SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Line 166: Line 166:
:I will dump a block on the next person who speaks without civility both seen and heard and ''meant'' in the words typed on this page, whether or not you're being playful. srsly not a threat.<br />That said, I am of the opinion that this is a foolhardy idea that isn't called for. The shitstorm that brewed because Randall blocked people who were being idiots shouldn't even factor into an overhaul of RfA which imho doesn't need to happen in the fashion that this idea seems to have behind it. The tool is a mop &mdash; the people I've seen use it on the wiki have used it well, and if they're using it differently than you're used to as your home wiki, then '''tell them''' about it. Politely inform them that how they're going about is something you're not used to, and ask for why, and maybe suggest that they tweak their style to be a little gentler. Where I'm from, IPs are ''completely'' blocked from editing, and users who act like dickheads get blocked for about as long as happened here. Is that different than the rest of the wiki world? ''Yes''. Is that the wrong way to go about it? ''By no means''. Is this attempt to change the (SmashWiki) world the wrong way to go about affecting change? ''Yes''. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:I will dump a block on the next person who speaks without civility both seen and heard and ''meant'' in the words typed on this page, whether or not you're being playful. srsly not a threat.<br />That said, I am of the opinion that this is a foolhardy idea that isn't called for. The shitstorm that brewed because Randall blocked people who were being idiots shouldn't even factor into an overhaul of RfA which imho doesn't need to happen in the fashion that this idea seems to have behind it. The tool is a mop &mdash; the people I've seen use it on the wiki have used it well, and if they're using it differently than you're used to as your home wiki, then '''tell them''' about it. Politely inform them that how they're going about is something you're not used to, and ask for why, and maybe suggest that they tweak their style to be a little gentler. Where I'm from, IPs are ''completely'' blocked from editing, and users who act like dickheads get blocked for about as long as happened here. Is that different than the rest of the wiki world? ''Yes''. Is that the wrong way to go about it? ''By no means''. Is this attempt to change the (SmashWiki) world the wrong way to go about affecting change? ''Yes''. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree that this "isn't called for," I discovered a long time ago that only very rarely does anything good come of polemical discussions, not to mention that I wouldn't feel as if I had anything "new" to add to such a discussion beyond what I've posted elsewhere.  Yes, this discussion should ''not'' factor into the RfA overhaul, the two are dissimilar; however, if someone raises an objection X that could be solved by RfA-related suggestion Y, it is fair I think to respond by mentioning Y.  Although Y is not valid on the grounds that it remedies X, if X is a universal problem (i.e. one that exists independent of this discussion), Y is validated and thus becomes fair game.  For example, if X is: "these reconfirmations could devolve into a popularity contest," then X is a global problem, any RfA can devolve into a popularity contest.  In this example it is fair to respond with Y: "X would not be a problem if you made Bureaucrats the sole arbiters," because the problem and solution both exist independent of this particular discussion.  Hope that was clear... it was rather confusing to write :/.  As to your last series of points pertaining to wikicultures, though discussion which led to this request may have come off as incendiary/an attempt to change SmashWiki, the solution (i.e. reconfirmations) shouldn't effect the wikiculture at all, particularly if, as you say, SmashWiki's wikiculture fully supports the manner in which the Sysops are behaving themselves.  &ndash; [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree that this "isn't called for," I discovered a long time ago that only very rarely does anything good come of polemical discussions, not to mention that I wouldn't feel as if I had anything "new" to add to such a discussion beyond what I've posted elsewhere.  Yes, this discussion should ''not'' factor into the RfA overhaul, the two are dissimilar; however, if someone raises an objection X that could be solved by RfA-related suggestion Y, it is fair I think to respond by mentioning Y.  Although Y is not valid on the grounds that it remedies X, if X is a universal problem (i.e. one that exists independent of this discussion), Y is validated and thus becomes fair game.  For example, if X is: "these reconfirmations could devolve into a popularity contest," then X is a global problem, any RfA can devolve into a popularity contest.  In this example it is fair to respond with Y: "X would not be a problem if you made Bureaucrats the sole arbiters," because the problem and solution both exist independent of this particular discussion.  Hope that was clear... it was rather confusing to write :/.  As to your last series of points pertaining to wikicultures, though discussion which led to this request may have come off as incendiary/an attempt to change SmashWiki, the solution (i.e. reconfirmations) shouldn't effect the wikiculture at all, particularly if, as you say, SmashWiki's wikiculture fully supports the manner in which the Sysops are behaving themselves.  &ndash; [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 04:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, I have full confidence in myself and all of the other sysops on this wiki.  However, I'm not going to post my reelection speech until someone from wiki staff comes in and approves this idea.  I suggest that you (or anyone who supports this motion) get them involved as they are, quite frankly, the only ones who have the power to do such a thing.  Everyone here is convinced that they are right and continued squabbling does nothing but flood the recent changes and make everyone more pissed off.  By all means, ask [[User:Angela|Angela]] or some of the other staff what they think should be done, but continuing this conversation is not going to convince anyone of anything they are not already convinced of.  [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
3,882

edits