57,329
edits
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 16:18, March 5, 2023
, 1 year agoText replacement - "w:c:wow:User:Sky2042" to "User:Sky2042"
m (Text replacement - "w:c:wow:User:Sky2042" to "User:Sky2042") |
|||
| (42 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archive}} | |||
Wait that mean if we want to nominate someone we just put their username theere?--[[User:Fandangox|Fandangox]] 19:44, November 20, 2007 (EST) | Wait that mean if we want to nominate someone we just put their username theere?--[[User:Fandangox|Fandangox]] 19:44, November 20, 2007 (EST) | ||
| Line 25: | Line 26: | ||
== the nom process == | == the nom process == | ||
I'm thinking that needs a fix. It's something imported from SmashWiki which I genuinely disliked about it. Anyone else up to changing it to any nominations? --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] | [[ | I'm thinking that needs a fix. It's something imported from SmashWiki which I genuinely disliked about it. Anyone else up to changing it to any nominations? --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] | [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 05:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
:The problem has always been that the people voicing their opposition and/or support are not usually in any position to be deciding what does and does not make a good SysOp. I felt like half the people who voiced their support for my nomination actually brought my chances ''down'' trying to justify it by repeatedly pointing out qualities that really have nothing to do with administrative responsibility. --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | :The problem has always been that the people voicing their opposition and/or support are not usually in any position to be deciding what does and does not make a good SysOp. I felt like half the people who voiced their support for my nomination actually brought my chances ''down'' trying to justify it by repeatedly pointing out qualities that really have nothing to do with administrative responsibility. --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
::I'm not sure how relevant that is to the ''nominating'' process and not the process as a whole, though I do agree with you in essence. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | ::I'm not sure how relevant that is to the ''nominating'' process and not the process as a whole, though I do agree with you in essence. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Ugh == | == Ugh == | ||
| Line 47: | Line 48: | ||
Awfully small "consensus" to close ''all'' of them, though I'm not opposed to the choice personally. ;o | Awfully small "consensus" to close ''all'' of them, though I'm not opposed to the choice personally. ;o | ||
Working on the [[special:prefixindex/SmashWiki:Merge/|SmashWiki:Merge]] pages would seem to me the first thing to work on, followed by a look at the category system, which was seriously... killed by the merge. From there, I'm not real sure about how to progress, other than to add further template support (such as automatic age on T:Smasherbeta or some such) as well as normal everyday add-to-wiki work. I await other comments. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | Working on the [[special:prefixindex/SmashWiki:Merge/|SmashWiki:Merge]] pages would seem to me the first thing to work on, followed by a look at the category system, which was seriously... killed by the merge. From there, I'm not real sure about how to progress, other than to add further template support (such as automatic age on T:Smasherbeta or some such) as well as normal everyday add-to-wiki work. I await other comments. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 06:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Right now, I think we have plenty of sysops. And the last round of nominations was a real putoff, all that drama has got to end. --[[User:Charitwo|Charitwo]] 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | Right now, I think we have plenty of sysops. And the last round of nominations was a real putoff, all that drama has got to end. --[[User:Charitwo|Charitwo]] 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
I like Sky's idea about getting rid of the SmashWiki/Merge pages. As for discussing what direction(s) we should go in, do you think it might be a good idea to make a project page with the protection level set to sysops only so that we could discuss these things without it getting cluttered with comments from other users? We'd still have to deal with possible comments on our talk pages, but given recent events, I can see this kind of discussion becoming clogged up with many random users arguing for the Goomba Mafia and its ilk to come back. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | I like Sky's idea about getting rid of the SmashWiki/Merge pages. As for discussing what direction(s) we should go in, do you think it might be a good idea to make a project page with the protection level set to sysops only so that we could discuss these things without it getting cluttered with comments from other users? We'd still have to deal with possible comments on our talk pages, but given recent events, I can see this kind of discussion becoming clogged up with many random users arguing for the Goomba Mafia and its ilk to come back. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 17:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Clarinet: Nah. If one of them has feedback here, they are more than likely to add it. That said, I'm not sure the majority of said people realize there's a talk page for almost every other page. ;o --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :Clarinet: Nah. If one of them has feedback here, they are more than likely to add it. That said, I'm not sure the majority of said people realize there's a talk page for almost every other page. ;o --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Sky: OK. Well if we want to get the merge pages taken care of, it might just be a good idea to get a bot to merge all of them with whatever the name is after the /Merge part. I'm not that good with programing bots, so I don't know exactly how to get it to work. I know you know some stuff about bots, but if you're too busy I could probably figure it all out. What does everyone think about this idea? [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 02:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | :Sky: OK. Well if we want to get the merge pages taken care of, it might just be a good idea to get a bot to merge all of them with whatever the name is after the /Merge part. I'm not that good with programing bots, so I don't know exactly how to get it to work. I know you know some stuff about bots, but if you're too busy I could probably figure it all out. What does everyone think about this idea? [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 02:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
