This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Stemming off Forum:Usage of COD:IAR, we need to refine and possibly re-establish the rules for COD:VOTE. It has been brought up by some other users (and I agree) that the problem is in the voting policy, not IAR.

We need to do three things here:

1. Define an acceptable vote
2. Explain who can vote and when
3. Possibly reconsider the mainspace requirement

Please take time to think of possible solutions to this. Shotrocket6 10:44, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Please put discussion relevant to each bulletpoint in the appropriate subsection.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Contents 1 Discussion 1.1 Acceptable vote? 1.2 Who can vote and when? 1.3 Edit requirement? 1.3.1 Vote 2 Editcount requirement vote 2.1 Support 2.2 Oppose 2.3 Comments 3 Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's?

DiscussionEdit

Well, by AEAE any reason should be allowed to be put forward for a consensus. It's partly similar to the CDWC debate in which MS =/= community, for example is TWTIA's recent vote, he had made himself known in the community, and his vote was writen to a degree it was helpful, as oppsed to just a "per nom" or some such. 10:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

No... I vehemently disagree, Sam. We need to have a system to limit voters... Kinda like how in every country there is a voting age. Through getting MS editing, it proves they will know what they are doing. Also, it makes the possibility of making a shit load of sock puppets to turn the tide in a vote much more difficult. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Mainspace edits don't really make the user aware of how the community works. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 11:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, ya don't say... The MS edit requirement is not for making the user aware of how the community works. It is primarily for a need for a user to "prove them self" (if you will) to the wiki. After proving oneself they receive the privilege to vote. That is the way I see it at least. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

At least you should be able to prove yourself other ways, like TWTIA. That includes editing in other namespaces or being an active member in Chat or IRC. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 11:30, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I have been here for over a year and have over 500 MS. I am in chat almost every day. Maybe this will ring a bell. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:35, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

He wasn't refering to you in particular, he meant "you" in terms of all editors. Also, I fail to see how editing 50 pages proves a user knows how to put forward opinion on a community consensus. On the day I turned 18 the planets did not align giving me insight on how politics work, it's the same for MS edits.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the voting age is because our government reasonably believes that there is a certain age at which we become more informed and are mature enough to start making big decisions on our own. They believe that 18, the age of adulthood, fits the maturity level well enough. Currently, (minus the current controversy in this forum) we believe that 50 MS is the "age" at which we become more informed and are mature enough to start making big decisions on our own --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

But do we need to roll the same way as different governments? We're a wiki, not a country. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 11:55, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

(recent indent) As I've referenced before, TWTIA did a very well formulated answer despite his lack of MS edits, and N7 often just puts "per all". The amount of MS edits are in no way a valid way of showing maturaty and understanding in voting.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Look, like I've referenced before, keep the 50 MS edits but if an admin feels it is necessary, they can allow the user to vote. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:59, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Also, MLG, do we need to roll the same way as a government? No. However, because of the fact that their system of having a requirement to vote is so effective, we decided to make a system of our own for our needs on this wiki. It wasn't copyrighted or anything after all... --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 12:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, an acceptable vote would be one that gives good reasoning. Something like, "I don't like X," or "X did this," and X did not do that, are bad votes and should not be allowed.

People with 50 MS should be the ones that can vote whenever they wish. However, should it become necessary, an admin should be able to allow a user to vote regardless of MS count. We can assume that an admin would only use this power only if necessary based on the fact that our admins are the most trusted users on this wiki. If they cannot be trusted with this power, no one can and we should forget it all together (50 MS or NO VOTE). A circumstance that an admin might wish to use this power is if the user clearly knows what he/she is talking about. Now, obviously this will be subject to the admin's opinion and bias can happen. I see it as a separation of power between admins. If an admin overuses this power however, their right to perform the action to override COD:VOTE may be brought into question in a war room forum.

