SmashWiki talk:Administrators/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 15:25, March 5, 2023

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

IM Contact Info

At this point, we should really have a way to contact each other outside of the wiki, preferably something instant like MSN and AIM. It would go a long way towards getting all the admins on the same page. Post them below if you've got'em! --RJM ^Talk 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Randall00

Email: randall00@proimpact.ca
MSN: randall00@et-cet-era.ca
AIM: Randall00
ICQ: 20235766
Google Talk: randall.morrison00@gmail.com
MySpace: randallmorrison

There's always the irc://irc.freenode.net/wikia-smashbros IRC room I made a while back. --Charitwo^Talk 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, well it's functional, but how many sysops do we really have in there while they're "sysopping"? I'm not sure it's very reliable in that regard. --RJM ^Talk 01:19, 17 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. --Kirby King 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. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also the "E-mail this user" option, pending you put your e-mail in your preferences.--Richard 21:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me i've been banned from the un-mario wiki an i dunno why or how to lift it--GDawg816- "Kept ya waiting, huh." (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless one of the admins here is also an admin there, there's nothing anyone here can do about it. You should contact the administrator that blocked you there and discuss your ban with him. --Shadowcrest 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait

Is Porple inactive? He responds to his talk page messages...-- PSIWolf (T • C • E) 08:10, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

I take it to mean that he can't be reasonably expected to respond to vandalism or to comment on current discussions. I could always be contacted on IRC or elsewhere (and I was) during my long absence, but that doesn't make me active. – Emmett 09:18, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Per Emmett. Porple basically just handles the hosting and other Wiki maintence relating to the server, and doesn't get involved in any administrative/bureaucrat issues. Omega Tyrant

12:23, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Demotion section and section for when to request

I think that there should be sections for when to request for adminship (so a section that gives advice on what should be considered before submitting an RfA) and a section that would explain when administrative rights should be revoked from a user. The same sections are on SmashWiki:Rollback (except for rollback obviously), so it should be appropriate that they are here too. Of course, the sections should probably be more elaborate than the sections on that page since there are more things to consider when making an RfA and demoting an admin. BRAWLS OF FURY 03:23, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

There is pretty much no set criteria for a demotion; in fact the only time an admin was ever demoted here was when after the move off of Wikia (where inactive admins we're not reopped in the move), Pikamander2 came back for two days to get his adminship back and then immediately disappeared again indefinitely, where I then just requested Toomai to de-op him. It would really be handled on a case-by-case basis. Omega Tyrant

03:55, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

Inactive administrators

So many administrators are inactive, why is that? (Smashworker101 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2015 (EST))

I have no idea, but it's for some reason. Dots (talk)

The Violin 14:30, 7 January 2015 (EST)

ya know, it's actually a problem because when the trolls, vandals, sockpuppets, etc. are on the wiki with no administrator on, the wiki will get vandalize. (Smashworker101 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2015 (EST))

I do agree that it's been a problem lately. But I think we have enough admins as is. Dots (talk)

The Tyranitar 15:28, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Indeed (Smashworker101 (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2015 (EST))

While there aren't many administrators online now, that doesn't mean that vandals won't go unnoticed. People like these three users have a good habit of catching vandals before other people do.

BlueStreak Speeds By 17:53, 7 January 2015 (EST)

Umm..... even though Laikue, Monsieur Crow (ReiDemon), and PikaSamus (Red) can catch vandals quickly, they don't have permission to block them because they're rollbackers not sysops, administrators, developers, bureaucrats, nor bots. Plus the administrators forgot to block Wieners in man butt (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · in man butt WHOIS) because looking at this user's contributes, he did some vandalism + inappropriate username. (Smashworker101 (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (EST))

When users vandalize for a moment but then leave after a certain time, sometimes its not really worth it to block. Dots (talk)

The Metal Slug 18:21, 7 January 2015 (EST)

yeeeeeah, he got blocked already, but for 3 days. So ya, its not worth it to block someone for infinite if they left. (Smashworker101 (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2015 (EST))

Porplemontage

I would say that Porplemontage is semi-active now, they've been on a few times in the last couple of weeks. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 22:15, 25 April 2015 (EDT)

Porple is the site owner and server guy, but I believe he deliberately chooses to be considered inactive due to not being involved in most day-to-day wiki editing. Miles (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2015 (EDT)

I seen porple on "currently online" while checkin' out the recent changes page lol! I was wondering why he is considered inactive. Thanks Miles! 2.29.245.42 12:26, 29 July 2015 (EDT)

Protect this page?

Is there a reason we can't protect this page to be only admin-edited? I don't see any reason a normal user would need to edit it (most of the time admins decide their own status, and when a user tries to change it without their permission it gets undone), and it's been the target for a few vandal attacks recently. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 15:17, 14 January 2016 (EST)

I agree. There's no reason for this page to be edited by anyone other than admins. Disaster Flare

(talk) 15:17, 14 January 2016 (EST)

Same. Give me 2 good reasons why this shouldn't be protected. 98.157.202.185 15:21, 14 January 2016 (EST)

Rename request

YOSHIFAN198

I would like to change my username to "CaptainMetaKnight7583". And how do I get the bureaucrat to acknowledge my request?

