SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1

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

Eh?

Aren't self-nominations a little... selfish? I mean, for one thing, when you can't nominate yourself and other people have to do it for you, you have to have a good rep to get nominated, and thus, it prevents people who aren't much liked by the community from becoming figures of authority. But on top of that, self-nominations just seem a little selfish to me. I myself would rather have someone else who can see I try to contribute as positively as I can nominate me than just nominate myself without knowing what the community thinks of me.

Post your thoughts on this. =/ Teamrocketspy621 20:09, November 20, 2007 (EST)

I agree. The kind of people who I see nominating themselves also happen to be people I'd rather not have as a sysop. Those who actively try to obtain power usually end up being the ones who have that power go to their heads all too quickly. -Thores 21:04, November 20, 2007 (EST)

I also agree. Outlaw self-nominations, for reasons mentioned already. NeonCrusader 22:53, November 20, 2007 (EST)

For what it's worth, this was the kind of response I would have preferred to hear when I posted this in the Pool Room, not here. I don't think self-nominations are an issue because if someone doesn't have community support, that will be obvious from the response to the nomination. You would just need one person to nominate you, and one person does not make a community consensus either--if we're trying to stop abuse, just asking someone to nominate you (or hell, to just fake it) is easy enough. I think that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop based on the community response and their own judgment, rather than relying on nominations from other people. The other major point is that I don't want to have to deal with people nominating others who aren't interested in being a sysop--then some people will have their nomination discussed without being interested in it, and there are enough issues there that aren't worth having to deal with. And even if you accept, if you hadn't really been thinking about it before and decide to accept it, then maybe you really weren't interested to begin with, and you won't be particularly active. In any event, if the process really irks you, ask a couple friends if they'd support you as sysop--if yes, then you have at least as much support as you'd need to get nominated by someone else, so there should be no shame in nominating yourself (since everyone else has to do the same thing). --Kirby King 01:01, November 21, 2007 (EST)

It's worth noting Kirby King's point that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop, but in the same respect, those candidates who would make good sysops also share that judgment, so self-nomination is perfectly logical. Those who know best how to improve the administrative side of the wiki will make the best candidates and individuals know their own skillset and breadth of contributions far better than the community does. Remember, self-nomination is not the same as self-appointment; it's whether or not the nomination is successful that filters the power-hungry attention-seekers from those who actively seek that power because they recognize how the wiki can be improved in conjunction with their skills. --RJM ^Talk 02:54, November 21, 2007 (EST)

I see. Self-nomination really is the better way to go, then. Teamrocketspy621 08:00, November 21, 2007 (EST)

Well some will self-nominate or what? I's surprised that fireNWater haven't self-nominate yet, she can be more annoying that zinnamon when trying to convince someone for sysop. Someone will have to self-nomitate before I do.--Fandangox 16:31, November 22, 2007 (EST)

Achoo! :^) --RJM ^Talk 01:37, November 23, 2007 (EST)

That actually surprised me, too. Anyway, okay, let the self-noms be done :p NeonCrusader 23:07, November 22, 2007 (EST)

actually Fandangox, i haven't been on a computer for the past few days. don't you ever compare me to that kid. i'm removing the kind of junk that he often puts into the site. FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 02:54, November 23, 2007 (EST)

OK, I was just joking, can't people take a little joke?--Fandangox 11:26, November 23, 2007 (EST)

Frankly, that seemed a bit like an overreaction on her part, but fortunately that's not overly relevant to the question of my supporting her for sysopship. ;) Erik, Lord of Universes 13:53, November 23, 2007 (EST)

... I just hope that the new sysop do something about this user: IDIDITFORTHELULZ I had reverted three of his vadalized edits.--Fandangox 13:55, November 23, 2007 (EST)

Well, when is the big day then?

when the someone is going to be elected, selected, granted, or/and choosed to be the new sysop?--Fandangox 18:13, November 26, 2007 (EST)

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? --Sky (t | c | 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. --RJM ^Talk 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. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh

when will someone noticed im a canidate for sysop..... no one has been on this page for ever! Zmario 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

