Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Nikel23 |
imported>C.Syde65 No edit summary |
||
Line 17:
;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.
Line 33:
So, let's figure this out. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 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....
::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.
Line 39:
::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. {{LabSig}} 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 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".
Line 76:
:::::Should we go through the [[Special:BlockList|Block list]] and grant talk page access for users that have had them revoked? '''[[:User:K6ka|K6ka]]''' ([[:User talk:K6ka|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/K6ka|contribs]]) 02:15, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
::::::I would say yes, except in those cases where they had been extended talk page rights in the past but abused them (there are a few cases of this, they should appear in the block logs). Honestly, I don't think many users would exercise that second chance, but for the sake of fairness I think we should. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 04:14, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
┌─────────────────┘
Threadcromancy, but I'm just gonna be bold and change the block settings for the blocked users - once I can find time, that is. '''[[:User:K6ka|K6ka]]''' ([[:User talk:K6ka|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/K6ka|contribs]]) 11:58, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
==Handling RfA and RfB pages for users who apply/are nominated multiple times==
One of the results of the [[Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests|rights requests reform]] of last year was the implementation of holding discussions for individual user RfAs and RfBs on sub-pages of the main RfA and RfB page. So, for example, the discussion of promoting [[User:K6ka|K6ka]] to administrator took place on the "The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/K6ka" sub-page. This procedure works well if a promotion is successful.
However, it is likely inevitable that we will have a user whose first RfA or RfB ended without promotion later apply or be nominated again. If this happened, we would run into a problem, since the first (unsuccessful) would be named ''TSW:Requests for <adminship/bureaucratship>/<User name>'', meaning we would need to come up with a unique name to give to the second and subsequent requests. To head off this eventual problem, I've moved all the archived RfA and RfB pages, such that the name of the page now includes the month and year when the page was created. So, for example, K6Ka's successful RfA now is archived at [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/K6ka (January 2014)]]. When new RfA or RfB request pages are created, they should follow this same format as well. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 19:18, February 22, 2014 (UTC)
Line 96:
:::Ah, good 'ol adminbots. Should the images he uploaded go as well? If he comes back and wants them back, we could always restore them. '''[[:User:K6ka|K6ka]]''' ([[:User talk:K6ka|talk]] | [[:Special:Contributions/K6ka|contribs]]) 21:15, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
::::Thanks for taking care of them, Lab. The unused files would be piled up in [[Special:UnusedFiles]]. Eventually they might be deleted anyway, but I guess he could ask us to restore them. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 16:55, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
== Removing a comment from my fanon page ==
I accidentally logged out while posting a comment on my own [[Fanon:Jestyn Leishman|fanon page]]. If it's possible, could an administrator please remove the comment. I've re-posted it under my own userpage. I know it's nothing to be bugged about, but it would be nice to have this comment removed. [[User:C.Syde65|C.Syde65]] ([[User talk:C.Syde65|talk]]) 05:08, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
| |||