This Forum has been archivedVisit Discussions
As most of you have probably noticed, there are no active admins currently on Downton Abbey Wiki. Given our situation and the ongoing third season, it is probably a good idea that we select at least one active user to be bureaucrat and administrator. This will ensure that DA Wiki can be customized and tailored to fit the community's needs, and prevents us from being wide-open to vandalism.
Presently, there is an active adoption request open at community central, which CestWhat and HarryPotterRules1 have both put their name forward. In addition, CestWhat published a blog regarding his request. In order to resolve this fairly for everyone, we should use a community forum instead of a blog, since it's neutral territory. It's the way most well-developed wikis choose new administrators. Generally, each user who wishes to be considered makes a statement - having a certain amount of time to do so. Then users can vote by placing their name under "support" or "oppose" for a different candidate. Naturally, only users with accounts can vote to prevent rigging.
Personally, since we don't have any established rules about these processes (yet), I'm inclined to think a week for users to put their name forward and an additional week for voting is the way to go. We can link to this forum from community council when we're done. And like the case is usually with forums regarding community decisions, we should accept the result of the vote/discussion and move on, whether or not we personally preferred the outcome. --AvatarRokusGhost 06:26, September 24, 2012 (UTC)
EXAMPLE candidate section
- Statement: blahblahblah
#Support. Why support blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
#Oppose. Why oppose blah blah blah... (Usersignature)
- Please put any discussion about the process or desired qualifications for admins in this section. -- (talk · contr) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific
Votes of support would probably be bolstered by links to particularly good contributions by either candidate from supporters. The candidates themselves could also supply examples of what they think are good contributions. This would help voters "see into the mind" of the candidate by seeing what they think is a good contribution. Likewise, opposition would he bolstered by particularly bad contributions. By bad, I generally mean poorly written in terms of grammar and spelling, having obvious factual errors, or false/misleading references.
Consideration must be taken when evaluating contributions in context. Often a series of contributions will result in a poor or fragmentary initial edit followed by several edits to improve the overall contribution, so the result of the series should be considered over individual edits. -- (talk · contr) 26 Sep 2012 12:22 PM Pacific
- This wiki is in desperate need of neutral arbitration —and quickly, before the entire series of this show is spoiled by this messy wrangle for power. — CzechOut 18:16, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
- The solution is not simple without a user who has the power to appoint a caretaker bureaucrat. Also, Wikia staff really haven't been that helpful so far. If they were, there would probably be some help in this matter besides just saying effectively, "figutre it out for yourselves." -- (talk · contr) 28 Sep 2012 1:41 PM Pacific
There isn't any other admins on this Wiki and User:Fandyllic has suggested I do it. The admin really isn't that much different from any other contributor beyond ability to delete and there are a couple of things that ought to be deleted (i.e. I have uploaded a picture by accident but it's still here). I will try to be reasonable in any disputes. I understand I'm neither the author of this Wiki nor am I the creator of this show. I have to understand that others' have differing points of views and not always differ to myself as the sole authority. I'd just like to have a wiki that's fun to contribute to and informative to either a fresh fan of DA or one who is obsessed with every detail. CestWhat (talk) 16:40, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Support He has the composure to take on this responsibility. --AvatarRokusGhost 14:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)(Usersignature)
- Oppose. — You don't appear to have the proper temperament for the job, because you seem completely unwilling to work with User:HarryPotterRules1. CzechOut 18:09, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
There are no admins on this wiki, and I know how to work a wiki - having several of my own that are admined by me and friends - so I would be good for this. As well as this, certain pages that were perfectly fine with canon information, were altered and ruined. As an Admin, I would be able to stop this, and restore the pages to how they needed to be. Naturally, I am not the creator of this wiki, and I am definitely not Julian Fellowes. I understand that people have different opinions, but not when it comes to canon information; it's canon information or none at all.
This, is why I should be an admin. This, and the fact that I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:31, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Support (Usersignature)
- Oppose It's not a matter of who's right and who's wrong in these disagreements. It's how one handles them and conducts themself. HarryPotterRules straight-out admitted that he/she would block a user on a whim. That alone is unbecoming of an admin. --AvatarRokusGhost 14:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. — You don't appear to have the proper temperament for the job, because you seem completely unwilling to work with User:CestWhat. CzechOut 18:09, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
- I have, I believe, been here longer than CestWhat, for I have been here (though not actively editing) since the wiki began.
If you could have lurked prior to editing, how do you know CW wasn't also doing that? Rather than heresay (seeing as how people seem to say contrary things about various issues) I'd just go by the data:
The wiki was founded October 2010. But such things aren't the only consideration, activity or longevity. There's always subtle stuff like quality and community get-alongedness which is always difficult to demonstrate. The ideal thing to do would perhaps give examples of problematic edits observed from one another via linking edit diffs? Hard data should always accompany paraphrasing of memories to keep accurate and let people assess it. +Yc 08:27, September 28, 2012 (UTC)