FANDOM


  • Introduction

    Hi

    As everyone knows, the chat created yet more drama with the nominations of a few users to become chat mods. In recent days that followed, it has become painfully obvious that there is no communication between anyone and that several systems on this site do not work.

    I am proposing this: we overhaul the whole wiki and implement major changes to ensure that we can get along without problems every single month.

    Please read on.

    Stage One: Rights Evaluation

    At this point, we have a bunch of people with rights that they do not use. This bloats the staff list pointlessly with inactive users. There is also the issue that some users treat the flags as status symbols. Let me spell this out to everyone here:

    Flags are NOT status symbols. They are flags to provide a user with tools to moderate the wiki. Stop treating them as if they bear meaning to anything about the wiki and stop treating flags as if you can't lose them. This is a wiki, not a democracy.

    The following is a list of users who need their rights updated / removed:

    • Mbjones90 - Doesn't need crat or sysop flags, hasn't visited the wiki in 3 years.
    • URL - Global bot, so doesn't need a separate bot flag, nor sysop.
    • Veetor-Bot III - Has bot flag, does not need sysop.
    • Annonnimus - Does nothing as a sysop, last edit was 2 years ago.
    • GramsJ - Last edit and visit was 2 years ago, doesn't need sysop flag.
    • HaLo2FrEeEk - Last edit was made over 1.5 years ago, does nothing as a sysop.
    • Zluhcs - Last edit was made about 6-7 months ago, could be kept but should be removed if doesn't need sysop.
    • Elchzard - Last edit and visit made 2 months ago, do not know if sysop flag needs to be kept.
    • Gheart - Last edit was made 2 years ago, doesn't need rollback flag.
    • Sactage - Is already VSTF, rollback is implied by default.
    • G0LD3NF1RE - Last edit and visit made a few months ago, hasn't been active in a while so doesn't need custodian or rollback.
    • Pelinal Whitestrake - Indicated to have left chat, does not need chat moderator flag. User can confirm if he wishes this.
    • Ikabite - Hasn't been in chat for a while now, may have left chat, so doesn't need chat moderator flag. User can confirm if he wishes this.

    Please do NOT use support/oppose templates against ANY of these users. With the exception of Pelinal Whitestrake and Ikabite, none of the other users or bots require the specified flags any longer. Posts containing support/oppose votes for these users will be removed without warning. This is not a community re-evaluation of any of the aforemented users.

    Stage Two: Remove Community Nominations

    We do not need community nominations for ANY rights. As I stated above, flags are not a status symbol, so the community should not be involved in any promotion requests for flags. The only time this should happen is when someone is being nominated for bureaucrat flag.

    Flags should be granted on a basis of need, NOT a consensus. For example, if a sysop (we should use the proper name, not admin) is being persistently asked to delete articles or block users by a particular user, that user should be asked if he/she wants to be given the sysop flag, so he/she can do the blocks themselves. Conversely, if he/she does not request sysops to block users or remove articles, that user should NOT be promoted, as he/she does NOT need these tools.

    One thing that has worked on Narutopedia is to make the rollback flag "viral". By this, existing rollbackers are able to give the flag to other users if they deem it necessary to others: they are not able to remove the flag however. This should be considered for chat moderators and rollbacks on this wiki, as part of removing the community nominations.

    Stage Three: Re-Evaluate ALL staff

    The re-evaluations should be done in private and should not be based just on how many edits the user has. The evaluation should take into consideration a number of things, such as:

    • What has the user brought to the wiki to improve it?
    • Is the user respected and liked within the community?
    • What is their behaviour like? Have they abused the tools given to them?
    • Have they:
      • Visited the wiki in the last 30 days?
      • Made an edit to improve the wiki in the last 30 days?

    The number of times I have seen a user keep their rights just because of what they've done in the past is ludicrous. If a user has left the wiki, why the heck do they continue to possess tools they don't even use?

    Also, if a user has not made an edit or visited in the wiki in the last 30 days, they should be revoked of the flag so that the list is current and fresh. This should NOT happen to users who have stated that they will be away for a period of time, but this should NOT be abused to keep rights indefinitely (in the case of Jett Cyber).

    Stage Four: Introduce Specific Sysops

    We should have sysops who are given the rights for a reason. For example, Flightmare is the wiki's chief coder and therefore, he is a sysop for helping with coding aspects.