I am quite satisfied with the MS requirement. I think it may be in a good interest to increase it to 100 MS, but that's just me. More MS = more experience.--Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I could easily get 100+ MS edits on my first day on a wiki just by going to articles and fixing small grammar/spelling/formatting issues. The fact that it is MS edits doesn't make them more weighted than any other edits.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:05, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't MS requirement to prove that the account is not just a sock? - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 11:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Not primarily... It is primarily for a need for a user to "prove them self" (if you will) to the wiki. After proving oneself they receive the privilege to vote. That is the way I see it at least. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes it was and still is used primarily for that purpose. Maybe less sonow but still a primary use for the rule. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 11:56, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Clearly sockpuppets votes would not be considered. Also Age=/=MS edits for voting. I'm 18, I can legally vote, yet all I've done is live long enough, whereas MS edits must be earned by a user. TWTIA is a good example of this, he put forward a good vote, and we're discarding it purely because he hasn't edited 50 pages, yet N7 has done over 50 MS edits, and all he ever does is "Per all" so clearly the amount of MS edits have no effect on whether the user knows what they're doing on a vote. And I feel increasing the MS for votes is unfair as I don't believe a user needs to have all that many edits just to get a point in, as I said, it's similar to the CDWC community debate, forums are for a community consensus, not for all the users who have reached a requirement to chose changes to the wiki for the rest of the community.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:15, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you are going with this. However, because we cannot use age for a requirement online, we have the next best thing. MS editing.

Also, if we repeal the MS requirement, we will have TONS of votes going in. While that may be a good thing, in the long run, too many chefs spoil the broth. I understand how you said TWITA had a good point. He could have just put in his input without voting. (Which is essentially what happened when his vote was struck). After all, ANYONE can put input and state their point. They just may not use their point to vote. However, other people (if you think about it) could use their reasoning and vote on it provided they have 50 MS.--Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:27, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

On an RfA that's not really applicable, he wanted to add to the consensus by supporting, anything in the comments is never used in the consensus so his points would have not been used. In addition I doubt we're going to be having every user flood the War Room, only really the users who have an understanding of the forums will start voting, even now we have voting regulars and there are quite a few users with 50MS edits.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:34, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, things in comments are rarely used in RfAs. However, there is nothing preventing them from being used. Why users don't use them is quite a strange thing indeed.... --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between mainspace edits and knowing how the community works. Why don't we implement a system like we did for CDWC and split the requirement among all filespaces? We could increase the requirement to 75 or 100 since there would be more opportunities to edit, but as it stands, mainspace contributions only educate the user when it comes to votes relating solely to mainspace. If we want voting users to be most knowledgeable without introducing some ridiculous ruleset, we need to provide more ways for the users to earn this experience we're referring to. Shotrocket6 14:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

As long as a user puts forth a valuable/sensible argument or input, I think the vote should stand. Just as age does not define maturity, MS edits really don't show experience at all. Lyra_(SPNKR)^{is the bo$$} 04:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable vote?Edit

I think that votes with an explanation should be counted as an acceptable vote. Votes which are left unqualified (i.e. they have no explanation), votes which bear no relevance to the subject of the vote, and votes which are personal attacks shall not be considered acceptable.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

We already concluded this in Forum:Refining consensus. What I meant when I said "an acceptable vote" was what distinguishes a knowledgeable vote from a <50 MS edit user from a bad vote from a <50 MS user. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever seemed to answer the question of whether or not the RfA that prompted this whole discussion should've passed. In the forum we concluded "per x" votes count as reasonable votes, yet they were not counted as such when the time came to tally the final count. Poketape ^Talk 23:40, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think all votes should be acceptable, as long as a person has an active account. In real elections, they took away voting discrimination based on education, such as literacy tests (in this case, edit count). As far as I see, there's no need to provide an explanation of why you voted for whatever you voted for. Bioniclepluslotr 13:08, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that, however, is that people can misinterpret what they're voting for and nobody would know. Poketape ^Talk 00:19, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Who can vote and when?Edit

I feel as long as they meet the "what makes a good vote" criteria any user can vote if they have the presence, so either an edit requirment (if one is implemented), or, like TWTIA, if they are well enough known for a good length of time than exceptons can be made. 15:10, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't see the point in an edit requirement. All an editcount does is show how many times you've clicked "Save page", regardless of whether that was fixing a spelling error or completely rewriting a page.
My opinion? If a user obviously knows what they're talking about in a vote, then that vote should be counted, regardless of said user's editcount. Sgt. S.S. 19:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

