This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
As some of you already know, I've made it clear that I'll be seeking a position on another site and as a result of the new commitments will thusly be unable to continue my tenure with the Total War Wikia. Although my longstanding policy has been to refuse adminship to other members of the community, I feel this needs to be revised pending my upcoming departure.
Feel free to make suggestions or recommend new staff members here. Openings for bureaucrat and administrative rights are being made available.
Anybody is welcome to participate. I encourage users who have been active here in the past to return and make their opinions known if possible. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 11:21, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
The following users have applied for, and have received, administrative privileges:
Flame hasn't been active much as of late, but applied on the basis of his mediative skills and I trust his judgment when it comes to resolving third party disputes.
YuriKaslov, who has requested administrative status in the past, now has it. If this is no longer in accordance with his wishes, he should let me know before I promote him to bureaucrat as well (something which he has also requested). Both Fidei Defensor and Andreioplst are also free to request them in light of their sterling work on the site.
I tentatively nominate myself as bureaucrat or administrator.
I edited here for only two weeks but in that space of time I made the third-most edits out of anyone at this wiki; I think that makes it clear of what I am capable of. My expertise is overwhelmingly in Empire: Total War, but we have to start somewhere, right? I am an admin of three wikis and an active contributor in half-a dozen of them; fellow users considered me reasonable as an admin and active as a contributor. I can list character references if you need a second opinion.
I stopped editing here not because I have a short attention span and lose interest quickly, but rather because I clashed heavily with you. I continued my work at Empire: Total War wiki and I consider my coverage of the topics of that game to be near-complete. My first act as admin would be to start merging the pages from there to here, which in my opinion would substantially improve the conformity, quality, and quantity of the pages here.
I say that I tentatively nominate myself because of the reservations I have for the user and editor base of this wiki. To say that this wiki has stalled for the last six years would be putting it kindly. I will say this bluntly: if I end up administering an essentially dead, one-man editing project, then I am not interested and you'd be better served finding someone else. I can attempt to fix this by getting fellow users from my other wikis to join me here, which should be an interesting recruitment process to say the least. If I am chosen as a new admin and I leave in subsequent months due to low traffic, I promise that I'll do my best to find a replacement. I will also be blunt in saying that if you are to retain a position of power over me, I am definitely not interested. I do not care for having that experience again.
Another reason to not consider me is due to the radical changes I would try to bring to this wiki. If I am made a bureaucrat, I would ideally choose two more admins to cover for my lack of knowledge of games out of Empire: Total War (I understand that having more than one admin here in the past has not been condoned). I would also draft up a user policy guideline that guarantees user rights to their material, to have a public forum where they can have their grievances addressed by more than one person in power, and more. I would also require admins to listen to the opinion of editors and to remove/add policies based on public consent. I will explore methods to reduce turnover and increase editor retention. If you are not a fan of big changes, then do not choose me. Brainwasher5 (talk) 13:11, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
Taking a cue from User:Brainwasher5's post, I'd like to make it clear I'm 100% open to promoting multiple administrators and bureaucrats - as having only one on the staff has not worked out particularly well for the past few years. If we're going to revive the site, we need to do so with a dedicated core of individuals on parity. A diverse team that can continue building on itself is also much less likely to go defunct than a single user and/or his personal acquaintances.
- We only need the one. This wiki has never had more than four editors active at any one time and, in all that time, there has only ever been one administrator. My fear is that were this wikia ever to pick up, administrator would easily become analogous with active editor. A ratio need to be maintained, new editors should never find themselves in the minority to a clique of administrators. It does not matter now but it one day might.
- If you would like to promote two bureaucrats then that's your prerogative. There's nothing stopping you from updating their user privileges right now. "Promote" is a funny word, since I was under the impression that you were planning to bequeath the wikia to another. How curious it is, that you now suddenly care for consensus opinion. To my recollection, as the administrator of this wiki, you have the final say.
Fidei brings up a good point: our editor base right now is erratic at best, and expansion of the admin group, while in my opinion necessary in the long term (to prevent past problems from happening again), should proceed deliberately. My overwhelming concern for having just one admin is said admin's ability to just block whomever he/she disagrees with. It'd be a facade of democracy when instead it's a dictatorship in disguise. I guess we'll have to take it as it goes. Brainwasher5 (talk) 09:58, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
- Given how I'm already being held responsible for behaving too much like an autocrat, the last thing I want to do is leave the site in the hands of another single admin with absolute power. The only way I can guarantee it won't happen is by promoting multiple people at once, hence the plural.