You need to go message him here. Disaster Flare

(talk) 21:35, 25 July 2016 (EDT)

Special:CheckUser

This should probably be noted in the abilities section of this page.

I would add it myself, but we gave this page full protection because ???

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 15:46, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

It was given full protection because the page was a common vandal hotspot. Beyond that, ask Miles, because he was the one who protected it in the first place. Disaster Flare

(talk) 16:26, 13 July 2017 (EDT)

Demodding long inactive admins

This is a closed discussion about an accepted proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes.
The closing administrator adds: "All admins who have been deemed inactive by bureaucrats will be demoted."

As it been on SmashWiki ever since its inception, once a user is promoted to an admin, they'll keep their adminship "for life". There's no written rule on it, but there's also no rule on adminship ever being taken away if one is inactive for a very long time, and there's never been a real push to ever address it. The only time adminship was ever removed in this wiki's history was when we moved off Wikia, as user rights weren't transferred over, and inactive admins weren't repromoted unless they requested it. The lone exception still involves the move, as it was Pikamander2, who was an inactive admin that requested his adminship back here after the move, and then did nothing at all for over 2 years besides one post in a browser poll, so I personally asked Toomai to demote him on this inactivity basis, where it went through with all parties amicable about it.

When the wiki first started, it didn't seem like a real issue for admins to keep their powers on a virtual permanent basis; having been created in 2006, the wiki was really young then and lacked proper context on how long someone could be gone for or how much things can change over such a long period, with the bulk of users having a scale of only a year or two in their scope and no one having more than a few, unlike nowadays where we have users approaching 10 years of experience. The move off Wikia inadvertently helped with this, as it indirectly caused the aforementioned sweep of the inactive admins, pushing back the wiki having to address it. But now that we've reached a point where we have inactive admins like Emmett who hasn't made a single edit in over five years, it's something that we should really get something settled about now.

You may be thinking what is the problem with having a long inactive admin suddenly come back on the wiki and instantly get fully involved with their full admin powers again? Surely if they were good enough to get a RfA passed then, they should have no issues keeping their powers now? Well one of the most important qualities for an admin is being in touch with the wiki community and the greater Smash community; how can one properly administrate if they're not in tune with the culture, don't know most of the people involved and aren't recognised in return, and will lack knowledge of all the new policies and events that have happened? Since Emmett's last edit, the following has happened:

Brawl has went from the biggest competitive Smash game to completely dead.
Melee has surged to heights completely eclipsing the MLG era several times over.
Smash 4 is here and has effectively replaced Brawl while gaining a competitive scene several magnitudes larger than Brawl ever was.
PM went from a developing mod taking forever to get a decent release, to then blowing up to being as competitively popular as an actual Smash game, to then running into legal issues and becoming an underground game.
The concept of esports has blown up.
AiB became Nintendo Dojo and then died, Smashboards declined significantly in prominence, all while Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter became tremendously popular for Smash usage and effectively replaced them.
The Smash community's culture has changed significantly in those years; go read a Smashboards thread from 2012 and before for example and see how different smashers talked then to how they talk now.

Then that's not even touching on all the changes and new things that has happened within the wiki, with the radically different userbase, new admins, new policies, etc. Assuming a returning old admin from over five years ago was exactly the same as before, would you still trust them to be an effective administrator of a Smash-based wiki after all that has happened since? And that's assuming they're exactly the same, people change over the years, and someone who was a capable admin then may very well not be an ideal admin nowadays. In the case that they are, they would have no problem getting a RfA passed again if they somehow became serious about the wiki again and got fully reinvolved, so the wiki has more to risk keeping them an admin, rather than demodding them and having them go through the process again. One more factor is that such long inactive accounts could simply be abandoned or even forgotten about, linked with emails they haven't been touched in years, and may potentially get hacked without the inactive admin knowing so nor us being any wiser about it. That is an admittedly minor/unlikely concern, but is something that popped into my head nonetheless.

Now if we were to agree that inactive admins should be demodded, we would have to come up with a standard on which to do so. Some ideas:

Inactive admin hasn't made an edit in X amount of time. I don't like this one, as it's too stringent in qualification, and an inactive admin could keep their adminship by just popping up to make a random edit every now and then without really being involved, like how Semicolon pretty much did since he been inactive.

Inactive admin hasn't made X amount of edits in Y amount of time. I don't like this one either, as basing any thing on sheer edit count fails to paint a proper picture of one's actual activity, involvement, and quality of contributions.

