3,882
edits
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 12:16, August 23, 2008
, 15 years ago→Arbitrary page break
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
::: 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) | :::: 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) | |||