Guidance for RFX voters

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
(Redirected from GFRV)

A Steward's responsibility is explained at Stewards ¶ Scope of responsibilities, An Interwiki Administrator's responsibility is explained at Interwiki administrators, A Global Sysop's responsibility is explained at Global Sysops, and roles of a local Administrator is explained at the various wikis, for example Meta-Wiki's is explained at the Administrators page.

Guidance[edit | edit source]

Registered users on Meta-Wiki have the ability to express their thoughts on RFX. Unlike other projects where you may need to be registered for so-so months and have made so-so number of edits, nothing is required to vote here other than having been around long enough to understand how things work and be able to comment in a polite and fair manner. As such, either you're a new user who thinks you've gained enough experience to speak up in meta areas, or you've been around for a while and want to make a genuine contribution to the project's administration. In any case, there are important considerations to make as part of your RFX participation, including but not limited to:

  1. Do you want to vote against the candidate because they have pointed out a flaw in your behavior?
  2. Do you want to vote in favor of the candidate because they've done you a favor or done something nice for you?
  3. Are you voting partly (or even entirely) on the basis of what the candidate has done on other Miraheze wikis?
  4. Are you using a set of personal criteria that is far more stringent than requisite?

Another thing to keep in mind is that RFX isn't a popularity or unpopularity competition. Your impression of the candidate may not be representative of his or her overall work and/or behavior. If you've seen him or her be nice to a lot of people other than yourself, and generally doing a lot of good work for Miraheze and getting things right, you'd be perfectly justified in supporting the candidate. However, if you've noticed him or her being rude to a lot of people other than yourself, not doing a lot of good work for Miraheze, and getting things wrong a lot of the time, you may be correct in thinking you can vote against the candidate.

So, how do you arrive at these conclusions based on facts?

It's not enough to simply read the nomination statement and other people's comments and say, "Yeah, I agree with that," or to simply read the oppose votes and stack on. Keep in mind that some of those votes may be completely inaccurate, so casting a fair vote on RFX requires some analysis, which can take you up to an hour or more.

What kind of analysis are you doing?

Below is a list of things for you to analyse;

  • Determine how long the user has been a Miraheze user.
  • Has the user worked in enough different meta areas to gain a thorough understanding of the tools, allowing you to put your trust in them?
  • Examine the candidate's comments on Noticeboards cases; do you believe his or her decision was fair?
  • Has the candidate been active in assisting new users in overcoming obstacles?
  • When interacting with other editors, does the candidate adopt a mature (i.e., responsible adult) demeanor?
  • Is the candidate ostensibly 'over-eager' to have the bit?
  • Examine the candidate's user page; there may be many hints to their readiness for the task at hand. Does it give people of all ages and backgrounds the impression that Miraheze is a serious project?

Voting "Support"[edit | edit source]

Voting early: It's absolutely essential that the above-mentioned analysis has been completed; making an enthusiastic support only to discover that after a dozen or so votes, the debate has devolved into the depths of the 'oppose' section often demonstrates that the support was a fan vote rather than one based on the candidate's contributions.

You are not required to leave a comment with your support vote, but most users do, and if you do not, the closing Steward may or may not discount your vote in the case of a close call. Put yourself in the shoes of the candidate: how would you like the participants who are supporting you to express themselves if this were your RFX?

Voting "Abstain"[edit | edit source]

Note: Neutral is another term for this.

You can leave a comment in the abstain section if you can't make up your mind after all that analysis, or if your feelings and findings aren't enough for you to make a firm commitment to Support or Oppose. In the event of a close call, this may assist the closer in determining the outcome. Put yourself in the shoes of the candidate: if this was your RFX and the participants were voting 'abstain', how would you want them to express themselves?

Voting "Oppose"[edit | edit source]

If you want the rest of the community to take your vote seriously and for it to be counted by the closing Steward or any closer, you should qualify your reasons by including diffs in the evidence you present; consider whether your reasons for opposing, such as edit count or tenure, are credible. Keep in mind that a single minor error in a candidate's history of thousands of edits may not be a deal breaker.