::It's a little more complicated than that. The content itself has to be merged; I'm fairly certain there are several pages which have ''slightly'' more info, or completely different info, than the ones currently in the main namespace. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | ::It's a little more complicated than that. The content itself has to be merged; I'm fairly certain there are several pages which have ''slightly'' more info, or completely different info, than the ones currently in the main namespace. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 05:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::Understood. I'll get started on it tomorrow. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | :::Understood. I'll get started on it tomorrow. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::To that end, I would suggest starting with the smaller (main space) pages, such as the stickers, trophies, and event matches. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | ::::To that end, I would suggest starting with the smaller (main space) pages, such as the stickers, trophies, and event matches. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::Actually I think that this is rediculous. It may need to be kept down to 3 nominations at a time, But I still think it should be open for canidates nomatter what, even if its one at a time. [[User:Kperfekt722|Kperfekt722]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | :::::Actually I think that this is rediculous. It may need to be kept down to 3 nominations at a time, But I still think it should be open for canidates nomatter what, even if its one at a time. [[User:Kperfekt722|Kperfekt722]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 69: | Line 70: | ||
While we're on the discussion of improving the wiki, might I recommend a change in skin. I know that we recently went to the monaco, but I really prefer the wikipedia skin. I think that the wiki is more user friendly and easier on the eyes when viewed on the wikipedia skin. Just thought I'd throw that out there. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | While we're on the discussion of improving the wiki, might I recommend a change in skin. I know that we recently went to the monaco, but I really prefer the wikipedia skin. I think that the wiki is more user friendly and easier on the eyes when viewed on the wikipedia skin. Just thought I'd throw that out there. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:We cannot make the [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css|monobook skin]] our default, but you can set it as a user [[Special:Preferences|preference]]. This is due to | :We cannot make the [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css|monobook skin]] our default, but you can set it as a user [[Special:Preferences|preference]]. This is due to w:Wikia's New Style. Yay for our Wikia overlords! --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Trust me, I did that the first time I logged on. As a sidenote, we're through all the Merge articles up to the letter I! [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 02:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Trust me, I did that the first time I logged on. As a sidenote, we're through all the Merge articles up to the letter I! [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 02:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 75: | Line 76: | ||
::We can't choose our own default skin? Really?? I sure wish I knew how the backend of this Wikia administration works so we could figure out how to get around it. :^) --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ::We can't choose our own default skin? Really?? I sure wish I knew how the backend of this Wikia administration works so we could figure out how to get around it. :^) --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::Don't we all. The issue is that we cannot set a global default skin, only personal. As to getting around it, I've heard of one way, but it wouldn't work for every user and it would increase load time (though possibly not by the amount that monaco does compared to monobook. ;( ). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :::Don't we all. The issue is that we cannot set a global default skin, only personal. As to getting around it, I've heard of one way, but it wouldn't work for every user and it would increase load time (though possibly not by the amount that monaco does compared to monobook. ;( ). --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
If you want to go change the backround. Go to the place where your name is. There should be a highlited bar that says more. Click and go to Prefences then go to the second tab labeled "skins". [[User:Zmario|Zmario]] ([[User talk:Zmario|talk]]) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | If you want to go change the backround. Go to the place where your name is. There should be a highlited bar that says more. Click and go to Prefences then go to the second tab labeled "skins". [[User:Zmario|Zmario]] ([[User talk:Zmario|talk]]) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 90: | Line 91: | ||
