GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship

= Candidate for archiving = Due to lack of contemporary relevance, the following parts will be archived soon. Everyone is encouraged to pull things out of the "box" as they see fit to prevent certain sections/threads from archiving. Only things remaining in the box will be archived. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(untitled section)
This is a good idea, but not very well implemented. The section on how to vote at the end is, quite frankly, atrocious. The process should be transparent to average users, not uber leet coding gurus. I refuse to hinder the voting process by making it more complex than the Florida punch cards. Please think of a way that involves writing plain text.

Also, a note should be made that writing comments such "I am surprised he is not an admin yet" and "need I explain why" are not exactly what we are looking for here. --Karlos 16:45, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * How hard is clicking on the "edit" link next to the relevant Support section? I am not well versed with the abilities of a Floridian punch card voter, so please elucidate. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 16:49, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos, it's only the nominations that may be slightly convoluted (which is no problem as far as I'm concerned, if anyone wants help nominating, I think they'll figure to ask). The voting simply requires typing plantext in the "Your vote here" field. --Bishop (rap|con) 16:50, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Great work setting this up, this will be very helpful in eliciting what the wiki community feels about new admins. --Xeeron 16:49, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Procedural Question
Now that Skuld has been promoted to admin, should we leave all remaining candidates to have an available on-going pool; or archive the whole list to reset for any future rounds of nominations and votes of support? I believe the Wikipedia method is to keep the list as an on-going pool, but I prefer to archive and reset method myself. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:46, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, so we are still just getting one at a time? - 13:58, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Here's what I think: In a few more days, once there hasn't been any new nominations or support votes for a while, we should tally up the consensus and everyone with a clear, undisputed majority (lets say, at least 5 support votes) should be submitted to Gravewit for admitting to sysop status. After that, we could archive the remaining submissions and clean the slate for a new round, possibly including a discussion of whether or not we need more admins.


 * However, despite GW:YOU, I am not an admin and I really think it should be mostly up to the current admins to decide how they want to proceed. After all, they're the ones who will be "working with" the new faces. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I prefer treating each nomination individually, independently of the others. Full disclosure: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian. – 70.20  ( &#x260e; ) 2006-06-11 20:44 (UTC)

Current administrators and RfA votes
I'd like to propose that all current administrators vote on all candidates. Since the candidates here might eventually become part of our team, I'd like to know what everybody thinks before we reach that point. &mdash;Tanaric 10:03, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Jamie
Jamie's proposal has gone nowhere. May I remove it? &mdash;Tanaric 01:49, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes, you may. Jamie himself has commented on his reduced editing of the Wiki and has a nifty little banner saying he's retired GWiki. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:32, 5 December 2006 (CST)

What about the other two? One rejected and the other is going nowhere. Seems like we aren't getting new admins soon even if there was need for them. -- (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Agreed. Xeeron said no, and Evil Grevin isn't getting more votes... Eh, no sweat either way, as we have enough admins. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 01:41, 6 December 2006 (CST)

Candidates?
Most of the original batch of admins appear to have reduced their activity on this wiki. Looking at recently banned users and recently deleted articles, I see a large percentage having been done by me. If I were more active on the wiki, this wouldn't be a big deal to me; but my on-line time is dropping - I've recently resigned my GWW sysop status, and will have much less time for helping either wiki going forward.

So ... to my mind, we desperately need some fresh blood in the admin pool on this wiki. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying close attention to who are currently the more helpful, experienced, even-tempered, and trusted community members now. So, it's up to the community to start nominating potential candidates. Users who have a track record, who know the site policies, who can keep calm in discussions/debates ... in short, we need concensus builders who are trusted and respected by other contributors.

The GW:RFA policy explains how to nominate candidates ... I only hope some begin getting nominated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
 * As a user in general, as well as a moderator on several other small communities, little things like vandalism bug me and I do everything in my power to try and make sure it gets taken care of. I'd like to volunteer to become some kind of enforcer of sorts, but I don't want to sound pompous by nominating myself. I don't really know if GuildWiki users have that one assumption where admins are above the law and get to do whatever they want like users on most public communities do. I'm just looking for a way to be able to slap people vandalizing so they'll stop. At least until a real admin gets around. I mean, that Ooze vandalism fiasco where some users were constantly changing pages to disgusting erotic fanfics was terribly out-of-hand and it took about 40 minute for an admin to finally come on and ban the offenders and purge the histories. ~  Gold [[Image:DeanIcon.png]] Dean   - 15:48, 4 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Perhaps we can ask for ppl to collect info on active vandal-reverter to have an initial pool to consider. Golden Dean, have you noticed other users who often reverted vandalism just one step before you do? d-: I consider to role of admins on GuildWiki to be purely administrative.  Individuals who have become admins may perhaps moderate discussions or arbitrate disputes, but those are not related to their admin role and are rather related to the personality/presence/respect demonstrated in this community that made them admins. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:48, 4 September 2007 (CDT)


