PvXwiki talk:Requests for adminship

Comments

Looks fine to me. GJ - Skakid9090 00:12, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Same, looks good. Misfate 00:18, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Suggestions

Be more specific about a later date, to avoid daily requests of a single user. - Skakid9090 00:15, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Alright, I specified two months. Considering the fact that it would be unlikely for the Admins to change their minds about a candidate in a short span of time. However, it is an arbitrary amount, so I'm open to other suggestions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:20, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to remove that line; any user asking daily about promotion doesn't deserve it, and will therefore be weeding themselves out. -Auron 03:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Fine by me. *Defiant Elements* +talk 11:23, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Official?

Because of the overwhelming support for this policy, it has been fast-tracked and will be made official in a few days barring significant opposition. This means that if you have a comment, a suggestion, particularly if you oppose this RfA as written, please make yourself heard now. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:44, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I am against RFA's. *Raises Hand* Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 22:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Any particular reason? -Auron 22:48, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Apparently he sees no reason for RfA's in general (although he also indicated he doesn't honestly care). *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:50, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I think it puts unnecessary pressure on admins to promote people they don't believe deserve the job. And who knows an admin's job and duties better than an admin? - Skakid9090 22:52, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm? How so? Regardless of the vote, the Admins still decide who to promote... Oh, do you mean that it puts pressure on us because if we go against the vote people will be upset? If so, there's precedent for that kinda thing happening on GuildWiki (i.e. popular candidates not being elected, myself among them) without any repercussions for the Admins. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Might not affect the admins but usually causes unnecessary bickering. - Skakid9090 22:56, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

In comparison, the bickering caused by not having an RfA period is much greater and much more sustained than that generated by periodic RfA nominations. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:56, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

You have a point. I can't stand the aftermath of rejected RfAs (omg admin A hates user A becauuse of ____ that's why he didn't get promoted), but maybe that is inevitable. - Skakid9090 22:59, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm sticking with my previous answer, the benefits of having an RfA outweigh any potential pitfalls that can be caused by an RfA. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

I support this policy, but just on a side note, is there a fad with these black bolded sigs :P -- Nova -- (contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I have had this black bolded sig, for a LONGGG time. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 16:59, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

I support it too. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 16:22, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Because of the overwhelming support, i.e. no outstanding opposition, I am making this an official policy of the wiki. Nominations may officially start when it is moved to official policy. Thanks. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

RfA just seems like another way for idiots to get into power. Idiots like me, should I say =P Strongly disagree. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 17:08, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean? Bureaucrats/Sysops still get the final decision... so it really doesn't make a difference... *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:11, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Kinda does, coz one of you guys might pick a guy who then gets bored of the wiki and decides to attack the wiki like a jerk. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 11:27, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Opposition in the ranks! Sorry, had to do that lmao. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 17:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Well then he gets demoted and banned. End of story. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 11:57, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Yay, too bad it's after what, how much damage done to the wiki? That I suppose only admins could fix. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 12:01, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Well since it's official I guess you have a lot of confidence in the system. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 01:02, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Nominations

How would the nominations be handled? If you allow people to nominate themselves then there is going be 10+ nominations at any one time. I suggest that the admins get together in whatever way they do meetings and discuss periodically whether they think that more sysop help is needed. Gcardinal himself said that he wanted admins to pick when new ones were needed. For nominations themselves there needs to be a process where a few top nominees(ones with most user support) are then voted on in a official looking ballot system, when admins say more sysops are needed.--Aliri 17:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

It's unnecessary. Look at GuildWiki, they don't have that problem. Furthermore, this RfA specifically states that we retain the right to decide when we need new Admin's. Furthermore, one of the benefits of the RfA is that we have a list of candidates for when we DO need Admins. As far as nominations and promotions go, we're fine as is. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:26, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Not now

Even this is a official policy, it is important to note that at the moment we are not looking for new admins. gcardinal 05:08, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Simply as an addendum to this comment, while we are not looking to promote at this time, that does not preempt users from being nominated. This page is meant to contain a list of candidates, whether or not we are looking to promote has no bearing on the existence of such a list. *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:24, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

As in, if you all of a sudden need admins, then voila, you've got a list to choose from? -- Nova -- (contribs) 11:16, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

something like that yeah. And one more thing, that we will expand more later, from now on candidates with some kind of skills that we can use on this wiki will be #1 choice. It can be: gfx, icon making, theme making, php coding, bot making, apache optimization, squid +++ gcardinal 21:10, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Chance for entertainment?

