HammerWiki talk:Administrators

From HammerWiki

[edit] Administrative policy

Having now touched upon the issue of HammerWiki adminship a few times, most recently with the arrival of long-time GW-contributor Gem, I think it is time to talk a bit about administration of HammerWiki.

I was about to start writing a large piece on adminship and what I felt it should be, but I decided to first have a good, long look at the policy as it currently stands on GuildWiki. It's been a while since I was active there, but I was for long enough to know and trust both the admins and the process of how decisions are made over there. Additionally, it really only makes sense for HammerWiki to build upon and mirror the solutions and answers to major questions that GuildWiki has come up with, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

As such, I propose that HammerWiki imports the policies on the matter from GuildWiki. That means both the RFA and general administrators policies. The only modifications I feel should be required are those for context and factuality, such as changing mentions of GuildWiki to HammerWiki and listing the actual admins here.

Obviously, since the HammerWiki community is still small, the process will have to accomodate the possible need for appointing new admins before strong community support has been shown, simply because there is not enough community to show it, as yet. The policy easily allows for this.

On a personal note, if anyone still remembers me from GuildWiki they may also remember that there was a time when I argued rather strongly against parts of this policy. Re-reading all the old discussions (something I do not recommend), however, leads me to understand how and why I was in the minority back then and that I owe Tanaric an apology. The bottom line is that the GuildWiki policies -- while not nessecarily perfect -- work and make for a stable yet dynamic adminstrative structure. I think we would be best served by adopting them here.

However, this is just my opinion. And while I suppose that realistically I am currently in a position to simply mandate whatever policy I wish, that is not the way I hope things will work around here. And frankly, the whole point of the exercise is to move the decision-making process away from me and onto the community. So, please, if you have had the patience to read this far, add your thoughts to this talk page. Support or oppose, propose alternatives or simply reject my reasoning. Whatever you decide, please add your thoughts. --Bishop 07:05, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Imho create a sysop team in the beginning that you would want to work with and which is able to do the job without problems. After the wiki gets more popular we can start discussing on policies like this. Discussing uch an important policy with almost no users will just result in a policy that we might need to rewrite later on. -- (gem / talk) 19:07, 30 June 2007 (CDT)