If the user in question is not very active int he community, they should have to pass the edit count. If said user is active in the community, and considered "trusted" it should not be mandatory. The problem however, is what defines trusted. 19:31, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

^That. Conqueror of all Zombies 21:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

This kind of stems off of the edit requirement; however, I do think we might be able to use a system in which admins may decide if a user without the required editcount is able to vote. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Why should just the admins get to choose it? (blah AEAE blah blah) Either you have some set requirement (like an editcount) or then you let everyone whose vote is valid vote. (per sam above) 1358 ^(Talk) 20:29, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll have to agree with that. Shotrocket6 21:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to be particularly clear, the original reasoning behind having an editcount requirement to vote (unless I'm remembering incorrectly, as it is going on three years ago) came from the intent of eliminating the possibility of sockpuppetry and preventing random users—both new in general and established members of other wikis—from coming in and voting suddenly. Now, as for the practice of allowing some users to bypass the edit requirement, typically that was done with users who already participated heavily in community affairs but somehow didn't have fifty mainspace edits. I want to say Scottie theNerd was someone who this applied to—correct me if I'm wrong about that—but the scenario would be one where it was obvious to all parties that the user in question most definitely knew what they were talking about. Personally, if it's not obvious enough to everyone that someone knows what they're talking about when they decide to raise points in a vote or discussion that an admin has to approve of their vote they shouldn't be going around the edit requirement as it currently stands. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 02:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the edit requirement was originally intended to deter users from participating in community decision making without having sufficient knowledge of how the wiki operated. However, over time, it's clear that the policing of the requirement has often been unjustified and unexplained, and I'd go as far as to argue that it is largely unnecessary and frivolous.

Think about the message it sends to new users: "Thanks for your input, but we can't consider it. Go and find 50 things to edit and come back". That's the wrong attitude to have when it comes to letting the wiki grow -- and it's not exactly easy to simply "get 50 mainspace edits". A mainspace edit can be anything from correcting (or making) a typo to writing an entire article. It's the equivalent of telling someone to "go and do something useful in the world" before they can vote in real life. The requirement doesn't match the process.

While the actual edit requirement never affected me (I've always had more than 50 mainspace edits), the issue was brought up frequently when addressing the value of mainspace edit requirements in regards to RfA, in which I argued that having such a requirement disqualified users who spent more time working on the back-end of the wiki (Forum, Talk, and other Wiki-related namespaces). Not every user has the knowledge or know-how to work with articles (i.e. mainspace) but spend a lot of time in the community, and stamping an arbitrary number of edits on a particular namespace, to me, doesn't reflect much in terms of what we actually expected of community participants. --Scottie theNerd 06:52, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Edit requirement?Edit

I'm all for a 100 flat edit requirement to vote, without bias towards a certain namespace.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Whilst not greatly keen on an edit requirment, I do agree that the edits should not be confined to MS should one be put in place, after all, many with not enough edits could gain these by commenting on WR topics before the vote begins.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

15:07, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for making it similar to the CDWC requirment, where in all edits count. 100 also sounds like a fine number. 18:57, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

100 in all namespaces. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 19:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; I would much rather implement a 100 any-space system than keep the one we have now. Shotrocket6 19:36, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

So if I have 100 blog comments, with many of them completely nonsense, I can vote? Seems legit. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 21:15, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well right now you can improve the grammar of 50 pages and vote.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

21:46, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

At least you show dedication. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 21:54, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I do think that 50 grammar/spelling fixes are more worth than 100 random blog comments. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:26, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the extremes. Someone who only cares about blogs is highly unlikely to even know about community discussions going on anyway.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  13:30, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should count userspace edits. Mainspace, project namespace, filespace and even blog edits show that, if not assisting the project, you're at least participating in the community if nothing else, but edits to your userpage do neither of those things. All other namespaces show at least one of those things to some extent. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 02:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. 1358 ^(Talk) 08:26, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