 * If reverting vandalism was all it took to be an admin, I wouldn't have a Userbox explicitly stating I'll never be one...otherwise, I would be a perfect candidate, since I'm a faster Revert-er than most and (used to) patrol RC constantly. However, since my temperment is all wrong, I tend to expand arguments rather than cool them, and I can't be nearly as active as I used to be, that job isn't really for me.
 * I've always thought that administrative duties enforcer would be nice...something that is not a full-blown admin but has the power to revert vandalism, ban vandals, delete pages, etc. But I guess that does not exist. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:05, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Entropy or Skuld imo. Mostly Entropy, as Skuld is mostly inactive atm. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Both Candidates will refuse I just realized lol. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Vandal reverters is a place to start looking for potential admin candidate. As I see admin powers have absolutely NOTHING to do with any arguments, I don't see how you heading rather than cooling them has any effect, as long as you don't abuse your powers during the argument.  I have absolutely no clue how your "administrative duties enforcer" differs from a regular admin.  Admins are not (autmatically) moderators or arbitrators.  Moderator/arbitrator is a self-appointed role that anyone, even non-admins, may take on, whenever they wish to. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 14:25, 8 September 2007 (CDT)


 * O rly? Someone should re-write the GW:ADMIN page, then... or whatever page it is, that describes the difference between an Admin and a normal user. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:12, 8 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Administrators does not contradict what I said, as it does not describe the difference between an admin and a normal user. It only describes what an admin can do, without comparing it to what a user can do. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:32, 9 September 2007 (CDT)


 * I think the more difficult but more important question is is this wiki worth saving? Everything here is redundant with the official wiki. All the formerly active members here are now there. Does it really matter if the delete queue here grows large? Besides stubbornness and nostalgia, what does this wiki have going for it? 193.52.24.125 23:34, 6 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Capitalism rules doesn't it. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:37, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Stubbornness and nostalgia. Readem (talk *contribs ) 23:40, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Hey, now, if everyone quit just because another party started doing the exact same thing, would we still have Pokémon? I think not. ~  Gold [[Image:DeanIcon.png]] <font color=#FF9900>Dean   - 15:16, 7 September 2007 (CDT)
 * /agree. GuildWiki forever!--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 14:52, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Unless the official wiki is integrated so well into the game that it will open in-game, I'm sticking with GuildWiki simply because I'm already here tbh. Lord of all tyria 15:12, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

For what it's worth I'll accept a nomination, though it is too little too late. (No, I am not being presumptious.) I might as well spend what remaining time GWiki has, doing what's best for it, to the best of my ability... (T/C) 23:00, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * To keep GuildWiki fresh, we should start adding more unique content. Perhaps with the Wikia move, we could look into bringing back the builds section. With more bandwidth, a reference section for users that isn't just direct quotes from the game would certainly make us stand out. The original research users have formed (see: Fast Casting) is what really makes us different. Sure, anything unique we make will probably be copy and pasted onto the official wiki, but at least we can still have some pride. ~ <font color=#DDDD00> <font color=#FF9900>Gold [[Image:DeanIcon.png]]<font color=#DDDD00> <font color=#FF9900>Dean   - 23:54, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

We rid ourselves of builds, because it is too much of a hassle. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 00:16, 12 September 2007 (CDT)


 * Yeah, the builds section migrated over to pvxwiki. -- Gordon Ecker 01:17, 12 September 2007 (CDT)

Temporary admins
As you will be aware I recently promoted Dirigible and Stylva (aka Anja) to sysop. This is a temporary measure until some new sysops are elected. Once a new sysop is elected I will demote Dirigible, and once a second sysop is elected I will demote Stylva (unless Stylva's RfA is successful). <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:50, 16 September 2007 (CDT)


 * When I was bureaucrat, I claimed the right to appoint any sysop I wished for any reason at all. Does this post imply you do not claim that right? &mdash;Tanaric 18:58, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Come on, promote entropy :P &mdash; S h  a  d  y  G  u  y  14:04, 21 September 2007 (CDT)


 * It doesn't not imply that :) The fact that I promoted Anja/Stylva and Dirigible is evidence that I will take action when needed, but the honest answer is that I am not familiar enough with the regular contributors here to play the role of a bureaucrat with enough information to promote whoever I see fit; I must rely on the community to tell me who is fit for the position. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:54, 22 September 2007 (CDT)