Archived discussion
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.
Show/Hide Thread
After a month of trying to get admins' attention via The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard, zero response from one admin directly via their talk page and minimal response from another. I thought I'd reach out to the editing community next.
The wiki, is in need of updating, some that cannot be done without admin rights (locked templates/CSS access, etc.). I am still very new to this community and I am not familiar with it's most active editors yet, so I have no idea who would be a good candidate for admin nomination. All I know is there really should be more admin activity beyond reverting vandalism and blocking sock puppet accounts. They may just be busy at this time, but then more admins should be added.
The bottom line is having illegible dark mode tables/templates, should have been addressed years ago when we got the feature, and could be considered neglect. I have taken on this project so far mostly on my own but some things require admin attention. Many navigation templates with collapsible groups either do not open or collapse, so widely used broken templates that can only be fixed or updated by admins I was able to fix the problem and fix this myself. I am sure there are more neglected tasks and features that require admin rights to correct or complete.
For these reasons, I would like to know the active editors for the wiki, who also are community active. To help find a way to improve this situation. Maybe 1-2 more admins should be promoted. Some outdated templates, themes and features should be retired. Maybe even a revision of manual of style and this wiki policies should also be updated. But this all requires community consensus and I do not know how much of a community there is here, so I am asking for a roll call. 
- UPDATE
Now that some time has passed I have a wiki proposal that would include a change of management, protocols and policies. Nothing will happen to the current standing admins/bureaucrats but they cannot stop, intervene or revert wiki wide changes, because of lack of consensus (or more lack of participation). As long as one admin approves and may convene with another admin if they want to be sure, any larger wiki wide proposal that seems like an improvement to the wiki can be done. If no admins respond or are absent if multiple editors want to take the initiative to implement a change that does not require admin rights, if they can gain a consensus of community active editors or at the very least have the support of 2-3+ active editors (those with 1000s of edits and non-fanon exclusive editing) it can be done.
Part of my proposal is the immediate promotion to content moderator for the following list below (which I will be messaging each candidate so they are aware of the proposal). I disagree with the rejected/denial of some past candidates, and if admins are that worried about rollback abuse, then implement an abuse filter for rollback to be for admins/bureaucrats. Many high edit and long standing users should have access to locked/protected pages and the ability to move/delete files. As for future or aspiring content moderators a less vetting process should be implemented especially if rollback is filtered to only admins/bureaucrats. This role is more a trusted to edit locked pages and move/delete files role. As long as users understand they have to redirect and/or check/possibly change the file names in the articles affected.
- IDontKnowAName3 - Complete
- AireDaleDogz - No Response assuming Declined
- Dandelion Sprout - Declined, reason: "I will never work with k6kа. Period."
- WizardJeremy - Complete
- ODAPHII - Complete
- Oliviahihigh Complete
- LunarBritney Complete
Eventually, 1-2+ of these or other content moderators interested in an admin role should be promoted, so that we can have a more action based admin approval system for the wiki. Action based just means no more inaction of admins because of lack of community consensus over update/improvement wiki changes. Also if the wiki design and policies interest you please be active on the development discussions there are many open recent discussions at this time. If you ever plan to be an admin you should be engaged in community activity.
Another part of this proposal is the clean up and update of this wikis mediawiki css pages. As well as a theme proposal, no admin has shown interest to take on the task (it would require some work) and I am willing to do it but I would need admin rights. I propose that if I was granted admin rights that it is only for wiki design and maintenance and not any role of authority (I'd even be able to hide the admin tag on the user page). And if eventually demoted when my role for mediawiki page clean up and update is complete, or I am absent for enough time, if possible I could be granted content moderator just so I can at least delete my own files and rename files and edit protected pages.
For a consensus to be applied actual votes must be summited on the wiki (what is said on discord just doesn't count sorry). If admins do not implement (due to inactivity or whatever) we can request via fandom if we have a consensus majority and explain our case to ReverieCode. Edit: due to the fact this is a larger impacting proposal on management, policy and protocol I recommend a 1 month voting period minimum (but this is only a recommendation).
- {{VoteFor}}
- {{VoteAgainst}}
- {{Neutral}}
Discussion[]
LunarBritney (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Hollowness | Talk | Contr 16:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I've said this off-and-on both on-wiki and on Discord, but my plans in the not-too-distant-future involve my retirement as a wiki administrator. It's pretty obvious that I've already mostly walked through that door, and mostly I'm just waiting. I very desperately want to see active editors on the wiki taking on the mantle of leadership, whether that's through actual content mod/admin/bureaucrat roles or just through more participation in decision-making processes, and I have a hard time walking fully and completely away from the project when its leadership situation remains unresolved.
If it were solely up to my own discretion and I had dictatorial powers to promote en masse, I would have no issue giving Content Mod to most of the individuals on that list. But for better or worse, the wiki has a laid-out process for how promotions are handled, and that process requires consensus. If consensus does not develop, then the will of the community cannot be seen to be in support of a promotion. I cannot force active users to participate in promotion discussions, and sadly, most choose not to. That choice not to participate gives the select few who do participate a large amount of influence over who does or does not get promoted. So, if anyone believes that we need more mods/admins/crats and/or that our selection processes for these positions are too difficult to overcome, then the only things I can urge you to do are participate in the discussions, nominate worthy candidates or encourage them to apply, or bring about a proposal to change how these things are done.
I completely understand the frustration directed at the admins, myself included, for allowing things to get to this state. The fact that this wiki hasn't promoted anyone to a full admin position since 2015 is an embarrassment. The fact that our last four content mod applications/nominations ended in failure to promote is troubling. But it is also the case, exactly as I said above, that the admins themselves do not control how this process turns out. If candidates don't apply or get nominated, there's no one to promote. If discussions get no participants, there's no consensus present from which to base a promotion. If only a couple people participate in a discussion, then even one person being opposed is enough to create a situation where there is no clear consensus to promote. Active editors need to take a more active role in these (and a lot of other) discussions and processes; this lack of participation frankly is not our fault.
As a closing thought, I will just say that I am happy to see this thread and hoping that it will get people's attention. We, the admins, are not leading this wiki right now. I've been trying to get across to everyone for years now that you do not need to be an administrator to be a leader, to participate, or for your contributions/opinions to be held in high regard. This project is meant to be driven by the consensus of the community, not the whims and wishes of the few users who are promoted to higher rights levels. That said, when admins are here only to "keep the lights on" by kicking out the obvious vandals and doing little else, it creates an obvious issue of stagnation. The admins should be active, and if we aren't going to be returning in active capacity (as I've mentioned I am unlikely to do), we should step aside and ensure that we are promoting new users to those roles who will be active. I'll stress one more time that you do not need to be a bureaucrat, administrator, or content moderator to be a leader, but if you are a community leader, or see yourself as one, then now is the time to consider applying for these incredibly necessary roles. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 21:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Too late, it went through (the promotion part), and we managed to do it also with the usual channels after all.
- Too late, it went through (the promotion part), and we managed to do it also with the usual channels after all.
Show/Hide Thread
- This is because the current user rights process is currently not working, as mentioned from LostInRiverview, almost a decade of no new full admin when most admins are almost not or only semi-active is not showing a working system. Some of the rejects for content moderators seem overly critical which is probably why it has scared off prospectable candidates and referrals. The old system, if anything is proving to no longer work, even if it worked in the past, and that it is intimidating and not encouraging. This is about voting for a policy change and not just a promotion bypass vote (it is more of a plan to incorporate the proposed policy changes). If one doesn't want the promotion, it will not have it forced on them, but it is in part a concept to change the role of the content moderator, that also gives an alternative if current admins want to move rollback to admin or higher—if they think it is just too easily misused.
- Many wikis have easier promoting system even when incorporating consensus aspect; even if only one admin and maybe one user vote in favour—but lack of participation does not circumvent the promotion when backed by an admin(s). The time for speaking out against was made available and not exercised or not the majority. This proposal is created as a possible way to help and improve the wiki—since the current status quo seems to be stagnating and deadlocking updates, upgrades and improvements. I truly believe if the role of content moderator was changed to a more trusted user roll and it isn't about "getting moderation powers" many locked pages and template could get the much needed updates needed and could be used as a trial before considering or granting admin/actual moderation powers, to those considering it/wanting it. I also think it will breathe in new life into community activity if implement/received well.
- I would have to agree with k6's opposition to side-stepping the targeted requests processes (RFCM, RFA, RFB) in favor of promotion via forum thread. I understand the viewpoint that the RFx processes are broken right now—and broadly tend to agree with that assessment—but mass-promoting a group of users in one fell swoop isn't the way to go about fixing anything. I'd like to see this overall discussion tailored towards solutions to the underlying issues, of which I broadly see two: first, the inactivity of the current admins, and second, the seeming inability to generate a consensus using the RFx processes, with possible fixes for those processes rather than scrapping them. It's essential to realize that the RFx processes which the wiki has weren't just spun up out of nothing. Prior to the current stagnation, this wiki promoted many admins and promotions were frequent (just look through past logs or past promotions to see what I'm talking about). But, so were admin resignations or simple abandonment. And there were more than a few promotion proposals which stressed the more rudimentary systems we had in place at the time, which, in time, led to the heavy focus on "strength of discussion" and consensus-based promotions over strict up-or-down votes. That said, there are inherent flaws in a consensus-based model if there isn't adequate community activity to be able to draw a clear consensus. It may be that we can find a way to both preserve consensus-based decision-making in cases where a community is active and able to lend its views in such a manner, but also to allow expediency in cases where consensus is lacking due to lack of participation rather than through actual sizeable opposition. I don't have any specific idea to propose at this exact moment, but we could brainstorm something? I'd be open to outside-the-box ideas to solve this issue. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Edit to add: please see an initial proposal towards fixing part of the issue. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with k6's opposition to side-stepping the targeted requests processes (RFCM, RFA, RFB) in favor of promotion via forum thread. I understand the viewpoint that the RFx processes are broken right now—and broadly tend to agree with that assessment—but mass-promoting a group of users in one fell swoop isn't the way to go about fixing anything. I'd like to see this overall discussion tailored towards solutions to the underlying issues, of which I broadly see two: first, the inactivity of the current admins, and second, the seeming inability to generate a consensus using the RFx processes, with possible fixes for those processes rather than scrapping them. It's essential to realize that the RFx processes which the wiki has weren't just spun up out of nothing. Prior to the current stagnation, this wiki promoted many admins and promotions were frequent (just look through past logs or past promotions to see what I'm talking about). But, so were admin resignations or simple abandonment. And there were more than a few promotion proposals which stressed the more rudimentary systems we had in place at the time, which, in time, led to the heavy focus on "strength of discussion" and consensus-based promotions over strict up-or-down votes. That said, there are inherent flaws in a consensus-based model if there isn't adequate community activity to be able to draw a clear consensus. It may be that we can find a way to both preserve consensus-based decision-making in cases where a community is active and able to lend its views in such a manner, but also to allow expediency in cases where consensus is lacking due to lack of participation rather than through actual sizeable opposition. I don't have any specific idea to propose at this exact moment, but we could brainstorm something? I'd be open to outside-the-box ideas to solve this issue. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- My long reply got eaten up so I'll do a short one. This is my out of the box thinking proposal. 1 changing the role of content moderator and it being less strict especially if rollback is for admin+, 2 though ideally 1-2+ for the list (or other hopeful not on the list) it does not mean to promote someone who is unfit, 3 I am not saying ditch consensus voting and discussion. I am saying if there is lack of discussion those who participate especially if backed by an admin can still proceed, instead of lack of action. Consensus can never be removed from a wiki anyways, fandom would step in if consensus was being ignored and abused.
