Luma.dash wrote:
Luma.dash wrote: I meant that we entered a lot of unnecessary conflictions. The number of supporting is high as you say, but there are also sounds that do not want to be removed it entirely, like Ultra, me and about two-three more.
At the time Journalistic is just arguing with whoever reasons in the thread, leading to some grim conflictions.
Also, Journalistic isn't doing anything objectionable, I don't see why you felt the need to call out him alone. That was unnecessary and is probably going to lead to the conflict you are trying to avoid.
As I said above, this is my own personal view. If it is decided that all people want it to be deleted, then I'll go with that. I just find it can be better in another way. And he deems things unnecessary in time we need every help.
I am not saying that you cannot have that view, I am asking you WHY you have that view. I wish to understand your perspective, and I kindly ask that you explain it to me.
Gee, you are against "grim and unneeded conflictions", yet go out of your way to start beef with Journalistic? You aren't practicing what you preach, Luma. Calling him out was just as grim and unneeded as everything you had pointed out yourself.
Luma.dash wrote: I meant that we entered a lot of unnecessary conflictions. The number of supporting is high as you say, but there are also sounds that do not want to be removed it entirely, like Ultra, me and about two-three more.
At the time Journalistic is just arguing with whoever reasons in the thread, leading to some grim conflictions.
Why exactly do you want the featured user interview to remain? From purely a design perspective, it looks stupid on the front page. It's a giant wall of text that most random viewers wouldn't care for. The main page looks much better without it.
Also, Journalistic isn't doing anything objectionable, I don't see why you felt the need to call out him alone. That was unnecessary and is probably going to lead to the conflict you are trying to avoid.
Luma.dash wrote:
The whole conversation about the thread is wrong. And sorry to say this, but we have really entered personal conflictions, not for finding a way to solve the problem here (by using vulgar language and blaming others for it). If we were to discuss such a topic on a thread, we should lay the problem on the table, and then the solutions to resolve it.
Not start it with the "Removal of Featured User section", because this just covers whether you want or not to support it. And of course you'll got opposers, because you are throwing the solution.
I expected the thread to present solutions, not one direction.
"And of course you'll get opposers"
Tell me, where are these supposed "opposers" in this thread? All I see is clear community consensus to remove the Featured User section. The "solution" you desire is removing the Featured User interview altogether, according to community consensus.
Okay, that's enough of this. Neither of you, not ReflectivePhoenix nor Kagimizu, have really contributed to the topic at hand. Arguing over small and petty matters is not serving to advance or contribute to the topic at hand in any way. ReflectivePhoenix, the insults were not necessary. Kagimizu, your vulgar language is not appreciated nor tolerated (vulgar language in its entirety was banned off of the wiki quite some time ago to maintain a professional atmosphere), and does not reflect well upon someone who takes pride in being a "senior" member of this wiki. Kagi, you claim you were protecting yourself from undue blame and criticism, but as a "senior" member, perhaps you should instead move forward and promote the discussion of the topic at hand (which you yourself have yet to contribute to Kagi). I suggest that we all move past this matter and get back to discussing the real topic at hand.
The topic at hand is not to discuss where blame lies regarding the tardiness of the Featured User interview. It is not to get defensive regarding the tardiness. It is to discuss the future of the Featured User interview on the wiki, and whether or not it should remain. Before Kagi commented (and I do not blame him for the direction this thread took, I am merely offering a starting point for where the thread began to get derailed), this thread consisted of solely civil discussion, free of rude behavior and rule-breaking vulgarity. I suggest that we get back to that, now.
ReflectivePhoenix wrote:
Kagimizu wrote: I apologize for not updating the Featured User article, but the responsibility is not entirely on my hands.
For the longest time simply updating the relevant sections of the Featured User article would automatically update the section on the Main Page as necessary. Now, for some reason that is no longer the case, and I have never gotten an explanation as to why. That means even when the interview is up on time, SNN's main page doesn't properly reflect it until someone else makes it do so in a process I have no idea how (and possibly no ability given my lack of adminship) to do.
Second, I have tried to get into contact with MetalMickey in order to get this latest interview done, and to be perfectly blunt I feel like I've been brushed off. I messaged him several days ago on his message wall after actively checking his activity- during which time he didn't even bother trying to contact me- and after waiting over a week I get Journalistic telling me that Mickey is somehow waiting on me.
To be quite frank I have been rather patient on this matter, as under normal circumstances it's within my job to simply interview the runner-up and continue as normal. But I was patient and waited on Mickey because I know from experience how time-consuming college can be, and I wasn't completely sure about the reasons for his lack of activity beyond that.