This seems fair, I prefer it being similar to CDWC requirements as voting is community based rather than MS alone.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

10:31, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with chia. Including blog comments seems like a risk though. 10:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like the CDWC entry requirements, because allowing blog edits leaves this open to abuse and are mostly unimportant. Poketape ^Talk 23:31, March 28, 2012 (UTC) Didn't know the CDWC requirements were any and all edits. Poketape ^Talk 22:02, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

If we included blog comments for the CDWC, then we should probably do the same for this. Shotrocket6 19:42, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why we need an edit count. Decisions through voting can also affect non-editing members. Some users may come here just for info, and not make edits. Remember, this wiki is for everyone, not just editing people. Bioniclepluslotr 13:13, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

I believe the rule was originally instituted to prevent (or at least hamper) the use of meat and sock puppets. -- Sactage ^(talk) 14:33, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

What about at least 100 edits in at least 2/3 mainspaces, with a possible requirement to have at least one forum edit and one mainspace edit. That could work considering one can check where the user has posted with a few quick clicks but the only downside is the sheer complications that would arise as a result. Just a thought. LellowYucario ^Hi!  17:09, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Much too complex when compared to other more simple and equally effective requirements. 21:28, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think blog edits/comments and user page edits should be included. Blogs can be made about almost anything and most aren't of any real value to the wiki. Somebody fiddling around with their user page isn't contributing to the wiki, so why should their user page edits be counted? Poketape ^Talk 00:22, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the status of user namespace and blogs. They're not a direct contribution to the wiki or its workings. All other spaces, however, should be considered fair game (and this should apply to other processes, such as RfA). An active user doesn't necessarily have to be prolific in editing only articles, and our wiki's requirements should reflect that capacity to be involved. --Scottie theNerd 06:55, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

VoteEdit

I believe it may be time to establish a vote for the 100 any-space edit requirement. If anyone has any other points, speak now. Shotrocket6 00:13, April 5, 2012 (UTC) Also: I do propose that when we vote, we will not include blog comments or userpage edits. Shotrocket6 14:40, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

As long as blog comments and user page edits are excluded I'll have no problem with this. 14:50, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Editcount requirement voteEdit

Should you choose to support this vote, you will be supporting a 100 edit total prerequisite for voting, excluding userpage and blog comment edits. Shotrocket6 16:42, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

SupportEdit

1. We should definitely keep it similar to what we have done in the past, but we need a more broad spectrum to define what "community involvement" really is. Shotrocket6 16:42, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm all for it if we exclude blog and userpage edits. 16:43, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
3. I was thinking 100 overall before I saw that what we were voting on. Phillycj 16:50, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm still in favor for at least 2 namespaces to have been edited in, but this is better than how we are at the moment. LellowYucario ^Hi!  17:19, April 7, 2012 (UTC) I've changed my mind. LellowYucario ^Hi!  15:04, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm all for a more broad spectrum for voring, per Shot.

   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   

   22:14, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

4. This is much better, because it encourages votes to other important spaces, like templates and discussions. Poketape ^Talk 01:13, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes, I think that someone should get to know the wiki before they vote on anything affecting it. Rampantlion513Wanna Talk? 02:52, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
6. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 10:58, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
7. Sounds good to AJ --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 11:08, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
8. Seems fine, although COD:IAR should be applicable if the user knows what they are doing. Lyra_(SPNKR)^{is the bo$$} 10:04, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
9. Even if "they know what they're doing," I want to see them involved in the community. That's the most important thing. DarkMetroid567^okay 16:08, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

1. And we need a requirement because? -- azuris_ 03:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
2. If the person can prove they know what they're doing, there should be no edit requirement. Metl^Talk 03:04, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
3. 100 edits is a bit much, I also agree with Metlman  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:09, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
4. I also beleive a users right to vote should be judged on their ability to write the vote, as opposed to edits on wiki.
   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   
   16:55, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
5. Everyone here has provided the better reasoning and argument. Users should prove themselves with expertise, not with edits. LellowYucario ^Hi!  15:05, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
6. Edits are qualitative as well as quantitative. While I'm all for expanding beyond mainspace edits for the requirement, increasing the number of edits to 100 makes no sense. Remember, the requirement was there to deter sockpuppetry, not to encourage users to edit. There is a point where demanding more edits is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to community processes. 100 edits can take a while for some users and it's not just a matter of finding 100 things to do before one is entitled to something they should be allowed to contribute to anyway. Bumping up edit requirements goes against COD:AEAE. Scottie theNerd 06:29, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