    To lead from this, we should have sysops who are dedicated to the community. As such, I am proposing we have the following new positions within the sysop flag:

    • Forum Admin
    • Chat Admin
    • Blog Admin

    These users would, in effect, be the people who are tasked with controlling the forums, chat and blog. As we all know, none of the sysops here care for managing any of these features, so this would allow for a user to be tasked with managing them and keeping them updated and useful.

    Stage Five: Remove Coloured Names

    This incites the need to make people feel better about themselves and ties in with the above bold message that users treat flags as a status symbol. Rights are not statuses: they are just a way to give users the tools they need to improve the wiki. Despite that, many users here feel that the coloured names are useful, so maybe these colourings should only be applied in the forums and on the Special:WikiActivity page and not in the rest of the wiki.

    Please discuss below. Thank you.

    Voting-support Support
     
    Voting-neutral Neutral
     
    Voting-oppose Oppose
     
    Voting-support Support {{VoteSupport}}
    Voting-neutral Neutral {{VoteNeutral}}
    Voting-oppose Oppose {{VoteOppose}}
    Voting-comment Comment {{VoteComment}}
      Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I completely agree, this Wiki needs to make a new system, as our current is not working, tell me when the staff re-evaluation is up, as I will take part in it. :D
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I agree with Zip on this. Things have just blown out of hand lately, things need to change. Althoguh I agree with Alduin on the coloured names aspect, but that's a small sacrifice for a big change.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      I like some of the ideas stated above but I do not understand the removal of coloured names. I kind off understand that it makes all of us look equal but I think that the colours make us stand out from the crowd and make us easier to indentify, 

      Apart from that very little issue I enjoyed reading the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Alduin1996 wrote:

      Voting-neutral Neutral
      I like some of the ideas stated above but I do not understand the removal of coloured names. I kind off understand that it makes all of us look equal but I think that the colours make us stand out from the crowd and make us easier to indentify, 

      Apart from that very little issue I enjoyed reading the thread.

      Maybe we could change it to removing coloured names from everywhere except the forums? Would that work?

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with everything, except removing the colored names. The names aren't there as a "status symbol", they're there so that users know that the user is staff, and can: 1. Help them out with any questions/problems 2. Be more respected. Not in a "all hail the admins" kind of way, but more of an "if a user with a green name (sysop) tells you to stop doing something, you do it" kind of way. There's a point in having colored names other than just to look cool/feel special/superior.

      Edit: I've changed my vote from neutral to oppose due to reasons stated by Deyvid Petteys. He makes some excellent points.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      I agree with everything, except removing the colored names. The names aren't there as a "status symbol", they're there so that users know that the user is staff, and can: 1. Help them out with any questions/problems 2. Be more respected. Not in a "all hail the admins" kind of way, but more of an "if a user with a green name (sysop) tells you to stop doing something, you do it" kind of way. There's a point in having colored names other than just to look cool/feel special/superior. Likes-That-Tail (talk) 21:50, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

      So, what about if someone else with a colored name says that? Should you ignore them? This is the problematic ideas that make this Wiki fall, that we treat Admins as "above" other users, and even the rules. Is that what you're saying LTT, because I assume that I may be minsinterpreting you. 

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:

      Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      I agree with everything, except removing the colored names. The names aren't there as a "status symbol", they're there so that users know that the user is staff, and can: 1. Help them out with any questions/problems 2. Be more respected. Not in a "all hail the admins" kind of way, but more of an "if a user with a green name (sysop) tells you to stop doing something, you do it" kind of way. There's a point in having colored names other than just to look cool/feel special/superior. Likes-That-Tail (talk) 21:50, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

      So, what about if someone else with a colored name says that? Should you ignore them? This is the problematic ideas that make this Wiki fall, that we treat Admins as "above" other users, and even the rules. Is that what you're saying LTT, because I assume that I may be minsinterpreting you. 

      You are definitely misinterpreting me. It's like if some random person on the street told you to stop talking. Would you listen? Maybe. But if an officer told you to stop talking? You'd listen. It's not that the policeman is "better", it's that he has authority. I really can't find the right words, so sorry if I'm not putting this the right way. What I mean to say is, the colored names aren't supposed to be a status symbol, and if they become one to a mod, and said mod acts superior, then they don't deserve to be mod.

