Minecraft Wiki talk:Administration

Link on this page going to this page

Expand this page into general administration page

I have a draft at User:Sonicwave/Administration to expand this page into a general "Administration" page, to describe all of the administrative groups that the wiki now has. In particular, there is currently no easy way to access information about the board. It was initially proposed to link the board page directly in the sidebar, but I'm hesitant because that would mean 3 separate sidebar links about the wiki's administration, which is probably not of interest to most people. Having a description of the board under an "administration" page should still allow people to find it if needed. –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 00:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. GIM Dianliang233 T C 10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Draft looks good to me! | violine1101 ^(talk) 10:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, I always found it a bit odd that our main "staff" page was just lists of members with nothing more. And to a new user looking at the sidebar, it's not immediately clear that "Directors page" is our staff page, considering director is a custom user group for MCW. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect talk page too or just leave it here

Update wiki admins and remove (Fandom) from IT and NL

Clarifying scope of directors

After developments in regards to a language wiki that did not fork to our network of forked Minecraft wikis I believe it may be a good idea to revisit the scope of who is a "director" on MCW-EN. I think we are currently not anticipating any more wikis forking to minecraft.wiki, all of the language wikis that we eyed so far either forked, stayed on Fandom (due to lack of activity/editors ready to help with the process) or went their own way, however state reflected on Administration page doesn't have any criteria for what a language wiki is. In current broad understanding - it's any language wiki no matter its state as far as forking goes, even though the interwiki we have only links to the wikis which have forked and stayed within minecraft.wiki network.

I think it makes sense to clarify what wikis should be taken into account on Minecraft Wiki:Administration, what are the goals of having a director group. This might be especially worthwhile considering stated need to distance minecraft.wiki from other wiki for legal reasons. It might be also useful to do this for consistency purposes such as bringing parity with the interwiki list.

Personally I consider this group to be a group easing the collaboration within Minecraft Wiki ecosystem, other than being a fancy user group (that might have representative function to lesser degree) it allows language wiki administrators to help with some more particularly protected pages that require a specifically trusted user, as well as grant access to a channel on the Discord server for directors.

With all that said, I still think its worthwhile to consider limiting the scope of what "administration" means on this page only to language wikis that are in some way officially recognized by us either through a partnership or by existing on same network. Any Minecraft Wiki community regardless of its location can still find support channels in existing places, and I do not believe that removing status of directors from people outside of the aforementioned limited scope of administrators to be hindering any future collaboration and/or fork efforts.

This is my proposal which I'm in 👁 Image
 Support of. Frisk (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think my preferred, more precise way to define director is "an administrator on any language wiki that is managed by Block & Quill or has an observer wiki representative seat". GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess either definition will in some way depend on B&Q's actions and be therefore dependent on the company. Don't think it's a minus, just something to note. I wouldn't mind the definition you proposed. Frisk (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
I do not support the isolationism proposed here. Both the Polish Wiki and the Hungarian, Czech, Turkish, etc., should retain the right to have Directors' roles for Administrators from these Wikis, as has been the case for years. On this occasion, it is also worth mentioning slightly different perspectives on the matter of distancing minecraft.wiki. Best regards! BartoszKonkol (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to point out that you're conflating the situation regarding the Polish wiki with that of the other inactive wikis. For the Polish wiki, the board representing the minecraft.wiki community has spoken. Unfortunately, your recent actions have caused a significant loss of trust. Your statement has been shared on Meta#general channel already and there are numerous counterpoints for you to check out. It only makes sense for the English wiki to only grant these permissions to people we affiliate with, meanwhile also reducing our attack surface. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to the merits in context of proposal: it has been the case for years I think because all of our wikis shared same platform and in many ways collaborated together. B&Q as well as entire international community we have here is a result of this collaboration. Polish Minecraft Wiki has been part of international community for a long time, I've been a witness and active participant in this journey.

However actions done by the Polish Association of Minecraft Wiki suggest that the association wants to take divergent path from minecraft.wiki wikis, it wants to be entirely independent both in funding, decisions and management. This is noble goal and could be still compatible with values of minecraft.wiki as well as B&Q. However I'm led to believe that this cooperation was lacking in major way and resulted in catastrophic public relationship issue between two entities to the point where the bridge has been burned so much, B&Q organization has decided best move forward is to actively distance minecraft.wiki from PL association. This is a drastic measure, which in my opinion validity of has been only further validated by the very statement you are linking. Regardless of who's fault it was or not, Minecraft Wiki Polska remains outside of minecraft.wiki network and having it on this page clearly causes confusion (see one of the responses below as an example).

I'm sure that if the other three wikis gain active editors who are ready to put work forward towards forking the wikis - they will still be able to do so. Those editors will likely be even different people than current directors and they will receive the same amount of support regardless if they are in directors group or not. Frisk (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, I always saw the current situation as temporary. Of course we don’t want admins of wikis that we have zero affiliation with, like Fandom wikis, to have director rights across Block & Quill wikis. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. It's definitely risky to maintain even minimal ties in the current situation. I've already notified the BrMCW admins to be ready to remove the Polish rows from the admin page. — 👁 Image
Diego 13:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support As much as it might be inconvenient for affected directors, it just makes sense for the role to be kept only for wikis that are part of B&Q ecosystem. Oakar567 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that "administration" only applies to wikis hosted on the minecraft.wiki domain name? -- Arina (she/her) 13:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t only apply to wikis hosted on the minecraft.wiki domain name, that’s what we’re looking to change. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
14:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Every indepedent wiki should have its own independent admins without them overlapping. -- Arina (she/her) 14:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. We have had no serious interaction with the Czech, Turkish, Greek and Hungarian wikis so far, which is pretty unfortunate (especially for the Hungarian wiki which is one of the older ones, launched back in 2011). Would we have further interactions with the Polish wiki depends on whether they’re willing to accept their mistakes. Or rather errors, as someone has once said in a book: “Anyone can make an error... But that error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” BabylonAS 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Vague wording

Edit request

Update board members

Let the Directors section in alphabetical order