   If bumping up the edit requirements go against COD:AEAE, don't edit requirements themselves go against it as well? DarkMetroid567^okay 04:45, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

   In short: yes --Scottie theNerd 08:43, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

7. per all the above voters. Talk 06:44, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Comment — I think we need to suspend this vote until we can reach a comprimise. Neither side is going to win with this distribution of votes. We need to come up with a good way to make sure people are voting correctly (or a system that makes users eligible to vote) or we can't do anything. Joe Copp 21:22, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that my reasoning for why the requirement would increase is because more spaces would be added to the editcount used to determine whether or not a user can vote. Poketape ^Talk 06:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's?Edit

Transcluded discussion

In a Previous Forum on this subject, which was brought up about 4 months ago, I discussed disallowing oppose votes with the reasoning "Too many admins" on rfa's. The idea behind it was that "Too many admins" didn't actually speak of the qualities of the user in question. I had the forum closed when I found out that rfa's are based on consensus, not specifically the number of votes. To sum up how the forum went, there is this quote from User:Shotrocket6:"You can't outlaw an opinion."Recently however, I've seen this issue discussed at least three times. Twice on IRC, and most recently on User:Crazy sam10's rfa. I think it may be time to re-evaluate this little discrepency. 22:20, March 26, 2012 (UTC)===Discussion===I'm rather split on this. While it can be a valid reason if we have enough active admins and there is no needed gap to fill, it doesn't take into account the merit of the nominated user at all. Lyra(SPNKR)is the bo$$ 22:36, March 26, 2012 (UTC) To be honest, it's a legitimate reason. We can't have an overflow of admins, unless someone proves me wrong. DarkMetroid567okay 22:38, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Hasn't this come up before? Either way, I support the use of the "too many admins" argument. If it couldn't be used then every good user would be able to become an admin. Poketape Talk 23:40, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Please enlighten me what'd be wrong with that. - MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 07:01, March 27, 2012 (UTC) A lot of admins would be a bad idea. We don't need a load of them, just a manageable set of them. -- mr_expert talk 07:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC) I'm asking why it's a bad thing that a good user could become an admin if there wasn't a huge need for them. - MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 07:06, March 27, 2012 (UTC) A good user, yes, can become an admin. It's just that we have a big enough set as there is, and they seem to be able to manage the wiki fine. -- mr_expert talk 07:08, March 27, 2012 (UTC) I had a random thought, where RfAs aren't always open. I know it's probably a bad idea, but I thought I'd put it here anyways... Rosechu Shiny Pichu  23:43, March 26, 2012 (UTC) I think I'll stick to my guns on this one, but that's subject to change if somebody presents a compelling argument. Shotrocket6 23:53, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Well, there was a reason this was shot down before, but my opinion in this is that it should be used validly, not just as an excuse to oppose. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 23:56, March 26, 2012 (UTC) But how do we know if it is just an excuse to oppose? Shotrocket6 00:16, March 27, 2012 (UTC) When it is constantly used as the reason to oppose it, and by using our judgement. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 00:30, March 27, 2012 (UTC) "When it is constantly used as the reason to oppose it" So multiple people using the argument makes it invalid? DarkMetroid567okay 00:33, March 27, 2012 (UTC) No, when used by the same person over and over in every RfA. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 00:39, March 27, 2012 (UTC) W/e, the reason is still legitimate. There may be too many too many administrators in a time period, and there is sometimes a large amount of RfAs in that time period. DarkMetroid567okay 00:41, March 27, 2012 (UTC) I truly do think the reasoning behind RfAs is being twisted. We're being too generous - we're handing out admin tools to users who deserve admin tools (in which there's nothing wrong with that) rather than handing out admin tools who deserve admin tools solely because there is a need for an administrator. Yes, the user is being rejected admin tools just because there is a substantial amount of other administrators on the field, and that is rather unfair, but it's not a gift we're handing out - it's a responsibility. And I really don't know if there's any role of irony in me (a rather inexperienced user) saying this, but I do recall a petition somewhere (somewhere, I have no evidence of it anywhere) to close/lockdown the RfAs when there is a consensus that there isn't a need for one, and to re-open them when our admins all are inactive or aren't doing the job right. And frankly speaking, I feel this is the only choice we have - 'course, that's just a tad too cynical for a Wiki such as ours. Thundervolt 11:11, March 27, 2012 (UTC) If you look carefully you'll notice this argument only really gets used in noticeable volumes on an undesirable RfA; candidates who would indeed make a good admin will often get supports from people who would have used this argument on a previous RfA made not so long ago. While I want to beat people who type "Too many admins" since I think it's a lazy way to oppose without actually having to give a valid reason for opposing, the problem almost rectifies itself automatically. Smuffin[citation provided] 15:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Following off from Forum:Disallowing "To Many Admins" as an oppose reason in RfA's