        Loading editor
    • Speysider wrote:

      Alduin1996 wrote:

      Voting-neutral Neutral
      I like some of the ideas stated above but I do not understand the removal of coloured names. I kind off understand that it makes all of us look equal but I think that the colours make us stand out from the crowd and make us easier to indentify, 

      Apart from that very little issue I enjoyed reading the thread.

      Maybe we could change it to removing coloured names from everywhere except the forums? Would that work?

      That could work but I love to seem them all the time because I can see what people are without clicking on their names or going to the staff page and scrolling down trying to find a name. However everyone is different and people might agree or disagree with me.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:

      Zippertrain85 wrote:

      Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      I agree with everything, except removing the colored names. The names aren't there as a "status symbol", they're there so that users know that the user is staff, and can: 1. Help them out with any questions/problems 2. Be more respected. Not in a "all hail the admins" kind of way, but more of an "if a user with a green name (sysop) tells you to stop doing something, you do it" kind of way. There's a point in having colored names other than just to look cool/feel special/superior. Likes-That-Tail (talk) 21:50, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
      So, what about if someone else with a colored name says that? Should you ignore them? This is the problematic ideas that make this Wiki fall, that we treat Admins as "above" other users, and even the rules. Is that what you're saying LTT, because I assume that I may be minsinterpreting you. 

      You are definitely misinterpreting me. It's like if some random person on the street told you to stop talking. Would you listen? Maybe. But if an officer told you to stop talking? You'd listen. It's not that the policeman is "better", it's that he has authority. I really can't find the right words, so sorry if I'm not putting this the right way. What I mean to say is, the colored names aren't supposed to be a status symbol, and if they become one to a mod, and said mod acts superior, then they don't deserve to be mod.

      Oh, I agree with this. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      The wiki is in quite a bad state, and this could help. I don't agree with the name colour point, for reasons stated by Likes-That-Tail. I don't expect this consensus to magically make all of the wiki's problem disappear, but this change would get rid of the hierarchy system and bring in a system where users only have tools so they can use them, not so it can be used as a title.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Based on posts from a few users above, I have updated the opening post regarding coloured names. Users will continue to keep coloured names, but they should only be shown on the forums and the WikiActivity pages. They should, as pointed out, not be treated as though they're part of a title / status symbol: they're just there to make the user more noticeable and nothing more. :)
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This is an inspiring idea. I completely agree with this motion, and I think that it'll be an overall enjoyable experience when people aren't trying to bite each other's heads off throughout the wiki. :3
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This Wiki requires extensive re-evaluation of the Staff, from Chat Mods to B'crats.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Right now this is exactly what we need. Out with the old, in with the new where it's needed. Hopefully this can stop all the unnecessary fighting that's been going on.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Reasons stated above. This wiki is currently in a mess. I've seen many people fight each other over positions just for 'power-grabbing' for the Staff positions. As what Spey said, this is a wiki, not a democracy.

      I don't think that this will solve problems in a day, but I believe that it will help the wiki back on the road to recovery.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Keeping colored names on the forums makes sense, so I agree with all that has been said. 
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      I believe this could help us in many cases. We have hit a few rough patches, some drama occured, misunderstanding and the like. A new system, or at least a look over of the chat, could really upgrade the wiki's current standing stone. BUT it will cause drama in the forums and chat. It will spark arguments, between users and staff alike. It will disrupt many things. This is a loaded gun you are holding. Make sure you aim right.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I feel like people are putting effort into a problem that's not even there. Is there even any downside to letting inactive users keep their titles?

      As for colored names, new users should know whether or not they are conversing with a moderator or admin.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      There are plenty of problems here. None of the current admins care for the chat and it's become a cesspool. The forums lack any real moderation because no sysop looks at anything but the Consensus Track board. And as stated, coloured names are staying, but there has to be a policy that any staff trying to treat the coloured naming as a status symbol to make themselves feel superior will lose their rights. Flags are not status symbols.

      Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing wrong is what makes the wiki a bad place.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      There are plenty of problems here. None of the current admins care for the chat and it's become a cesspool. The forums lack any real moderation because no sysop looks at anything but the Consensus Track board. And as stated, coloured names are staying, but there has to be a policy that any staff trying to treat the coloured naming as a status symbol to make themselves feel superior will lose their rights. Flags are not status symbols.

      Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing wrong is what makes the wiki a bad place.

      That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking whether or not their is a legitament downside to letting inactive users keep their positions.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      There are plenty of problems here. None of the current admins care for the chat and it's become a cesspool. The forums lack any real moderation because no sysop looks at anything but the Consensus Track board. And as stated, coloured names are staying, but there has to be a policy that any staff trying to treat the coloured naming as a status symbol to make themselves feel superior will lose their rights. Flags are not status symbols.

      Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing wrong is what makes the wiki a bad place.

      I agree completely with this.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      There are plenty of problems here. None of the current admins care for the chat and it's become a cesspool. The forums lack any real moderation because no sysop looks at anything but the Consensus Track board. And as stated, coloured names are staying, but there has to be a policy that any staff trying to treat the coloured naming as a status symbol to make themselves feel superior will lose their rights. Flags are not status symbols.

      Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is nothing wrong is what makes the wiki a bad place.

      In addition, hardly any look after the mainspace either, we have so many Admins that don't go on the site anymore it's not even funny, and only Sysops and nominate other Sysops, so if almost  everyone is pretty much in-active than nobody else is going to be nominated, it's such a screwed up process. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      Reasons stated above. I, sadly, don't agree with removing the coloured names.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Brandon, nearly every vote you seem to make in any CT thread is usually accompanied with "Reasons already stated" (or words to that effect) as a reason. If you cannot think of any reasons with your vote, simply don't make a vote (especially if it's a Neutral vote) and just Kudos the posts you agree with. Also, had you actually been paying attention, you would see that I changed my post so that coloured names would be staying. >_>
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Brandon, nearly every vote you seem to make in any CT thread is usually accompanied with "Reasons already stated" (or words to that effect) as a reason. If you cannot think of any reasons with your vote, simply don't make a vote (especially if it's a Neutral vote) and just Kudos the posts you agree with. Also, had you actually been paying attention, you would see that I changed my post so that coloured names would be staying. >_>
      Voting-comment Comment
      Sorry, it's only now that I realize you had edited your post.

      I am not removing my vote, though.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      It is standard policy on the wiki to vote anyone out of their current staff position. This will not be circumvented based on inactivity. That disrupts the very structure of this wiki. Since there are only two active bureaucrats at present, I highly doubt any of these demotions will occur without consensus. I absolutely will not.
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      colored names help new users locate staff members. I have always advocated the use of bright, contrasting colors, and I have not found a persuasive argument countering my philosophy on this to date.
        Loading editor
    • Deyvid Petteys wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      It is standard policy on the wiki to vote anyone out of their current staff position. This will not be circumvented based on inactivity. That disrupts the very structure of this wiki. Since there are only two active bureaucrats at present, I highly doubt any of these demotions will occur without consensus. I absolutely will not.
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      colored names help new users locate staff members. I have always advocated the use of bright, contrasting colors, and I have not found a persuasive argument countering my philosophy on this to date.

      Hey Devyid, so, a lot's happened since January. If you haven't noticed from this Forum, people have been getting more and more fed up with Admins for multiple reasons. I recommend you read this to get an understanding of what started a lot of the instability on the Wiki. http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:599271

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      So there are a few rough things here and there-- this isn't the apocalypse. The times I've been in chat recently, people have been very respectful. I think the fault lies with a few users, not the wiki itself. This isn't some corrupt, tyrannical middle eastern government. And Zipper, that thread really doesn't help your case. It actually shows how our wiki came together in defense of an Admin and people, and you getting more and more fed up with everyone else.
        Loading editor
    • Deyvid Petteys wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      It is standard policy on the wiki to vote anyone out of their current staff position. This will not be circumvented based on inactivity. That disrupts the very structure of this wiki. Since there are only two active bureaucrats at present, I highly doubt any of these demotions will occur without consensus. I absolutely will not.
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      colored names help new users locate staff members. I have always advocated the use of bright, contrasting colors, and I have not found a persuasive argument countering my philosophy on this to date.