An idea to decide on the current sysop nominations

Right now we have five candidates who are all in approximately the same situation. As Randal has pointed out, with people simply getting their friends to come out and vote for them it is becoming something like a popularity contest. What I propose as a way to decide is a system like the main wikipedia has. Every current sysop that is willing will put forward a situation that would be in the reasonable work of a sysop. Each candidate will respond as to how they would go about solving said situation. These responses will then be judged to determine the success of the candidate's request for adminship. Additionally, other users may continue to comment on the candidates, but comments must be more that "he's made some good edits." For a comment to be considered, the user must point to specific and ongoing actions by the candidate that have improved the wiki beyond what is seen out of the majority of regular contributors. Let me know what you all think, especially other sysops. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a better way of doing things, but at this point, I don't even see the need for more SysOps, so I don't think this page serves much of a purpose at all until we do. --RJM ^Talk 04:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the number of sysops is good right now. And yes, basically everyone that's trying right now is kinda like, "OMG, i wanna be able to delete stuff and be cool and ban people i dun liek!" So... can we close the thing until we need more help? FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deal. In the interim, I think it might be a good idea for everyone to come to some sort of consensus as to what direction this wiki is going in nowadays anyway. Since the merge, there hasn't been a lot of organization of things like policies, project pages and guidelines. The number of "/Merge" articles sitting in Category:SmashWiki is evidence enough that everything pretty much came to a standstill and it would be good to get everyone on the same page with respect to what's in store for the future. I'll post some of my thoughts in greater detail tomorrow--dealing with this kind of spam should never really be the top sysop priority around here and as of late, that has been the case. Now that it's out of the way, it's high time that some discussions about actual productivity came to the surface. --RJM ^Talk 05:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Working on the 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. --Sky (t · c · 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. --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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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 --Sky (t · c · 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? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'll get started on it tomorrow. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. --Sky (t · c · 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. Kperfekt722 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand how this can seem like an unfair authoritarian decision, but there really wasn't any other option. As you obviously didn't read the comments above this (if you had, you wouldn't have made this a response to Sky and me), you don't realize that we are on to discussing other matters. Right now, the first order of business is merging all the pages left over from the merger. As for why we closed the sysop nominations, all anyone expressed as their reason for wanting the powers was the ability to ban users and delete pages. We already have enough people to take care of that. However, those are not the only jobs of a sysop. I'll be honest, it was much more work and expectation than I expected. Merging page histories is a boring and repetitive process, where one mistake can cause big problems for the pages in question. The nominees wanted to be sysops because they felt it would be fun. While there is the occasional enjoyment, it comes mostly from seeing your improvements to the wiki after putting in a good amount of work. Candidates were coming up for sysop just because they made lots of edits, not because they demonstrated the skills or commitment necessary to take this wiki in the right direction. I'll also point out that we have an extremely large number of sysops already; there are only two on the whole Golden Sun wiki. I appologize about the timing of this decision, but we needed to move forward an begin tackling problems that we had let slide for too long. I hope that there are no hard feelings and everyone continues to work with this wiki and take it in the right direction. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:11, 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot make the monobook skin our default, but you can set it as a user preference. This is due to w:Wikia's New Style. Yay for our Wikia overlords! --Sky (t · c · 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! Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. :^) --RJM ^Talk 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. ;( ). --Sky (t · c · 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". Zmario (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We know how to do it for ourselves, but we're trying to do it for the whole wiki. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

opening back up nominations?

