All posts by Drew1200

<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Drew1200 wrote:
I vote to demote anyone who hasn't been active in the past 12 months. You never know what kind of psycho people can turn into after that amount of time. Life isn't always nice to people... or maybe people just aren't very nice to life... Regardless, seen it happen too many times.</div> <p>...hang on, that includes yourself, Drew. </p><noscript></noscript> </div> <p>Yeah, man. I could have gone completely insane for all you know. You wouldn't want me suddenly deciding that I'm going to log on and use all of this power to destroy everyone's livelihood, now would you? And I really am being completely serious. XD </p><p>Though now that I think about it, letting inactive administrators keep their rights is not nearly as much of risk now as it has been in other situations I've observed. With all the voting and stuff that goes on here, an administrator really doesn't have much authority. So I guess there's not really anything to worry about if you guys end up deciding that you'd like to let us retired folks retain our rights. But I really don't mind either way. </p>

<p>I vote to demote anyone who hasn't been active in the past 12 months. You never know what kind of psycho people can turn into after that amount of time. Life isn't always nice to people... or maybe people just aren't very nice to life... Regardless, seen it happen too many times. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Vonness11` wrote: </p> <div class="quote">FortressOfNight wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Drew1200 wrote: Wow, this is stupid. What a change from three or four years ago. :/ </p> </div>the objectively correct way to deal with things you disagree with: admin/buro edition </div> <p>making comments like that is a reason I opposed him </p><noscript></noscript> </div> <p>Hmm... I actually see what you mean. I guess that's fair, I'm sorry about all of that. Honestly, I'm not at all upset about the idea of losing my rights, although that would certainly be disappointing. It's more just that it hurts to see how much this community has changed from what I considered ideal. But it's definitely a subjective thing... even though I may consider this type of community "stupid", you guys might find it more enjoyable than the type that I tried to set up. So I'll try not to be so outspoken anymore. </p>

I support all of these people.

<p>Wow, this is stupid. What a change from three or four years ago. :/ </p><p>With the exception of Legoguy, I very strongly supported every single one of these administrators, and I continue to support them. I'll also add Legoguy to that list. </p>

<p>We actually did this before awhile ago. It was nice, most people just left the wiki. </p>

<p>Well... I guess what both of us said was a bit rude. Although "not being constructive" is not at all a policy violation. </p><noscript></noscript>

<p>Hopefully nobody would actually act on a warning so trivial. People might give you warnings for that, but how could you actually get blocked for something like that? I make it a point never to give warnings that I'm not willing to enforce, I think everyone could benefit from a mentality like that. </p>

<p>The only thing more pointless than unnecessary comments are comments questioning the necessity of unnecessary comments. </p><noscript></noscript>

Is this seriously what we're doing now? This is so stupid.

<p>Quick objection to your arguments, Obi. We're not having a vote to get rid of admins making decisions without community input, we're having a vote to get rid of admins making decisions. Throughout the entire history of this wiki, we've made very very few decisions that did not involve community input. Ever since I started admin talk, I've pushed pretty hard for community input, but I've completely opposed having the community as the final authority. </p>

Uh... this is already a community discussion... We don't have to move it here.

<p>Alright, I'll try to summarize my reasoning quickly. My biggest reason for opposing this is the same reason why I've been so hesitant with community votes, requests for rights, and every other form of community authority. I'm all for community input and an obligation to follow that input, but I'm very reluctant to allow the final decision to be made by the entire community. </p><p>The reason is that administrators should, on average, have a much greater decision making capability than the typical user. Administrators should always be more experienced, wiser, and more capable than the average community member. After all, that is why you guys vote for us in RfR. I know there's exceptions to what I've just said, and that there may be one or two exceptional community members who can make better decisions than the average admin, but they only get a single vote. There's also tons of users who have virtually no experience with wikis, don't understand how things work, or don't have the prudence to make the best decision. The reason a user becomes an administrator is because they have demonstrated exceptional experience, knowledge, and wisdom. </p><p>To put it simply, I want that second group to be the users in charge of this wiki, even if it doesn't include myself. </p>

<p>I'm going to vote no as well. I support Rio's policy proposal, only I think we should only have to make use of Admin Voting rather than actually having the entire discussion in public. Admin Voting is technically mandatory, I just think we need to become much more strict about that. If we're able to stay on top of that, I think it offers plenty of transparency. </p>

<p>And Bourgeoisie, being a developer yourself you should know exactly why Wikia doesn't have SMW enabled. It has nothing to do with their lack of desire to serve communities, and even if it did I think you'd be better off not trying to insult them. </p>

<p>Per TyA, but Wikia was at one point developing their own SMW-like extension. That was two or three years ago, so I don't know if they're just taking their time if they changed their minds, but we'll definitely have that enabled if they ever complete it. </p>

<p>Since Alemas archived this before I even got a chance to respond, I'm just gonna quickly reopen it to leave a quick comment. </p><noscript></noscript> <p>In relation to the LMB avatars, I want to leave a note. The LMBs are very systematic in their naming conventions for the avatars. Each avatar is named after the number of the head, torso, and legs, meaning that it's possible to upload all of the possible combinations. Although there's so many possible combinations that it's unlikely we'll ever have them all uploaded. </p><p>The naming convention is common knowledge, though. My intention in restating this is that I want to make sure we are not uploading duplicate files. This is incredibly easy to detect, since all the avatars have very consistent names. If you upload a file to this wiki, and you're told that a file with that name already exists, please just choose the already existing file and place it on the article. Please do not rename the files with anything other than the file name that the LMBs use. </p>

<p>Just to note, if we do this then someone will have to go through the entire list of emoticons and ensure that they're all reduced to the proper size. As long as we can do that, then I don't mind this. </p>

<p>These proposals do sound a bit difficult to meet, but I guess that we do have plenty of users who meet those requirements. I'll just voice my opinion that I'm cool with 100-150 forum edits. Although since this is a purely social right, like chat moderator, I think it should have the same mainspace requirements as chat moderator (which I believe are none). No ban/block for awhile is an obvious one. Two months sounds ideal. </p><p>We do not give official talk page warnings, although that's something I really think we should implement. However, I think it should be that multiple warnings for any offense disqualify the candidate, rather than a single warning for a specific offense. Here's my reasoning: not all warnings are fair, as much as I hate to admit it. I often disagree with warnings, especially when it relates to spam. Some people have a very extreme definition of spam, so extreme that many of us administrators would be considered spammers. Normally bans are not made on that basis, but I very often see warnings for it. I don't think a single, questionable warning given two and half months ago should disqualify a candidate. Also, I think that violating any part of the policy would also violate my trust in that candidate. I find it kind of odd that only spam and vandalism would disqualify someone. Spam isn't even considered that bad of a violation. I would consider it much worse if they made suggestive jokes or personally attacked another user. </p><p>There's my thoughts. Someone remind me to vote if we change this from a discussion to a vote. </p><noscript></noscript>

<p>I agree with what you're saying, which is why I originally voted that we merge the new moderator rights with chat moderator rights. However, patroller got more points in the last vote, so that's the only option I included here. I still prefer merging it with patroller over having it as a separate right. Maybe it'll even encourage more users to request patroller rights, and I'm all for that. </p>