Now it feels like I'm being blamed for my patience and because I didn't try and track down Mickey on an off-site chatroom I've used all of five times that I have been repeatedly told has no official ties to SNN? Come on! I messaged Mickey on the wiki and got no response, but no-one told me he was outright gone or inactive so I held off on simply moving to the runner-up. I didn't want to be invasive or bothersome when Mickey could have who knows what going on, I did what I thought was fair, reasonable, and respectful to all parties involved and opted to wait. Obviously that was a mistake.
Ah, so your pushing the blame on someone else who has literally the EXACT same fault as you? Gee, keeping SNN REAL classy eh?
Look at all them Kudos! Teach me your ways ReflectivePhoenix-senpai.
I nominate ModrenSonic for administrator rights. ModrenSonic has been an active contributor for over five years now, and has been a chat moderator for the majority of his time here on the wiki. He's one of the few remaining veteran editors that has not been made into an administrator. I believe that his experience, activity, and contributions qualify him for the position of administrator on the Sonic News Network.
As Sacor said, I would have liked to see this system function for at least a month with necessary adjustments being made (it was made pretty clear in the conclusion that the community would still have input), but seeing as the three of you apparently could not even handle the thought of the council role for more than a day (you guys didn't even really make any decisions), I don't see the council system working out well. In theory it would have worked nicely, but I suppose it just didn't pan out.
At this point I'll go with whatever suggestion works best for streamlining decision making. I don't feel like every single decision needs to go through the community, as I feel like most of the decisions being made nowadays are pretty obvious ones as the wiki infrastructure is already set in stone.
Use your discretion as admins is what I am saying. If something is clearly for the betterment of the wiki, then do it. If it's a big change that might be objectionable, get some opinions from the community. Seriously, don't feel limited by the community or the need to gather mass consensus for relatively small things. If something is objectionable, someone will object to it. If you're unsure, grab a second opinion before you do something. Not everything needs to be made into a site discussion. Just remember to use your discretion.
Vote for no bureaucrat council and reduced consensus restrictions instead
Vote for bureaucrat council of three with limited authority and community input
Vote for bureaucrat council of three with full authority and full removal of community consensus
Okay let's put it to a vote then just to be sure. As I see it, there are three options:
I'll make three separate posts. If you want to vote for one of the options, use the Kudos button next to it.
The three bureaucrats pending are BlueSpeeder, Ultrasonic9000, and Sacorguy79 so by voting for a council you are endorsing the three candidates
Does Ultrasonic9000 not wish to take the position then? I'd prefer it if he were the third considering he makes a good percentage of this wiki's weekly edits. It'd be easier for him to make editing decisions at a much quicker pace with the help of the other two bureaucrats.
Journalistic wouldn't be a bad option because he is so involved in the wiki's social media outlets, but I don't know if he'd be willing to take up the position.
Yeah, I'll go with the suggestion that the three bureaucrats should be decided by the community. If Mystic Monkey isn't comfortable with it, Sacor is also a great choice for the position. I can also go with Sacor's suggestion that this is a temporary solution and that when deemed necessary, community consensus can be re-implemented as the primary decision making method on SNN. I am also fine with a proposal board being made where the community can still have a say but the ultimate decisions being made by the bureaucrats.
Mystic Monkey wrote: I don't know how I should feel about this. I need to think on it. I would like the whole community get to have a say in major matters than just decided on admins.
But at the same time the community doesn't tend to offer the right feedback when we're open with such matters.
The community can still voice their concern to the open-minded bureaucrat team. As a member of that team, you can make it your mission to make sure the community voice isn't ignored. That's within your power and it's what I expect out of the whole bureaucrat team.
There simply aren't many major matters on SNN today that are worth warranting community consensus. It halts progress.
Hello everybody. As you may or may not know, I am Bullet Francisco and I am an administrator and former bureaucrat of the Sonic News Network. I have been a part of this wiki for nearly five and a half years and have been an administrator for most of my time here. During this time, the wiki has always operated under a strict "community consensus" guideline--in which us, the community, make the decisions on how to maintain the wiki and the community.
This worked especially well for a fairly big community such as ours, booming with activity on the wiki and on chat. We could operate with a system in which the community was self-maintained, and the community was fairly welcoming because everyone was on an equal playing field. However, time passes. The Sonic series has long since passed its prime and us, the community, have grown up. Most of us have moved on from this wiki and/or moved to Discord to keep in touch with the people we formed bonds with here.
This is why I am suggesting that the wiki also move on from the ancient policy of "community consensus" to make its decisions. Back in the early days of SNN, speaking from 2008-2009 roughly, it was mostly the admins who made the big decisions. Navij11 and Sacre Fi were the authority here for a long time. But they were trustworthy users with a vision for this wiki's future, and with the small community that SNN maintained at the time it was ideal for getting the wiki to the place it is now. The system SNN ran on was the admins made all the big decisions for the small wiki.