- My long reply got eaten up so I'll do a short one. This is my out of the box thinking proposal. 1 changing the role of content moderator and it being less strict especially if rollback is for admin+, 2 though ideally 1-2+ for the list (or other hopeful not on the list) it does not mean to promote someone who is unfit, 3 I am not saying ditch consensus voting and discussion. I am saying if there is lack of discussion those who participate especially if backed by an admin can still proceed, instead of lack of action. Consensus can never be removed from a wiki anyways, fandom would step in if consensus was being ignored and abused.
- Some of the rejects for content moderators seem overly critical which is probably why it has scared off prospectable candidates and referrals. So the response is to create an alternate process to promote those users anyway without addressing feedback and criticism? Completely unacceptable. Moderatorship and adminship is not simply about having the technical ability to do things; it is about trust, accountability, and being able to respond to feedback and criticism without blowing their heads off. That your current proposal seems to openly reject this approach is concerning. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is just one example of the flawed system being unhelpful.
- That is just one example of the flawed system being unhelpful.
- You have not actually addressed the principal concern I have, which is what admins and mods should demonstrate the ability to be accountable and responsive to feedback. A system where admins and mods are promoted based on activity and technical ability over accountability and trust is even more flawed. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that these users have shown a level of trust and for those you had doubts in the past deserve a second chance. But don't think I came in here just because I think the last two denials of AireDaleDogz and Dandelion Sprout seems a shame to let not pass your standards. I have been in on and off contact with fandom for months due to the lack of admin activity and a promotion system that seems under such lock and key on this wiki, so I was asking for advice on how to best work with the admins, users and the wiki. I did ask fandom support on the lack of functionality of this wikis current promotion system and the past two denials, and they did believe it was harsh on your part and that it seems to look to put off future potentials. Did AireDaleDogz respond like a champ, no, but I think it wasn't an unreasonable response. I even misused rollback my first time because I just wasn't really thinking, good thing it was a wiki were I was the only editor at the time but I honestly never used rollback since. Basically, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't imagining it, so I thought an impartial fandom rep would help me, and I wanted to try to handle this as best as I could. I do think it is time for giving some extra trust and second chances, even to those who may have handled some past situations not ideally.
- I think that these users have shown a level of trust and for those you had doubts in the past deserve a second chance. But don't think I came in here just because I think the last two denials of AireDaleDogz and Dandelion Sprout seems a shame to let not pass your standards. I have been in on and off contact with fandom for months due to the lack of admin activity and a promotion system that seems under such lock and key on this wiki, so I was asking for advice on how to best work with the admins, users and the wiki. I did ask fandom support on the lack of functionality of this wikis current promotion system and the past two denials, and they did believe it was harsh on your part and that it seems to look to put off future potentials. Did AireDaleDogz respond like a champ, no, but I think it wasn't an unreasonable response. I even misused rollback my first time because I just wasn't really thinking, good thing it was a wiki were I was the only editor at the time but I honestly never used rollback since. Basically, I wanted to make sure that I wasn't imagining it, so I thought an impartial fandom rep would help me, and I wanted to try to handle this as best as I could. I do think it is time for giving some extra trust and second chances, even to those who may have handled some past situations not ideally.
- My comment on AireDaleDogz's RfCM was a question and not a denial or oppose. It raised an issue regarding an incident and inquired about how they would address it. AireDaleDogz did not answer my question and instead withdrew the nomination. This is not the level of accountability I would expect from a moderator or administrator, who should be able to explain their actions, be accountable to other users, take responsibility for what they do, and not be dismissive or avoidant of criticism. This is not about "not giving people second chances"; in fact, if AireDaleDogz had provided an explanation, that may have addressed my concern. In other words, they spoiled their own second chance. Do you see how the discussion process works now? If someone raises a question at someone's nomination, the nominee should be able to answer it. If they cannot answer it or they see questions as opposition, they are not demonstrating accountability or trust, which is the whole point behind these discussions—to gauge the accountability and trustworthiness of the candidate. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- As mentioned I did get a second opinion on that issue. But clearly you have a set opinion on this matter. Edit: Also, there is a chance the user won't accept/want it anyways. I just didn't want to leave out.
- As mentioned I did get a second opinion on that issue. But clearly you have a set opinion on this matter. Edit: Also, there is a chance the user won't accept/want it anyways. I just didn't want to leave out.
- A staff member came in and saw a single promotion discussion, without context, based on information you would've given them that very well could've colored their judgment of the matter (edit to add that I don't think you would've done anything malicious or misleading, merely that you went to Staff with a concern, so the staff person would've viewed the situation through the lens of the concern you were bringing up). I think k6ka's point in that discussion was entirely reasonable, and this is coming from the person who had nominated AireDaleDogz for promotion in the first place. All ADD needed to do was answer a question somewhat reasonably. They refused. That's why they were declined. Mods and admins are meant to be approachable and meant to be able to answer for their actions; the fact that an applicant refused to answer a question during their nomination suggests that they would not be a good fit for a position of trust. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 22:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- They were given the link to read the request and screenshot, and not just my hear-say.
- They were given the link to read the request and screenshot, and not just my hear-say.
- For what it's worth, I do generally agree that the standards to gain user roles have been over-heightened in some cases. See also Dandelion Sprout's RFCM, which I supported ("At the end of the day, this is a moderator position, not an administrator position... I feel we fall into this trap of expecting too much from our applicants, or moving the goalposts on what we expect our applicants to be and to do. There has to be an element of giving trust when we're looking to promote, and accepting that there is some risk in promoting anyone to any role."). I think there is more room for criticism of that outcome than the AireDaleDogz outcome. But even then we fall back to my initial point, which is that we as admins cannot force consensus. Scrapping consensus and just jumping to a vote out of desperation to get someone appointed no matter what is just not the way. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 22:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- (this was eaten before your last responses, so assume I didn't read your latest response) If the "vote against(s)" is just because of one editor on the suggested promotion list, then just say it, it is just a proposal and proposed list, tweaks or suggestions to the proposal are not unreasonable this is a discussion. I just wanted to say why I suggested/proposed these individuals. The blanked rejection because on one concern case seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't just a vote this is a discussion.
- (this was eaten before your last responses, so assume I didn't read your latest response) If the "vote against(s)" is just because of one editor on the suggested promotion list, then just say it, it is just a proposal and proposed list, tweaks or suggestions to the proposal are not unreasonable this is a discussion. I just wanted to say why I suggested/proposed these individuals. The blanked rejection because on one concern case seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't just a vote this is a discussion.
I won't speak on k6ka's behalf (as this chain of comments is ultimately in response to his first post) but I will say that my opposition here is an opposition on procedural grounds, not necessarily opposition to any of the candidates. I don't think I would vote to appoint AireDaleDogz if the question were posed to me, but that isn't even something I'm concerned with compared to my concern about how the long-established procedure for promotions gets completely bypassed by holding a vote in a forum thread. That, to say nothing of the fact that we're discussing the candidates all together and not separately, so (in theory) they either all pass as one bloc or go down together. Holding the vote before the discussion has really even had a chance to wrap up also puts the cart before the horse; people have already "cast their votes" for all the candidates, so then what grounds would we have to strike one or more of them from the roster or add new ones? Does that invalidate the earlier votes cast? These are the kinds of reasons why we don't do promotions this way. So again, I think a conversation about fixing the processes that we do have (or hell, if we want to throw them all away and start from scratch, that's not a deal-breaker) is more than appropriate, but holding a vote on a raft of candidates in one mass promotion request is not. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 23:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure what that is meant, this vote/discussion is to see where consensus lies. If change is wanted and is consensus. If then admins want to say ok, it is consensus but this user we would have to deny because... You do know part of my proposal is a proposed list because this is a proposal, this isn't an all or nothing situation. If a few only get selected I think that is reasonable. I only did a vote in case you guys MIA on us which is not an unreasonable assumption because that is what you do when there are absent/no admins on a wiki and it is usually meant to be open for a month and results are reviewed by fandom.
- But since you guys showed up, heck we can hash out the details till you are at a point you wish to "vote for" and we feel it is enough of change in policy of improvement (and we might not need a month). And as I mentioned below I think both reforming your current promotion policy and this proposal should both be done/incorporated into each other. What is wrong with re-writing the content moderators role and just to have more editing tools, and are trusted with them. I have addressed the rollback concern by saying give it an abuse filter to be for admins+, to rewrite the role of content moderator as just a trusted vet editor with more editing tools.
- I rather work with the admins, then go over your heads, I have been trying to work with you all since May/June and I think just there is a consensus by non-admins that we need policy changes/updates/improvements because too much is out of date following these current standing procedures that has lead to an inaction status quo broken system.
- Firstly, you framed this as, "the immediate promotion to content moderator," of a list of people, not as a discussion leading towards the possibility of promotion. If I'm somehow misunderstanding what this thread is actually trying to accomplish, it's because what the thread is trying to accomplish hasn't been adequately explained. That's all the more reason why this is so problematic - you're asking people to vote on something but even you aren't clear in saying what they are supposed to be voting for.
- Beyond that, the core of the problem here is that someone just coming in, dropping a vote of support for some arbitrary notion that "things need to change," and then leaving isn't the same as actual consensus. Consensus is what develops after a full discussion of an issue, where people collectively agree on some course of action. You might have a small subset of people who don't want to agree to what the group wants, but the group as a whole will have come to a clearly-defined conclusion in one direction. That is not the same as a vote, where everyone gets one vote regardless of whether they have any justification for their vote or not, and then the votes are tallied up and the decision is made by a majority in favor or opposed. A 51-to-49 decision isn't a good way to inspire confidence in the outcome from anyone involved, much less in the case of user promotions where it's essential that the community trusts the user that's being promoted.
- I want to discuss solutions to the problem. If you look through past community discussion threads, you will see that I have proposed solutions to this and other problems on multiple occasions, but nothing has developed because up to now the community has not shown an interest in finding solutions. You say that we have a community consensus in favor of change? Fantastic! Let's please use this momentum, bring everyone together, and discuss real changes to fix the issue. You think we need new content moderators and administrators? I couldn't agree more. Put some names forward and run them through the process that the community has developed and let's see what happens.
- There's no one right way to do a lot of things on the wiki, but there are wrong ways. One wrong way is to try and change the rules for doing something while simultaneously trying to do the thing itself, like changing how users are promoted while trying to promote a bunch of users. Another wrong way is to say that you'll go ask for intervention from staff (defying consensus in the process) just because you don't get the outcome that you want or it doesn't happen as quickly as you'd like. At the end of the day, I will 100% respect whatever consensus the community develops and will do my best to implement what everyone decides. I am sure that that sentiment is shared by the other administrators and bureaucrats. But it will be on all of us to determine what that consensus is. And that consensus must come from an actual genuine discussion, not a bunch of random votes that don't contribute anything to the dialog or offer any ideas or solutions. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 00:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am sorry if my framed work confused you, I did learn two languages growing up and mastered neither. I am better speaking than writing.