Set admin "term limits" and require admins to rerun a RfA after X amount of time, where they're demodded if don't do so or fail to gather sufficient support. This one would weed out inactive admins over time, whether through just not being around nor caring enough to rerun a RfA, or from the community deciding their inactivity is too much to retain their admin tools at the moment. It would also have the benefit of providing a builtin check against active admins that the community feels hasn't been up to snuff, without having to go through with an unprecedented demodding proposal. I see this idea though having a great propensity to potentially cause drama when it comes to active admins, and is the most radical option. Plus I could also see it being an issue during a period of few admins with no viable and willing candidates around, as the wiki needs some sort of admin around to function and giving the community a way to oust them at an inopportune time may not be such a good idea.

After the admin been listed in the inactive section here over an X period of time, setup a RfA-like review of the admin and have the community debate and decide if they think the admin has been inactive too long, and whether or not they would still trust them to have admin powers if they were to suddenly reinsert themselves in the present day. Has a very subjective factor to it, but anything regarding administration is heavily subjective to begin with, and I like it a lot more than the first two options, while it's less radical and probably less controversial than the third option. However it still has potential to be "gamed", as an inactive admin could come back and say they're active again, breaking the streak of being listed as inactive, and then disappear without really doing anything, like how Semi did here. Doing this, they may technically not fulfill the "qualification" of going up for an activity review and thus avoid the potential demodding process altogether for another extended period of time.

So discuss your thoughts on the topic and whether you support or oppose doing something to demote inactive admins. Then if you do support demoting inactive admins, discuss which way you think would be the best way to go about it. Once those things get settled, we can discuss specifics like "what amount of time is too inactive". Omega Tyrant 21:12, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I like the idea of demoting long-inactive staff to a "retired" category (may need better name). They don't have admin powers while retired (don't need a new usergroup for it, just a listing on this page), but if they return and become an established part of the wiki again, they can get their adminship back on bureatcrat decision instead of a whole new RfA. Or the bureaucrat can tell them to make a new RfA to earn it back, if that feels more appropriate for the situation.

The criteria to be demoted to "retired" would be something like:

No/few edits in over a year
No/little usage of admin powers in that time
No/minimal communication with users off-wiki (e.g. Discord)

All subjective, nothing numerical. Toomai Glittershine

The Sphere 21:37, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, but the main issue I have is "to what end"? Is there a particular reason to remove powers from inactive users? They're not being abused or anything, and non-admin users seeking assistance have a clear list on this page of who is available to assist them and who is not. I feel a more sensible approach would be, on the off-chance an old admin returned and behaved irresponsibly, to have their behavior reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the current userbase/admins, with a bureaucrat making the final decision. We have so few admins and such a strenuous RfA process that your proposals seem like a bit more complicated of a system than is necessary or worthwhile for a wiki of our size. To be clear, I don't think there's a huge downside to de-modding admins who haven't edited in years; I just think the more elaborate systems are unnecessary, nor is it a particularly important issue to deal with. A case-by-case perusal of who's genuinely active and who's not is easily performed by one of the bureaucrats should the decision be made to de-mod anyone. [Edit conflicted with Toomai; a "retired" staff group is also a viable way of handling it which again is easily done case-by-case and non-arbitarily.] Miles (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (EDT)

Just going to chime in here and say that I feel that making existing (and active) admins re-RfA seems to me like a general waste of time, because I am fairly certain that none of us would be in any danger of demotion on those terms anyway. Yeah I realize that this is a "well it's pointless now" statement, but I feel like it will most likely always be pointless, it's just how I feel the userbase tends to act. If there are enough people clamoring to get an admin fired, this method of doing it would be inefficient anyway as they would have to wait for that admin's "term" to be up...I guess the point I am trying to make here without rambling too much is that, in the case of admin ousting, I don't see a huge gap in "lack of support required to fail a re-RfA" and "support required to follow through with a formal demodding in such a discussion".

You also mentioned that a demodding process among active admins will cause dissension between all involved. I completely agree, and feel like such a process will also spiral out of control, possibly losing us valuable editors. Serpent King 19:59, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

I have to agree with Serpent King and Miles here. I think the situation this proposal is designed to address is rare enough that it doesn't feel justified to dedicate a policy of any sort to it, and the solutions on offer seem particularly cumbersome (redoing RfAs?).

Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 20:11, 16 October 2017 (EDT)

I am thinking that this may be something we may want to make an official poll over, to get other users' thoughts on this. Instead of it just being admins arguing over demoting other admins. Serpent King 16:19, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

@Toomai: Your idea is a good solution and I would support it.

@Miles: It's not a frequent issue, but that doesn't mean it's not one that shouldn't be dealt with. It's better for inactive admins to prove they're capable again as admins should they ever come back, instead of taking a "wait and see" approach to see if they're still admin quality before removing powers. If they're still capable or become recapable, they'll have no problem going through the RfA process that they will undoubtably get strong support for. On the other end if they keep their powers and then come back as an out-of-touch or otherwise incapable admin, it will be a much more controversial process to demod them.