      Obviously didn't read the post, too interested in writing a reply. If you actually read my post, I made it clear that coloured names are staying. >_>

      And there's no reason to vote people out of their position when they are so obviously inactive that they disappeared years ago. Or are you telling me that they'll just appear out of nowhere and defend themselves when a thread is made to ask they have their rights updated? >_>

        Loading editor
    • Goldflame33 wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      So there are a few rough things here and there-- this isn't the apocalypse. The times I've been in chat recently, people have been very respectful. I think the fault lies with a few users, not the wiki itself. This isn't some corrupt, tyrannical middle eastern government. And Zipper, that thread really doesn't help your case. It actually shows how our wiki came together in defense of an Admin and people, and you getting more and more fed up with everyone else.

      The comments speak for themselves. But either way, it was just a way to show Deyvid what has gone on. 

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Deyvid Petteys wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      It is standard policy on the wiki to vote anyone out of their current staff position. This will not be circumvented based on inactivity. That disrupts the very structure of this wiki. Since there are only two active bureaucrats at present, I highly doubt any of these demotions will occur without consensus. I absolutely will not.
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      colored names help new users locate staff members. I have always advocated the use of bright, contrasting colors, and I have not found a persuasive argument countering my philosophy on this to date.

      Obviously didn't read the post, too interested in writing a reply. If you actually read my post, I made it clear that coloured names are staying. >_>

      And there's no reason to vote people out of their position when they are so obviously inactive that they disappeared years ago. Or are you telling me that they'll just appear out of nowhere and defend themselves when a thread is made to ask they have their rights updated? >_>

      I find your tone rather rude. I did, in fact, read everything, and I found it imperative to iterate my point regardless.

      In regards to mass de-sopping of staff members, I see little use in it. Inactive members have their usernames returned to the standard blue; their highlights are removed from the system. Some of them probably need updating. Regardless, I think doing so is futile and is quite petty to focus on. I understand the political problems the wiki has experienced lately. Many users have considered the administrative team bourgeois for quite some time. If admins are needed, I may be willing to over-look the requirement where admins must recommend an editor before voting can commence. If there is a conflict with a staff member, removing their tools can be voted upon. However, again, I see little use in de-sopping inactive administrators. They are trusted members of the community, inactive or incessantly editing. If they chose to return, they rightfully deserve their tools upon their return. Perhaps I am ignorant, but I do not understand your point on giving tools to those who are asking to have people blocked or articles deleted. If sysops are slow to respond (which appears to be a problem now, it never was before). That user who is keen enough to know when to perform a block, delete, or rollback, they should be nominated and given the tools. ALL staff positions need to be voted on. We need to verify an editors ability and character, lest they go rogue and need to have their tools removed. Voting and consensus has a purpose; it's not just slow bureaucracy. It's done as a preventative measure; it's not a popularity contest. If I understood your meaning, please elaborate politely. Because, as of yet, I fail to see how this will do anything but harm a wiki process that is not in need of fixing.

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      So, I am leaning towards a strong oppose.

      In regards to staff re-evaluation, I agree, but I do not think it should be mandatory for all members. Not all members are active, and as I stated above, I do not believe that inactivity is sufficient grounds for de-sopping. Re-evaluations should be done on a case-by-case instance when an issue arises that warrants a possible de-sopping. For example, a sysop who is incessantly rude to users. Even that is a poor example, as people can always improve. I think coaching is better than immediate removal of administrative tools. For example, there have been admins on other wikis who are terrible community role models (one of the requirements for sysops, patrollers, and mods alike on this wiki), yet they were extremely efficient at blocking troublesome users according to that wiki's block policy, they correctly deleted articles and unused/inappropriate files etc. They performed all of the duties expected for their position, save one. In scenarios like that, we can issue workings and help them improve. But, again, I am not of the opinion that inactivity should warranty tool removal. We move inactive sysops and patrollers to a specific category and remove their coloration. Anything else seems ludicrous, and I believe your rationalization is insufficient, almost suspicious.