since the whole thing has come up about merging page histories and joke pages are seeming to be at an all time high, maybe we should open back up nominations? of course, those aren't my only reasons, as there are others such as SSF2 and other games of the like coming out soon, plus i really want to be a sysop :D Kperfekt722 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We're handling it alright. If we need more help, we'll post it. Also, not to be a total bitch, but you're not really qualified for the position, anyway. (I don't speak for everyone, though.) FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 08:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey C'mon, I'm a featured user! I'm totally qualified! (not that I speak for everyone either)... Kperfekt722 (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure you are. Zmario (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AND WHATS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? lol. Kperfekt722 (talk) 11:59, 23 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --Sky (t · c · 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 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. Dtm142 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can't y'all just let us do some actual work for awhile please? The nominations are closed. --RJM ^Talk 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we want the Nominations to stay open. Maybe we want new, better sysops. once that don't get angrily so easily. Ones that talk out thweir problems then just banning the person. We want syops that are polar opposites of YOU RANDALL! Zmario (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. You would be a great sysop. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Randall, what are you talking about? Define "us". --Charitwo^Talk 00:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It at the very least includes all of the sysops that contributed to the original votes, plus myself. I abstained from the original vote as I had been made a sysop in the final rounds of nominations and felt it would be a conflict of interest and unprofessional at best. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about getting something done for a change around here. We've been floating in an administrative bureaucracy since the merge and every time that I finally get around to trying to facilitate some actual editing, the community at large is so pre-occupied with handing out sysop cards that they forget what this wiki is actually for. How much more time do you guys really want to waste on this? Honestly? What is the advantage to spending time fielding ridiculous requests for adminship when we could be working on the actual wiki content? WHY would we hire more sysops to administer an encyclopedia if the encyclopedia never gets written? This has to stop right now, okay? I'm not opposed to more administrators when we need them. --RJM ^Talk 00:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, while you have a point about content, sometimes being able to delete helps in that regard. I reiterate Dtm's points on his aforementioned message. It's not that big a big of a deal. --Charitwo^Talk 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may not be– accounting for the administrative overhead associated with fielding these nominations. We don't exactly have a lot of staff here, so unless we want to hire an entire Human Resources department to constantly run who is and is not a sysop, I sure don't have time to do it. Open them up if you can actually find "consensus," but I've moved on to real content, so my input will be sparse. --RJM ^Talk 00:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to help with that process, it's part of a responsibility as an administrator. It's also one of the reasons I am running for bureaucrat, so if you think we need more people to deal with the "overhead", you can support it. --Charitwo^Talk 00:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't support it because I don't believe it's necessary. I believe it's a waste of resources, but if everyone really thinks bringing more people into the fold is the right thing to do, I won't argue. --RJM ^Talk 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, if everyone wants to know the real problem going on, here it is: Even the admins we currently have can't bother to talk to each other before making big decisions. Case in point is right here. With all due respect Dtm, you haven't been on this wiki very much lately, and the first thing you do after getting back is to overturn a policy that the sysops that were here decided on. Yes, we may have been hasty and incorrect in our decision (I can't really know), but it does very little for your credibility to jump in and overrule the other admins simply because you disagree. Now, the admins are in an edit war. That's not good. The biggest reason that I oppose any more admins is quite simply that we can't decide on what should be done now. Not that we need to always agree, I've disagreed with every one of you on different occasions, but we can't start undoing each other's edits back and forth just because we disagree. Do we really need to add more people into this mix? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE! I want to speak my mind about sysops. I want to agree with every sysop who stated we dont need more sysops. I agree with that point to an extent. What happens when vandilism strikes and no sysop is on to get rid of it! By the time one gets on they could have vandilized the entire wikia. I am on most of the time anyways so how about letting me become a sysop? Im already a featured user. I have actually contributed more then Clarinet Hawk. I just want the tool of deletion and blocking/banning. Please consider this as I have been a reallt active user. Zmario (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zmario on vandalism. There could be no sysop to get rid of it, and for that reason more sysops would be useful. However, whether or not Zmario should be a sysop should be discussed on the main RFA page. Based on his inability to use the process properly, I probably wouldn't support. Dtm142 (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well regular users can easily fix vandalism... and another easy solution would be rollback rights. So there isn't a real good reason to have new sysops. - Hatake91 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am against opening the requests for adminship again, but I think out of the current nominees there should be at least two more chosen. And then that is all, no more sysops or nominations...things get out of hand as you can see.--Oxico (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Regular users cannot block vandals or delete spam pages. What you all need to understand is that sysop rights are simply an extension of regular editing abilities. It is not a paid position as some make it seem. There is no reason not to give out sysop rights to users who have been trusted by the community. And what exactly is out of hand right now? If it's the joke nominations, there have always been joke nominations on lots of wikis. That is no reason to deny sysop access to contributors who actually deserve it. Dtm142 (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear on the reasoning behind closing the RFAs. Is it because the admins don't have the time to deal with stuff? RFAs don't have to be decided overnight. My own nomination back on GuildWiki took 3 months to be decided. That is more than enough time, even for uber-busy admins. If you haven't had enough free time to vote in 3 months, then... well, you're probably not qualified enough to make an accurate judgment anyway. If I'm totally off the mark, then... enlighten me. --Shadowcrest 20:15, 17 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. 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. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:03, 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...-Oxico (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well back on the topic, really, how many sysops do we need? Are we gonna keep doing this until every user is a sysop? That would take a while...but still when do we stop?--Oxico (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because nominations open up doesn't mean that people have to be promoted. RFA's can fail for a reason. --Shadowcrest 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides I really don't think anyone here is eligible for a sysop position... - Hatake91 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What about me! Zmario (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't think anyone is currently eligible doesn't mean that we should discontinue the process. RFAs can fail if the candidate isn't ready. As for the number of sysops, it shouldn't matter how many we have if everyone uses their powers properly. You all need to realize that adminship is not a paid position. We do not "hire sysops". It is simply an extension of normal editing capacities that is given to contributors who have demonstrated to the community that they can use it properly. If we could trust every editor with adminship, that would be a good thing (although extremely unlikely due to the reality of the internet). However, RFA should be an ongoing community process. There is no need to limit the number of RFAs or sysops. Dtm142 (talk) 00:47, 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.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. 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!
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).
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. --Sky (t · c · w) 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My attempt to resolve this -- User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal Semicolon (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New Idea for All Sysops