@SK: Point taken, the admin term thing is just an idea for dealing with inactive admins while also giving the wiki a builtin "failsafe" against admins that lose favor among the community; I still find it extremely concerning that the wiki has no set process for demodding admins and no precedence at all for it. But that issue is tangential to the inactive admins issue, and the admin terms idea is not one I'm interested in actively pursuing. Also non-admin users should be joining the discussion here.

@Nyargle: Again something being "rare" doesn't mean it shouldn't be dealt with, and if it wasn't for the move off Wikia, we would have something like over 15 inactive admins right now, some of which haven't been active up to 10 years now, that would have the ability to just come back and throw their weight around with full admin (or even bureaucrat) powers. Omega Tyrant 22:35, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

I'm a bit late to the discussion here, and I understand I may not the best candidate for input considering my patchy activity, but I think demodding inactive administrators is a good idea for the sake of tidiness and in the event someone not attuned to the culture returns with powers he or she doesn't deserve, which imo is potentially disruptive. We should at least require returning admins prove why they should keep their powers considering the aforementioned cultural and rule changes. To add, Emmett (Shadowcrest) should never have been an admin in the first place. His RfA was made in November 2008, with only 8 months of activity under his belt since he had joined the Wiki in March that year. He also requested this at a time that he was known to be rude to other users (I'm not one to talk about behavior, but I wasn't the one requesting adminship then), acknowledging that his "approval was low." His reason for requesting adminship was that he was a "sysop elsewhere" (namely the Guild Wars wiki) which isn't sufficient (I'm a "sysop elsewhere", should I have powers?), but he was awarded adminship with a lot of blind support (including, regretfully, from myself). He then requested bureaucratship less than a year later and with a lot of support, but this time with some experience in settling user conflicts under his belt, so much of his support was for good reason. However, he was still known for being unpleasant to people on the wiki and in the IRC; I figured that at the time, many users were looking for someone to fill a "tin man" archetype, since Shadowcrest's acrimony was perceived as a strong admin quality. When he was still here in 2012, his edits were relatively sporadic and he unironically initiated a conflict with OT over how he talked to users who violated guidelines in some way. PenguinofDeath, while I like him, also wasn't deserving of adminship. He basically got it because he was Shadowcrest's friend, and his listed merits were that he was British (seriously) and commented occasionally on policy. The same goes for Defiant Elements, who, while swell, basically got adminship for being friends with Shadowcrest (he was also from the Guild Wars wiki). DE was not well known in the community, but people liked him because he "sounded serious" and the tin man affinity helped him garner support. I bring all this up to point out a sort of "spoils system" that existed in the days of old. Things have changed now, and for the better, but I feel like there could be more about merits on the RfA page. For example, disposition and familiarity with the Smash Bros. series should play a huge role in your candidacy. The aforementioned admins barely touched Brawl and expressed animus toward it in the chat room (Shadowcrest didn't even have all the characters unlocked). They all at best should have been part-time rollbackers. Users should be required to show examples of substantial knowledge of the wiki namesake as well as positive personality aspects reflected in their activity, in addition to things like longevity, vandalism awareness, and proficiency in user conflict resolution. Just my two cents. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:17, 16 November 2017 (EST)

I think you have the wrong idea here. This is not a discussion about how we should demote "bad admins" or those who gained admin through supposed illegitimate means (I wasn't there, I don't know one way or the other). This is supposed to be strictly a discussion of "should we demote inactive staff" without consideration of their individual flaws and stuff. Besides, trying to demote people now for reasons years in the past is not good practice. Serpent King 22:48, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Alright I think we've discussed pros and cons of all suggested routes to their fullest. It's time to decide what the hell we are going to do here. Serpent King 23:11, 16 November 2017 (EST)

Demote admins who have been inactive (no edits) for 1 year

I like this one. It would kick out the "clutter" admins who haven't been around in forever, and if, in the future, admins come back 364 days later and say "See, I'm still here!" the community or bureaucrats or whomever can decide whether or not the individual is still qualified for the job. John HUAH! 13:29, 19 November 2017 (EST)

Use a term limit of 3 years and require admins to resubmit an RfA after that period

The admin's possible demotion would be settled by a community vote.