- I intend to leave the default message up for about a month, which is plenty of time for anybody who's interested to get back here and make that interest known. At the end of that period we'll all have a better idea on what's going to happen and how. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 11:16, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up if I'm up for consideration: I am joining the military starting mid-October. You will get the most use out of me before then. I'll still be able to monitor the site on weekends in the army, but I naturally won't have anywhere near the same degree of free time as I have now. Brainwasher5 (talk) 13:30, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
I was not active here on this wiki, but I am somewhat active on the Empire: Total War wiki. I also have observations on all that was happening here for a long time ago. I want to say that I support Brainwasher5 for admin here, observing his work and management of the Empire wiki I can deduce that he is appropriate for the task. Nanomat (talk) 14:17, September 4, 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with the sentiment that there should only be one bureaucrat or administrator.
Administrator tools are just that -- tools, designed to help a user better care for his wiki. The ratio doesn't matter insofar as those with the tools aren't lording it over those without or otherwise being abusive (which is actually something that Wikia staff themselves can be brought in to deal with in the event of an administrator or bureaucrat abusing his privileges). Having multiple administrators has its benefits as well -- specifically, round-the-clock monitoring and administrator support, multiple people to approach in the event of a contentious decision (such as a user being blocked in a fit of anger by one administrator), and it would also spread the workload out a lot because the wiki wouldn't be reliant on a single user to do every single administrative task. Plus, redundancy in a case like this is a good thing because, as mentioned previously, there would constantly be at least one administrator who is readily available at any given time.
Beyond that I believe wholeheartedly in meritocracy -- that a user should, if he has proven himself capable and deserving, be given administrator capabilities regardless of whether or not the number of active users is small. I reiterate that admin flags are tools, not a mark of status or power. Why should one active, dedicated user be forgone in favor of another for a justification like "maintaining a ratio"? There is nothing in Wikia's policies stating that this is a requirement, nor is it a necessary measure for anything, nor does it have any affect on whether or not users are active or not. It's just arbitrarily disadvantaging one active and dedicated user in favor of another, all else being equal.
That to me seems like it would be more disheartening to the average user than coming into a situation where all active users are administrators. In the first case is a situation where one user's hard work and dedication would never be recognized (as well as making his job harder because of the various locks that can be placed on articles, categories, and files), while in the latter case the user would see multiple active administrators and know that he could be recognized as they were. On top of that, the average user might be put off if the only admin is gone for days or weeks at a time, which would make it impossible to deal with things like vandals, or when that user is attempting to make a change to a locked page.
Of course, this is just my two cents, but on many of the wikis I have frequented this has been a successful approach to wiki administration. Юра 07:45, September 15, 2015 (UTC)
I definitely feel uncomfortable with the notion of one admin, but I do feel that Fidei/Byzantine (I forget which brought it up in the first place) had a point--in a hypothetical world where we have two or three control-freak admins, then that is a system where it is even harder to see change than just one control freak admin. Admins employ useful tools not accessible by editors, it's true, but they're also responsible (formally or informally) for things like reverting vandalism and blocking vandals. It's much harder to find two or more responsible adults for a position like this than just one.
That being said, I'd be thrilled if we had multiple (say, 3?) responsible, level-headed, reasonable admins. We'll just need a selection process that proves that the applicant
a) Frequents (and contributes to) the wiki on a regular or at least semi-regular basis
b) Acts in a responsible and mature way, addressing complaints in a prompt and reasonable manner.
c) Plans and implements positive changes in the wiki
d) Seeks public consent for sweeping changes when possible.
To address your concern about having multiple control-freak admins, I don't believe that (unless they're entirely likeminded people, which would show up pretty quickly and is fairly unlikely) that is likely to happen. Having two or three who butt heads often would still leave a lot more wiggle room for change than having a single admin who orders everyone else around; we'd see more cooperation & discussion, and less dictation. If things got really bad, then Wikia staff would likely have to get involved, but I doubt things would get that bad. In fact I've only seen that happen once, and it was a truly exceptional circumstance.
Speaking of sweeping changes, would you mind commenting on the category standardization forum? Somebody brought up an important thing. Юра 03:46, September 16, 2015 (UTC)
- Byzantine is waiting on Andreioplst. -- Fidei Defensor (talk • contribs) 09:08, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I am interested, but the only person who would vouch for me has been inactive for three years. Юра 19:30, September 22, 2015 (UTC)