User talk:Pling/Adminship

Uh...

No, either go into detail or this proposal is full of loop holes --Shadowphoenix 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no loopholes. Loopholes stem from futile attempts to define and classify every possible occurrence and subsequent action by an administrator. Lord Belar 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The less loops, the less holes. -- pling | ggggg 22:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Loop Holes Include: Any contributer, good standing or not can run. Sysops do not have discretion. Bcrats cannot be elected. Gives bcrats the power to promote any user to sysop instantly..... More? --Shadowphoenix 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Any contributer, good standing or not can run." -- as they can on GWW. Not a problem if bureaucrats have the ultimate decision: the RfA won't pass.

"Sysops do not have discretion." On the contrary, there is no limit on sysop discretion. They have the tools, they are trusted to use them properly. They can be demoted by bureaucrats at any time if they misuse it -- which won't happen because said sysops are trusted. Otherwise they wouldn't be sysops.

"Gives bcrats the power to promote any user to sysop instantly". Yes. However, bureaucrats are bureaucrats because they have some degree of intelligence. If automatically promoting a user is what is best for the wiki, no harm done. However, with said intelligence, these bureaucrats would hold an RfA first to see what the community think. They of all people would know that a wiki is a community effort, so you get that community's opinion.

Something doesn't have to be written down on paper for that something to happen (or not happen); most of it is common sense. -- pling | ggggg 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, plain and simple. +1 vote. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Plingggggg; but not everyone has common sense :P --Shadowphoenix 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins get common sense. People without common sense aren't admins last I heard. Lord of all tyria 20:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. -- pling | ggggg 21:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Lord, I always thought the point of the policy was to define what and admin does and to inform new users about what and admin is. @ Plingggggg, What? --Shadowphoenix 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now, admins don't really do much of anything. Product, Process, Policy - we shouldn't try to define what it is that admins do until we can observe and document the role they play here (i.e. - once we start getting more info and there's actually activity). ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)