57,336
edits
SmashWiki talk:Administrators/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Administrators/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 16:25, 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") |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archive}} | |||
==IM Contact Info== | ==IM Contact Info== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
:: I idle in the channel pretty much whenever my computer's on. If I'm at my computer you can get my attention by pinging me in the channel (type my username) or messaging me. --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | :: I idle in the channel pretty much whenever my computer's on. If I'm at my computer you can get my attention by pinging me in the channel (type my username) or messaging me. --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:: I'm also (always) in the channel when online. I can alternatively be reached be using [[special:emailuser/sky2042]]. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[ | :: I'm also (always) in the channel when online. I can alternatively be reached be using [[special:emailuser/sky2042]]. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[User:Sky2042|w]]) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::There's also the "E-mail this user" option, pending you put your e-mail in [[special:preferences|your preferences]].--[[User:Richard1990|Richard]] 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | :::There's also the "E-mail this user" option, pending you put your e-mail in [[special:preferences|your preferences]].--[[User:Richard1990|Richard]] 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Line 242: | Line 243: | ||
:It seems that all that's left of this discussion is fixing the wording of Toomai's proposed addition so that the meaning doesn't become open to abuse and misinterpretation. I (believe I) speak for the few who oppose this addition when I say that we are just looking for small adjustments to make the addition sensible and appropriate. Also (although it is likely of no importance) I'd like to note that everyone who has voiced support for the addition is an admin/bureaucrat. [[User:KungFuLakitu|KungFuLakitu]], [[User talk:KungFuLakitu|Spiny Overlord]] 21:36, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | :It seems that all that's left of this discussion is fixing the wording of Toomai's proposed addition so that the meaning doesn't become open to abuse and misinterpretation. I (believe I) speak for the few who oppose this addition when I say that we are just looking for small adjustments to make the addition sensible and appropriate. Also (although it is likely of no importance) I'd like to note that everyone who has voiced support for the addition is an admin/bureaucrat. [[User:KungFuLakitu|KungFuLakitu]], [[User talk:KungFuLakitu|Spiny Overlord]] 21:36, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
::This is not a thing to support or oppose; Toomai's full intention from the very beginning (which he made clear both here and elsewhere) was to put it in. The goal of this discussion was to make sure that the wording was clear to the userbase, and clear up/change anything that didn't make sense or sounded off. It's not a lust for power from any of us, it's a rewording so that it's understood more clearly, and users don't accuse admins of abusing their power or otherwise because of something they do that's ultimately not a ''wrong'' thing to do. That is also something we admins work together on - [[Talk:Marth (SSB4)#"Subjectivity"|we've done it before]], and we still plan on keeping each other in check. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 21:52, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ::This is not a thing to support or oppose; Toomai's full intention from the very beginning (which he made clear both here and elsewhere) was to put it in. The goal of this discussion was to make sure that the wording was clear to the userbase, and clear up/change anything that didn't make sense or sounded off. It's not a lust for power from any of us, it's a rewording so that it's understood more clearly, and users don't accuse admins of abusing their power or otherwise because of something they do that's ultimately not a ''wrong'' thing to do. That is also something we admins work together on - [[Talk:Marth (SSB4)#"Subjectivity"|we've done it before]], and we still plan on keeping each other in check. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 21:52, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:::Then yes, please reworded it so that it | :::Then yes, please reworded it so that it explains the point clearly. [[User:Wolff| Wolff]] ([[User talk:Wolff|talk]]) 22:03, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