See my above comments. And, to be frank, we've had a lot less joke pages coming through recently. Even so, joke pages are really not the primary, or even secondary, responsibility. The fact that people see blocking users and deleting pages as why they want to be sysops shows the lack of knowledge of what the position entails. Simply having edits is not the primary qualification. Look at LoganA. He's got probably five times the edits that I have (and more than many of the other sysops as well), yet he's not a sysop. Why? Because for ''what he does'' he doesn't need the tools. If you really want nominations opened up (no promises here at all), try and show that your current work would be made better and/or more efficient by having the tools, as well as displaying a commitment showing that you would be willing to take care of the more boring sides of upkeeping a wiki. Right now, we (at least Randall, Rita, and I) are not seeing these traits or the need to reopen nominations. Plus, the founder of the wiki just came back, so we're up one more sysop. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | See my above comments. And, to be frank, we've had a lot less joke pages coming through recently. Even so, joke pages are really not the primary, or even secondary, responsibility. The fact that people see blocking users and deleting pages as why they want to be sysops shows the lack of knowledge of what the position entails. Simply having edits is not the primary qualification. Look at LoganA. He's got probably five times the edits that I have (and more than many of the other sysops as well), yet he's not a sysop. Why? Because for ''what he does'' he doesn't need the tools. If you really want nominations opened up (no promises here at all), try and show that your current work would be made better and/or more efficient by having the tools, as well as displaying a commitment showing that you would be willing to take care of the more boring sides of upkeeping a wiki. Right now, we (at least Randall, Rita, and I) are not seeing these traits or the need to reopen nominations. Plus, the founder of the wiki just came back, so we're up one more sysop. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Well said. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :Well said. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
I have reopened the page. We cannot close the community process unless there is consensus to do so. Three editors does not represent consensus from the entire community. Firstly, we can never have "too many" sysops if all of them use their tools properly. We can always use more to block vandals and clean up page histories (an important issue at the moment). As for people just rallying their friends, that is why you can oppose RFAs. If someone doesn't deserve adminship, just oppose them. There is no reason to close all requests just because a few people don't deserve it. It is also noteworthy that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOP#No_big_deal adminship is not a big deal]. It should not entitle extra decision making authority, and the policy should be to give the tools to any editor who has earned the community's trust. Also, I don't think it should matter who the nominator is. Therefore, it shouldn't be self nom only. However, the nominee has every right to decline an RFA, and should not be sysopped unless they approve of it. [[User:Dtm142|Dtm142]] ([[User talk:Dtm142|talk]]) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | I have reopened the page. We cannot close the community process unless there is consensus to do so. Three editors does not represent consensus from the entire community. Firstly, we can never have "too many" sysops if all of them use their tools properly. We can always use more to block vandals and clean up page histories (an important issue at the moment). As for people just rallying their friends, that is why you can oppose RFAs. If someone doesn't deserve adminship, just oppose them. There is no reason to close all requests just because a few people don't deserve it. It is also noteworthy that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOP#No_big_deal adminship is not a big deal]. It should not entitle extra decision making authority, and the policy should be to give the tools to any editor who has earned the community's trust. Also, I don't think it should matter who the nominator is. Therefore, it shouldn't be self nom only. However, the nominee has every right to decline an RFA, and should not be sysopped unless they approve of it. [[User:Dtm142|Dtm142]] ([[User talk:Dtm142|talk]]) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 120: | Line 121: | ||
:::::I would vote for a reopening of the requests because I am a non-admin user who's been working diligently on the site and I believe I'd be able to help make more effective edits as an admin. I'd be very surprised if there aren't other users like me who could really make a beneficial differece as admins and have been waiting for a chance to self-nominate. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|Miles.oppenheimer]] ([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|talk]]) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | :::::I would vote for a reopening of the requests because I am a non-admin user who's been working diligently on the site and I believe I'd be able to help make more effective edits as an admin. I'd be very surprised if there aren't other users like me who could really make a beneficial differece as admins and have been waiting for a chance to self-nominate. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|Miles.oppenheimer]] ([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|talk]]) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Editing here to remind me to return and comment. I added it to my watchlist also. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :Editing here to remind me to return and comment. I added it to my watchlist also. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
===page break=== | ===page break=== | ||
Sorry the overload of info in this section made this page break necessary due to the fact that it makes things go sloooooooow...-[[User:Oxico|Oxico]] ([[User talk:Oxico|talk]]) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | Sorry the overload of info in this section made this page break necessary due to the fact that it makes things go sloooooooow...-[[User:Oxico|Oxico]] ([[User talk:Oxico|talk]]) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 130: | Line 131: | ||