        Loading editor
    • Pardon me if this sounds offensive, but the only thing I agreed with here was providing sysop tools to editors who are specifically interested in patrolling chat, forums, and blogs. You were correct in stating that current sysops do not care for those namespaces. I certainly do not, but I moderate them (or should I say "moderated" when I was more active) occasionally. Personally, I do not think many of your proposed points are necessary and seem to only serve the purpose of punishing rather than fixing -- not that I necessarily believe anything needs fixing. All in all, I sincerely believe we should focus on things of higher importance such as actually editing articles. There would be more to patrol, more edits to rollback, more articles to delete, if there was actual editing activity.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      No, staff positions do not require voting on anything. The only staff position that requires a consensus is a bureaucrat flag, since that requires Wikia intervention to perform. As an example, the whole idea of doing a consensus just to give people chat moderator flag was abused and is why voting there has been locked down: the thing got out of hand. Getting rid of the community consensus to promote people to things like chat mod, forum mod and rollback is not necessary, the tools given by these flags are rather minor and do little damage to a wiki, so why do these things need to be consensus'd? If you still think that consensus should happen, at least let me point out that public consensus is the main issue (which has been demonstrated many times) and maybe the system should work on a closed private consensus between the staff only, rather than involving the public.

      I am a member (and rollbacker) on Narutopedia, which has worked just fine without doing a consensus on any staff positions, the lone crat there only gives people a flag if he feels they need it: this is something which I firmly believe is a way to fix the problems here on the wiki with staff members unnecessarily getting a flag that they probably don't require. Consensus to promote people into anything less than a sysop or crat flag has caused everyone to treat them as popularity contests and therefore status symbols, which they're not.

      Also, there are some people with sysop flag who have never visited in four years. It is quite obvious to me that such a user doesn't need their tools: if, however, they return, they should be forced to show they're willing to help out in the community again before they can regain their tools. Recently, there has been a problem where certain users have been going idle for very long periods of time and continuing to hold their flag for no reason and, whenever anyone questioned them in the past, they would come back and make some bullshit excuse that certain users swallowed, hook line and sinker.

      No, I'm trying to make the wiki stable and drama-free, the fact that there are certain users here who really shouldn't have their rights at all is concerning. For example, in one thread, AutoBlood was arrogant enough to state that he considers anyone who isn't a rollbacker or sysops as "unimportant". This kind of attitude should not be allowed and should have resulted in him losing his rights, he treated them as a status symbol and not as extra tools. The whole point of this is to wake people up to reality and tell them that they should stop treating their extra tools as some sort of status symbol: they are not.

      It's understandable that you don't fully understand everything being discussed here, you have been away for an extended period of time, but all these issues are real, but you seem to want to bury your head in the sand and pretend there is no problem, which is concerning. I am trying to help the wiki. >_>

      If you want to discuss it with me in more detail, PM me on the chat, I'm not really interested in maintaining a long discussion here as it will likely end up getting heated. And on that note, I was not being rude, I was stating the facts "as it is": I refuse to sugar coat anything and say things nicely that should not be said nicely.

        Loading editor
    • I can just hear some members of the community getting on a soapbox about how the Admins and Staff are being unfair and aren't promoting these people or 'just promote their friends'. This seems extremely uncharacteristic of you-- it would be moving away from democracy and give the staff more power. Again, is it really that much of an issue?  I think it's good for the people to choose the staff that later will be giving them a warning for posting really stupid stuff in the chat.

        Loading editor
    • Deyvid Petteys wrote:
      Pardon me if this sounds offensive, but the only thing I agreed with here was providing sysop tools to editors who are specifically interested in patrolling chat, forums, and blogs. You were correct in stating that current sysops do not care for those namespaces. I certainly do not, but I moderate them (or should I say "moderated" when I was more active) occasionally. Personally, I do not think many of your proposed points are necessary and seem to only serve the purpose of punishing rather than fixing -- not that I necessarily believe anything needs fixing. All in all, I sincerely believe we should focus on things of higher importance such as actually editing articles. There would be more to patrol, more edits to rollback, more articles to delete, if there was actual editing activity.