Simply put: once a user is promoted to adminship, it is generally very unlikely that they will ever get demoted, unless they do something particularly bad, or abuse their power. This means that users who probably should not have been promoted to adminship will hypothetically likely remain admins permanently regardless of this, so long as they do not do anything wrong. I think that this is somewhat of a flaw in the admin system we have on the wiki, and requiring resubmissions after a 3 year period could solve this issue, or at least reduce its negative impacts. I understand that there is concern that some admins RfA resubmissions may be unfairly opposed by users who have a grudge against that admin, but as SW:CONSENSUS states: "consensus is not purely determined via vote count. Instead, the dispute should be evaluated in an unbiased fashion to determine which "side" of the debate has the strongest arguments." In other words, such oppositions would not be taken seriously anyway, and therefore would not be problematic. Furthermore, the quality of the job that a user does as an admin in the 3 year period will speak for itself about the capability of that user to be an admin, and as such I highly doubt that such resubmissions will cause admins to be unjustly demoted. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 13:45, 19 November 2017 (EST)
I think that you are right that we should have some method of demoting admins, but as per my argument against this choice above, this isn't it. It does not make sense to lob demotion in with retiring inactive staff. They are two entirely separate issues that just happen to have the same result. Serpent King 17:21, 25 November 2017 (EST)
In this case, the main reason I support this option is it is the only one that really has an impact on active admins as well. All the other options would only be effective at demoting inactive admins, and so all an admin would have to do to not get demoted would be to stay active, and not do anything blatantly wrong. This flaw allows for subpar admins who are not necessarily doing anything specifically that would warrant demotion to "skip around" the other measures and remain admins indefinitely. That's why I think this is the best option Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:34, 25 November 2017 (EST)
You are ignoring what I am saying. I am saying that the demotion of active admins is a separate issue, and should not be lumped into the same policy as the inactive ones. As said before, if an admin really has to go, under this system, we would have to wait until either a) Toomai or I see a major issue (which is what we have now), or b) they have to re-RfA again. It's an unnecessary wait time. If we really want to make a demotion policy, it should not be based on time periods, but rather it should be a proper discussion (able to be started under certain conditions) as with applying for administration in the first place. Serpent King 17:45, 25 November 2017 (EST)
Ah, I see what you mean now...I may have to reconsider my vote then. Although I'm still somewhat concerned that such a policy may not actually be decided upon for quite some time, but I guess it's not exactly an emergency. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:54, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Evaluate admins who have been inactive (no edits) for 1 year on a case by case basis

The admin's possible demotion would be settled by a community vote.

...

Demote inactive admins to a "retired" usergroup status

A bureaucrat will decide what identifies an admin as "inactive". This decision can be disputed by the community if need be.

Seems honestly like the best plan of attack. All options here have their flaws, but this one seems to be the least risky one. Serpent King 23:11, 16 November 2017 (EST)
Aidan, the Thankful Rurouni 09:36, 17 November 2017 (EST)
This or ignore it. Miles (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2017 (EST)
Agreed with Miles. This way, we have as little unnecessary drama as possible and we still give inactives the chance to return to their position, should they ever decide to. Disaster Flare (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2017 (EST)
I agree with Toomai. Blue Ninjakoopa 17:08, 17 November 2017 (EST)
Best way to go in my opinion Riko (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2017 (EST)
Spexx (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2017 (EST)
Looking at the available options, I think this is the least risky/problematic one. I'll go with this. A51 Trooper 18:03, 25 November 2017 (EST)
I guess this is the best option. Makes inactive admins realize they are not being active, and can even make them return to activity on the wiki. -- Beep (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2017 (EST)

Ignore inactive admins

...

I can’t edit or create, any help?

I can’t edit or create stuff Jewce (talk) 14:26, May 3, 2019 (EDT)

You can't create articles until you gain the autoconfirmed status. As for being unable to edit, please provide more details. Serpent King 17:06, May 3, 2019 (EDT)

Updating to reflect how things are actually done

As currently written, part of this page could be construed and manipulated to claim that admins cannot actually stop users from damaging the wiki. For example, say that a proposal is made to delete the tournament namespace, large numbers of editors support the idea, and any users who oppose the idea do not comment in large enough numbers to combat the supposed consensus (for example, they don't notice the dicussion). If admins truly had nothing more than a user's voice in discussions, the change could be ratified as "consensus" and cause considerable damage to the wiki and its reputation. I think we can agree that, while this specific scenario is hyperbolic, it demonstrates a hole in the policy.

Therefore, a change will be made to codify what should have been the case all along. The "What can administrators not do?" and "Administrators are not kings" sections will be removed and replaced with the following.

== Administrators are not kings ==

Administrators have no additional say in the content of SmashWiki. [[SmashWiki:You are valuable|Administrators are equally valuable to every contributor.]] Most administrators actively contribute to SmashWiki - they will, inevitably, get into content disputes with other users. However, they are not to use their status as admin to give their opinion undue importance. For example, they may not protect a page in a non-vandalism editing dispute simply to enforce their preferred version. (Note that this may be difficult to distinguish from protecting a page simply because it is part of an edit war. As always, admins are expected to exercise their best judgement when making such decisions.)

Likewise, no non-administrators should back down in a content-related argument with an administrator simply because the administrator has extra user rights. Simply being an administrator does not make one universally-knowledgeable about all things related to ''Super Smash Bros.''; normal users or even IPs are not immediately wrong simply because they disagree with an administrator. Users should view the comments of other users as just that - comments from another user, no matter their status.

== ...but administrators are still administrators ==

Ideally, an administrator 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, they are promoted 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 an admin makes a decision on a hotly-debated or high-visibility topic, users are expected to comply.