:::::With all due respect, C-Hawk is right. Things are hectic as it stands, and there are only 2-3 sysops who really do anything consistently. The wiki doesn't need more sysops, the wiki needs more contributing members who are up-to-date, respectful, and committed. Handing out sysop powers just because there isn't a reason to close them is hardly an argument for their continuation. Sysop powers are a privilege, one that it is necessary to work for, and not one that is a guaranteed thing after you've become established. It also matters; you can have too many. You can have too many to the point where they bicker and there are no arbiters for their bickering, excepting bureaucrats, and then you've ended up where you started.[[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | :::::With all due respect, C-Hawk is right. Things are hectic as it stands, and there are only 2-3 sysops who really do anything consistently. The wiki doesn't need more sysops, the wiki needs more contributing members who are up-to-date, respectful, and committed. Handing out sysop powers just because there isn't a reason to close them is hardly an argument for their continuation. Sysop powers are a privilege, one that it is necessary to work for, and not one that is a guaranteed thing after you've become established. It also matters; you can have too many. You can have too many to the point where they bicker and there are no arbiters for their bickering, excepting bureaucrats, and then you've ended up where you started.[[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 02:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
::::::"Bickering" is not unique to sysops and has nothing to do with sysop powers. Being a wiki, there are going to be disagreements between contributors and the community will have to deal with them properly. Wheel wars on the other hand are related to adminship, but they can be prevented if we choose the right people as administrators. Staff can also desysop abusive sysops. The worst thing that could happen with too many ''good'' sysops is that not all of them can use their powers, which isn't a reason not to sysop them. I think that the community should look to analyze each individual RFA candidate separately to see if they deserve it instead of deciding whether we need new sysops. [[User:Dtm142|Dtm142]] ([[User talk:Dtm142|talk]]) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ::::::"Bickering" is not unique to sysops and has nothing to do with sysop powers. Being a wiki, there are going to be disagreements between contributors and the community will have to deal with them properly. Wheel wars on the other hand are related to adminship, but they can be prevented if we choose the right people as administrators. Staff can also desysop abusive sysops. The worst thing that could happen with too many ''good'' sysops is that not all of them can use their powers, which isn't a reason not to sysop them. I think that the community should look to analyze each individual RFA candidate separately to see if they deserve it instead of deciding whether we need new sysops. [[User:Dtm142|Dtm142]] ([[User talk:Dtm142|talk]]) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::Honestly, I think you (Dtm) should have a look at the number of RfAs that are sitting there. The majority of them popped up at the same time — 6 or 7 of them (at least). And a majority of what was happening was vote stacking based on who liked the other person. In other words, the candidates were ''not'' being assessed for their ability to sysop, but rather how many friends they had. At the time of the closing, we felt it was necessary to prevent that from happening in the future for one (we really didn't want people opening 2nd and 3rd RfAs) and for two, there is/are enough sysops currently. WoWWiki has 23 some odd (22?), only 10-15 of which are active contributors. But look at the activity it gets! They don't need more!<br />Your argument in particular seems to emphasise that the right people need to be picked as administrators. But the ones that were here and applied at the time obviously weren't — one or two are blocked currently in fact (I won't go into how or why, but only that I thought that they were blocked appropriately).<br />And then you come in and arbitrarily reopen RfA, because you think it's right. After disappearing for a month or more. While I don't contribute (as much as I should be), I do keep tabs on the wiki — that means watching talk pages and giving my opinion on community matters. It doesn't look like you do that much... :/ You really should have thought further on your choices here. I would honestly throw out your opinion because of arbitrarily using your sysop powers to unlock the page to editing while there was a standing "consensus". The absolute first thing you should have done was to comment on the talk page, rather than insist that that be what ''we'' do to respond to your actions... Anyway, I'll keep watch. I need to go to breakfast. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :::::::Honestly, I think you (Dtm) should have a look at the number of RfAs that are sitting there. The majority of them popped up at the same time — 6 or 7 of them (at least). And a majority of what was happening was vote stacking based on who liked the other person. In other words, the candidates were ''not'' being assessed for their ability to sysop, but rather how many friends they had. At the time of the closing, we felt it was necessary to prevent that from happening in the future for one (we really didn't want people opening 2nd and 3rd RfAs) and for two, there is/are enough sysops currently. WoWWiki has 23 some odd (22?), only 10-15 of which are active contributors. But look at the activity it gets! They don't need more!<br />Your argument in particular seems to emphasise that the right people need to be picked as administrators. But the ones that were here and applied at the time obviously weren't — one or two are blocked currently in fact (I won't go into how or why, but only that I thought that they were blocked appropriately).