5,205
edits
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 17:56, August 21, 2008
, 16 years ago→New Idea for All Sysops: new section
(→New Idea for All Sysops: new section) |
|||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
:::::::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!<br />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).<br />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. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 11:59, 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!<br />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).<br />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. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky2042|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Sky2042|c]] · [[w:c:wow:User:Sky2042|w]]) 11:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::My attempt to resolve this -- [[User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal]] [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 20:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | :::::::::My attempt to resolve this -- [[User:Semicolon/Requests for Adminship Proposal]] [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk: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 [[User talk:Defiant Elements|here]] for the thread where I first posed this idea.) I await your response. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|Miles.oppenheimer]] ([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|talk]]) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC) | |||