If anyone has a serious problem this, say it now. I view this as closing a loophole and not actually changing how things should be done around here, so there will not be much discussion aside from wording tweaks. Toomai Glittershine The Breegull 21:05, June 18, 2019 (EDT)

Bumping this so it reappears in recentchanges. Might bump one or two more times before implementation. Toomai Glittershine

The Yoshi 14:37, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I believe that if enough people are to support such a large change, administrators should not invoke some power to stop them because they have it. And the defense that not enough people saw the discussion is pointless, because all previous suggestions have never had everyone who could have participated involved and one never will. This proposed addition says that administrators make the final decision even in a scenario in which several users agree to make a change. If no one opposes, one admin opposing the change should never be the "consensus". Strong oppose. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 15:07, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

It is not specifically one admin; if admins active in a discussion are in the minority, but still believe (along with other non-active admins) that the decision is detrimental to the wiki, then it would be able to be stopped. If it was only one admin, then it would be different. Aidan, the Rurouni 15:13, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I think the part KungFuLakitu is refering to is "Therefore, when an admin makes a decision on a hotly-debated or high-visibility topic, users are expected to comply. Which I believe should be rewritten, because as KungFuLakitu said, it makes it sound like one admin has full authority to decide what the consensus is regardless of what was said previously, if any was said. I do understand wanting to prevent a "loophole", but I think that one part needs to be revisited so it does not covey that the idea that it contradicts the other admin rules. Wolff (talk) 15:21, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I know these are hypothetical situations we are trying to prevent, but I find it unlikely that admins need a new power to overrule a consensus because it would be "detrimental". I highly doubt that a large number of users would ever make such an awful decision. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 15:34, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

The wording of "when an admin makes a decision" could be improved perhaps. The intent is to convey that the wiki's staff as a group agree on a matter and one of them posted the decision. Maybe something more like "when an admin announces the staff's decision" or "when the staff make a decision". Toomai Glittershine

The Sharp 15:45, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Doesn't seem kind of dismissive? It makes it sound like there is a second discussion going on for the final say. Plus, I am not sure that would make sense for every circumstance. Two admins who don't like a certain idea could dismiss it regardless what was said. A consensus is suppose to have users add support to back it up.

If you are worried about certain fundamental pages, like tournament namespace, being proposed for deletion, maybe instead figure out what category the tournament namespace falls under and have those pages somehow protected from a deletion discussion? For example, the pages for each Smash installment. Why would we delete them? It doesn't make sense to, but as you said, it could be still be discussed and potentially carried over. Perhaps this problem isn't related (at least directly) to the admin rules, but the pages themselves? This really does seems like a very specific hypothetical problem. Wolff (talk) 16:33, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Of course this doesn't make sense for every circumstance; I would hope/expect the vast majority of discussions don't even come close. But eventually there will come a time when a consensus is made that would hurt the wiki if carried out - or a consensus is not made while two sides continue to argue without end - and the staff team should be trusted to recognize that and do something about it. Toomai Glittershine

The Yellow 17:25, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

That's why I asked if the problem actually lies within the administrator rules and not elsewhere. Wolff (talk) 17:34, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Yeah, this doesn't seem like a great idea. I get what you're trying to do, but the job of the administrators is to enforce policies, not to make major decisions on behalf of users, regardless of whether said users agree. Unless the topic of discussion violates a policy, I don't think administrators should have any additional say in the outcome. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:40, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

That's mainly why I believe the problem lies elsewhere. Wolff (talk) 17:42, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Neutral. If the topic or decision will hurt the integrity of the site and will create a massive change of policy or in how the wiki works, I believe that an administrator has full say in that matter. However, when it pertains to the content of something subjective and of opinion (basically merging, splitting, etc) it should be among the users and administrators (being users with a bit more tools) to reach a consensus or compromise as to what may be done. And if no consensus or compromise can be met, then a poll can be placed for the entirety of the userbase or the admins can mediate with each other, then propose. If nothing works, then that is when SmashWiki will die, and I doubt that will happen.

What I dislike about the policy is that it seems to be a power move, and I can understand why. There are instances when having the power to settle a dispute immediately can stop an argument and can salvage the content and integrity of users and the site and also minimizes the workload and cleanup other users have to do, but through the policy Administrators are not kings and only being users with a few more tools, I do not believe that giving the power or policy to settle a hotly debated topic is needed. Admins can already lock a page from discussion, to give power to stop a dispute is a power that we can only assume to be used in good faith. But there is the off chance when it might not and may be overused when decision making is incorrect in judgement. All of this is hypothetical, but also represents the worries about giving said power to admins.