<br />And then you come in and arbitrarily reopen RfA, because you think it's right. After disappearing for a month or more. While I don't contribute (as much as I should be), I do keep tabs on the wiki — that means watching talk pages and giving my opinion on community matters. It doesn't look like you do that much... :/ You really should have thought further on your choices here. I would honestly throw out your opinion because of arbitrarily using your sysop powers to unlock the page to editing while there was a standing "consensus". The absolute first thing you should have done was to comment on the talk page, rather than insist that that be what ''we'' do to respond to your actions... Anyway, I'll keep watch. I need to go to breakfast. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::My attempt to resolve this -- [[User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal]] [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | :::::::::My attempt to resolve this -- [[User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal]] [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 164: | Line 165: | ||
::::::::::::::Thanks! I will miss you from the depths of my heart. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | ::::::::::::::Thanks! I will miss you from the depths of my heart. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 23:10, 21 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 — 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]] · [[ | :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 — 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]] · [[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. – [[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. – [[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) | 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) | ||
:Will do; thanks for the suggestion. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :Will do; thanks for the suggestion. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:EDIT: I've emailed Angela. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :EDIT: I've emailed Angela. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Hi all. There's no Wikia-wide policy on de-adminship. It basically comes down to community consensus, but I'd suggest waiting until the current issues have cooled down a little before rushing into a decision. Even on Wikipedia, there's no simple process but some pages you can look at where people have discussed ideas for de-adminship are [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrator recall|Wikipedia:Administrator recall]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]], and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] (which used to include [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions|"Requests for review of administrative actions"]]. [[User:Angela|Angela]]<staff /> ([[User talk:Angela|talk]]) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
=== Arbitrary page break === | === Arbitrary page break === | ||
Since I was asked for my thoughts, I thought I'd go on the record with them. I don't support this proposal as suggested, specifically because it would be mandatory for all sysops. I am not aware of any policy on this wiki, on Wikia, or even on Wikipedia that would subject sysops to a mandatory recall. (Sysops on Wikipedia can be removed, but only by an elected panel of higher-ups, as I understand it.) Given that, I don't think it's fair to institute such a policy without some consensus at least among sysops, which there is not. It's also unclear as to what policy would be used to determine the success of a reconfirmation--the current policy leaves things up to whether "consensus" is reached, and proposed policies would either work purely on votes received (one that has its share of opponents, and one which I oppose myself on the basis that it's too much like a popularity contest) or on the determination of a bureaucrat (which would be difficult to do if the bureaucrats are also being recalled). | Since I was asked for my thoughts, I thought I'd go on the record with them. I don't support this proposal as suggested, specifically because it would be mandatory for all sysops. I am not aware of any policy on this wiki, on Wikia, or even on Wikipedia that would subject sysops to a mandatory recall. (Sysops on Wikipedia can be removed, but only by an elected panel of higher-ups, as I understand it.) Given that, I don't think it's fair to institute such a policy without some consensus at least among sysops, which there is not. It's also unclear as to what policy would be used to determine the success of a reconfirmation--the current policy leaves things up to whether "consensus" is reached, and proposed policies would either work purely on votes received (one that has its share of opponents, and one which I oppose myself on the basis that it's too much like a popularity contest) or on the determination of a bureaucrat (which would be difficult to do if the bureaucrats are also being recalled). | ||
| Line 179: | Line 182: | ||
:: In any event, I do think there is a way to go about this, although I probably didn't state it very clearly in my first post. Regardless, in my mind it comes down to this: Wikia does not give bureaus the ability to demote sysops. This is their policy. In my view, since demotions necessarily have to come from Wikia staff (and there is no other policy I'm aware of to the contrary), no one but Wikia staff has the authority to oversee a proposal to desysop someone, en masse or otherwise. As I said above, it looks like you're already in touch with them, so since I'm already inclined to say that this is something that they have to handle, I'd like to see what they have to say. Either they'll agree to look at it themselves or they'll tell us to resolve it ourselves and let them know. If you want to desysop someone, that is how I would go about it. So to clarify what you said: there is no outlet ''purely within'' SmashWiki to demote someone, since no one purely within SmashWiki even has the technical capability to demote people. (I have other objections to the idea of a mass reconfirmation, and individual sysops are welcome to voluntarily submit to a reconfirmation, but I don't think that's quite what you're actually going for here. And although I