AVID:Requests for Comment/Various changes to AVID:RFA

I'd like to propose several changes to AVID:RFA. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 20:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Requirements

1. The requester should not currently be disruptive to the wiki, intentionally or not.
2. The user must have registered their account 1 year ago on avid.miraheze.org (we'll check on Special:CentralAuth to make sure). In addition, you must have at least 1000 or more edits (Note: This does include the old CLG Wiki).
3. The requester has not previously requested for adminship within the past 3 months.
4. The requester has proven knowledge of AVID and its policies. This means that they follow editing guidelines, they fix and improve pages, they upload high quality logos and follow copyright rules, etc.
5. The user is active in fighting vandalism, sockpuppetry, and policy-breakers. This means that their editing history provides evidence of assisting administrators (i.e. editing talk pages of admins to alert them of destructive users), reporting users, and undoing/rollbacking poor or nonconstructive edits.

Rationale: Lots of changes, both major and minor:

1. "The requester should not currently be disruptive to the wiki, intentionally or not. " This replaces the blocking rule, alongside the English rule. 1 year is pretty long for wikis, and many users I know who have been disruptive in the past have made a comeback within less than 1 year. The English rule has been nixed, as users who repeatedly speak Engrish can be blocked, probably as W:WP:CIR.
2. "The user must have registered their account 1 year ago on avid.miraheze.org (we'll check on Special:CentralAuth to make sure). In addition, you must have at least 1000 or more edits (Note: This does include edits on the old CLG Wiki)." Just a quick rewording, nothing too major.

The rest are unchanged.

Support (1)

1. Support I agree with the slight changes here. (name change coming soon) 04:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Compooper (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Fine reasoning. Agent Isai (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
4. Support This would be a great change of pace. And, It saves time for people who are actually a qualified pick for admin but have been blocked in the past year for what reason or not. (• USER TALK! •) 13:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Closure

After a request is published, AVID editors have, at most, 2 weeks to vote.

Rationale: 2 months is an extremely long time. Typically, in Meta RfPs, they have about one week, however given that Meta is much bigger than AVID, the voting persiod should be greater than one week. Also, having an RfP open for at least two months will make several requests drag out longer than they should. For example, let's say I run for administrator. Obviously, it would fail, but due to 2 months being a required time span, it would last way longer than needed to the obvious judgement being "No consensus."

Support (2)

1. Support I would extend to one month but that's just me Compooper (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Support Per Compooper. Doctorine Dark (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

1. Oppose One month seems more appropraite IMHO. (name change coming soon) 04:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
2. Oppose Per EternityEntertainment. (• USER TALK! •) 13:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment (2)

1. Discussions can take more than 2 weeks to resolve. It would actually be best to reverse this and set a minimum timeframe that a request has to be open for rather than a maximum timeframe. Agent Isai (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

2.1.

RfPs may be closed only after 1 week has passed since the request.

Rationale: See 2. Closure#Comment (2).

3. AVID:RFA rename

AVID:Requests for Adminship is moved to AVID:Requests for permissions with a redirect. AVID:RFA is moved to AVID:RFP, with a redirect.

Rationale: AVID:RFA is also for requesting the bureaucrat role, and could also be used for other permissions (ex. local Interwiki administrator).

Support (3)

1. Support Definitely a better fitting name as bureaucratship can also be requested on RfA. I'd perhaps also suggest merging rollbacker requests into that if that's the case but that would have to be done in another proposal. Agent Isai (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (3)

1.  Abstain No opinion, want to see other arguments first. (name change coming soon) 04:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
2.  Abstain More of a question for the administrators Compooper (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

4. User close policy

While bureaucrats generally close requests, any user without local rights may nonetheless speedily close any requests that fail to meet the criteria (listed above).

Rationale: Several RFAs are made by largely inexperienced users, and this can help to cut some of the already-invalid requests. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 00:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Support (4)

1. Support I'll go for it, after reading Blad's reasoning on the below reply Compooper (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain (4)

1.  Abstain While well intentioned and while I support the principle, I wouldn't necessarily allow all users to close permissions requests. As with Meta-Wiki, I'd like to see it restricted to autoconfirmed users and for sanctions to exist in case of bad faith or repeated wrong closings. Agent Isai (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (4)

1. Oppose in the world. too easy for others to abuse. (name change coming soon) 04:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   This would only apply to RfAs that clearly don't meet the criteria. However, I could make a proposal that would allow bureaucrats to overturn erroneous closures. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 11:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

   Yes, I 100% agree with the idea of bureaucrats being able to overturn uncalled for closures, hopefully that could prevent abuse somewhat. (name change coming soon) 06:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose SickMinecraft or whatever his name was (the one who made the Scary Logos section) closed his RFC before, so that means this is already in use. Also, a troll or sock can just come in and close any RFC they please (Per Eternity). I suggest we should just let Bureaucrats, Admins, and Confirmed/Autoconfirmed users to close RFCs. (• USER TALK! •) 19:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

   You may be in favor of Proposal 4.1. --Blad (talk • contribs • global) 01:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

4.1.

Only autoconfirmed users may close RfPs within the User close policy.

Rationale: See AVID:Requests for Comment/Various changes to AVID:RFA#Abstain (4).

4.2

Bureaucrats may overturn any erroneous or invalid closes under the User close policy.

Support (4.2)

1. Support If the above policy is ratified, this effectively has to be a requirement. (name change coming soon) 02:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)