But if we can trust admins with the power to lock a page, we can also trust them to use their dispute settling power correctly and precisely...it will just require more thinking and judgement from the admins. I'm probably talking out of my orifice and contradicted myself many times, but that's my two cents on the yes and the no. Eletro (talk) 19:00, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I will once again clarify that this is not a change, but rather a codification of the existing reality (or in other words, turning an unwritten rule into a written one). This isn't giving admins any extra power, but spelling out that they already have it, because as it stands people can (and, in the recent past, already have) cry out "admin abuse" on staff for doing their job. Toomai Glittershine

The Resolute 19:58, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

Then I think you need to clarify the exact situation for it in the rules. Rather than saying "Therefore, when an admin makes a decision on a hotly-debated or high-visibility topic, users are expected to comply" it could instead be, "Therefore, when an admin makes a decision on a topic would damage the integrity of the wiki, users are expected to comply." The first one made it sound like a "general rule", the second one shows that it's a "situational rule". However, it should list examples on what type of topics that would cause "considerable damage to the wiki and its reputation" so there's no confusion. Wolff (talk) 20:10, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

I would argue that both a "hotly-debated" topic and a "high-visibility" topic could (because, again, this is all hypothetical) fall under "would damage the integrity of the wiki" and "considerable damage to the wiki and its reputation". And, to be quite honest, specifying the circumstances in which it would apply makes it more situational than the general statement of "damaging to the wiki". Aidan, the Rurouni 20:17, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

That's kind of the main problem with the rule being worded a bit vague. It makes it seem that an admin is allowed to decide, on a whim, to end a discussion just because. Or for a reason other than damaging the integrity of the Wiki. Just because a topic is "hotly-debated", "high-visibility", "still active after a long period of time", or so on, does not necessarily mean it would damage the wiki. Toomai proposed this amendment on a very specific hypothetical situation, one that has not yet come to pass. Even if it was not specified to the public, which it should, it would still need to be specified to the admins (old and new) to prevent them from abusing it. Intentionally or unintentionally. Another thing, when it says that "when an admin makes a decision" makes it seem that it only takes one admin to do so. I think a number of admins (possibly a min of 3) need to discuss and decide if the potential outcome would damage the wiki, then all the admins that were involved state such on the topic's talk page. I say this as it can, and will probably, get confusing as withe the way the amendment it stated seems to contradict with the general idea that admins are suppose to be valued and treated no differently then any other user. They are said to just have a few extra buttons for when specific situations arise to help with the integrity of the wiki. That is why I believe the amendment should be specified, elaborated, or explained would help lower any truly false claims of "admin abuse". (is in, no confusion on if the actions of the admin are in line with the rules) Wolff (talk) 21:09, June 22, 2019 (EDT)

You seem to be reading this the wrong way. "Toomai proposed this amendment on a very specific hypothetical situation" is incorrect. I selected the example hypothetical situation to be absolutely ludicrous to the point where I hope everyone would agree the staff team should override any attempt by the userbase to make it happen. There is probably an uncountable number of other unforseeable situations where it is not as obvious that the people who run the website should ignore what its users are demanding. It is true that admins should ideally only be users with a few extra tools, but the reality is that sometimes decisions have to be made against what the userbase wants. Toomai Glittershine

The Free 08:18, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

That's not really how wikis are supposed to work though. If the userbase wants a change to be made which violates policy then that's one thing, but if the userbase comes to an agreement on something they deem reasonable, but some of the administrators don't agree with the decision, then they shouldn't get additional say in the matter. The trouble with allowing exceptions for a proposed change admins deem as "ludicrous" is that admins can simply claim that anything they don't like is ludicrous. If the administrator's opinion on a change holds any water, then they should be able to provide a counter-argument that stands on its own 2 feet to make people see that what they're suggesting actually isn't such a good idea. That being said though, I do think we need some clarification about how administrators are able to prevent counter-productive conflicts from occuring, as recent events have shown that some users do not understand how this works. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 08:31, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

If the userbase were to come to an agreement that is not detrimental to the wiki (and, for the sake of argument, cannot legitimately be proven to be detrimental in the first place outside of "it is because I say it is"), then admins would not try to shut it down. None of us are looking for abuse of power - this entire thing is to prove exactly that. We just want what's best for the wiki, and, in fact, we have made decisions like this in the past, in the same fashion (as in, one admin speaking on behalf of a consensus-based staff opinion), which is why Toomai titled this section as "updating to reflect how things are actually done". Aidan, the Rurouni 12:42, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

I still think that the idea when a topic is being discussed, an admin should never get the final decision if so many people are discussing it, and a decision should never be set in stone just because "an admin said so". The wording of the final line, as I understand, is not intended to imply power, but it definitely does. I can only hope that admins would never abuse their power, but that one sentence needs rewording just in case. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 13:31, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Where to even start here. I am just going to take a few comments out of this discussion and give some thoughts.

I believe that if enough people are to support such a large change, administrators should not invoke some power to stop them because they have it.

One administrator still cannot decide on a whim to stop a large discussion simply because they don't like it. This is strictly for decisions that will harm our content and/or reputation. This also will pretty much require a unanimous consensus among the admins, and I would like to believe that not every one of us is so corrupt as to halt a harmless change, just because we don't necessarily care for it.

