitled to question, suggest, or change Smashwiki as any other user, whether it is your first day or your first anniversary. Likewise, you have the same responsibility to follow our editing policies as every other user. Finally, your mistakes will be forgiven- just as they would be for any other user." I don't care if people are treated differently; they shouldn't be, and SC's policy undeniably agrees with me. I doubt it has anything to do with editing disputes, seeing as the word "edit" does not even appear in the policy description. I would suggest you read your own policies before you defend or suggest them. And that you would suggest popularity contests as not being a problem for SmashWiki also demonstrates you incredible lack of knowledge and background on the subject. Many of our contributers were part of the 'Cult of Personality,' and it constituted most active members aside from the sysops and I. These people banded together in support of each other. If sysop nominations had not been closed for lack of need, current policy would dictate that they receive powers soley because practically all active members support each other in their quest for adminship, even if many of them hardly deserve it. You also show unfamiliarity of our current system by stating that nominations can be caused by popularity contest, because our system is a self-nomination only. Promotions, in fact, can be popularity contests, and ironically, the only thing that cannot be a popularity contest is the nomination itself. As far as your other suggested method of corruption, you once again show a lack of trust of our adminship. They can recognize an unfit candidate from a fit one. Contrary to your persistent negativity our sysops are not dumb. They can be effective judges of character. There are checks and balances here; if all a particular user has done is suck up to a single sysop and has not garnered the respect of the community the nomination will be shot down! Holy cow. It works! Imagine that. Cheerfully yours, Semicolon (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Provided that complete anonyminity is always available, the resultant behavior is unchanged." Well, now you're down to asserting things without evidence. If anonymity is total, you couldn't even hope to judge the character of the anonymous person - yet you assert that capable admins do that.

About users being treated equal: you reiterate what the policy states and keep on ignoring the reality. Of course that leads you into more fallacy. If you demand that all users be treated equally, how can you then rationalize not promoting all of them to admin positions?

You are telling me that there was (is?) a large group of users that did not have anyone to represent their views within the admin base. If you view the admin system as a system of government with the ideal of equality, this is inexcusable. If you view the admins as a team to keep the wiki working smoothly, this is ill-advised at best, because it is almost unavoidable that this creates unrest. You could have avoided promoting a CoP to admin position by listening to their issues with a friendly ear, or by promoting one of them and working with him and through him (or her). You didn't do that, you got unrest. I can't even begin to count how often this has repeated itself in history.

About recognizing unfit candidates: I won't argue that much more because you're down to assertions again. However, regarding promotions, it may perhaps be more important that the admins recognize people that can, with time, become very good admins. This is harder than to recognize misfits, and it is even harder when the area in which the admin is to excel is not one that you yourself are good at.

I urge you to rethink your position, I would hate for you to not abandon untenable arguments merely because you harbor a grudge. And I don't say this to patronize you, but because I like discussing with you. --◄mendel► (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm butting in on a critical point behind your (Shadowcrest's) argument that I think I have an issue with (you guys may feel free to continue around me. add a level 3 section header if you wish):

Valid point, but if you have a community-supported bureaucrat who you can trust to make the right decision (after all "if you can’t trust your sysops then you have a bigger problem then simply the nomination process" applies to bureaucrats too) then you can trust their judgment.

Unlike GuildWiki, the only bureaucrat that was instituted by any community input (whether SmashWiki or SsbWikia), from what I can see, was Kirby King. The only one I honestly trust is Kirby King. I've butted heads with Dtm one too many times for me to find trust in him — he argues about one thing one minute in once place and then 3 months later he says something different about arguing about that one thing, just for one example. The other bureaus aren't/were never active.
This is a problem for me. And that is, I think, another (unspoken) reason why the administrators made a decision to shut down RfA for a bit. It was something that wasn't really contributing positively to the community. We got one person out of 6 or 7 or however many.
Which brings to the front of my mind another issue I have with both of your ideas for a new RfA: RfAs shouldn't last forever. On a wiki this size (small), I don't think a week is an appropriate timescale either.
Will be back for more, after I've read through the proposals again. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted my reply to Semicolon above yours. --◄mendel► (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

header to separate sidebar convos

Then why do we even have a Poll Template? MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reread the first line of the quote. And then, I assume it was added when you merged to wikia, whether you wanted it or not. --Shadowcrest 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna make a debate here, so talk to Randall. I was asking him a question, he didn't answer it, so you talk to him. MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You gave me 18 minutes to respond, dude. :^) I don't live here. --RJM ^Talk 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Um not that I fully understand the current system (or the new one Semicolon is trying to put in for that matter) but why not make this like the presidential voting process? We treat the smashwiki community like the public vote and the sysops like the electoral college. Just a small and not very thought out suggestion.--Oxico (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested reading. Defiant Elements 05:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I was talking in a vague and kind of analogous (thank you spell check) way when referencing the electoral college. Could that work? If not, why not?--Oxico (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From someone who has studied political sciences, the electoral college system would not work in this environment. Not only is the system itself flawed, but we lack the infrastructure or appropriate divisions to hold a multi-district election. In our system, we are a single single-member district, i.e. we elect one person at a time and that person is chosen by consensus of the entire wiki. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

minimum number of votes

You have taken the trouble to write a legalistic procedure. I'm not sure that is smart, but we'll see. However, you missed to ensure that the vote ratio is based on a significant number of votes: a 1:0 tally would exceed 5:2, but I wouldn't promote anybody based on that. I'd go with a simple two-thirds majority (4:2) and a minimum of 6 votes. If a candidate doesn't get more than those, too many people don't know him or her for him/her to be a trusted admin. --◄mendel► (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A genuine concern, to be sure. In the case of too few votes and the sysop believes that the candidate is absolutely worthy of the position, there is a provision to extend the process. As far as the ratio of 2/3 goes, I was considering that, and that may well be the final ratio if the community at large believes that to be a more appropriate number, however, I though that 2/3 may be too many negatives, but that is merely my opinion. Should the consideration of this policy and its adoption be a significant issue, you and others are very welcome to advocate the ratio's amendment. Thanks for the input. Semicolon (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)