Keep your corroboration as brief as possible; 25 words is usually sufficient, while 50 to 60 words should suffice to explain your serious concerns or even to sway the vote. If you're presenting new corroborations rather than simply repeating what other voters have said (which isn't a good idea), 200 words should be more than enough. Do not use the candidate's RFX page to simply blow off steam; instead, the candidate's talk page is entirely fine.

50 words (303 bytes) as an example:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec eu rhoncus nulla. Etiam ac orci a ex aliquet interdum quis at nisi. In ac nisl iaculis, ultricies magna sit amet, sagittis neque. Nunc neque nisl, congue ac tempor in, suscipit vel nunc. Aliquam id convallis est, non molestie elit. Vivamus.

200 words (1,318 bytes) as an example:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut vel euismod leo. Proin non purus et ipsum elementum luctus ut et arcu. In commodo non turpis sed rhoncus. Aenean in justo dictum, facilisis odio eu, dictum nisl. Aenean suscipit pretium ligula at mollis. Sed vel imperdiet massa, ac sagittis ligula. Donec ut elit sed eros vehicula vestibulum. Sed ex nisl, ultricies id ex non, fermentum euismod augue. Nullam hendrerit in massa non elementum. Proin ac nunc quis mi hendrerit sodales. Vivamus non consectetur libero. In finibus massa gravida mattis ultricies. Aliquam aliquam tortor sapien, ac commodo tortor congue quis. Duis ultrices velit ut malesuada elementum. Maecenas dapibus sem id elit molestie, scelerisque efficitur est aliquam. Quisque tempus velit nibh, et pulvinar ipsum fermentum a. Nunc et sollicitudin massa. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nunc a quam a nibh mollis tempus sed et ligula. Praesent vehicula eros felis, at lacinia tortor faucibus et. Pellentesque porta lorem eu ex bibendum tincidunt. Etiam molestie lacus ac dignissim ullamcorper. In ligula leo, faucibus et tempus sed, malesuada eget orci. Donec varius sollicitudin dui, eu imperdiet lacus fringilla at. Donec congue sollicitudin fringilla. Proin a ultricies nulla. Sed.

- Now, don't you think that's probably long enough? Consider what would happen if someone wrote 400 words or more!

Take no actions or statements made by the candidate in the past out of context, and double-check your facts. Anything older than a year is likely outdated; let bygones be bygones. If a vote is illogical, all it will do is make the voter look silly. Other editors with good standing may indent, strike, or even remove completely inappropriate votes or comments; they will almost certainly be ignored by the closer. Put yourself in the shoes of the candidate: how would you like the participants to express themselves if this were your RFX and they were opposing you?

If you decide to change your mind,[edit | edit source]

To another section: Your vote should be indented, and the words "Moved to..." should be added.

Instead of blanking your vote, strike (<s></s>) it if you want to completely recuse yourself. It will earn you the community's respect.

Interrogating the candidate[edit | edit source]

There's a reason the question section exists. The general purpose is to assess the candidate's knowledge of Miraheze's policies and other related matters, as well as his or her suitability to hold the bit. However, a review of previous RFX reveals a slew of inappropriate questions posed by;

  • New and/or inexperienced users who haven't fully grasped the concept of RFX.
  • Users who noticed that users can actually ask questions at RFX and thought to themselves, "Oh, I can ask questions here as well? I'll come up with a question then".
  • Users who are simply looking for answers to general questions they should be aware of but aren't.
  • Users who are just being silly.
Consider whether your question is critical to the process or if it will be misinterpreted by other users as one of the scenarios listed above.

Commenting[edit | edit source]

The bottom of the RFX page is often used for comments. These comments may or may not influence the decision of the closer.

Consider whether your comment is absolutely relevant to the RFX; or is it truly a topic for discussion on the RFX's talk page before leaving a comment there. It would be silly to use a comment section just because it exists.

Shall We?[edit | edit source]

After you've completed all of these steps, you should be ready to vote.

Best of luck with your RFX participation!