I still rather think we shouldn't even be considering disallowing a reasoning. We use consensus; there's no way saying "we have too many" is going to change the outcome of an RfA. Shotrocket6 19:42, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I beleive that a user should gain rights if they have the ability to do so, as it stands I often beleive it may just be used as a scape goat to oppose without saying why. If a user has shown the ability to use the tools why should the number of admins effect that users ability? In the end an RfA is about judging the users ability, not for having a set amount of admins at any one time. 21:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Same as Sam. The number of admins does not determine the potential admin's worth. Even if we have a good set of admins, how is one more necessarily a bad thing? If a user can use the tools well, then there should be no problem with them using the tools. Lyra_(SPNKR)^{is the bo$$} 04:46, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

As with Sam, a number of people with said powers can't inhibit the RfA nominee in question as an admin. They will still use the tools the same way as if they were admin #3 or admin #13. I would also like to throw in that the time space between which two users are made admins should not matter either, as that also in no way affects their abilities to use the tools. ^Smilular Talk 18:46, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

One point I want to raise, would eliminating "Too many Admins" also eliminate "Too many Crats" on an RfB. I bring this up, because based on the job of a crat (which is more or less centred around user rights and community leadership), we really need no more than one. However, 3 or 4 would be ideal for a wiki this size. And we have Callofduty4, Azuris, Sactage, WHISKEY35 and Chiafriend12. And I am aware that not all the crats are very active, but for a crat, it's not as much centered around activity as much as how well they can manage their job. ^Smilular Talk 21:21, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

And Bovsies. -- Sactage ^(talk) 21:33, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

The user rights ability of bureaucrats makes concern over number of blue names a little more valid, but still remember that RfAs are individual requests for adminship. Users who show interest, commitment, and dedication toward doing the dirty work of wiki-editing, and other applicable criteria for adminship, are those that will receive it. Denying the request in full because some number of admins would be exceeded is not taking into account the individual characteristics of the user, and suddenly we're entering the same territory that the editcountitis of two years ago could be found. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:24, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Edititis* 03:18, March 29, 2012 (UTC) Don't mind me.. kat

My concern is exactly what the reason illustrates: there will be too many admins. There's not really anything on the wiki that requires an admin that needs doing. If there were, then the admin requests page would be filled. Poketape ^Talk 23:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

By right there's nothing stopping the RfAs being flooded right now, so I don't see how disallowing this reasoning now will have any kind of knock-on effect.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

00:13, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

And would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to what the "right" number of admins is? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 02:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

42. 1358 ^(Talk) 15:27, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

If there seems to be a need for more admins, then there should be more admins. Unless every other admin is getting an unmanageable number of user requests, there's some big vandalism problem, or some other thing I can't think of, then there's no need for another admin. I'd like for people to state why we need another admin. Poketape ^Talk 03:08, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