I, Miles.oppenheimer, with support from MarioGalaxy and Defiant Elements, suggest the following strategy to deal with the current problems with both the RfA process and the blocking fiasco of late. Our recommendation is that ALL current sysops must reapply for adminship through the RfA process. If they fail this time through, they will be stripped of their admin powers. This idea, however, will strengthen the positions of admins who re-win their status. Note that this is not directed at any one sysop but at every last one of them. (See here for the thread where I first posed this idea.) I await your response. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How about no? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets not start this again.. I'm all trolled out today, mainly 'cuz I don't troll much anymore. In short: How about yes? {{SUBST:User:Warwick/~.js}} 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

How about yes because it will make them leave. I still don't think it's necessary. Silverdragon, Charitwo, Dtm and C-Hawk have been fantastic, and Randall can be callous but he works hard too. But once they're gone, we may be able to get past it. Semicolon (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not about whether or not you work hard, its about whether or not you'd be good with admin powers, if you understand the responsibilities, etc. If working hard was all that was needed, just about everyone on gwiki would be sysops. --User:Warwick 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A sysop who doesn't work hard shouldn't be a sysop. It's a qualification. I'm not going to defend what Randall did, but I was trying to establish that has merit as a sysop. He's the only professional who works on the wiki, and that is extremely valuable to our legitimacy and to our content. Semicolon (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While hard work is a a qualification, it's not the only qualification, nor is it the most important. Common sense, level-headedness, patience, etc. are infinitely more important. – Defiant Elements 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't defend Randall on those accounts. I still think he's more valuable to this wiki than you realize because you lack the perspective from a Smash Bros standpoint. Semicolon (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflictWorking hard doesn't mean that someone is deserving of sysophood. I've spent (literally) hours typing out single responses to things. Easy work? No. Should I be sysopped? (It'd make my life easier, but it won't happen.) Working hard makes it seem like sysophood is a reward for good work, which multiple admins (and common sense) say it isn't. If Silverdragon, Charitwo, Dtm and C-Hawk have been as fantastic as you say, they should have nothing to worry about. --Shadowcrest 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's flawed reasoning. You assume everyone will vote based on that. Right now, the voters are angry, and there is potential for a coup. There could be a real problem if we do this. Semicolon (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that perception might as well be reality when it comes to wikis (you can dispute that premise, but I have no interest debating the point), if "good" Sysops can't muster up enough support to get themselves reconfirmed, your problem is much worse than even I suspected. – Defiant Elements 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Swing and a miss. I was saying the community wouldn't relect good sysops because of the opportunity for them to become sysops in their stead. They're self-proclaimed aspirations toward adminship all over the Cult of Personality. Semicolon (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem if you institute an RfA policy that treats Bureaucrats as the sole arbiters. Any logic such as one might expect such people would use would be given much less credence than say, a well thought-out wall of text by Clarinet Hawk supporting Silverdragon's reconfirmation. – Defiant Elements 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside that we have one barely active bureaucrat, I would like to volunteer myself for the position of judge to see whose reasoning is best, and who gets reconfirmation. But really now, if you have reasonings behind your support or oppose, I think we have thoroughly demonstrated here that such positions either degrade or accomplish nothing. Semicolon (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict Do I really need to explain why "How about no." is not a legitimate reason to oppose something which, for all intents and purposes, would solve all of the wikidrama outright? The worst possible outcome would be that the drama would end and the sysops' positions would be strengthened. Think about it Semicolon, if y'all reconfirmed the Sysops, you'd get your wish, I'd leave. – Defiant Elements 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice strawman, ace. How about, 'How about no' was my answer, and 'it's not necessary' was my reasoning? Semicolon (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice threat, genius. On this wiki, from what I've heard you should be banned for that, OMGZ. How about, "How about yes" was my answer, and "You're a stubborn, narrow-minded dipshit" was my reasoning? —Warwick 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:). Thought you were trolled out? Oh, and where was the threat again? I think you might have gotten lost in the English. Semicolon (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to the "threat" you posted on my talk page fyi. – Defiant Elements 22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. --...W 22:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't a threat, guy. I'm just saying that the community might shoot your little coup down. Krakow Krakow! Not the capital of Mongolia. The other krakow. Semicolon (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Coup? If I were to say, nominate Shadowcrest or myself, that would be a coup... however... since I have no intention of doing so... If the community believes that every single one of the admins is fit, I won't complain a whit; heck, I wouldn't even be the slightest upset, not the slightest bit. – Defiant Elements 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a metaphorical extension, guy. What you've got yurself here is a met-e-for. Semicolon (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it's terribly inapt (as demonstrated by my post). Also, taking potshots at my intelligence doesn't further your cause, not to mention that I'm a triple major in English, History, and PoliSci. – Defiant Elements 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, I disagree. While there are semantic complications, Thesaurus.com lists 'overthrow' as a synonym for coup. In case you didn't know, that's what you're proposing to do here. If they're that close in meaning, it can't be too hard to understand or take. And where'my taking potshots at your intelligence? I'm playing with you's all. I'm dropping the serious tone. It's just a bloody wiki. Dear lord. Semicolon (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been fun chatting with you, unfortunately, I've gotta go eat (and I somehow doubt that arguing with you further is gonna advance my argument), so I'm gonna wait to see what other people have to say. Good luck, have fun ;). – Defiant Elements 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will miss you from the depths of my heart. 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.
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. --Sky (t · c · 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. – Defiant Elements 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 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 15:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do; thanks for the suggestion. – Defiant Elements 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I've emailed Angela. – Defiant Elements 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:Administrator recall, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment (which used to include "Requests for review of administrative actions". Angela<staff /> (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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).

I also feel compelled to point out a few other things: one, not even bureaucrats can desysop people. Contacting Wikia staff is the only way of removing a sysop for whatever reason, so since that seems to be happening now anyway, I'm inclined to let that process work itself out. Also, a number of sysops are currently inactive. Much like there is no policy to allow sysops to be recalled by other users (other than noted above), there is no policy here/on Wikia/Wikipedia that I am aware of that would let people be demoted for simple inactivity. Even though the intent of this proposal is to remove abusive sysops, I don't think the collateral damage is justified.