      Okay, we seriously need to get out of this "the mainspace is more important than anything else" idea. Wikis are a community that revolve around stuff people love, it used to be all about editing and whatnot but now it seems to have expanded. On this Wiki, the Forums, chat, etc probably get more users than the whole Mainspace. So why are we continuing to keep up this idea that the Mainspace is all that matters? That users should only be given Admin flags (which have tools that can influence the whole site) only when they edit? This seems to be quite honestly an outdated system to me, and overall might lead to this Wiki declining in quality since the popular sections of the site are going to be ignored. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I agree with Zipper. While mainspace is important, the rest of the site is also important. Treating the rest of the site as though it is a nuisance is an outdated and nonsensical approach to be taking on a wiki that is all about a community: it's an antiquated theory that stems from Wikipedia. While it works for them, because they're a general wiki, this idea does not work here.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I agree with Zipper. While mainspace is important, the rest of the site is also important. Treating the rest of the site as though it is a nuisance is an outdated and nonsensical approach to be taking on a wiki that is all about a community: it's an antiquated theory that stems from Wikipedia. While it works for them, because they're a general wiki, this idea does not work here.

      There is a reason its called a mainspace. Nobody treats the rest of the site like its a "nuisance", it's just simply on the side. A wiki is "a web application which allows people to add, modify, or delete content in collaboration with others", the forums and the chat are just other functions that the wiki offers.

      The truth is that our mainspace has a hell of a lot more problems than the chat or forums does.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I agree with Zipper. While mainspace is important, the rest of the site is also important. Treating the rest of the site as though it is a nuisance is an outdated and nonsensical approach to be taking on a wiki that is all about a community: it's an antiquated theory that stems from Wikipedia. While it works for them, because they're a general wiki, this idea does not work here.

      There is a reason its called a mainspace. Nobody treats the rest of the site like its a "nuisance", it's just simply on the side. A wiki is "a web application which allows people to add, modify, or delete content in collaboration with others", the forums and the chat are just other functions that the wiki offers.

      The truth is that our mainspace has a hell of a lot more problems than the chat or forums does.

      Voting-comment Comment
      Wikia is about a community, therefore the forums/blog/chat need to be given the same amount of care and attention the mainspace does. Treating the mainspace with more care and attention than everything else is stupid and is not the point of a Wikia community. There's a difference between a "wiki" and a "Wikia" :/
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:  Wikia is about a community, therefore the forums/blog/chat need to be given the same amount of care and attention the mainspace does. Treating the mainspace with more care and attention than everything else is stupid and is not the point of a Wikia community. There's a difference between a "wiki" and a "Wikia" :/

      I hope you realize that Wikia is just a wiki farm... You know, like a site that allows people to make wikis.

      I'm not saying that the chat and forums don't need attention, I'm saying that the mainspace is in a hell of alot worse shape than the chat and forums.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I agree with Zipper. While mainspace is important, the rest of the site is also important. Treating the rest of the site as though it is a nuisance is an outdated and nonsensical approach to be taking on a wiki that is all about a community: it's an antiquated theory that stems from Wikipedia. While it works for them, because they're a general wiki, this idea does not work here.
      There is a reason its called a mainspace. Nobody treats the rest of the site like its a "nuisance", it's just simply on the side. A wiki is "a web application which allows people to add, modify, or delete content in collaboration with others", the forums and the chat are just other functions that the wiki offers.

      The truth is that our mainspace has a hell of a lot more problems than the chat or forums does.

      That may be true about the problems, but it should have no reason to be treated as superior. Since let's face it, there are other parts of the site that are just as, if not more valued to the Mainspace section. The only reason Wikis are defined as that is because they originally only had mainspace, but now they've evolved, people's attitudes need to do the same, or else the site is going to go down hill. 

        Loading editor
    • Zipper, this wiki is foremost about organizing and sharing knowledge of Elder Scrolls games. Before I had this account, I knew nothing of the forum and chat. All I ever used was the mainspace. The 'popular sections' are only 'popular' because you can see people using them. We don't have a record of all the views our articles have from anons that just want to know the answer to a puzzle they can't figure out. I think there are way more people that use solely mainspace than forum and chat. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

      And I don't know of anyone who thinks the Forum is a nuisance, Spey. Maybe I just "have my head in the sand?"

        Loading editor
    • Goldflame33 wrote:
      Zipper, this wiki is foremost about organizing and sharing knowledge of Elder Scrolls games. Before I had this account, I knew nothing of the forum and chat. All I ever used was the mainspace. The 'popular sections' are only 'popular' because you can see people using them. We don't have a record of all the views our articles have from anons that just want to know the answer to a puzzle they can't figure out. I think there are way more people that use solely mainspace than forum and chat. Just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

      And I don't know of anyone who thinks the Forum is a nuisance, Spey. Maybe I just "have my head in the sand?"