You all are missing the point of this section of the forum. This section is to decide whether we should disallow the reasoning, not whether the reasoning is good. Shotrocket6 00:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't making that decision, of whether or not it should be allowed, branch off of whether it is sound reasoning or not? 00:04, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we want to hear some voice on the topic and not jump right into the vote blind. ^Smilular Talk 00:45, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

We're not even voting, and we have discussed it in the previous forum. Shotrocket6 09:20, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Is a forum that lasted for a day really going to help us make a decision? ^Smilular Talk 16:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that this isn't a good reason to oppose an RfA. I've seen a person get chewed out for using this reason, if we were to outlaw this i doubt much will change. 03:22, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I feel at the end of the day it all comes down to the nomination itself. If the nomination gives no reason as to why they should receive admin at that time than it can be said that they have not got any reason to be admin at that time, as opposed to claiming to have too many admins. Per an example on both mine and Redskins RfAs, both stated the need for the admin and gave reasons why, if both of these can be included in the nomination, and the user does meet qualifications than it should be as easy as that. In contrast an RfB such as Smuffs (written by YellowRiolu) did not meet these requirements and as such this was picked up on by the opposes. 19:55, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

So this is essentially covering both RfAs and RfBs? I agree with that. ^Smilular Talk 22:34, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

So we have clearly established that it would be illogical to vote with this reasoning, but few have addressed in this forum whether they would support outlawing it. I personally do not. Shotrocket6 21:48, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

If I was asked to close an RfA, I would not consider this point ("too many admins," "we don't need another admin") in the consensus. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:54, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. The title of the forum was asking whether we should disallow this reasoning, and now that we have deemed it to be irrational, we need to decide if we are to actually disallow it. Shotrocket6 20:00, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

What about too many new admins? Conqueror of all Zombies 23:57, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Basically the same thing as to many admins. 07:55, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

If they meet the nomination criteria and the community does not find anything regarding their character, behavior, or edit history that might affect how they handle administrative tools (this means careful scrutinizing of the individual), then I do not foresee a problem. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:49, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Per Bovell. Like i said before, not much would change considering most of the time people get chewed out in RfA's for using "To many admins". 08:47, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

If the oppose reason "Too many admins" becomes unusable then in theory every good editor could become an admin. We wouldn't need that many admins and if anyone could become an admin then it would eventually just be seen as an award. While there isn't such a thing as too many admins, there is such a thing as unnecessary admins. When someone uses this as a vote they should justify it by saying something like " Oppose — I feel that all timezones are properly covered and the current admin team is doing good as it stands and there isn't a need for another admin." The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:26, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Slippery slope argument. If the community properly evaluates candidates based on individual traits, there should not be an issue. That means not treating adminship like a destined promotion after x number of edits or days. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:22, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

I dislike seeing people use this as a reason to oppose, especially if it is there only reason to oppose. I better reason would be that there is no solid reason to make a new administrator, instead of saying there are just too many active. I hope that makes sense to you all. Redskin-26 21:38, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't be disallowing certain arguments. If they're stupid, they won't be considered when consensus is being determined. That's part of why consensus is a good system.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  01:28, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There is not even a need to disallow a certain argument when it would not even be considered in the consensus. Shotrocket6 01:35, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Per Shot and Callofduty4. You can't simply outlaw an argument if it's stupid. Just strike it out, if someone uses it in a fair way, make it count. DarkMetroid567^okay 02:45, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

But isn't allowing arguments and then not counting them in consensus the same thing as not allowing them at all? Poketape ^Talk 21:58, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's how the argument is used, my RfA per example the reasoning was very poor (hence this forum). However if the reason is utilised correctly, like TWCs example, than the reason has more standing. I feel that the reason it has come to this is that the reason has been used too commonly without the proper utilisation.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

22:16, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Poketape here, what's the point of "allowing" an argument if you aren't even going to count it? 16:39, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - In conclusion, those that explain their votes when voting and meet the set requirements may vote. Such requirements are to be further discussed in Forum:New voting requirements. The reason of "too many admins" will not be outlawed, but will still not be an acceptable reason to oppose. Joe Copp 09:16, April 19, 2012 (UTC)