Am I the only one super unsettled by the fact that the only people who think this is a good idea are admins? [[User:TheNuttyOne|TheNuttyOne]] 21:57, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | Am I the only one super unsettled by the fact that the only people who think this is a good idea are admins? [[User:TheNuttyOne|TheNuttyOne]] 21:57, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:I noticed it, but I am not unsettled by it and I hope that so many admins would never support a bad idea, which this ultimately isn't. [[User:KungFuLakitu|KungFuLakitu]], [[User talk:KungFuLakitu|Spiny Overlord]] 22:00, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | :I noticed it, but I am not unsettled by it and I hope that so many admins would never support a bad idea, which this ultimately isn't. [[User:KungFuLakitu|KungFuLakitu]], [[User talk:KungFuLakitu|Spiny Overlord]] 22:00, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:::My understanding is that it is merely an "update" to prevent an previously unseen oversight with the wording. It is not actually changing any of the rules, it is just to ''clarify'' them to prevent any (more) misunderstandings. [[User:Wolff| Wolff]] ([[User talk:Wolff|talk]]) 22:03, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | :::My understanding is that it is merely an "update" to prevent an previously unseen oversight with the wording. It is not actually changing any of the rules, it is just to ''clarify'' them to prevent any (more) misunderstandings. [[User:Wolff| Wolff]] ([[User talk:Wolff|talk]]) 22:03, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:::What it amounts to is that this change ''should'' be unnecessary. [[SW:CONSENSUS]] already states that consensuses are not majority-rules, but the quality of arguments. Admins ''should'' be well-respected and they ''should'' be trusted to determine a wise and well-founded argument over a crappy one; not because they are admins, but because of who they are as people. Other well-respected users would receive the same trust. | |||
:::This change only becomes necessary in a situation where the users do not trust the admins, in which case it is hard to argue that the admins are in the right. If this change is followed respectfully, then it should be no different than how consensuses are already treated and is thus unnecessary. However, the current phrasing is, as discussed, dangerously vague and could leave it open to abuse. While I don't think any of our current admins would purposefully abuse it, I cannot in good faith support an addition that has zero benefits but could result in abuse. [[User:TheNuttyOne|TheNuttyOne]] 22:07, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Not going to bother reading everything that went down, may even say some duplicate information, but just going to respond off of the example alone.<br> | |||
As an admin on a few other wikis, this is pretty close - maybe even exact - to the policies I follow. Admins are supposed to be friends, just with a few extra privileges in regards to wiki maintenance. I don't protect pages to solidify my own opinion on a page, I don't block people because they disagree with me, and my replies hold no more weight than others in a standard discussion. I fully expect the same things to happen here.<br> | |||
'''HOWEVER''' they are still the administrative team and act as ''mediators'' in disputes, and disputes only. If they try to end a conversation, it usually means a decision has not been reached and/or the topic has gone on far longer than they should. This isn't an abusive admin, you ''will know'' when an admin is being abusive (and so will the administrative team). This is mediation and their role implies they have the right to act on trouble should the need arise to keep the wiki running smoothly. Usually, an admin will bring up a dispute in an admin-only chat/forum. So it's ''not one admin making the calls'', it's all of them (or a majority) trying to figure the best course of action.<br> | |||
If you don't like it, that's your problem, not theirs.<br> | |||
EDIT: '''Support.''' [[User:Alex95|Alex95]] ([[User talk:Alex95|talk]]) 22:18, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Admins are saying this change is ''required'' as must be done, other Users state that a consensus must be approved ''before'' this change can be considered. Although both statements ''appear'' to be true, I don't think either side is going to convince the other, ''right now'' anyawy. [[User:Wolff| Wolff]] ([[User talk:Wolff|talk]]) 23:26, June 23, 2019 (EDT) | |||
'''Discussion on hold until the wording on that last line gets fixed.''' There's no point in squabbling over a not-final version of this. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;border:outset #083 2px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;background:#ed0;padding:1px">Serpent</span>]][[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;background:#083;padding:1px">King</span>]]'''</span> 14:49, June 24, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Improved version of the second section: | |||
<pre> | |||
== ...but administrators are still administrators == | |||
Ideally, administrators shouldn't be considered as being "in charge"; the ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the SmashWiki community, by keeping the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and malicious users. However, admins are promoted to a staff position because the community has agreed that they can be trusted to make tough calls or arbitrary decisions in cases where discussion and diplomacy do not reach a solution. Therefore, when the staff make a decision on a hotly-debated or high-visibility topic, users are expected to comply. | |||
Some situations where it may be necessary for administrator fiat to override community desire include: | |||