think most "my-wiki-vs-your-wiki" comparisons are silly, your sysops might get a majority of "support" votes (as I suspect ours would), but a 51-49 split isn't enough to promote someone to sysop under any RfA policy/proposal I've seen. The original proposal specified that the RfA process would be used, which is currently in flux anyway.) --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 02:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | :: In any event, I do think there is a way to go about this, although I probably didn't state it very clearly in my first post. Regardless, in my mind it comes down to this: Wikia does not give bureaus the ability to demote sysops. This is their policy. In my view, since demotions necessarily have to come from Wikia staff (and there is no other policy I'm aware of to the contrary), no one but Wikia staff has the authority to oversee a proposal to desysop someone, en masse or otherwise. As I said above, it looks like you're already in touch with them, so since I'm already inclined to say that this is something that they have to handle, I'd like to see what they have to say. Either they'll agree to look at it themselves or they'll tell us to resolve it ourselves and let them know. If you want to desysop someone, that is how I would go about it. So to clarify what you said: there is no outlet ''purely within'' SmashWiki to demote someone, since no one purely within SmashWiki even has the technical capability to demote people. (I have other objections to the idea of a mass reconfirmation, and individual sysops are welcome to voluntarily submit to a reconfirmation, but I don't think that's quite what you're actually going for here. And although I think most "my-wiki-vs-your-wiki" comparisons are silly, your sysops might get a majority of "support" votes (as I suspect ours would), but a 51-49 split isn't enough to promote someone to sysop under any RfA policy/proposal I've seen. The original proposal specified that the RfA process would be used, which is currently in flux anyway.) --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 02:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
::: There's a difference between a policy ''governing'' reconfirmations and a policy ''allowing'' reconfirmations. Your post made it seem like you were basing your opinion on the latter. Two other points and then I'm gonna quit (at least until I hear back from Wikia): a) I guarantee that it would be ''overwhelmingly'' in favor of the Sysops (referring to PvX) and b) I don't even mean desysoption, necessarily, I just mean a way to express "no-confidence." – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | ::: There's a difference between a policy ''governing'' reconfirmations and a policy ''allowing'' reconfirmations. Your post made it seem like you were basing your opinion on the latter. Two other points and then I'm gonna quit (at least until I hear back from Wikia): a) I guarantee that it would be ''overwhelmingly'' in favor of the Sysops (referring to PvX) and b) I don't even mean desysoption, necessarily, I just mean a way to express "no-confidence." – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::: If you're only talking about a non-binding no-confidence vote, then you'll have to excuse my confusion, since that's not what the proposal here is for. I won't stop people from trying to do that, provided there are no personal attacks. But it won't be binding without consent from the sysop and/or Wikia staff. --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 03:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
I have a few things that I feel must be added to this discussion simply to clarify some of my previous points. First, I only said to contact the wikia staff because continuing the argument here means absolutely nothing. I did not and still do not support this policy in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, I understand that there are certain concerns about sysops having seemingly unlimited power. However, giving the community at large (and especially editors who have not contributed a single main-space edit to this wiki) the ability to recall ''all'' sysops at any time for the actions of one seems not only silly, but potentially suicidal for the wiki. As Kirby King rightfully said, there are and always will be some ill-will felt against sysops even when their powers are used correctly. Contrary to what DE said earlier in this discussion, the sysops' primary concern cannot always be what is the most popular decision, but what is the best decision for the wiki. Obviously, sysops cannot have ivory tower views that they and they alone know what is best for the wiki and that everyone else just exists to do their bidding, but sometimes the unpopular choices have to be made. For example, about two months ago, if we had let the popular decision of all the users stand, this would no longer be an encyclopedia, but another chat room and social networking service. Obviously, that is not the purpose (or primary purpose) of wikia. As sysops, we had to step in and make the unpopular decision that was best for the wiki. This is true of all leadership/management/administrator roles. If sysops could be expelled simply because the users didn't like a single decision that they made, we would not have any sysops left. Third, I again agree with Kirby King that a reelection system that begins by removing all current sysops powers and treating all RfAs the makes no sense. As even the proponents of this measure have indicated, there is really only one problematic sysop ''at most''. To recall all sysops and make them reapply is not only unfair, but completely baseless. Also, to clump all the sysops in with other users trying to get RfAs would take forever. Who's going to manage the wiki while it all gets sorted out? And who is going to arbitrate this? Two editors who have done nothing to improve the content of this wiki? Finally, do you really think that we have not at all tried to quell this problem internally. As SC said, it appears that you have not even bothered to read all of the conversations that have been happening, nor have you bothered to look at the surrounding events. And there is no way you could possible know everything seeing as you do not have access to my IM or e-mail conversations. Trust me, if you still want to go down this road and (on the off chance) Angela goes along with it, I'm ready. I just hope everyone (except DE and Warwick as they are already convinced they are right) understands that it is uncalled for, dumb, and potentially suicidal to this wiki. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Of course "the sysops' primary concern cannot always be what is the most popular decision, but what is the best decision for the wiki," I never said otherwise; all I said was that consensus > ''policy.'' As I mentioned on the Community Portal talk page, one look at PvXwiki's ADMIN page (which I wrote) should be more than enough to convince you that I am absolutely a proponent of nigh complete autonomy for Sysops; however, that autonomy does not make Sysops infallible, and there ''should'' be a way for the community-at-large to express dissent, even if the final decision were to fall to, say, a Bureaucrat alone as it probably would on, say, PvXwiki. I can keep arguing the point... particularly that there is a middle ground between giving the community zero authority over the Sysops and giving them complete authority... but I can see I'm getting nowhere, so I'm gonna change gears. A recall, even if it were to occur, but not likely begin by stripping all of the Sysops of their authority and having them re-undergo an identical RfA process; for instance, this is the reconfirmation policy on GWW: [http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GWW:RFA#Reconfirmation GWW:RFA#Reconfirmation]. (Please note that I'm not suggesting that you implement that policy, I'm merely attempting to give you a sense of what a reconfirmation might potentially look like.) That said, however, the Sysops would still, likely, be able to administrate during the period unless you chose a radically different tact; who knows, you could even disallow new RfAs until the reconfirmations are done with. And why in the world would I (or anyone from GuildWiki, etc.) arbitrate this? When have I even remotely suggested that? Honestly? The whole purpose of the "Bureaucrat" technical position is that it allows a user with that designation to alter user rights. Granted, that's not entirely the case on this Wiki because of Wikia, but the point stands. I realize that there may not be enough Bureaucrats at the moment to handle the arbitration, but that problem is only tangentially related to the merits of this suggestion. Anywho, I tend to agree with Angela that, regardless of the decision, it's best to wait awhile before taking any action (and, since the initial proposal was to implement this after the RfA policy was revamped, that should be that). On a side note, you should only believe that reconfirmations would be suicidal if you believe that Sysops wouldn't be confirmed. Ta. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
A little off subject here, but gargomon & oxico were dangerously close to becoming sysops before they closed, shouldnt they be considered? also, i highly support the "resysoping" idea, aside from kirby king and brawlmatt themselves. [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
<NOWIKI>*</NOWIKI>JUMPS OUT OF HIS SEAT* IDEA!!! ok, there are standings on both sides, one saying that too many sysops are overusing/abusing there power, and the other thinks if sysops were to retake the process to many members who havent done even 100 edits to this wiki would simply vote whatever they have heard right? ok, so now then how is this... we redo the whole entire nomination process, BUT!!! only people with a set amount of edits can vote! (like, 500, or 750, or 1000, you get the idea) and the final consensus would be left in kirbykings hands, as he is the only beauracrat here. when this over flow thing came up, remember that as i said before, oxico, gargomon, and also wolf o donnel had a LOT of support votes, and some sysops are... not... exactly... "very well liked" around here. i think that this would totally solve both of those problems. anyone? anyone? | |||
votes for yes: | |||
# [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
# [[User:Pikamander2|<span style="color:#007FFF">Pikamander2</span>]] <small>[[User Talk:Pikamander2|<span style="color:#007FFF">(Talk)</span>]]</small> 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
# [[User:JtM|JtM =^]]] ([[User talk:JtM|talk]]) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
# '''[[User:Xtrme|<span style="color:Black"></span>]][[User Talk:Xtrme|<small><sup><span style="color:Gold">PLEASE, SOMEONE TALK TO ME!</span></sup></small>]]''' 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
votes for no: | |||
# [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
# Everyone else on the wiki. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I lol'd. Do you really presume to speak for the rest of the wiki? --[[User:Shadowcrest|<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest</font>]] 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Sarcasm, sir, sarcasm. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 00:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Didn't anyone tell you sarcasm failz on teh intarwebs? Besides, you always seemed srsbsns to me :P --[[User:Shadowcrest|<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest</font>]] 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::I see. You can be forgiven for mistaking generally being a jerk for srsbsns. I use this wiki generally to amuse myself. Right? Wrong? Ah, an answer (and question) that must be left to the philosophers. I am sarcastic with the understanding that it is often difficult to be understood as such. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
=====Pagebreak===== | |||
So is it People who only have 1000 edits, or people that have like 1018 edits [[User:JtM|JtM =^]]] ([[User talk:JtM|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
I'm going to reiterate something that has been said many times before: This process is not strictly democratic. It is not a simple vote count that allows a person to become a sysop. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
