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

Wait that mean if we want to nominate someone we just put their username theere?--[[User:Fandangox|Fandangox]] 19:44, November 20, 2007 (EST)

== the nom process ==

: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> ^{''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''} 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

== Ugh ==

Awfully small "consensus" to close ''all'' of them, though I'm not opposed to the choice personally. ;o

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)

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)

: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)

:::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)

:::::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)

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)

::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)

::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> ^{''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''} 21:42, 30 June 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)

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)

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 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)

===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)

:::::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)

:::::::::My attempt to resolve this -- [[User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal]] [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 20:11, 20 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 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)

:::: 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)