This works well for a small wiki because as the community aspect of the site is dying, the wiki still thrives with information. Information that needs to be protected and maintained. The admins struggle to move forward with policies because of the current community consensus policy--the community hardly participates anymore! The admins need to be able to move forward with decisions that would benefit the wiki without having to go through the frustrating obstacle of attempting to get inactive members of the community to care about something that should obviously be implemented.
The current system is designed for a big wiki. The community maintains the community. That sounds, ideal right? But SNN no longer really has a community aspect. It's more of just a wiki with some discussion going on. You look at any other wiki or small forum site and they are run the same way - a group of trustworthy admins maintain everything. And it runs most smoothly that way. Our current wiki/small forum site would be best off run by a small group of trustworthy administrators that do not need to jump through all these different loops just to get something passed into law here. We need to redesign our site to fit the current situation and transition the wiki to a bigger and brighter future.
So what I'm suggesting is that SNN revert to its previous ways: the admins and the bureaucrats have the authority. For this to happen, we need the current admins and bureaucrats to cooperate and we need to entrust these positions to particularly trustworthy people. Our current most active legacy admins are BlueSpeeder, Ultrasonic9000, and Mystic Monkey. They are our most trusted users.
For this new "admins have the authority" system to work, the most trusted users need to be the bureaucrats. As the bureaucrats have the most power, they get to decide who is and who isn't an admin. Do the current editors and casual forum goers even know who Supermorff, Genesjs, Myself 123 and GravelEclipse567 are? Obviously they each are all big parts of this wiki and have helped this wiki to grow. But it's time that the wiki move on from the past. I'm calling for all four of these users to be "lapsed" or step down.
In replacement, I suggest that Ultrasonic9000, BlueSpeeder, and Mystic Monkey be promoted to bureaucrat. This is an ideal set of three unique minds. Ultra, Blue, and Mystic are all highly dedicated to this wiki and have earned the trust of the community. This is why I think the wiki would run most smoothly if these three users can just move forward with decisions instead of having to go through the exhausting process of contacting users like me trying to get me to support a User Rights nomination or a forum thread that can't gain enough community momentum to pass.
To be a bureaucrat on the RfUR requires FIFTEEN votes. Do you really think that a nomination will pass without ever begging people off of Discord to come and vote? Even an admin nomination or a content moderator nomination struggle to pass. The lapsing rights is FOUR MONTHS. That's far too long for this new system. We should transition the decision of user rights permanently to the new bureaucrats like it was back in the early days of SNN. If someone is deserving, promote them.
With the community aspect of this wiki nearly gone, it is important for the wiki to be maintained in this matter because it is most efficient. Trying to get community consensus is exhausting when there aren't really anymore huge conflicts on the wikis regarding policy. We've all left.
That's why I am calling for the current four bureaucrats to step down or to be lapsed and I'm calling for Ultrasonic9000, BlueSpeeder, and Mystic Monkey to be the replacements.
I will step down effective immediately. The remaining administrators, Journalistic and MetalMickey272 should remain in their post as admin as they are both reasonably active on various parts of SNN.
Slug-Drones is long overdue for a rights lapsing as she has not made any substantial edits in four months.
New administrators should be immediately named to also help maintain the wiki. Under the recommendation of Blue, they should be Luma.dash, Axel Badnik, and Riders940 as they are also active editors of the wiki.
It's time to remove ancient policies and transition this wiki to a bigger and brighter future. We are a smaller group now, but the information at SNN is the best it has ever been. We need to maintain that and keep up the good work - but the community consensus policy just slows down progress.
Thank you for a great five and a half years. I regret none of it.
Make SNN Great Again.
Yours Truly,
Bullet Francisco
Myself 123 wrote: I feel as though most of the people opposing this are unaware of the glaring problem the chat currently has. We simply do not have enough users to adequately moderate it. Chat is not like the rest of the wiki, it's formless, flowing, ever changing. Anything harmful on chat cannot simply be undone, it requires a lot of surveillance which cannot be met right now.
Honestly, at this point, I don't think it should be up for discussion.
I personally (emphasis on the fact that this is my opinion) feel that you are blowing this supposed "issue" out of proportion because there haven't been any real moderation issues (as in unruly users) and because of this the one to three moderators and administrators that still use the chat suffice. The points in which I (also the points to which users have referenced in their stance) and others have brought up to keep the chat far outweigh the "issue" of little moderation (which I don't feel is a problem at all). We all have our opinions. I fully grasp what you are trying to say and I am saying that I disagree. You can "feel" that people are "unaware" all you like. I'm completely aware and it's not changing my opinion.