User:Mr. Anon/RFA voting guide

In two recent RFAs, I've noticed that some voters have been giving rather poor reasons for their votes. While there is no objective methods for evaluating the quality of a vote, and there are no policies prohibiting votes that do not have through reasons, keep in mind that SmashWiki's RFA system does not go by a clear vote count (though community opinions are a factor), and that the result of RFAs are decided by the quality of arguments of each side, by the Bureaucrats. Because of this, it's useful to contribute a fair deal to the discussion, in addition to your general opinion on the matter. As a result, I am writing a guide to users not experienced with this wiki's RFA process to give tips about how to best contribute the the discussion at hand. Other users are free to give ideas about what to add on the talk page of this subpage.

Who is "fit to be an admin"?
Before we get into how to make an informed vote, it is important to look at what admins are and the responsibility the powers demand. To do this, we must look at what powers an admin has and what it means to be able to use these powers wisely.

Blocking
Perhaps the most known power associated with adminship is the power to block, or ban, users. Blocking on wikis is commonly associated with vandalism or trolling, though there a number of reasons why a user may be blocked. One can look at this to get a rough idea of the various blocking reasons that have been used on this wiki and others.

The power of blocking requires a great deal of responsibility. An admin may use this power to settle disputes, but it must be done with good reason and should always be done to further the good of the wiki. A misplaced block has the potential to make a user leave the wiki, even after it has been undone. Administrators are expected to be able to have an understanding of the wiki's policies, and what constitutes as disruptive behavior. As a result, candidates should have a fair amount of experience in user disputes, and having a previous ban for being disruptive will reflect very poorly.

Protection
Admins are also frequently associated with protecting pages from editing. This restricts editing to a page to a specific set of users. There are two levels of protection, one that only prohibits IPs and new users from editing and another that restricts editing of a page entirely to admins. Protection mainly happens in the case of excessive vandalism or an edit war. An admin should have the judgement to decide when it is appropriate to protect a page from vandalism, as well as when an edit war has gotten out of hand. A candidate should therefore be able to display this knowledge in his or her edit history.

Deletion
When a page has been deemed by the community to be unnecessary, or when a vandal has created a page consisting of nothing of value, admins must use their deletion powers. In the former case, an admin must be able to evaluate the consensus of the community, and a candidate is best able to display this by having a history of participating in discussion concerning the deletion of a page. Many of the cases where the community has decided a page to be unnecessary is in the case of non-notable Smasher articles. Admins should be able to have a general idea of what constitutes as a notable smasher article and what does not. Candidates who have a fair knowledge of competitive smash can display their ability to decide this. In the case of vandalism pages, candidates should have a fair history of tagging articles for speedy deletion.

Rollback
One of the lesser known powers that comes with adminship is rollback, a quick way to revert vandalism. Rollback is an easily abused power, so it often helps to already have rollback powers before running for adminship.

How to vote
Users should try to back up their RFA votes with a reason. Saying "I just feel like this candidate is qualified" contributes nothing to the discussion, and others may perceive you as having poor judgement.

What are not good reasons
Because, as stated, it is difficult to objectively evaluate the quality of the votes, it is easier to begin by listing examples of votes that are not good, and are commonly given reasons.


 * "Candidate X is/isn't a good contributor" What defines a good contributor is very difficult, and stating that a candidate is or isn't one is vague. In addition, knowledge of smash, though helpful in deciding Smasher notability, is not a requirement for adminship. An example of an admin who is arguably not "a good contributor" is Emmett, long time bureaucrat who once even admitted "I know nothing about Smash". Emmett has consistently demonstrated his ability to use his tools wisely, and is seen by many users as a kind of "leader" for the community.


 * "Candidate X is really nice/mean to users" "Kindess" is equally vague as being a good contributor. While a candidate who frequently personally attacks other users is probably not suited for the role, display of coldness or warmness is not enough to warrant an oppose or a support. An example of an admin seen by some as "cold" is Clarinet Hawk, who has displayed good judgement and usage of powers despite.


 * "Candidate X is unlikely to abuse powers" While a propensity to abuse powers is certainly a reason for an opposing vote, a candidate must demonstrate why the wiki should have them as an admin in order to get a supporting vote.

"Per above" votes
Votes that only say "per above reasons" may or may not be useful to the discussion. If the "above reasons" are complete arguments, and you have little more to add, such a vote is perfectly fine and is helpful in deciding what the community consensus is. However, users should always try to find reasons to support their votes, and if the "above reasons" are generally pretty poor, a "per above" vote is not helpful.