This proposed addition says that administrators make the final decision even in a scenario in which several users agree to make a change. If no one opposes, one admin opposing the change should never be the "consensus".

This isn't the intention, if it comes off that way, it needs to be worded better.

I know these are hypothetical situations we are trying to prevent, but I find it unlikely that admins need a new power to overrule a consensus because it would be "detrimental". I highly doubt that a large number of users would ever make such an awful decision.

Are you sure? This had 100% support before I stepped in.

Doesn't seem kind of dismissive? It makes it sound like there is a second discussion going on for the final say. Plus, I am not sure that would make sense for every circumstance.

The second discussion is one that simply makes sure that the staff are all on the same page before doing something like this, and nothing more. And no, as stated already, this is something that needs to be used as rarely as possible, not every time an admin disagrees.

The trouble with allowing exceptions for a proposed change admins deem as "ludicrous" is that admins can simply claim that anything they don't like is ludicrous.

That's a bit paranoid. As the proposed policy says, admins have been voted into power by the userbase, implying that they are trusted to use their tools efficiently, constructively, and honestly, to solve issues. That's all this is. This isn't some mad claim for power, we don't want to run over the wiki with only 3 people's ideals. This is a creative platform, and that is how it will remain.

There is probably an uncountable number of other unforseeable situations where it is not as obvious that the people who run the website should ignore what its users are demanding.

Yes, I have an example of a not-so-obviously-bad idea. Say we wanted to start covering SmashTubers. To most, there's nothing wrong with the idea, but I can think of one detrimental pithole that would open up: association with them, and therefore, association with YouTube drama (not all smashtubers are rooted in that, but a lot of them are, and if we were to start covering all of the notable ones, we'd hit quite a few most likely). Suddenly, our reporting on "X YouTuber had a controversy" makes us look accusatory and would end up staining our already pretty tarnished name.

Probably missed something. If so, or if you guys have a rebuttal or questions for any of this, please come forward. Serpent King 14:12, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

If I may weight in, I think the example you gave before about the 1RV proposal supports my point that if an administrator's opposition to a proposal is valid they should have no trouble simply explaining why the proposal is a bad idea and winning people over, rather than having to override the outcome altogether. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 14:19, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

The 1RV proposal is nowhere near a good example. Three people supported the change and one of them changed their mind after you weighed in. All an admin should ever have to do is leave their opinion on the matter, same as everyone else, and if the experience that they have is enough to change someone's mind, as it did in this situation, then maybe their outcome is better. You don't need to clarify your powers to persuade people to support your side of a discussion, as a user can already do that. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 17:50, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Not the point. The point is that this got nominated, and had 2 positive votes towards (sorry alex) an extremely flawed idea. It may not be a strong example, but it is a recent one (there are others I am sure, but I can't be asked to go through thousands of talk pages to find them). There are certain flawed ideas that can get a decent amount of support behind them, even if they should never come to pass for a good enough reason. More commonly are discussions that cause a stalemate, which if left un-interviened, can continue forever wasting everyone's time. Serpent King 18:22, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

If you'd like a somewhat better example, try this, and the fact that it happened three times. Aidan, the Rurouni 19:09, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Why can't the explanation just be clarified in detail? I think the main problem that some of us are having is the it seems too vague. If some examples were like , prevent integral pages from being deleted and so on, then it probably could work. But for some reason, none of the admins seem to want to clarify the rule on the notice. If we non-admins in this discussion are not being able to understand what you are trying to do based on how the amendment is worded, how do you expect others who were not part of this discussion to understand it? Is there a reason why it can't be explained other than "it doesn't need to" or "its too broad"? You are explaining it to us on here, so why can't that explanation be applied onto the rule? Wolff (talk) 19:43, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Frankly I am not the one who wrote it, so I am reluctant to step on Toomai's toes to change it. Serpent King 20:04, 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. 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 - we've done it before, and we still plan on keeping each other in check. Aidan, the Rurouni 21:52, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Then yes, please reworded it so that it explains the point clearly. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
If you don't like it, that's your problem, not theirs.
EDIT: Support. 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. 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. Serpent King 14:49, June 24, 2019 (EDT)

Improved version of the second section:

== ...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

Another reminder: This is writing down the unwritten rules, not altering how anything is done. Toomai Glittershine 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. 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, as has been shown before (multiple 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. Aidan, the Rurouni 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. Serpent King 10:33, June 25, 2019 (EDT)

Bumping this so it reappears in recentchanges. Will apply if no one dissents. Toomai Glittershine The Polychromatic 13:25, June 29, 2019 (EDT)

What is a fiat?172.56.26.39 20:28, July 7, 2019 (EDT)

A command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort. Aidan, the Rurouni 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. Toomai Glittershine 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 (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: 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? Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 15:42, August 24, 2019 (EDT)

OK thank you, I'll try not to act reckless. User:DreaM 15:46, August 24, 2019 (EST)