SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Archive

1

When?[edit]

So...when's the big day? Is there a time table? --Oxico (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not a set time for any of the RfA's here. It is entirely up to Clarinet Hawk as to when they will close and how they will close. --Shadowcrest 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor question[edit]

Just because I expect it will come up at some point, I think there should be some official statement of how long a user whose RfA failed has to wait before they are allowed to run again. I would think perhaps two months or something of that sort, or maybe saying that they can run again when they feel they've accopmlished enough more to make a difference. Miles (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Out of your reasons suggested, a specific time, like 2 months. Whether they've improved is highly opinionated, and will cause some arguments.Smoreking 2009 is coming! 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think having a set time is an issue. If the person fails once and puts him/herself back up too soon it will just fail again. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Waiting[edit]

Pikamander's has been up since November 5th, and Shadowcrest has been up since November 15th. I understand Clarinet Hawk has to make an important decision, but I think 2 months is enough. SZL.pngUP/T/O 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Miles (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I concur, except that it's only been 2 months. :P --Shadowcrest 03:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You didn't see anything...SZL.pngUP/T/O 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, been out of town. Decisions or exact reasons and parameters for continuation will be up within 24 hours. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Waiting period after being blocked[edit]

"If a user has been blocked for any reason (except an IP auto-block or a wrong button click), s/he must wait a period of at least four months from the expiry of his/her ban until s/he may even be considered for adminship. Even after this time period has passed, the user should be prepared to answer questions about his/her block."

In light of recent events, I think the policy should be altered to say that if the user is unblocked because a sysop decided that the block was unjustified, or if a user is blocked for an extremely short period of time as a joke, then that block shouldn't count against them in terms of eligibility for requesting adminship. That way, the letter of the policy more closely matches its intention, and if the situation were ever to arise again in the future, the policy would cover it. PenguinofDeath 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So we change the rules to accommodate for your specific situation?Smoreking(T) (c) 15:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just make sure that the sysop who made the block (Shadowcrest) is ok with it? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 15:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict
I quote: "if the situation were ever to arise again in the future, the policy would cover it". The purpose of the change would be to prevent the situation from causing problems in the future, not "to accommodate for [my] specific situation". The fact that you believe me to be so cynical as to do that offends me.
@Cheezperson: I asked Shadowcrest before submitting my RfA, and he said it would be fine. Miles also said that it didn't matter. PenguinofDeath 15:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As the letter of the policy goes now, an admin can block someone as a joke or by "accident" just to prevent them from having a successful RfA. That seems pretty unacceptable. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy cntrbs 16:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if the admin says that it was by accident, that's covered by "wrong button click". As the letter of the policy goes now, an admin could block someone supposedly as a joke just to prevent them from having a successful RfA, except that, as with all policies, a degree of common sense should be applied. As Miles said, the spirit of the policy is more important than the letter. PenguinofDeath 16:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tl;dr really, the point of the line is clear- Miles was right, follow the spirit not the letter, etc etc Shadowcrest 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Having an account[edit]

Shouldn't having an account be a criterion? Smiddle 君怒る? 15:07, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps, but there hasn't been any incidents of IPs requesting for Adminship, so such a rule is unnecessary. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't see how it's unnecessary just because it hasn't happened yet. Simply adding a note about that is hardly any work at all. Smiddle 君怒る? 15:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
It really isn't necessary, as it's impossible for an IP to be given adminship. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 15:34, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
Almost thought so. Smiddle 君怒る? 15:36, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Amendment proposal[edit]

"If a user has been blocked for any reason (except an IP auto-block or a wrong button click), s/he must wait a period of at least four months from the expiry of his/her ban until s/he may even be considered for adminship. Even after this time period has passed, the user should be prepared to answer questions about his/her block. "

While I can see the theory behind making a line like this, I feel that it is silly, arbitrary, and ought to be removed. Though I will admit it is unlikely, if (for example) a user were to be blocked for something and then grow from the block, I see no reason why they should not be promoted if the bureaucrats believe it would be in the best interest of the wiki. Limiting the most trusted/intelligent members of the community in such a way achieves nothing. – Emmett 16:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Support Per what Emmett said, plus the fact I see no practical purpose for it. Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 16:23, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Support BlindColours Boing.png 16:45, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Support If a user is blocked for something bad, and the block reflects poorly on the user, then this will be brought up in the RFA itself. However, we should not simply prevent a user from making an RFA because they were banned. For example, if I got a 1 hour ban for edit warring 3 months ago, and since then have greatly improved in my dispute handling skills, there's no reason why I should be prevented from requesting adminship. And then theres the whole thing of joke/unfair bans. Mr. AnonAnon.pngtalk 16:49, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Support Per Emmett and Mr. Anon. Unknown the Hedgehog 16:51, 22 January 2012 (EST)
Support Exactly what Anon said. Take this from a guy who's had to go through it (seriously). --RoyboyXRoyHeadSSBM.png Talk 16:53, 22 January 2012 (EST)

(edit conflict x4) Mostly support While I agree 4 months is rather strong at best, I feel that a block-related limit of some sort should still be in place. We don't want people coming off a block from a month ago, having not improved at all but not doing anything block-worthy, and starting an RfA. With a block-based rule, it could be closed by anyone as against the rules; without one, it would have to stick around a bit longer before it's decided it should be closed quickly. Toomai Glittershine ??? Da Bomb 16:56, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Maybe if RfAs were made frequently where having a rule to invalidate such RfAs would actually help the workload of bureaucrats, I could see such a rule being helpful. However, RfAs are so rare nowadays (after Anon's failed RfA in July 2010, it took over a year before another user, SmashPeter, attempted to make one, and there have been two RfAs total in the past year, by users who had no chance), such a rule doesn't have practical use.
Also, as done by the Wiki in the past, in the case of no chance users who have unanimous opposition, nonbureaucrats have been allowed to close them anyway (most recently with McAusten's RfA, which I myself closed). Omega Tyrant TyranitarMS.png 20:28, 22 January 2012 (EST)

I'll replace it with something like "You can try it, but you better be ready to get scrutinized". Toomai Glittershine ??? The Producer 12:56, 2 February 2012 (EST)