      Okay, second time I'm repeating this, this might've been true when Wikia was first founded, since there were none of these things (Forums, Live chat all that), but now that's completely irrelevant since they are used. First of all, you have no way of proving that, second of all, if anyone has an Elder Scrolls or game question they need answering, they can use the Forums. When I google stuff involving Elder Scrolls I find myself on the Wikis Forums, based off of the first few hits. How can say the Mainspace is more imporant!? 

        Loading editor
    • I'm really not in the mood for this.

        Loading editor
    • I think that the forums are just as important as the mainspace, even if the latter is the "main" part of the wiki. The number of people who come to ask questions on the forums is quite high, even when those questions can be solved on the wiki articles. Maybe more people use the wiki than the forums for solutions, but even if that's true then the forums are an undeniably important aspect of the wiki, as questions can be answered more specifically and personally than by an article. 

      That said, on further consideration, I don't think there's a problem with letting inactive users keep their rights. If there were only a limited number of people who could occupy a position, then yeah, but that isn't the case, at least to my knowledge. There's no resource scarcity in that sense, so taking away privileges isn't really a concern. Having some inactive admins hurts no one.

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:

      Okay, second time I'm repeating this, this might've been true when Wikia was first founded, since there were none of these things (Forums, Live chat all that), but now that's completely irrelevant since they are used. First of all, you have no way of proving that, second of all, if anyone has an Elder Scrolls or game question they need answering, they can use the Forums. When I google stuff involving Elder Scrolls I find myself on the Wikis Forums, based off of the first few hits. How can say the Mainspace is more imporant!? 

      First, it is arguably out-dated, but saying it is completely irrelevant is just incorrect.

      Second, do I really need to prove that more people just look at the mainspace articles than are on the forum? 20 million copies of Skyrim have (legally) reached the hands of gamers. What if one in every thousand have accessed the wiki? That's 20,000 people that have been here. How many people do you think have been in the forums or been in chat?

      Third, most questions can be answered by the article itself. The majority of questions players have is most likely something simple like 'what happens if I go to jail?' or 'how do I get past the claw puzzle in Bleak Falls Barrow?' that don't need a thread on the Forums.

      Fourth, I don't understand what you mean about getting to the forum in a few hits.

      Fifth, I can say mainspace is more important because that's what the Forum and Chat were built around.

        Loading editor
    • We're not saying that the Forums and Chat aren't important, we're saying that the mainspace is quite obviously the backbone of the wiki. Denying that is just stupid.

        Loading editor
    • Just fyi, it's things like this that drive editors away. (Some of you might've seen me editing in the past, I don't anymore. Although I have read the major threads from the past few months). Honestly it seems like a lot of people are busy bickering over hypothetical policies and trying to position themselves to be promoted, with few actually editing the mainspace. Pretty sad.

        Loading editor
    • Shockstorm wrote:
      Just fyi, it's things like this that drive editors away. (Some of you might've seen me editing in the past, I don't anymore. Although I have read the major threads from the past few months). Honestly it seems like a lot of people are busy bickering over hypothetical policies and trying to position themselves to be promoted, with few actually editing the mainspace. Pretty sad.

      This^

        Loading editor
    • Coppermantis wrote:
      That said, on further consideration, I don't think there's a problem with letting inactive users keep their rights. If there were only a limited number of people who could occupy a position, then yeah, but that isn't the case, at least to my knowledge. There's no resource scarcity in that sense, so taking away privileges isn't really a concern. Having some inactive admins hurts no one.

      I do agree with this. The admins did a lot when Skyrim was released and as what I heard, categorizing all of them was a nightmare.

      Also, even the Admins have lives to attend to. One can't expect them to be always online and skip important parts of their lives such as taking care of their own family, their jobs and themselves. Taking away the privileges of one of the inactive admins doesn't seem right to me and will unlikely solve anything, as they contributed a lot to making this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Inactive sysops = those people without the coloured names. Just to clear stuff up.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Inactive sysops = those people without the coloured names. Just to clear stuff up.

      I know. I'm talking about the other admins who still have coloured names that hasn't been seen active lately.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.