Ultimately this proposal essentially removes all sysops and just offers them a chance to get their jobs back the same way as anyone else. (There is no difference between a non-sysop going through the RfA process and not getting promoted if they fail, and a sysop going through the RfA process again and being stripped of their powers if they fail.) The fact that sysops naturally are inclined to make enemies in the proper course of their jobs (I'm speaking generally here, on the basis that people typically don't like it when they/their friends are punished) just means that they would be less likely to succeed, depending on how exactly the reconfirmation process was handled. The one saving grace I will offer is this: if people are really more interested in being able to "strengthen the positions of admins who re-win their status" rather than demote those who may have fallen out of favor (for whatever reason), then feel free to convince your favorite sysop to opt-in to this process. But I don't think it would be reasonable to implement this on a mandatory basis. --Kirby King 23:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to this as thoroughly as I'd like to, but I must protest nevertheless. What your post seems to amount to is that there is absolutely no outlet for a user to express a vote of no-confidence for a Sysop; i.e. he cannot contact a Bureaucrat (or, at least, doing so would do no good) and he cannot start a reconfirmation. That thought saddens me a bit; I don't mean to appeal to emotion, but, in all seriousness, brooking no no-confidence votes is truly unfortunate; and, of course, in order to even remotely effective, such reconfirmations would have to, by necessity, be mandatory. Where I come from, for instance, a user could create a request for reconfirmation and if enough people concurred with the request (whether or not the sysops liked the idea), the reconfirmation took place. Or, barring that, (PvX, for instance, has no such reconfirmation process), a user could contact a Bureaucrat, and, that, in of itself, would get the ball rolling (i.e. the Bureaucrat would decide if any action needed to be taken). I understand that this is neither GWW nor PvX, but providing no outlet is simply dangerous. And, as to policy, I honestly don't mean to be facetious, but I'm not sure what such a policy could say. "If the community, via consensus, decides that a reconfirmation should take place, it will take place?" I hope you see why such a policy would be at least somewhat absurd, decisions on wikis (on every wiki I've seen anyway) are decided by consensus (though Bureaucrats may be the final arbiters), and it's always seemed a fundamental principle of wikis, to me at least, that consensus > policy. Finally, although I concede that Sysops do make enemies by virtue of their position, I would be willing to stake my word on it that, were I to reconfirm every active PvX Sysop and demote based strictly on whether they had more Oppose than Support, they would all pass. I gotta run (more to come later, maybe). – Defiant Elements 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a reconfirmation policy would be absurd, because neither the policy nor the mechanism to require someone undergo reconfirmation exist on Wikipedia (for example). All I've noticed there are some sysops who voluntary agree to submit to recalls, but I don't think those are in any way binding (and sysops are certainly not obligated to submit to recalls in the first place). They do have a policy in place to remove sysops (i.e. ArbCom does it)--that's the limit of what I know about their sysop policies.

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.) --Kirby King 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." – Defiant Elements 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. --Kirby King 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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: 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. – Defiant Elements 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. KP317 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

*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:

1. KP317 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Pikamander2 (Talk) 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
3. JtM =^] (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
4. ^{PLEASE, SOMEONE TALK TO ME!} 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

votes for no:

1. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Everyone else on the wiki. Semicolon (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd. Do you really presume to speak for the rest of the wiki? --Shadowcrest 00:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm, sir, sarcasm. 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 --Shadowcrest 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. 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 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem here becomes people spamming for voting rights, which makes everything suck a lot more. 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.--Oxico (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah, no go ahead and just totally ignore my idea people. NO ITS FINE! KP317 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did respond to it. We're not doing it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. --Kirby King 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. KP317 (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. KP317 (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. --Shadowcrest 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

read the rules. KP317 (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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. --Shadowcrest 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. KP317 (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. --Shadowcrest 22:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also add {{Template:Policy}} please. --Shadowcrest 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. {My name is Miles, and I approve 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. --Shadowcrest 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. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 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. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 02:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)