* Decisions that, if carried out, would damage the wiki and/or its reputation | |||
* Decisions that are risky or impossible for technical reasons | |||
* Discussions that are at a stalemate, or where one or more sides refuse to concede | |||
</pre> | |||
Another reminder: This is writing down the unwritten rules, not altering how anything is done. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Metroid 21:07, June 24, 2019 (EDT) | |||
:How long would it need to have last in order to stop a stalemated discussion? Would users new to the discussion be needed to participate in it to prevent stopping the discussion? Also, because it "ended" in a stalemate, how long until the discussion could be resumed? These were just some thoughts I had when reading the 3rd example. [[User:Wolff| Wolff]] ([[User talk:Wolff|talk]]) 23:59, June 24, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::Stalemated would mean multiple days with neither side being able to come to an agreement. Having new users come in could (and, in most cases, ''would'') only add fuel to the fire and make it spread more. Restarting a closed discussion is always a tricky thing to do, [[Talk:Hammer (move)#Move (2)|as has been shown before]] ([[Template talk:Symbol/Archive 1|multiple]] [[Template talk:Symbol|times]]), but the best course of action, to me, would be to only start it up again if one could add something ''new'' to the discussion, as there is little point in starting up a dispute only with repeated information; this same logic can be applied to bringing in new users to these discussions as well. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 00:24, June 25, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::I define a stalemate as a dispute which both sides are evenly match as far as arguments go, neither of them able to contribute any new points (just continually parroting) for several days. That last question is covered in [[SW:CONSENSUS]]. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;border:outset #083 2px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083;background:#ed0;padding:1px">Serpent</span>]][[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0;background:#083;padding:1px">King</span>]]'''</span> 10:33, June 25, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Bumping this so it reappears in recentchanges. Will apply if no one dissents. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Polychromatic 13:25, June 29, 2019 (EDT) | |||
: What is a fiat?[[Special:Contributions/172.56.26.39|172.56.26.39]] 20:28, July 7, 2019 (EDT) | |||
::[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat A command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort]. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 23:26, July 7, 2019 (EDT) | |||
It's been a few weeks with no complaints on the new version, so I think this is done. Updating. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Golden 11:39, July 8, 2019 (EDT) | |||
== Article Stolen? == | |||
I created an account about a week ago and was going to try to edit the a new page, but because this was like a trial account I was required to do at least possibly 10 edits and wait 7 days until my account could be fully-used on Saturday, August 7th, 2019. I've done some edits in the sandbox with one in particular is CUSH, a friend and rival I know about which I would write from scratch to write down his article page in the sandbox of everything smash related. Today, when my account was ready, I had tried to start a new article on CUSH, but the article was taken by [[User:Thegameandwatch]] who had used the exact same fonts ({{Sm|CUSH}}) and handwritten notes I wrote in the sandbox I had used before around the 22nd of August, 2 days before my account was fully-used. The article were the same here but in a different link: {{Sm|Cush}}. Also he also shows in his contributions that he visited the sandbox page I had created into the page he purposely created as if he created himself. [[User:DreaM]] 15:31, August 24, 2019 (EST) | |||
:So it appears as though the issue here is that another user took your concept article and copy-pasted it into a smasher article before you were able to. You did not explain this very well on Cookie's talk page, which is why I didn't understand the issue at the time. I suggest that you take this up with the user in question, but it's hard to say what should be done about this since this is something that hasn't really happened before. In future, now that you are able to create articles, I suggest that you put smasher articles you're constructing into user subpages (which you can do by naming the page User:{your username here}/{smasher name here}. Once you are satisfied with how the article is, you can move it to Smasher:{smasher name here}. In future, please take care to more clearly explain the issue you are having, as we can't really help you if you don't. As for the 2 articles existing, since they are duplicate, one should be deleted, which style would be more appropriate for the smasher's article title in your opinion? ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:42, August 24, 2019 (EDT) | |||
OK thank you, I'll try not to act reckless. [[User:DreaM]] 15:46, August 24, 2019 (EST) | |||