The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal

Community

Community Portal (talk) · Community Discussions forum
Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk) · Custom Content Portal (talk) · Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk

User:ILoveSims5

ILoveSims5 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) has no history of constructive edits outside of her own userspace, and has a history of repeatedly vandalizing infobox templates after being warned and blocked for that. Given that, I propose that we go straight to a permanent block the next time she vandalizes. Dharden (talk) 04:18, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that her edits have been in the area of templates, we may temporarily lock the page (not the best practice IMO), extend her ban length, or give her an editing restriction in template namespace. It might need to take a little while until she could get a permanent ban. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:53, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be more in favor of giving her blocks of increasing length. She's already had a 1-day block, so the next logical step would be a 3-day block. That's what I'd personally do, but I wouldn't oppose an indefinite block either. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 06:03, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Normally I'd put my faith into believing that there is some hope and that this user would change their approach to editing the wiki. This isn't one of those situations. The lack of any constructive contributions and persistence to vandalise despite being warned several times speaks for itself and I for one wouldn't mind a permanent block here. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 14:16, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much the reasoning I was using. I'd support escalating blocks or a restriction on editing templates if this user had made some good-faith edits or had shown some sign of being reachable, but she hasn't. Dharden (talk) 04:06, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of RfA rules in relation to a current request

I have specifically asked for input from TSW's currently-active bureaucrats (other users are welcome to input as well) regarding an issue with the current RfA nomination. We're coming to the end of the initial five day discussion period and, while it's clear based on the input there that a consensus is not present to support promotion, I'm not sure whether the RfA should be dismissed or whether discussion should continue (with the possibility that it may eventually move to a vote).

My indecisiveness comes from the wording and meaning of the RfA nomination rules, the relevant bits of which I will paste here, with important points bolded:

Stage 2 - Discussion

• After the five day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus has been reached. Consensus can only be reached in favor of a nominee, not in opposition to them. If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion clearly shows a lack of consensus, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted.
• In cases where a consensus is not clear after the initial discussion period, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.
  • If this occurs and a clear consensus exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
  • If this occurs and a consensus in support is not clear, the nomination will proceed to Stage 3.

The issue here is in the definition of 'consensus'. TSW doesn't have a formal definition set up for this term, as far as I'm aware, but a quick web search of the term gives a dictionary definition of "general agreement."

So, to rephrase the rules into simpler terms, if a nomination shows a general agreement for promotion, promotion takes place. If a nomination shows a lack of general agreement about promotion, it fails. If it's not clear whether or not there is general agreement, discussion continues and may result in a vote.

Based on the current status of Joey.eyeball's RfA, a general agreement about promotion clearly does not exist. So, by the meaning of these words and the interpretation of the rules as written, this RfA should be closed down due to lack of consensus. However, I am curious as to whether it was truly our (as the community's) intent to set it up this way. The reason I'm curious is because of the next point - "In cases where a consensus is not clear." If going by the straightforward definition of consensus, I can see very very few circumstances where a consensus wouldn't be clear in one direction or the other. In reality, you either have a general agreement about something or you don't, but very rarely would you be in a position where you don't know just by looking at it whether or not you have that general agreement.

I believe that up to now we have assumed a different meaning for these terms. I think that we have generally worked under the idea that, unless consensus was clearly against a nomination, we would at least allow it to proceed to a vote, then use the strict rules under Stage 3 to determine the outcome. If that's the case, then in the near future we should seek to clean up the language to state as such. But, that still leaves the matter of the current RfA.

At the present time, and if acting in-line with the rules as written, I would close down Joey's RfA without proceeding to a vote. However, I am not comfortable with taking this action given what I see as a discontinuity between the rules as written and what I perceive to be the intent of the rule as it was originally written. I can't even say for sure whether I would support making the rule mean what I believe it does, but that's a discussion for the community and not really the present matter of concern.

So, let's figure this out. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 02:50, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Gnarr.... On one hand, it explicitly says that consensus cannot be reached against a nominee. On the other, there seems to be an implicit assumption that it can be. Gnarr.... As for the current RfA, the difference seems to be not on whether to support a promotion, but whether it should be done now or later. Dharden (talk) 03:15, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

RfAs need two-thirds support to pass and we have roughly the opposite of this here, so I'd just close it as unsuccessful and forgo the vote, though it does seem to be a close call here if we take into account that the nomination clearly supports the nominee. This isn't usually an issue for self-nominations but here the circumstances are rather different.

The issue at hand seems to be that how the nominations rules are written can be confusing. The way I see it is that if the discussion is favourable towards the promotion then the user is promoted while if it's unfavourable then they aren't while we move to a vote if the outcome is undecidedly split to the point where it would be impossible to determine consensus.

Confusing choice of words or a fatal flaw with the RfA system? I don't know. Maybe this is worth a more in-depth discussion but this is just my two pence on the matter. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:10, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here may be a discrepancy between what the rule says and what we its meaning to be. Take, for instance, the points Lab has just raised - in a vote, it takes 2/3rds support to pass, but he also says that it passes if discussions is favorable towards promotion - which could in theory happen even if the nominee would otherwise receive only a majority support (>50% but <66.7%) but not meet the vote threshold we've established. So perhaps the stricter wording in the interpretation I've laid out above is better? Perhaps if we had wanted the nominee to receive only a majority support, we would have stated so in the discussion rules? Perhaps the consensus rule isn't incorrect after all, but our prior interpretation of it was?

As Lab has said already, this is probably a topic for the greater community to chew over, so I'll be starting a thread in Community Discussions soon. In the meantime, I am suggesting that we close down the request. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 15:20, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Now that the discussion is brought up, it does appear that the term "consensus" has a confusing meaning. Even more confusing is what the term "lack of consensus" means. In the discussion, we state our reasoning whether we support a nominee to be an admin or not. Although in a discussion it says that our statement is what really matters in making a conclusion, it's only like "agree / disagree" or "yes / no" as we simplify it in voting. In that way, the possible outcome would be either support or opposition, and there doesn't seem to be a way that makes it "unclear".

In Mate's RfA, the discussion tends to not support (not now, weak support, not ready) instead straight oppose. Is this what it means by "unclear"? It doesn't shut the possibility that some random user nominates oneself, and I could see that the general input would be straight oppose. Is it what it means by "clear"?

So what does "lack of consensus" mean? Does it mean lack of support, or lack of community input? In Mate's RfA where voting is implemented, it seems to be both. But I feel like the voting is implemented because the community input is inclined to be lacking, and that's when the term "unclear" would make sense too. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:14, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Nikel, that's really the heart of what we're talking about... when we say something 'lacks consensus', do we mean that it is being opposed, or do we mean that it simply doesn't have resounding support? If going by dictionary definition, then something which has 50% of people agreeing and 50% disagreeing lacks consensus, even though half of them are in support. If going by what seems to be past precedent, in a 50/50 scenario we'd probably resort to a vote, despite the fact that this scenario clearly represents a "lack of consensus," since consensus means general agreement and a 50/50 split hardly represents agreement about anything. So the question here is whether we want to go by what is written, or whether we should re-write the rule to allow votes in close discussions instead of simply "unclear" ones. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 05:23, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I've made a thread that stems off of this discussion in a way of tackling this issue. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:40, February 5, 2014 (UTC)