I won't do this myself, because I don't want to get banned :-) But after the build purge on GW, I think it would be entertaining to nominate every one of the GW admins, just to see what happens. lol.

rant re:admins

From what I've seen from this site, the only "Admins" to have done anything decent are the buerocats. I don't think Admins here are serious position, because judging from the contributors of the users on GuildWiki @ here, they are extremly inexperianced and frankly who use there "position" to rant and flame. I honestly think the Admins appointed for doing something decent (like the sites founder) not for jumping to the PvX ship early and claiming they know how tomake builds. That's my opinion on the PvX non-Buero admins, and the nominations. 124.191.73.31 18:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

Are you referring to anyone in particular or just the non's in general. ‽-(єяøηħ) ^{no u} 01:20, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I will admit that I am probably not the best person in the world when it comes to making builds. But I try to think things through and encourage that critical thinking when it comes to making builds. There are only a few proffessions I heavily stick my nose into to give my opinion on, Mesmer, Elementalist, Monk, and sometimes warrior. THe role of the Syop, from how I've been treating it, is to perform site maintinance. Not be a build master. Most of my time is used cleaning up minor errors, preventing vandalism, and ensuring builds meet the high standard of formatting that everone appreciates when reading though builds. Those three tasks are what we were told our jobs were when we got promoted. The other side of it, the percieved side that we are build makers, comes from us just being highly vocal about what we see on the site. I know I have personally at least glanced at every build stub, Untested, and tested build on this site and perhaps a quarter of the unfavords. We still only get one vote when it comes to vetting, just like you guys. Shireensysop 01:38, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

For those that only like to read short things: The role of the admin is that of site janitor, not build master . Shireensysop 01:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I completely agree with you, but having extremly bias Admins getting involved in the builds section doesn't work. This site simply cannot have usrs with addtional powers to vote on builds. Some builds won't get a fair chance, and can just be deleted by the opinion of an admin that deems it deletable. 124.191.73.31 11:55, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

In theory, yeah, that's true. But I've seen evidence from every admin that says reality isn't quite like that. Generally, the admin will post on the talk page, something like "this build violates PW:WELL, and can be deleted. Here's why it sucks, and here's some stuff you can do to improve it." Only the absolutely worst stuff gets deleted outright (life transfer wars etc). -Auron 12:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

*nod nod* and it is customary that unless it is painfully obvious, an admin who places a delete tag should not delete the build unless it goes uncontested for two weeks or more. It takes two admins agreeing on a point for a build to be quickly deleted as per PvX:Well. There are some natural safeguards and traditions in place to prevent audacious tyrany. But I will admit, there are a few people on this site that are very strongly opinionated about what works and doesnt work. And they are both admin and non admin alike. People are people. Shireensysop 12:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, we have very few opinionated Admins imo. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 13:09, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

TOC

I converted the __NOTOC__ to be {{TOCright}} instead, as well as modifying some of the header levels in the process section. The TOC helps navigate the list of nominees, as well as allowing to quickly see all the current nominees without needing to scroll through them. I used TOCright instead of TOC simply because it prevents all the white space you normally get to the right of a normal TOC. --161.88.255.139 11:37, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Archive of Past Nominations

Do we have one? - Krowman {{sysop}} 08:37, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Yes. -Auron 08:39, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Found it. Spoke too soon, sorry. - Krowman {{sysop}} 08:40, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Anons...

Are anons allowed to vote? ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 16:29, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

I'll check them. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:13, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

I thought they couldnt accss the page. ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 20:20, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

lol, no it is just sigm@ thinking he is funny :P. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

So are anons allowed to vote? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 03:42, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Yep. DE explained more somewhere, might have been on Skakid's RfA talk. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 06:42, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki talk:Administrators#Contributions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:05, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Reconfirmation

Anyway to set up a reconfirmation here on PvX Wiki? § Eloc § 08:42, 25 November 2007 (CET)

What do you mean by 'reconfirmation?' Something like a no-confidence vote? - Krowman {{sysop}} 08:44, 25 November 2007 (CET)

I don't know... maybe if I knew what a reconfirmation was... *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:47, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop. Make sense now? § Eloc § 08:49, 25 November 2007 (CET)

PW:EVAL. -Auron 08:53, 25 November 2007 (CET)

I've seen this on other wikis (specifically, DanDwiki and the official wiki). Both of them fail, tbh, but that's not really the point. I see no reason why we should take the time to go through a whole nother RfA process when I can just say, "Hey! DE! That Wizardboy dude has been abusing his deletion powers! Go talk with Auron about it!" And right there both bureaucrats are looking into it. PvX:EVAL is the "official" way of doing that. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 09:00, 25 November 2007 (CET)

Anyway for me to request a reconfirmation for a Sysop? Also, do you have terms for beurocrats here (if so, when do their terms end?) § Eloc § 09:01, 25 November 2007 (CET)