- The proposal is for change, but is not detailed out true, this is a roll call and vote for change of management, policy and protocol (and looks like it is wanted in almost any form), and it IMHO only got attention because it was a vote and not a long discussion that no one wants to talk to see no results (as they have seen in the past). And a loosely based proposal was to follow, is it ideal? No, but the current wiki policies are forcing a "let's just see a show of hands vote".
- Since admins are almost completely absent (you come around maybe once a month (for maybe a day or two) but you are superior in community engagement compared to all content moderators/admins/bureaucrats combined, that is disturbing)), especially from admins ignoring the admin noticeboard, and like 3/5 times ignore their own talk pages. If the votes were majority, nailing out the details of how, will be seemed to me, like a discussion factor. Since I only listed/messaged users and the intended proposal of some action concepts with good intent: a user declining was always a possibility since I didn't ask them first, concerns of certain users was a possibility to not keep on the list, but I exclaimed why I felt they should have a chance on the list (and why it might be removed), I thought that was self evident but I apologize if it was not.
- Clearly talking and detailing out policies and changes to result in change—is not this wiki community's strong point. I felt like I was talking to a wall on the admin notice board, I can only get a few responses on the development page. Hence, my establishment of the part of the proposal "if backed by an admin, and not rejected by consensus or no participation, then push through more improvements instead of this inaction policy when no consensus block". So things like applying the new wiki theme only needed your approval as long as there wasn't disapproval elsewhere.
- You can explain your current policies and procedures, and why you have things they way they are, as well as point out the flaws in how I proposed this but the bottom line is the change is wanted. If launched wrong, we can redirect it right way but we cannot go in circles that the execution or bureaucracy was not ideal. I feel there is over focus on semantics when this is just a baseline of the community saying enough with the old policies something has to change and here are some ideas.
- You can explain your current policies and procedures, and why you have things they way they are, as well as point out the flaws in how I proposed this but the bottom line is the change is wanted. If launched wrong, we can redirect it right way but we cannot go in circles that the execution or bureaucracy was not ideal. I feel there is over focus on semantics when this is just a baseline of the community saying enough with the old policies something has to change and here are some ideas.
- Alright, let's both of us take a breath.
- It's interesting that we are seemingly opposed to each other here, but in reality we are probably closer together in what we want than we realize. And I agree, the talking-in-circles is getting frustrating and old, and it's just a waste of time if it doesn't produce anything.
- I apologize if my last reply was too aggressive. I want to take the temperature down rather than up. I feel like you are saying a lot of the right things, and that maybe we just disagree on details of implementation. So, let's set aside implementation for just a little bit and form a consensus around the kinds of changes we want to see. And then we can figure out how we want to get from Point A to Point B.
- For starters, most of the users you listed I think would be good content mods. And in all honesty, we really need them. We need new admins, too. I think right now is exactly the right time to propose these users for promotion, and so I would ask you to go to The Sims Wiki:Requests for moderatorship and propose them. Otherwise, I will once I've gotten some dinner and had a chance to get a glass of water. I can understand that you might have doubts about running them through that process, but I really do think that we can get some of those very qualified people promoted to much-needed spots if we try (assuming they accept nominations). I promise that I will try.
- I started a discussion on the Discord server, polling all the users there who are self-identified as wiki members, and asking those who aren't already mods/admins, why they haven't applied for those positions. A lot of the users weren't aware that we were even looking for new mods, and many were concerned about the responsibility and workload involved. What this illustrates is that the admins haven't done a good enough job showing our need for new staff, explaining these positions (including helping people to realize that it's not as massive a commitment as some of them imagine it to be) and helping to shepherd people along the process. This has always been one of our weak points, I think, but once upon a time, we had enough people churning around that the applications pages were almost always busy. Now it's harder, so we have work to do. I said before that I've got my eye on retiring, but I can't in good conscience walk away without a crew here to keep everything going and to make the wiki thrive. So I have a vested interest in getting this right. Anything you can do to help would go a long way, I feel, and any suggestions you have would be welcomed.
- As a last thought before I run and fix up dinner, I would want to say thank you for at least trying to get the ball rolling on something. Even if I disagree with the precise methods, it's clear you are trying to help and that you are acting in good faith. I want to demonstrate to you that I am doing the same. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh I don't find you aggressive at all, don't worry about that, I find you one the easiest admins to talk to even outside this wiki.
- I don't care if we still follow "the procedure", I just don't want the candidates to feel discouraged as I feel most do when they see the previous denials. As you already have seen, not only have I been encouraging and even messaging IDontKnowAName3 to apply for content moderator, I did so even before I even considered making this a vote thread. The idea of promotion over admins heads was basically if admins didn't engage in the thread/discussion/vote and a month goes by that is basically the time needed and action needed for fandom to consider neglect wiki cases.
- I don't care if we still follow "the procedure", I just don't want the candidates to feel discouraged as I feel most do when they see the previous denials. As you already have seen, not only have I been encouraging and even messaging IDontKnowAName3 to apply for content moderator, I did so even before I even considered making this a vote thread. The idea of promotion over admins heads was basically if admins didn't engage in the thread/discussion/vote and a month goes by that is basically the time needed and action needed for fandom to consider neglect wiki cases.
- Having read the discussions and some of the links, I am not in any position to determine the quality of the editors mentioned but take Hollowness' word for it regarding them being highly active editors with a good track record. If they want some form of position, if they wish to hold the positions we could go through the process. I'm not so sold on them being promoted straight off the bat: Having gone through the administrator process myself, a clean record, a solid record of participation and a lack of edit issues usually means there won't be too much opposition. If they have a proven record, I don't see how they'd not make the cut if they chose to apply. Having read the links, administrators come often to post valid concerns and often catches something that might raise an eyebrow. As far as I'm concerned, the process itself doesn't need fixing at its core, and I will support active, good-faith nominees just as I was promoted for being one myself.
- Allowing long-standing users with good track record to edit file names due to issues is something I can definitely see; I definitely can empathize with the issue of files needing to wait for an administrator or bureaucrat. A discussion for another post, but we'll see. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 02:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Other candidates to consider[]
Show/Hide Thread
By the way, I think User:LunarBritney should be considered as well! ODAPHII (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- For the ability to rename or delete their own files (and future files) alone might be worth it for this user. If their editing and/or more community activity was up a bit more, I was thinking of adding to list as well. But I thought to give the slightly more active and longer standing editors priority placement, when first proposing the list.
Proposal - allow voting in rights requests[]
Show/Hide Thread
In response to what I mentioned above (see my comment which starts, "I would have to agree..."), I would like to put forward an idea for how to resolve some deadlocks or stalled rights requests discussions by allowing discussions to proceed to up-or-down votes in cases where a clear consensus can't be determined due to lack of activity.
Here's what I'd propose:
- Requests for Content Mod and Requests for Admin will follow their current discussion and consensus procedures to start.
- If a RfCM or RfA discussion continues without a clear consensus for 14 days (twice the minimum-required discussion length of seven days), any user can ask for the request be considered on an up-or-down vote. If a vote is requested, any user meeting voting requirements would be eligible to vote.
- A vote would last for seven days.
- A 2/3rds majority in support, or better, would be necessary to promote.
- Requests for Bureaucratship would continue to rely strictly on clear consensus and would not be eligible to be brought to a vote in this manner.
This is just one idea to solve some of the deadlocking we've seen in a couple recent RfCMs. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 01:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I mean you can try anything if the community is willing but it is still very much the same as before, I don't see this having the impact needed for where this wiki is at for being out of date and in some parts neglected. Bureaucrats should always be a stricter process anyways no matter the wiki. Any too close to even/equal results isn't helpful, unless as I said admins/bureaucrat backed to push decision one way or the other. But TBH an admin/bureaucrat and "little to no votes" from others should then be the propagative the admin/bureaucrat.
- My honest review of first seeing your application section for this wiki, was that there was no point to apply for two reasons: the current wiki policies that I didn't agree with, and it looks too strict for the help that I was trying to offer. Maybe if I was younger and ready to prove myself to the wiki. But I have already have been in these admin/bureaucrat roles in multiple wikis for the past 15 years, and this dynamic looked the most off putting looking into it. I'd never would admin/bureaucrat where I felt that as a bureaucrat and when no/little community voice is present, and I cannot make what I feel is the best choice for the wiki. I would not in good conscience let a wiki policy of strictly by a certain set of consensus rules without a fall back as best decision(s) of local bureaucrat/admins, that would lead to bypass a helpful project or change to improve the wiki. But I also wouldn't bypass/ignore consensus if there was one either. It is one reason I couldn't get myself to apply, and some people who should have been at least content moderators were denied for very minor issue(s) that could have just been warning or because consensus couldn't be made. Instead it makes this wiki look too strict on such a lower user rights position (there may have been a time you had to be strict because of certain cases but it should have been loosened after lack of applications paired with high need of applications was needed). If they were applying for admins I would have agreed with the "not now" stance, but you guys look like you do not want anyone but the best and experienced just for content moderators. That is my honest review, when I first came to this wiki and still kind of feel that way.
- I find myself saying this repeatedly, but I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said.
- I will say, firstly, that this proposal is meant to solve a specific issue that's seemed to crop up in a couple edge cases. Last year, Dandelion Sprout's RfCM failed to advance after a 25-day wait. The discussion largely ground to a halt without an absolute clear-cut consensus for promotion. The discussion sat open for several days after actual conversation because an admin/crat was required to make a decision on the outcome, we amongst ourselves were not sure whether Dandelion had the needed consensus, and there was only one active bureaucrat who was neutral in the discussion. Implementing voting as a fallback process in this kind of edge case would prevent the situation where the end result is unclear and/or we're waiting for a neutral arbiter (who very well might not be available to render judgment).
- I'll be the first to acknowledge that this proposal does not fix most of the problems with the process. This again is where community must come in. If one or two users are refusing to accept any but the most top-tier, gold-standard candidates, then the entire community who wants to see a promotion happen needs to weigh in. I cannot force another user to change their opinions or their standards, and it would be wrong to sidestep a discussion process or otherwise marginalize editor feedback for the sake of expediency. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 03:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The good thing is I do think everyone currently mentioned or in this discussion wants what is best for the wiki. The bad thing this does seem to be a systemic issue of old/out of date policies. The editors listed have proven their edits can be trusted (but may not be admin material yet), if anyone disagrees and actually thinks they do harm to locked pages and misuse these rights at first chance on purpose, I'd really be shocked (that is a hella a lot of helpful edits just to turn around a troll once given a few more editing tools). This initiative I have proposed is to encourage a new policy age that places a bit more trust and rights in these individuals, hoping to inspire them to want to improve and peruse an admin role. I just think that current admins cannot 100% standby the current system and at the same time be 90-99% inactive or barely active. It is a tough call when admins can't come to a consensus but that is when it is a good time to call on the community's feedback.
- This promotion jump start is mostly to give the encouragement over those who have applied or were recommended in the past and probably should have gotten it. Show those who have been editing for years and with high edit counts and still high activity, that they probably should have been recommended before. As well as inspire others to be like these very helpful vet members of the wiki. I do not recommend another en masse promotion again (for two reasons the situation shouldn't call for it and if it did it means this proposal failed and shouldn't be repeated). But it is only part of the proposal, needing to have admins be able to make best decision for the wiki as a last resort due to lack of participation.
- The last part the implementation of the wiki theme proposal, would be let's say the optional part. If an admin backs the theme it can go ahead, as long as there isn't lack of admin consensus. But mostly the theme seems to just have lack of feedback, but the feedback I have received seems like it is a helpful/wanted update (and my implementation would have a feedback test/trial mode). However, this can be also put on hold for now too.
- The last part the implementation of the wiki theme proposal, would be let's say the optional part. If an admin backs the theme it can go ahead, as long as there isn't lack of admin consensus. But mostly the theme seems to just have lack of feedback, but the feedback I have received seems like it is a helpful/wanted update (and my implementation would have a feedback test/trial mode). However, this can be also put on hold for now too.
- Let's not get too far off-track. This section is discussing my specific proposal. The section above is talking about your mass-promotion proposal (which I've already said I disagree with). Other topics should be addressed in their own spaces for the sake of clarity/not overloading a single conversation with too many things at one time. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was meant to be an extension of with your proposal, or merging the two together. I do not think one or the other is the answer.
- Sorry, that was meant to be an extension of with your proposal, or merging the two together. I do not think one or the other is the answer.
- So it looks more apparent it isn't just the system/policies putting people off, it is K6ka. After Dandelion Sprout's reply this makes me think that AireDaleDogz second chance admins seen as "they blew" was seen as a trap and simply do not want to work or answer to K6ka, so they bowed out (IMHO a smart move, so I hope you think twice on judging this user). My first encounter with K6ka made me want to never have another one TBH. You say you want approachable mods/admins, when you have one that is putting potentials off, this is a definition of hypocrisy. However, this aspect now falls to an internal admin issue, and I leave that to you to try to resolve, because no vote can vote out admins/bureaucrats, fandom would refuse to get involved unless the admin is blatantly abusing powers.
- So it looks more apparent it isn't just the system/policies putting people off, it is K6ka. After Dandelion Sprout's reply this makes me think that AireDaleDogz second chance admins seen as "they blew" was seen as a trap and simply do not want to work or answer to K6ka, so they bowed out (IMHO a smart move, so I hope you think twice on judging this user). My first encounter with K6ka made me want to never have another one TBH. You say you want approachable mods/admins, when you have one that is putting potentials off, this is a definition of hypocrisy. However, this aspect now falls to an internal admin issue, and I leave that to you to try to resolve, because no vote can vote out admins/bureaucrats, fandom would refuse to get involved unless the admin is blatantly abusing powers.
- Honestly, I think you should take a breather, take a few hours to do something else and come back. What specifically caused you to have a bad impression of K6ka? Give me some links to the interaction where you (and the others) felt were wronged. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not saying this with out precedence. I mentioned Dandelion Sprout's reply (even if I did not link it I put it on top of the post and it has been mentioned I messaged their talk pages), did you read it? If you want to see my personal contact see his or my talk pages, and of course there is the request board. I also, in this thread, mentioned even fandom staff thinks K6ka seems to be overreacting (in the case about AireDaleDogz). I believe you are mistaking my response as an emotional one, it is not, it is a friendly heads up to admins you may need to look into claims, there seems to be a pattern.
- I am not saying this with out precedence. I mentioned Dandelion Sprout's reply (even if I did not link it I put it on top of the post and it has been mentioned I messaged their talk pages), did you read it? If you want to see my personal contact see his or my talk pages, and of course there is the request board. I also, in this thread, mentioned even fandom staff thinks K6ka seems to be overreacting (in the case about AireDaleDogz). I believe you are mistaking my response as an emotional one, it is not, it is a friendly heads up to admins you may need to look into claims, there seems to be a pattern.
- I read the talk page for Dandelion Sprout. All I see is Dandelion Sprout not wanting to work with K6ka, but I don't see in that page what k6ka did wrong, just that Dandelion Sprout doesn't like K6ka. As for the query side of things, I don't particularly see any issues with that either: I can see you've got the CSS skill and want to revamp the wiki layout, and K6ka led you to the method of testing your things so you can present it to the community. You can't just pop into some place and say hey here's my idea, this needs to be implemented: the thing needs to be voted or something. K6ka had said it: It is standard practice to test changes in userspace before pushing it out and I don't see anything wrong with that. From the talk pages, I don't see K6ka accusing you or chastising you for your mistake. Why is K6ka not liked, I'd like to know why.
- As for AireDaleDogz,
I can see the argument that the demotion as particularly harsh, and I personally would have simply given AireDaleDogz a little note that it isn't obvious vandalism and rollback isn't what should be used instead of a demotion. Now, our policy on rollback is clear and on the stringent side of things to protect the newbies, but as I said above if I was judging things, I would have gone more gently with AireDaleDogz, much in the light of the same principle for the newbie editors. - I do apologize for not being on top of things, but yeah even though AireDaleDogz was not demoted, I still empathize with the sentiment that the action taken with AireDaleDogz was a bit harsh. I would argue in the spirit of "assume good faith" that AireDaleDogz thought it was a bad edit and while it wasn't an obvious case of vandalism and the sysops were right to mention that the correct action to take was a manual revert with a note (which was the action taken in his talk page, although I'd argue that if I was in AireDaleDogz's shoe I would have felt pretty awful). Now, the discord context is something I can't weigh too much on: I am in the Sims Wiki discord, but I'm just as inactive there as I'm in the wiki itself. Now, AireDaleDogz was upset and simply gave up the nomination, but K6ka pulling a 4-year-old chat is something I am a bit concerned of myself. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 21:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just a clarification - AireDaleDogz was not demoted. They are still a rollbacker. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 21:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- To me these are showing you have an unapproachable admin. Three of your top 20 wiki contributors either refuse to work with him or don't find him approachable, it is just what one would call a red flag. The loose histories of why are not exactly important, the user experience was not good. Sorry, to be honest it looks more like to me you are taking this personally, since your reaction was quick to defense and asking for a time out. I am simply giving heads up if admins wish to investigate/look into this or not is your/their propagative (after that it has no more to do with me). Trying to point out flaws in the experiences isn't going to change people's minds or experiences on this. And I am not here for debate, I think it would be wrong not to bring this up, three (maybe more) means a pattern.
- To me these are showing you have an unapproachable admin. Three of your top 20 wiki contributors either refuse to work with him or don't find him approachable, it is just what one would call a red flag. The loose histories of why are not exactly important, the user experience was not good. Sorry, to be honest it looks more like to me you are taking this personally, since your reaction was quick to defense and asking for a time out. I am simply giving heads up if admins wish to investigate/look into this or not is your/their propagative (after that it has no more to do with me). Trying to point out flaws in the experiences isn't going to change people's minds or experiences on this. And I am not here for debate, I think it would be wrong not to bring this up, three (maybe more) means a pattern.
- As I said, I hauled my inactive ass over because of there was a ping and a huge ruckus in the discord enough to catch my attention: I did not ask for a time out, I simply saw k6ka being accused and thought something was off. It is because of this I want to know what K6ka did (or the users felt he did) made him feel approachable, and of the links given to me, only the incident with AireDaleDogz had context in the link that I could see where K6ka might have done something wrong/or was harsh to the point of being unapproachable. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 21:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake I thought the telling me to take a breather was a "time out" line.
- Sorry, my mistake I thought the telling me to take a breather was a "time out" line.
I too would like to apologize if asking you to take a breather was patronizing, it was mostly a concern as you've said that it might have been an outburst. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah-no, I may find K6ka unapproachable or even disagree with him on certain things, but that doesn't mean I am going to refuse to answer him if he asks me something or anything. It was not meant as an outburst or attack. Usually, the only way to help management get better is to tell them what you think the issues might be.
- I am going to say something. I really need everyone to understand that I am just speaking my feelings. I strongly do not want this to be interpreted as a personal attack by any stretch.
- I have a tremendous amount of respect for k6ka. I greatly appreciate all the work he's poured into this wiki over the years. On countless occasions we've brainstormed together or troubleshooted issues together, and I've come to trust his judgment. And, most importantly, I believe that he has his heart in the right place. He is doing what he believes is best and taking positions out of a desire to improve the wiki. He acts in good faith. Nothing that has been discussed has swayed my opinion in that regard.
- But my main criticism of him—my only criticism, really—is that he can sometimes appear to have high standards. He can come across as overly-strict or too demanding. This comes out in rights requests where, in my view, he sometimes has too high of expectations from applicants. This might create the feeling that he is sitting on the sideline, waiting to swoop in and say "no" for all but the most exceedingly-qualified candidates. And he is resistant to lowering his own standards or reducing the standards that our systems would apply to users, especially those applying for user rights, but for good reasons.
- I think back to my own first promotion to administrator. For those who don't know, I joined the wiki in August of 2009. I was promoted to administrator in July of 2010. At the time of my promotion, I only had 700-800 edits to the wiki. Imagine if a user today who had joined the wiki eleven months ago and had 800 edits went to apply for administrator, or even for content moderator; I doubt they'd get through. But I got through, and ended up serving as an admin for two more years before my first brief retirement (personal life got in the way) and then again for over a decade since returning to the admin role. I would like to think I've been modestly successful in this role, even though I haven't been active or present lately.
- My point in bringing this up is not to stroke my own ego, but to make a bigger point - even someone who probably isn't ready to be an admin can still be a good admin if they are just given the chance. And because this is just a wiki, where really is the massive harm in just giving people a chance? Maybe they'll edit furiously for a few months after getting the promotion and then vanish into thin air. Maybe they'll crash and burn and have to be demoted three days later. Or maybe they'll end up being a core pillar of a thriving community because we were willing to give them the opportunity to prove themselves.
- I know I've been overly-critical of some candidates in some promotions decisions in the past. But more and more as the years have gone on, I've decided that, barring any really glaring red flags in a user's history or demeanor, it's probably better to give them the benefit of the doubt and support their journey. Bureaucrats reserve the right to demote users who abuse their powers, and virtually everything a user does can be undone, no matter how bad it is, so there isn't a huge risk involved, compared to the potential reward of a new mod or admin with new ideas, new passions, and energy.
- I cannot force k6ka to change his mind on these things. I can explain my perspective and lend my voice of support, but k6ka will weigh in however he feels he needs to—but always based on his own analysis of a candidate and his own criteria.
- This is the most important point, though. K6ka is only one user. He is a long-standing member of the wiki and a bureaucrat, sure, but he's just one person. He can come into a promotion discussion and weigh the discussion against promotion only if there aren't other users there arguing in favor of promotion. This anti-k6ka complaining seems to miss the point that he is not a dictator and his word isn't law. He respects community consensus just like I do, and I know that he would abide with a community decision to promote even if he personally disagreed with it. But just look at the string of promotion discussions we've had, whether it's the ones that have passed, the ones that have failed, or the ones that didn't end clearly one way or the other. There's hardly anyone weighing in. Of course k6ka's input is going to be out-sized if there's only two or three people participating! If we had 100 users supporting a promotion versus just him opposing... or even 10 users supporting versus just his opposition, there really would be no question about it. So once again I go back to something I said in my original post in this thread: "the admins themselves do not control how this process turns out. If candidates don't apply or get nominated, there's no one to promote. If discussions get no participants, there's no consensus present from which to base a promotion. If only a couple people participate in a discussion, then even one person being opposed is enough to create a situation where there is no clear consensus to promote. Active editors need to take a more active role in these (and a lot of other) discussions and processes"
- It really must be made clear that k6ka is not "in charge" of this wiki, just like I am not "in charge." There is no one in charge, because that's not how wikis are meant to function. He and I will follow the consensus of the community, even if it leads somewhere we disagree with. That's what administrators are supposed to do. So, if you don't like something k6ka does,
form a consensus without himdevelop a consensus that is robust enough to overcome his opinion. This really is meant to be a collaborative project, but it requires collaboration. If there is no participation, then it really does start look like it's just admins running everything. And I repeat, that is not how it is supposed to be. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 00:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC) (Edited to clarify a statement - LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 03:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC))
- It really must be made clear that k6ka is not "in charge" of this wiki, just like I am not "in charge." There is no one in charge, because that's not how wikis are meant to function. He and I will follow the consensus of the community, even if it leads somewhere we disagree with. That's what administrators are supposed to do. So, if you don't like something k6ka does,
- Though you had no need to explain yourself, I want you to know this is not meant to be an anti-K6ka complaining. It is a genuine concern. I wasn't going to bring it up if it was just me, but that response form Dandelion Sprout spoke volumes IMHO. As I said if admins don't want to investigate/look into this that is your/their propagative. But it is a genuine concern, that type of attitude deters others from working with him, and they'd have to at an admin/mod level, and just as a user they can avoid him as best they can which looks like the case.
- Though you had no need to explain yourself, I want you to know this is not meant to be an anti-K6ka complaining. It is a genuine concern. I wasn't going to bring it up if it was just me, but that response form Dandelion Sprout spoke volumes IMHO. As I said if admins don't want to investigate/look into this that is your/their propagative. But it is a genuine concern, that type of attitude deters others from working with him, and they'd have to at an admin/mod level, and just as a user they can avoid him as best they can which looks like the case.
- My views on adminship and modship are simple: admins and mods are not in charge of the wiki, are community members like everyone else, and do not override consensus; but they do have extra buttons that other users don't have, and must be trustworthy and accountable to have those buttons. One part of accountability is being able to respond when people ask questions, and to be able to address criticism without interpreting it as a personal attack. If someone calls out an admin or mod for an action that they took using the tools that they believe is inappropriate, the admin or mod should address that. Accountability is not demonstrated if the admin/mod avoids answering the question, responds with hostility, or attempts retaliation by misusing their tools. Can someone please tell me why this viewpoint is somehow a "concern"? Are we going to say that admins and mods do not need accountability and never have to respond to inquiries about their actions? Are we going to grant admins and mods broad-reaching powers to override consensus, disregard processes, and do whatever they please with no checks or balances? This is not something I can support, and I have clearly explained my perspective and why this is an issue; yet somehow this is interpreted as being a problem. We will have way more problems if admins and mods are not communicative and refuse to explain their actions. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have already explained how and why I find it a concern above. If you do not find that a satisfactory explanation, I apologize but this is a minor side bar to the post, and going much further seems like a derail. As I already said above, I don't need an explanation on this particular matter (I have shared my concerns and what you/the admins choose to do about it is your own prerogative). I present a concern I believe I have detailed it out enough, going any further seems to be a moot point or just repeating what has already been said.
- I have already explained how and why I find it a concern above. If you do not find that a satisfactory explanation, I apologize but this is a minor side bar to the post, and going much further seems like a derail. As I already said above, I don't need an explanation on this particular matter (I have shared my concerns and what you/the admins choose to do about it is your own prerogative). I present a concern I believe I have detailed it out enough, going any further seems to be a moot point or just repeating what has already been said.
- The only response to my points from you that I can find are that 1) I'm too harsh; and 2) you think they're trustworthy (all other discussion was about inactivity, the current process, and how I'm not approachable; I apologize if I missed a response from you that addressed my points in more detail). That doesn't really answer my concerns about admins and mods being accountable though, nor did it address my concerns over some content moderator candidates not responding to my question on their application. By "too harsh", are you saying that I should just not ask any questions? It's clear that we disagree, and disagreement is not a problem—but I do want to unpack more so I can understand why exactly we disagree on this and figure out a consensus we can agree to. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are twisting my words and my proposal. I have said of course to have consensus if there is one (that is said in this post), but in cases when there is no participation or no consensus, it would be helpful if an admin instead of doing inaction, made the call to push forward if they believe it would improve the wiki. Allowing admins to break stalemates or lack of any responses (IMO that is apart of the role). The fact you you are hyper focused on getting told you are too harsh for asking a question, that isn't the problem, of course you can ask questions. But clearly users are not having good experiences with you and it is resulting in them not wanting to even try once you start up your line of questioning.
- To me you are passionate about policies and not the wiki, I might be wrong in this but it is what I see and you do not make people feel welcome. But you are not a bad admin, you are allowed to exercise questioning and try the best to follow the policies in place. If you think you have no way to improve yourself; how can you expect that of anyone else. Anyways, as I said I didn't want to talk about this. But since my last responses wasn't good enough for you, I thought, I'd at least try again for you.
- To me you are passionate about policies and not the wiki, I might be wrong in this but it is what I see and you do not make people feel welcome. But you are not a bad admin, you are allowed to exercise questioning and try the best to follow the policies in place. If you think you have no way to improve yourself; how can you expect that of anyone else. Anyways, as I said I didn't want to talk about this. But since my last responses wasn't good enough for you, I thought, I'd at least try again for you.
- None of this answers anything about me wanting admins and mods to have demonstrated some level of accountability first! And that's the other thing I want to see of candidates; the ability to receive feedback and criticism and work towards improvement. That was one of the reasons I opposed Dandelion Sprout's RfCM; I was not seeing an improvement in conflict resolution (and in fact saw them get worse at it). We are not disagreeing on this one particular point, at least. But it's frustrating to see no one addressing my core argument. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Because it is self evident, of course there should be and the fact you think I am saying you shouldn't is why I am saying you are twisting my words. The fact you want detailed answers/explanations about obvious merits that an admin should have and which is not the issue and not at risk nor asking to be removed, and expect what you are not even doing yourself, is why conversation with you is unapproachable and unwelcoming. You keep proving my points. "the ability to receive feedback and criticism and work towards improvement" You are not even demonstrating this. So why are you expecting a high standard of this of others, then? (rhetorical please do not answer) I feel it is impossible to talk with you and I am not even the one wanting to be an admin (which is why I am sympathizing with these others) and I am agreeing with basically what you say but your execution is abrasive and leaving a lot to be desired.
- The fact you keep demanding from me something that you have to have answered, when this is a blanketed criticism, just shows me you want to indefinitely debate until you are proven what right? or defeated me to give up an walk away like the others? For a third time, stop, I do not want to engaged on this particular topic, when I feel is already said in this thread and self evident (let's focus on improving the wiki and policies and move forward). You just keep proving my point on why/how you are unapproachable and unwelcoming. You ignored many of my posts on your talk page where I have tried to work with you, and seem to only respond to the ones where you can chastise me. You ignore the admin noticeboard for months, not engaged the development discussion for months/years? (and wonder why the community wants changes). You haven't even addressed ODAPHII's question to the admins in this thread, who wants an answer/engagement from you/admins. So why can't you consider some criticism yourself? (again, rhetorical please do not answer)
- The fact you keep demanding from me something that you have to have answered, when this is a blanketed criticism, just shows me you want to indefinitely debate until you are proven what right? or defeated me to give up an walk away like the others? For a third time, stop, I do not want to engaged on this particular topic, when I feel is already said in this thread and self evident (let's focus on improving the wiki and policies and move forward). You just keep proving my point on why/how you are unapproachable and unwelcoming. You ignored many of my posts on your talk page where I have tried to work with you, and seem to only respond to the ones where you can chastise me. You ignore the admin noticeboard for months, not engaged the development discussion for months/years? (and wonder why the community wants changes). You haven't even addressed ODAPHII's question to the admins in this thread, who wants an answer/engagement from you/admins. So why can't you consider some criticism yourself? (again, rhetorical please do not answer)
- My goal is to find a common ground for us to agree on so that we may work towards a consensus. You agree that admins and mods should demonstrate accountability; my perspective is that your proposal for the immediate promotion of a list of users to content moderatorship, sidestepping the discussion period, is not a good way to allow for accountability to be gauged, and that such a process should never be skipped because these positions require accountability, which cannot be gauged by a simple vote in a forum not meant for that purpose. We can agree on this, can we not? We may have a shortage of willing mods to take up the reins to help out, but it is irresponsible to discard established process for the sake of getting more heads through the door. As it stands, I see people applying through the process and not being promoted through a majority vote, which is preferable to your proposal to promote them via a forum thread vote. If it wasn't more clear, I oppose the proposal to promote through a vote in this thread, and I oppose the proposal for "immediate promotion" of anyone. On that note, I also see no reason to implement your suggestion to implement an abuse filter for rollback to be for admins/bureaucrats—because again, if someone isn't accountable enough to hold content mod, they shouldn't have rollback either, which still bears the minimum requirement that one be able to explain a rollback when asked; I'm unclear as to what problem this is trying to solve. Nor can I support your proposal to have a "non-authoritative" adminship be granted to you—admins already do not have "authority" in that sense, and if you demonstrate accountability and trust, you should just go through the RFA process like all other admins; there's no reason to grant a special exemption for you.
- The original purpose of this thread, judging by the title, was to encourage people to apply for these positions and take up the reins of the wiki. I have less time than I did ten years ago to edit this wiki, and like LiR and many other admins, want to see other people step up. So why don't people apply? I know you don't do Discord, but we did ask this question to all wiki users on the Discord, and the responses we got ranged from "not feeling like they could handle the responsibilities" to "lack of familiarity with the editing process". If the goal is to encourage people to take initiative, I'm surprised this question was not asked sooner. Your proposal does not yet address these responses. If the issue is that people are not familiar with how to edit wikis or don't feel capable to handle the responsibilities, then we should consider solutions tailored to that problem.
- I am more than happy to discuss with anyone who has feedback and constructive criticism of me, and if you do have something, then please do leave me a talk page message and provide links to diffs and edits to support your stance with evidence, as I generally have when leaving criticism for others. But please keep in mind the principle of assuming good faith—the assumption that everyone is here with the intention to help the wiki and not to hurt it. I am also here with the best interests of the wiki—wanting admins and mods to at least uphold accountability as a key value to avoid the drama issues so many other online communities face when admins and mods are not required to explain their actions and yield veto power. But if you have a specific issue with me, or any other user, then take it up with them on my/their talk page first. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I never said it was to side step or that their would be no discussion, you assumed that. If admins never replied and people showed concern over certain or all on the list it would be discussed, or people declined, but it appears many agreed with the list and didn't need to discuss. If you read above, I said "I don't care if we still follow "the procedure", I just don't want the candidates to feel discouraged as I feel most do when they see the previous denials." If you are not going to take the time to read what I say and stick to your knee-jerk assumptions, I don't see any reason to discuss it with you, because you are assuming. I still don't feel I have made much progress with you over this as I have with LiR. So I think it is best unless you have something new to discuss or compromise, you let it go. I do assume good faith, I already said I do not think you are a bad admin and that I agree generally with lots that you say, but experience and users are showing that their experiences with you are not good.
- Feel free to start workshopping yourself with the new content moderators, maybe they will be willing to flesh out essay debates with you, but I have said my peace about you, and I am done talking about this particularly with you. And as someone who has ignored many my messages when I was trying to work with you, I feel my limit is up with that, a reason I would not take a CM role.
- The sad thing is it took what admins perceived as a threat vote post to take notice and suddenly want to discuss/talk about it. And the funny thing is by the time this post reaches a month I'd say the promotions would have been done, that is far more immediate than I assumed if you guys MIA'd on us and after a month—then to contact fandom. So the post is still in essence getting that portion which you apparently hated, I call the discussion and process on tract and happening, and is even is following the procedure so that is that then.
- The sad thing is it took what admins perceived as a threat vote post to take notice and suddenly want to discuss/talk about it. And the funny thing is by the time this post reaches a month I'd say the promotions would have been done, that is far more immediate than I assumed if you guys MIA'd on us and after a month—then to contact fandom. So the post is still in essence getting that portion which you apparently hated, I call the discussion and process on tract and happening, and is even is following the procedure so that is that then.
The misguided assumption Fandom and Wikipedia have the same standing policies[]
Show/Hide Thread
If anyone hasn't read the admins discussion on this post or on their own page; there are been talk of blocking this even with a majority vote. I am talking it over with a fandom rep to confirm, and despite K6ka linking and current standing policies on the wiki, the admins/this wiki is currently trying to follow more of Wikipedia policies and not Fandom policies. I am (in this proposal) asking to stop the high Wikipeadia standard (which has higher standards for good reason) and come back to wiki/wikia/fandom policy standards (which has lower standards for good reason). Where "wikis are generally somewhere in between benevolent dictatorship and mob rule" (fandom rep quote), technically that means, despite standing policies here adopted from Wikipedia on this wiki about consensus over mob rule, mob rule with the judgement of a admin with good intentions—is acceptable. This is fandom and a mob rule vote to change away from consensus over mob rule with the judgement of a admin with good intentions, is an acceptable vote and despite it not being a past standing policy for this wiki, admins should not be able to to circumvent, when appropriate.
I have confirmed that, yes, this wiki's standards of policies and requests, "seems a bit strict, especially when admin engagement is low". But I rather work with admins on this, but if admins demand detailed citation and proof for any changes to even be reviewed, or have issues that the community's criticisms and suggestions being slightly unrealistic to them, that they can't just shrug this/us off. Many examples have been shown, including links, but no one should have to prove that their experience is legitimate. There is enough feedback and proof for need of generic changes without having to have full on consensus discussion—if the mob rule is asking to lighten up on that. I hope this clarifies that my proposal for more trust/power to admins when there is lack of participation or used to decide a stalemate vote—is not radical, and if anything it is reimplementing actual fandom policy.
- It would be very helpful at this stage to clarify what exactly the wiki's policies and precedents are. Then I can address some of the points levied above.
- The Sims Wiki is not Wikipedia. We do not operate under the same policies and are not governed to anywhere near the same standards. However, decision-making on The Sims Wiki and Wikipedia are both geared towards consensus. This word has been thrown around a lot in this thread, so it would be very useful for everyone to have a common definition for what this is. "Consensus," as this wiki has come to adopt it, essentially means "general support." Consensus is gauged by seeing not only the number of people who have weighed in on a given topic, and not only on the position they took in regards to the topic (whether supportive, opposed, or somewhere in the middle), but also on the strength of their position.
- That last part is especially important to understand. Simply being in support or opposition in a discussion is not by itself all that beneficial to the overall discussion nor towards the establishment of a consensus. Discussions are developed by people talking about their differing opinions, working together to find common ground and eventually working towards a compromise which is satisfactory to the largest group of people. The reason that strength of argument is important to consider is because a simple chiming-in of 'yes' or 'no' doesn't do anything to aid this process. It turns discussions, which are meant to find the best possible solution after a reasoned consideration of the options, into a simple ballot where a limited number of possibly not-very-good options are the only things that get consideration.
- This sort of "lesser of two evils" choice-making is what often comes into play when you have decision making by simple majority vote. This is the main reason why The Sims Wiki shies away from taking votes for major decisions. Just simply opening a proposal, promotion, or other decision to a simple yes/no vote robs the whole process of development and hinders advancing towards better compromises that will please more people. If your only limiting factor towards getting something passed is having to please a bare majority of people, then you only need to tailor your proposals to satisfy 51% of the users—a much lower threshold than is necessary in order to actually achieve a consensus.
- That said, voting is permitted as a means to break deadlocks when necessary. Voting is meant to be a last-resort alternative when the usual means of discussions aren't yielding any benefits, and especially when the decision is especially important and/or time-sensitive. Voting is not meant to be the first option because it is to some extent an admission that the consensus process has failed. Voting carries risks that a sizeable contingent of the userbase will be subjected to an outcome that they do not support, simply because they were in a minority, even if better compromises could've been available through consensus.
- Now that we've established the principles, consider again the course of this entire thread. Also consider exactly what was said on the Admin Portal talk page message that Hollowness referenced; I would strongly encourage everyone to read that section in its entirety (it isn't that long) before jumping to a conclusion.
- To address some of the specifics of what Hollowness wrote above, and keeping in mind what the wiki's voting policy is, everything I wrote above, and what was written in that Admin Portal talk page section:
- 1. There has been no push by any admins, on the APTP or elsewhere, to block the will of the community. The subject of the APTP post was regarding whether it was appropriate for multiple users to be considered for promotion en masse via this forum thread and via a majority vote, when the wiki already has a requests process for handling promotions, and has a standing rule discouraging decision-making by majority vote.
- 2. The core objective of this thread—the mass-promotion of new content moderators via a vote here—is already on its way to becoming a moot point. All of the candidates that Hollowness listed either have already been or are currently being considered for promotion via the official process (except for those who declined nomination). This thread is geared primarily towards achieving a goal which is already in the process of being completed.
- 3. The policies that underlie this wiki are from this wiki. We do not adhere to Wikipedia policies or standards. All of The Sims Wiki's policies and procedures are ultimately established by the The Sims Wiki community, and the community alone has the power to change them.
- 4. No user alone has the power or privilege of dictating what the wiki's policies or principles are. This applies to administrators and bureaucrats, just as much as it applies to all other users.
- If I am to take Hollowness at their own word, their intent in this whole process is to force the wiki to change its underlying principles away from a consensus-based model, to one which is, in their own words, "mob rule with the judgement of a admin with good intentions." This is the primary issue which k6ka and I have taken to this thread; the idea that a single user can come in and attempt to overturn an entire community's established processes and philosophy simply for the sake of expediency. Under the guise of trying to improve some processes and systems which are (even by my own admission) flawed, Hollowness is arguing that we should throw out a core set of principles that have guided this wiki for many, many years. And they are insisting that if we, the admins, do not go along with this and allow it to happen, that they will request Fandom Staff intervention to force this to happen.
- The most important thing I have to say to everyone is that you, the community, have the power. I have said before and I will repeat again: as an administrator and bureaucrat, I follow the will of the community. You, the community, decided that consensus should be the model by which we operate, and I adhere (as best as I can) to that process. If you decide that it is necessary to move to a different philosophy, I will support that decision even if I may not personally agree with it. However, I do not accept that this must be done on Hollowness's terms, at Hollowness's speed, and under threat of outside interference if we refuse to comply. For something as significant as what Hollowness is proposing, it would be an insult to all of you to force through a rapid change in the underlying philosophy of the wiki without a full consideration of the issue through a discussion. In fact, if I were to go along with it, it would be a dereliction of my responsibilities to the wiki.
- I will continue to work in good faith with any and every user who wants to improve this wiki and address its flaws. I will not violate the community's trust in me by going along with a plan to usurp the community's own right to govern itself. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to clarify one thing, and I have said repeatedly in this thread: I don't want to get rid of consensus. But if there is no consensus do to lack of participation, or no participation, and a vote seems moot since there is lack or no participation, to then allow an admin to make the call. So in other terms consensus is and has always been ideal, vote less ideal but serves a purpose at times, and lastly to break deadlocks and non-participation an admin's best judgement is made. Otherwise, I agree, read up what LiR has mentioned understand what consensus is and why it seems to be hard to accomplish lately with lack of participation. I only used the consensus over mob rule example because K6ka has been throwing that term around a lot and that is a Wikipedia policy adopted by this wiki and not a fandom policy which means if desired we can realistically change the policy instead of inaction, when the occasion calls for it and that it isn't an unreasonable change.
- I think the portion of the mass promotion is in progress and even managed to follow generally the standard protocols after all. Now it is just to be decided are you (the community) willing to, at times, when consensus cannot be made allow an admin to make a best judgment call for the wiki, or standby the results that tends to lead to inaction? In both cases the call can be revisited and consensus can be attempted again and this is not about granting an admin gawd-like powers to repress consensus nor voting.
- I think the portion of the mass promotion is in progress and even managed to follow generally the standard protocols after all. Now it is just to be decided are you (the community) willing to, at times, when consensus cannot be made allow an admin to make a best judgment call for the wiki, or standby the results that tends to lead to inaction? In both cases the call can be revisited and consensus can be attempted again and this is not about granting an admin gawd-like powers to repress consensus nor voting.
- So far, I'm glad to see you are happy with the recent lines of nominations which are on track to be accepted and am glad that you seem to be satisfied with the protocols and policies in general, only that things aren't moving as fast as you'd like.
- I am a bit concerned about some of the statements made on the top of this section, especially "Many examples have been shown, including links, but no one should have to prove that their experience is legitimate." - Admittedly there is a case for this when the user thinks something is wrong but can't put a finger on exactly why. However, I don't think this is the case with this situation: the attitude of "admins should figure out what the people have against them" is a lazy and an unproductive approach. Admins are not the big brother and don't know everything about the status of the wiki: posting proofs and links guides them where to go to look, minimizing time wasted and allowing admins (and any active users wanting to give a pitch) to come to a decision more quickly.
- I can see your point about a case of little/no participation (in fact, that was an edge case that I had in mind), but I argue that this isn't the case we have right now. Sure, the wiki could benefit from a fresh batch of more active admins and here I can agree with you. However, as we saw with the moderation nominations, we don't need a change in policy to get moving with the nominations. Secondly, I would also like to iterate that the consensus is chosen to pool opinions and trying to get the best solution forward, with the emphasis on solutions. Your proposal, or at least a good portion of it, is met with the opposition of some of the users and thus the consensus solution would have to be a compromise at best (which I might add, you are trying to a degree with the clarifications about what you think about the consensus and such) with a solid case to demonstrate why certain elements of the proposal should be accepted. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 08:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand, I am not asking admins should figure out against them, because I don't think any one really has anything against them. This is about policies and past denials, and the lack of applications that seemed to follow after these denials. And then the lack of many changes and needed updates, because there seems to be a generation of editors not interested in long discussions for consensus, and inaction inactive admins. But I admit I was feeling frustrated when K6ka's line of questioning was already apparent in this thread, making me made me think he wasn't full reading it. I have already have repeated myself multiple times in the thread, by that time, I was getting annoyed. Asking me to say it again, and break it down to incidents with links, seemed to undermined the point, and you are trying to breakdown and explain someone's feelings and experiences. You cannot really do that, you can see the incidents you can make your own judgement but it be wrong in the fact is... my experience isn't your experience and what Dandelion Sprout feels might not be what you feel. So the necessity to see why AireDaleDogz and Dandelion Sprout have unplugged from the community (and just remained editors) may be a mystery for the entire history, but judging by the CM request page and responses on talk pages, it was not pleasant encounters, specifically with K6ka.
- And as far as a little incentive, since the post clearly said from the beginning "(which I will be messaging each candidate so they are aware of the proposal)" for me to later on in the thread refer to Dandelion Sprout's reply makes me seem admins are lazy of not fully reading the post or looking on the talk page (so I find it a bit funny how I am accused this instead), but did I not link it for you after? As for the devolution of my talks with K6ka specifically in this thread (oh yes, this is not the first devolution of talking with K6ka, my first experience you admitted you read, I basically had to promise not to bother him again for him by the end), I just feel we are an an impasse and him grilling me further, for what I think is apparent in this thread and even stated in this thread, feels like a waste of time so, if my way of trying to side step out of that conversation—is what makes you think this then, I don't think you can judge this entire thread or me over that.
- The only reason the current nominations seem to be working I believe is due to this thread, I have mentioned a nomination ignored for a month, and only resolved when this post turned into a vote post. I do honestly think participation to GraysonKP and IDontKnowAName3, was going to get held up and left to a "not enough participation non-consensus" by K6ka (this may or may not have been the case but I truly believe it was a possibility), if this post didn't shine light (and LiR making it a site announcement) and get the community involved. I don't want to permanently remove the protocol for CM/Admins/etc. I just felt it needed to have it's standards slightly reduced, and to make up for our situations a bump up of CMs. As far as consensus in this discussion, most of what is disagreed upon on the against side's reasoning is not 100% true, I am not trying to get rid of consensus which has been stated against my proposal repeatedly, the bump up of CM is a one time deal and not a replacement of the usual promotion protocols, and we managed to compromise that process.
- As it stands 3 almost fully inactive admins vs 4 highly active users, note only one (myself) is willing to discuss in detail (I assume this is because I am an old school wiki editor use to discussions), which to some admin's standards is still not detailed enough and the other users seem content that their vote is enough participation, and they do not want to get dragged into a long winded conversation, which is why they participated in the vote post, it is a simple vote and they want change. This might not be 100% the case but I think it is a fair assumption considering.
- As it stands 3 almost fully inactive admins vs 4 highly active users, note only one (myself) is willing to discuss in detail (I assume this is because I am an old school wiki editor use to discussions), which to some admin's standards is still not detailed enough and the other users seem content that their vote is enough participation, and they do not want to get dragged into a long winded conversation, which is why they participated in the vote post, it is a simple vote and they want change. This might not be 100% the case but I think it is a fair assumption considering.
Question for admins[]
Show/Hide Thread
Maybe I'm being stupid and my ADHD's making it hard for me to keep up but having skimmed through the thread I can't help but not understand this whole talk of "accountability" and "trust" and this sudden worry about the future of the wiki demonstrated here by people in charge, when it's been shown time and time again that very few people in position of power still care about the wiki or the franchise at all. I dunno, maybe it's just me. Not a jab at anyone, I'm just not sure why keep bothering if you have no love or passion for this website anymore. I mean, aren't you guys working on porting over all the content here to miraheze? ODAPHII (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the talk of accountability and trust is sudden: the request for special user rights have always been built around those two things. With that said, I do agree admins aren't as active here as they used to be (on my part, because I've largely shifted from Sims to other games like Civilization and Stellaris). Those who are active still want admins/bureaucrats who are going to cause the least amount of problem: The moderatorship request is probably where it's demonstrated the most. We want users who are not only active, but those who can defuse situations and acknowledge potential mistakes so that they don't make things harder for everyone. K6ka might be a bit harsh on the standards, but standards are all based on that principle. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would disagree with the characterization that the admins don't care about the wiki. Speaking for myself, I care very deeply about the ongoing success of the wiki. I've put a lot of work and a lot of time (moreso in the past than now) to the wiki, and I would hate to end my tenure on a down-note or with worries that things were circling the drain. Not having the time or interest to devote to the project (especially when so many aspects of the wiki have tended to feel Sisyphean without others in the community there to pick up the slack) is not the same as just not caring about it. On the subject of accountability and trust... it's always been a factor in rights requests. As I said somewhere else in this gigantic forum thread, I think that the standards applied to applicants have tended to be too strict in some cases, but generally I would not want to simply throw all standards out the window. There's also good reason to be cautious about the users we promote. Just because the established admins have been inactive or semi-inactive, isn't a reason to just throw admin rights onto any old person who walks in. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 23:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
No rejection of the new theme[]
Show/Hide Thread
Well, though there has been some push back on some aspects of this proposal, I have not seen out right rejection of the new purposed theme. So does that mean consensus approves? If so is there a admin that knows what to do and how to accommodate transferring issues that may occur? I only gave a rough guidance for implementation. It would be hard to backseat drive and guide an admin that doesn't know what needs to be done but I can try. But some of it will be tedious trail and error because I couldn't/can't predict everything by just using the test wiki and my personal CSS page.
Or would heads explode, if I was granted temporary rights (or separate role with admin rights, I can change the tag from admin to CSS and Template Designer) with no plans to utilize the authority part of the rights, with plans to pretty much do the following (see Implementation). If you want references where I came into a wiki I have 0 or very little edits on and helped them with templates and their css and there was 0 issues feel free to check here and here. Or if there are any other suggestions, let's hear them.
Implementation[]
- Phase 1 - First Step of Implementation
- Update template CSS to template styles.
- Decide which MediaWiki CSS page is to be kept. To prevent too many edits on the kept CSS page, use the CSS page that is meant to be retired as the beta/test page until Phase 3 is complete.
- Create MediaWiki:Babel.css and update CSS, or move to template CSS styles to templates that use babel.
- Phase 2 - Second Step Implementation
- Remove header from Theme Designer, this removes the gradient opacity header effect too (which is what is really needed).
- Clear one CSS page and update to the new CSS page on the other.
- Create a community discussion page about CSS and theme changes.
- Phase 3 - Testing and Troubleshooting
- Update site announcement to the community about CSS update and link to discussion page to report issues and other feedback.
- Make sure transferred template CSS works now with template CSS removed from site wide CSS page.
- Update CSS page appropriately.
- Update old templates without similar/new style design to a more compatible design.
- Phase 4 - Completion of Update and Wrap Up
- If sufficient testing and troubleshooting time has past. Update new CSS to the CSS page wanted to be kept, and clear the old CSS and note it is no longer in use and to use the other CSS page.
- I am not willing to make any exceptions for temporary user rights to implement this theme. I accept that your intentions may be good but I cannot and will not bypass wiki policies even if it would make things easier. I am, however, willing to implement it myself. In the past I've edited the wiki's CSS and I have implemented seasonal themes for the wiki, so I would say that I am competent enough at this, albeit a little bit rusty. I should be able to implement the theme and I have a test wiki that I would try it on first to ensure that nothing gets broken.
- Defining whether consensus has been reached... I do think this is a bit difficult. On the surface, it sort of looks like it, but I am not so sure. Discussion about this theme seems to be broken up in a fair few different locations (thread on the logo, development portal discussion, this thread, perhaps more I have missed) and while I haven't seen anyone actually speak out and say that they strongly dislike the theme I would prefer if there was a thread made here dedicated to discussing the new theme because I could see people simply not knowing where to post about it. The development portal is pretty underutilized unfortunately (always has been, even when the wiki was more active) and this thread is really long and I think it might be possible that some people might be intimidated by that. I am aware that discussion can sometimes be a bit hard to both start and keep going but for a change this major I would not be comfortable accepting three or four users just saying yes when I know for a fact that we can get more people giving input. This very thread is proof of that. There's been instances before where the admins would send out message templates via a bot to active users to try to generate more activity. For whatever reason, we have stopped doing this as of late, but I would be willing to do this if I or another admin deemed it necessary to gain a comfortable level of consensus.
- I am open to any suggestions and discussion, and I will do what I can to make sure that this gets resolved. ―ฬђ talk 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am not worried about just implementation on just the wiki's css page, it is the ability to transfer the template css to templatestyles and update the templates properly. Templatestyles was only released in late July. Anyone can copy paste css, if it was just that I doubt there'd be an issue. Plus accounting for fixes and updates during the live testing phase. TBH, I would have hoped you'd have more experience than mentioned. I know what to look for and when something is working right or not, and what would need to be fixed. I really don't want to hold someone's hand (for the under-experienced) or the transfer to not be smooth and problems to happen, and the wiki to suffer. Not to mention the extensive work detailed, that I was willing to do and within a reasonable short amount of time, instead of an admin doing some and then leaving the rest for another day.
- I mean if applying for the position just for it to be temporary rights, seems almost just as ridiculous, but if it comes down to it just to make sure this theme is transferred properly, I'd consider it. But this is exactly the reason this vote poll was initiated, admins current protocols are resulting in inaction and blocking helpful projects and updates for the wiki. And even with your vote against, this turns this vote thread into a non-admins vs. admins debate, and that is not a healthy place for a wiki to be. Especially, it looks like on the surface that until a threat for change was the only reason admin activity rose at all, and took in accountability at all by pushing/allowing the CM promotions.
- This is a vote post and it has been voted for in majority without rejection of this portion (till you), so I would say it was consensus. And as mentioned a live testing would be the only way to really get the last of the discussion, since this has already been lightly discussed for over a month.
- This is a vote post and it has been voted for in majority without rejection of this portion (till you), so I would say it was consensus. And as mentioned a live testing would be the only way to really get the last of the discussion, since this has already been lightly discussed for over a month.
- I did not say anywhere in my post that I am against this happening, only that I am against subverting established processes which have been put in place for a reason. I actually want to see the new theme being used, but I also want to see this happen properly. I will not change my stance on this. ―ฬђ talk 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Which is another vote against by admins against protocol changes, which is literally the issue and why this roll call thread is split in votes, old protocols active editors want to see changed, and old inactive/barely active admins became active just to stop/block protocol changes. LiR seems for the new theme change too, but voted against, because admins are not willing to budge on protocol changes, so we have a non-admin vs. admin situation. TBH, I debated enough in this thread with admins about that enough in this thread, and it seems to be a deadlock, and no compromises or concessions really seem to be made on the admins part, besides what LiR and myself worked out for the CMs. But that is only a part of this proposal, but I am glad that at least that much was accomplished.
- Which is another vote against by admins against protocol changes, which is literally the issue and why this roll call thread is split in votes, old protocols active editors want to see changed, and old inactive/barely active admins became active just to stop/block protocol changes. LiR seems for the new theme change too, but voted against, because admins are not willing to budge on protocol changes, so we have a non-admin vs. admin situation. TBH, I debated enough in this thread with admins about that enough in this thread, and it seems to be a deadlock, and no compromises or concessions really seem to be made on the admins part, besides what LiR and myself worked out for the CMs. But that is only a part of this proposal, but I am glad that at least that much was accomplished.
Discussion about a new theme should go in a new thread. This thread is already extremely long and a new theme is beyond the scope of this thread (which was about getting more participation). The Dev Portal talk page is good for hashing out the initial technical details of the design, while a community discussions forum thread is a more visible venue for getting overall feedback and consensus regarding the change. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, it already has been discussed in other threads for development, and making another forum thread sounds like passing the buck, I won’t let you guys do that. Be accountable, don’t try to side step this now. This is and always has been a part of this proposal, and by design was the example of why a good project should not be blocked by old protocols and inaction. And I find this is just another way to excuse inaction and blocking, exactly why this vote thread was made. If you initially addressed this in the beginning, I might have taken you seriously, but at this late stage, I question the sincerity. And if this is apart of the deadlock, then, it remains a part of the deadlock. Anyways, I am away atm, just squeezing in answering messages but I don’t have the time to heavily discuss till I get back home Monday/Tuesday.
Putting in my two cents here.
I believe a consensus exists for the implementation of the new theme. The idea of a new theme has been discussed extensively on multiple threads and the Dev Portal Talk Page, and I have so far seen little to no opposition to the refresh. I do not believe that we need to have a new discussion and/or vote to establish whether or not to implement it.
However, there should be a new thread specifically for the theme rollout. I will stress again that the purpose of the new thread would not be to establish consensus, since consensus already exists. The purpose of the new thread is to work on actual implementation, including establishing the specific changes that need to happen and in what order. The thread would also be a venue for community discussion and input into specific aspects of the theme, and possible consensus around changes to the proposed theme if needed.
This Roll Call thread is going in too many different directions and is already very lengthy. For sake of organization and clarity for all participants, rollout of the new theme should be done in a new forum thread instead. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 23:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is a more reasonable explanation, but if it will just end up circling around to the same push back, going against standing protocols, which the admins don’t seem to budge on, will be a primary concern for me. As I mentioned, I am actually away, and I am only checking messages since this is still a hot thread/topic, and don’t want to leave those who respond completely in a lurch till I get back. If an implementation/roll out post is to be made, I want to not get the same blocks and rejections parroted from this thread to the new thread, or it might as well stay in this thread. Otherwise, I’d like to present after I get back I am able to give it full attention and better explanations, and details if needed.
- I don't know what "push back" or "standing protocols" you're referring to in regards to the new theme. Any opposition that I've posted in this thread, and from what I can tell the only opposition that other admins have posted, have been in regards to the mass-promotion and the idea of sidestepping consensus. I haven't seen any admin pushback against the new theme. This confusion about what we're even talking about and what we have or haven't agreed on is just more reason why the actual theme implementation should be in its own thread. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 00:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean in reference to if I was to implement, I’d need temporary admin rights, as I feel that this amount of work and knowledge of css, templates, templatestyles might be beyond the experience of the admins, and that, the bypassing aka going against standing protocols. Honestly, the headache of making sure it is transferred correctly, isn’t worth trusting someone else to do IMHO. But once implemented less need to edit site wide css would be needed, as I mentioned to you on your talk page (or was it dev portal talk), transferring template css to templatestyles might be a little work but so worth it. CMs would be able to edit all template css, since they have access to locked pages (for locked templates), and will ultimately need less edits to site wide css afterwards.
- I mean in reference to if I was to implement, I’d need temporary admin rights, as I feel that this amount of work and knowledge of css, templates, templatestyles might be beyond the experience of the admins, and that, the bypassing aka going against standing protocols. Honestly, the headache of making sure it is transferred correctly, isn’t worth trusting someone else to do IMHO. But once implemented less need to edit site wide css would be needed, as I mentioned to you on your talk page (or was it dev portal talk), transferring template css to templatestyles might be a little work but so worth it. CMs would be able to edit all template css, since they have access to locked pages (for locked templates), and will ultimately need less edits to site wide css afterwards.
- What is said on discord can only be regarded as hearsay and will have no baring on official voting, discussion nor consensus. This is basically this wiki's and fandom's policy. Discord may be the top form of communications, but it is not a part of wiki and cannot sway or be taken officially in wiki matters. You can only speak for you. That being said, my implementation offer is to allow the community to discuss pretty much each feature change during the live testing (which is why I have the breakdown on the test theme page) and which features they want and don't want, and consensus will/would determine what is kept or rejected. But again it have to be on the wiki, and not discord conversations—even screenshots do not/will not count.
- I'm not saying that Discord is proof that the proposed theme should be rejected, but it's proof enough that an actual, tangible vote should take place, just as LostInRiverview suggested. I also think it's REALLY shady to be contacting Fandom about this matter without (tangible) consensus. But that's just my opinion, idk. Venomander (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fandom was contacted when admins were not showing activity on the wiki, well before this thread (2 months ago for this particular ticket and the first contact was back in July). The admin noticeboard at the time as ignored for months, I had multiple admins not answering messages for weeks/months and never. So that is a level of inactivity, which they agreed. So as a precaution, in case admins never participated in this thread, fandom has been advised on the situation.
- Fandom was contacted when admins were not showing activity on the wiki, well before this thread (2 months ago for this particular ticket and the first contact was back in July). The admin noticeboard at the time as ignored for months, I had multiple admins not answering messages for weeks/months and never. So that is a level of inactivity, which they agreed. So as a precaution, in case admins never participated in this thread, fandom has been advised on the situation.
- I do want to add to this and mention, as mentioned before, and ODAPHII and LiR are probably already aware (so this isn't directed to them). This theme is mostly an extension (or evolution) of existing themes merged with the latest, and most relevant installment Sims 4 (which is basically only really the background which is the easiest thing to change and update). If the new theme is disliked; then the existing theme is disliked, because the theme does very much or mostly an extension of the current infoboxes, and the community page designs (the portals, greenbar/bluebar, etc.). And it be hard to implement a differing theme without changing current standing infoboxes, and infoboxes are stuck to an extent, being and needing a lighter background to make sure all icons can be seen properly. Otherwise, I'd suggest (to those who don't like the theme) to come up with a new infobox colour theme if you don't like the new theme, and I can then make a theme to match that, just as I extended with the current standing themes.
- This sort of thing can start to run into the major problems of "design by committee," where the whole project (the re-theme) gets delayed or prevented altogether because of disagreements about minute details of the project and a desire for everyone to weigh in on every single aspect. I think it's better to present a whole, comprehensive theme (as Hollowness has done) and then accept it as-is or decline it. If there is a single minor element that someone dislikes even though they like the theme as a whole, then it's unlikely they would vote to torpedo it, and it's more likely that they'll either learn to live with their dislike, or else they can propose a change after the theme is implemented. So I'd say that a person's support or opposition to the new theme should be based on their general feeling about the whole theme, all parts taken together. And I'd remind people that they shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree, it is probably better to bring up the most disliked feature(s) after implementation (or even the live testing stage), and see if there is shared dislike for particular features, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and trying to achieve unobtainable perfection to please everyone. I also think trying to make a completely new infobox theme would be harder to achieve than just extending/evolving on current themes. Which is why I choose this root to start our baseline css/template css upgrade/update, if I re-invented the wheel from scratch with a completely different theme, I think it would have been to hard to get people on board, and then all those other updates/upgrades wouldn't happen.
- I do agree, it is probably better to bring up the most disliked feature(s) after implementation (or even the live testing stage), and see if there is shared dislike for particular features, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and trying to achieve unobtainable perfection to please everyone. I also think trying to make a completely new infobox theme would be harder to achieve than just extending/evolving on current themes. Which is why I choose this root to start our baseline css/template css upgrade/update, if I re-invented the wheel from scratch with a completely different theme, I think it would have been to hard to get people on board, and then all those other updates/upgrades wouldn't happen.
- Neutral - I could not care either way about the new theme, and while I will always be a Sims 3 stan, I won't oppose a theme change as long as the Sims 3 templates work fine and its template coloring unchanged - TS3 Sim template should remain green, even though I'm a stan for different shades of blue. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 22:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we conformed to splitting each article to it's installment, each of those pages could be styled to that installment's theme. For example, after/if this theme is implemented, and articles split by installment, at the template level with templatestyles an infobox with a matching simology table theme could be applied and no articles would need to be touched. That is why I really wanted to push for this theme update it make changing themes easier, and could even be done unified by installment if desired.
- If we conformed to splitting each article to it's installment, each of those pages could be styled to that installment's theme. For example, after/if this theme is implemented, and articles split by installment, at the template level with templatestyles an infobox with a matching simology table theme could be applied and no articles would need to be touched. That is why I really wanted to push for this theme update it make changing themes easier, and could even be done unified by installment if desired.
- I feel like that would be a bit... Messy? Not in the sense that your designs are, but for lack of better word, having so many themes for all the different installments feels like A Lot, you know? Sometimes less is more, especially if we're going for that "Not-TS4-General-Sims-Franchise-2024" vibe we talked about. ODAPHII (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am just letting people know the possibilities. I am not actually proposing that particular theming option, hence my if desired italicized.
- I am just letting people know the possibilities. I am not actually proposing that particular theming option, hence my if desired italicized.
Update, November 15th[]
As per a recent conversation with fandom, it is agreed they do not want this wiki/us to get "stuck in the mud" they are considering options and coming up with a plan. Fandom also seems to align with some of both LiR and my own's points of view, specifically mentioning problems of "design by committee," and my worry of inactive/bare minimum activity admins not being helpful to a wiki. Since admins and the editors seem to be at a stand still, and not much for reasonable compromises have come up, don't be surprised it fandom reps come in to give more compromise ideas and be a part of the conversation. I wanted to avoid this, and hoped we could sort this out on our own, but clearly the conversation is at a stand still, and no longer going anywhere.
- I can't speak for anyone else. But I do have plans to participate in this discussion. It's just not a convenient time for me to do so at this moment. As I've been really busy with maintenance work. But I should be able to make time for it in a few days. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion is not closed; it is still open. Just at this time on a bit of a stand still.
- The discussion is not closed; it is still open. Just at this time on a bit of a stand still.
New wiki theme thread[]
Forum:New wiki theme is just drawing out an already voted for part of this proposal, and which I think is unnecessary. This is just another example how inaction admins make it difficult to get any changes done on the wiki. The theme was open for discussions for months and a vote was held under the umbrella of this vote thread has been open for weeks, now 2 more votes threads minimum 2 more weeks. This looks more like the fault of a flawed system and not just "trying to get consensus". Again this is why some editors want admins to be more action based, 3-4+ months just to know if a theme is accepted/rejected is a very long time and an unnecessary discussion and vote time. It already looks like it is a "yes", because it is already been discussed and voted for already, why draw it out to 2 more vote threads and another 2 weeks?