The problem here becomes people spamming for voting rights, which makes everything suck a lot more. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
But do we have a date or something when the sysops from that list will be chosen? Even if it is only one or two people I dc I just wanna know if I made it.--[[User:Oxico|Oxico]] ([[User talk:Oxico|talk]]) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
oh yeah, no go ahead and just totally ignore my idea people. NO ITS FINE! [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I did respond to it. We're not doing it. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:: I'm not voting on principle, because this won't be decided by a "vote". In any event, seems silly to me that I alone should arbitrate community consensus on this (which is something I don't really have the time or interest to do either--this is why we have a ''team'' of sysops), so you can also consider your proposal fundamentally flawed. --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 23:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
of course it wont be decided on the vote, the vote simply brings a point foward. what about if we only allowed 3 requests at a time? and only sysops can vote for whether or not the user gets promoted? (and dont say thats stupid because the sysops here already want it closed, because i saw several sysops vote yes for gargomon and wolf). if i remember correctly, do you recall how you became a sysop rawk? gxd (or somebody) told you on your talk page suggested you run, and thats when you decided to. [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
==I GOT IT!!!== | |||
OK, So You Know How Only Admins Can Request Bureaucratship? How About Only Rollbacks Can Request Adminship? It's Like a Ladder. [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:This has already been suggested. I've got serious reservations about the principle, but I need to talk to KirbyKing more (read: bug him on IRC). Also, afaik, non-sysops can request bureaucratship, it's just not likely to be granted. --[[User:Shadowcrest|<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest</font>]] 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::read the rules. [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 17:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Thanks for reading my idea and posting it as your own. Anyway, I do support this measure (as it initially was my idea). And under the current policy, KP is right that only sysops can request bureaucrat. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Well, I think making sysop a prerequisite for bureaucrat is stupid and should be changed, but today I have too much to do to formulate gigantic walls of text to argue my point, so perhaps another day. Clarinet Hawk (and anyone else who shares C.Hawk's point of view), please see [[SmashWiki talk:Requests for rollback]] and respond to my criticisms there. --[[User:Shadowcrest|<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest</font>]] 19:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Oh, LOL. Sorry Rawk. I usually don't read those really long text walls. But yeah, I guess you could discuss it with fnw and kirbyking and the rest of the active sysops. I really do think that RfA should stay open, as there is no harm in doing so. But, I think this might be a better idea, that way people can't spam votes. [[User:Kperfekt722|KP317]] ([[User talk:Kperfekt722|talk]]) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Category == | |||
Can some sysop change the category to [[:Category:Administration]]? Btw, this page shouldn't be protected even if the nominations are closed. They're not related enough to restrict access to a page. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">[[User:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">Shadow</font>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">crest</font>]]</font> 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Also add <nowiki>{{Template:Policy}}</nowiki> please. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">[[User:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">Shadow</font>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">crest</font>]]</font> 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Re-opening == | |||
Now I know that I made a recommendation above that was, well, ... really stupid. Nevertheless, I would like to know what would have to change before the RfA's are reopened. I hate to beat a dead horse like this, but there should at least be some criteria to be satisfied before they reopen. {[[User:Miles.oppenheimer|My name is Miles,]] [[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|and I approve]] [[Special:Contributions/Miles.oppenheimer|this message.]]} 20:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think anything needs to change, because (imo) they should have never closed in the first place. My 2 cents. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3">[[User:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">Shadow</font>]][[User talk:Shadowcrest|<font color="Steelblue">crest</font>]]</font> 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::I'll just say this, we're really close to doing it. I'm still trying to work out the details so we don't cause what happened last time, but it is coming. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Good to hear. It won't be for quite a while yet but I'd like to know it'd be possible for me to submit an Rfa in the future. {[[User:Miles.oppenheimer|My name is Miles,]] [[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|and I approve]] [[Special:Contributions/Miles.oppenheimer|this message.]]} 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
This looks a little like deja-vu... Will see where it goes. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 20:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Archive == | |||
I'm thinking this talk is a bit large and needs archiving. I'll do it or someone else can. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] ([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Miles.oppenheimer|contribs]])</span> 04:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | |||