FANDOM


  • Gamedezyner
    Gamedezyner closed this thread because:
    Voting is over
    06:55, February 28, 2018

    I'm trying this again, not much has changed since last time so I'm just going to copy paste the last post. The only reason the last one didn't go was from lack of admins voting, so I'm hoping everyone will post, even if it's a no!

    Oh also, for those who don't know me:

       I wrote the current wiki policy
       I maintained User:SFWBOT and User:Maid-chan.sh which did many maintenance operations for the wiki
       I managed many of the technical upgrades and special features our wiki used to have, including advanced moderation features for pages.
       I created the wiki logos we're still using many years later
       I helped push the wiki into the democratic voting system that it currently has
       I set up many of the templates we use to organize and manage the wiki
       I have a sense of humor
       I like turtles
    


    I've had a lot more time lately than I did when I left, what with the steady job and all. I feel like I'd like to return and resume helping this wiki try to improve.

    Being as I removed my own powers, I'd like to try to simply get approval from everyone to have them back.

    I feel like I could do some good here, and I feel like I may actually participate in some of the content eventually if we can make some progress as a community.

    So with that I ask:

    Will you guys give me my job back?


    This is a voting thread.

    Use {{Voting/Yes}} if you agree.
    Use {{Voting/No}} if you disagree.

    Votes that do not use the templates will not be counted.

    Users who voted FOR

    Total: 13

    Admin Total: 3

    Users who voted AGAINST

    Total: 9

    Admin Total: 2

    Invalid Votes
    Voting is currently: CLOSED

    Voting ended on 2/27/2018

      Loading editor
    • I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.

      Just don't use it for personal gain dude, make sure it's for the sake of mainly the group. Hope you can help this place be greater than it is as of now.

        Loading editor
    • Why would I though? I've always helped the wiki with this position.

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • Of course!
        Loading editor
    • Since I posted this in the middle of the night I'mma bump it once during the daytime

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.

      I know you and I know you will do a good job.

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.

      You've never failed us.

        Loading editor
    • I like turtles too.

      I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • Emerl.exe wrote:

      I vote NO on this.

      Akri are you ever capable of being serious?

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.

      You know what the say, the more the merrier.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      Emerl.exe wrote:

      I vote NO on this.

      Akri are you ever capable of being serious?

      Yes, and I'll explain.

      There is a noticeable decline in the wiki's user activity, it has been seen and predicted for years, meanwhile our admin numbers have stayed mostly the same. While you might question admin activity, most of our users here know to undo vandalized edits, mark pages, and ask an admin if they run into problems they can't fix themselves, and those admins act in a timely and efficient manner.

      Additionally, any tech needs around the wiki can be forwarded to me. I own an app company providing solutions to about eight businesses in the North Kansas City area, I'm pretty fucking sure I'm reliable. I can say with certainty you may argue what I, a business owner, am doing on a Sonic Fanon Wiki, I'd would like to recur the same argument to a man in his mid-twenties, who is engaged, and is writing web apps for a car insurance company and making about the same amount of money I am.

      Our wiki has changed its management to compensate for the lowering of new, active, users, we're no longer an organized wiki government that enforces bloated, rigorous standards for the sake of "cleanliness" and "efficiency," we're a small community dedicated to sharing and creating content from the Sonic fandom.

      Your administration style is not compatible with us anymore, you are very bureaucratic, project based, and uniform, a little too uniform as you tend to want to do everything yourself. I'd also like to mention that your behavior at times can be extremely questionable, but I won't hold that against you as I know mine are too.

      It has been six years since we first met, I've become much more serious during that time, and I have no problem explaining what I think and why I think that way.

      Thank you for your attention.

        Loading editor
    • I was talking about the fact that you voted through a bot account, but ok.

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • Since it's not highlighted I'm giving it one more bump

        Loading editor
    • ​​​​​​Did we seriously get rid of the neutral/maybe voting template? I'm not really sure we actually need another admin at this point and time. Wiki's barely treading water as it is.

      EDIT: Removed my vote, replacing it with a no.

      I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I thought I already voted on this, but I'm just not gonna vote. Sorry.

        Loading editor
    • The template is still here?
        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • I tried to use the template, but it wouldn't take. Maybe I was using the wrong wording or something. . .

        Loading editor
    • I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • @ Frost: Did you use these brackets {} or these [] ?
      I vote NEUTRAL on this.
        Loading editor
    • RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.

      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.
      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao

      And why the fuck not

        Loading editor
    • RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      Gamedezyner wrote:

      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.
      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao
      And why the fuck not

      Because voting rules.

        Loading editor
    • MaxIrvaron wrote:
      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      Gamedezyner wrote:

      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.
      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao
      And why the fuck not
      Because voting rules.

      What the fuck?

        Loading editor
    • RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      MaxIrvaron wrote:
      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      Gamedezyner wrote:

      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.
      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao
      And why the fuck not
      Because voting rules.
      What the fuck?

      You can't really have a say in something you know nothing about tbh

        Loading editor
    • I vote NEUTRAL on this.

      I might change my mind. I dunno.

      EDIT: Changed my mind, as you can see in the later comment I made.

        Loading editor
    • Darkest Shadow wrote:
      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      MaxIrvaron wrote:
      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:
      Gamedezyner wrote:

      RoaringRedRanger4 wrote:

      I vote NO on this.
      This is the only edit you've ever made... It's not getting counted lmao
      And why the fuck not
      Because voting rules.
      What the fuck?
      You can't really have a say in something you know nothing about tbh

      Fine then

        Loading editor
    • Akrivus wrote: -snip-

      For the most part, Akrivus basically summed up every reason why I've been iffy on your return, Game. When you first brought up the subject of coming back, I was the first one on the staff to ask "Does anyone else have a problem with this?" I couldn't quite put it into words then--mainly because I couldn't completely figure out why a part of me was skeptical--but he's right, and I have to agree with him.

      I vote NO on this.

      I won't deny you've been a great help to the site in the past, but the way you administrate just isn't compatible with how we roll. I've always felt that way. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we've been doing just fine as we are now.

        Loading editor
    • Akri if you want your vote to count, you need to post it on your own account instead of doing it through Emerl.

        Loading editor
    • I vote NO on this.
      I've made my reasoning clear enough.
        Loading editor
    • I believe Akrivus raises fair points. How you come and go without warning and then suddenly desire to have your powers back is extremely questionable.

      Some of your proposals, like archiving old articles to keep the wiki "efficient", were always very jarring to me because it contradicts the purpose of this wiki: to share and create Sonic-related content without, like Akrivus put it, bloated, rigorous restrictions. Things like this make me worried about your intentions with the wiki going forward.

      I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • Chamesthehero wrote: I believe Akrivus raises fair points. How you come and go without warning and then suddenly desire to have your powers back is extremely questionable.

      Some of your proposals, like archiving old articles to keep the wiki "efficient", were always very jarring to me because it contradicts the purpose of this wiki: to share and create Sonic-related content without, like Akrivus put it, bloated, rigorous restrictions. Things like this make me worried about your intentions with the wiki going forward.

      I vote NO on this.

      I'm gonna have to agree with Chames on this one. "Efficiency" doesn't include locking away old articles just because they haven't been edited in a while. The point of this wiki, as Chames stated, is to share Sonic related ideas and concepts.

      As such, locking away old articles glaringly contradicts this wiki's prime directive in sharing such information. I mean, what's the point of posting your ideas if, after a time, they are no longer seen? No offense, but archiving pages for not being edited in a while seems pretty dumb to me.

      As I stated earlier, I have to agree with Chames.

      New Vote:

      I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • Chamesthehero wrote:

      Some of your proposals, like archiving old articles to keep the wiki "efficient", were always very jarring to me because it contradicts the purpose of this wiki: to share and create Sonic-related content without, like Akrivus put it, bloated, rigorous restrictions.

      Could you define what's meant by "bloated, rigorous restrictions"?

        Loading editor
    • Frost the Wolf wrote:

      Could you define what's meant by "bloated, rigorous restrictions"?

      Like Akrivus described, in the past, the wiki used to have a bigger userbase, so how the staff managed the wikia and imposed standards were a lot more restrictive to balance the influx of articles published. An example of a bloated, rigorous restriction that we do not enforce anymore was religiously requiring three specific headings on every page published. We don't do that anymore. Those kinds of rules are unnecessary now.

      Speaking for myself here, article restrictions based on user activity seem to fall under the bloated, rigorous category, for it would naturally force users to never leave the wikia unless they wanted their article removed and archived elsewhere.

        Loading editor
    • I vote NO on this.
      For reasons above.
        Loading editor
    • You guys understand that was an idea right? I never started actually archiving pages. You guys are trying to make me look like a bad administrator because I shared an idea and asked the community what they think.

      We removed the restrictions on having specific headings while I was still here because even I agreed it was too much. Both to administer and also for people to do. At the time it was introduced, it made sense at the time because of the enormous influx of pages that were lacking content.

      Every decision I've made was run through the community first, which is by my own design.

      We weren't archiving pages because they were old. We were archiving them because they were old AND didn't meet quality standards. Don't put words in my mouth.

        Loading editor
    • Chamesthehero wrote:
      Frost the Wolf wrote:

      Could you define what's meant by "bloated, rigorous restrictions"?

      Like Akrivus described, in the past, the wiki used to have a bigger userbase, so how the staff managed the wikia and imposed standards were a lot more restrictive to balance the influx of articles published. An example of a bloated, rigorous restriction that we do not enforce anymore was religiously requiring three specific headings on every page published. We don't do that anymore. Those kinds of rules are unnecessary now.

      Speaking for myself here, article restrictions based on user activity seem to fall under the bloated, rigorous category, for it would naturally force users to never leave the wikia unless they wanted their article removed and archived elsewhere.

      I wasn't notified of the "three headings for every page" being changed.

        Loading editor
    • "Bloated, rigorous restrictions"

      So simply asking people to flesh out an idea before it gets posted is too much to ask? It says in the standards:

      You wouldn't turn in an unfinished homework assignment, so don't submit unfinished pages to our wiki.

      I really don't feel like that's a lot to ask. Can someone explain to me why it's a lot to ask people to at least have some damn detail before they post a page?

        Loading editor
    • “Quality standards?” I rest my case.

      I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want my pages to be archived ten years after I leave merely because the newer userbase thinks my content is garbage despite following all conventional standards put forth now. Who would peer-review 9,000+ articles to make sure every page is up to some sort of quality standard so they don’t get removed with the rest? The elitist aspect of it all is a point Akrivus made already.

      We do not necessarily demand for users to produce actual quality content, but merely to adhere to the policy regarding article creation (minimum of two paragraphs, no explicit content, no jokes in poor taste, no spam, etc). The point is to share and create Sonic-related content. Unfinished content would be not meeting these very lenient criteria, not because one did not decide to include details in their descriptions.

      Don’t mistake what I am saying, though. I never said what you did went beyond a proposal. I’m saying that your reasoning for it makes me worried about your intentions with the wiki going forward. And that is all.

        Loading editor
    • Chamesthehero wrote: “Quality standards?” I rest my case.

      When you say it like that, your "case" rests on a belief that there's nothing wrong with supporting and enabling bad or unfinished content.

      My standards were designed to make the wiki easy to navigate and read for both frequent posters, and new visitors (who would be possible new additions to the wiki). It has never once been about some elitist bullshit like you claim.

      I want to make the wiki more presentable, not delete everything.

      Stop enabling people to be lazy and continue to make the Sonic fandom look like garbage to the rest of the internet.

        Loading editor
    • The only thing that stops here is you. After all that, you might want to calm down.

        Loading editor
    • Who's not calm? It's a firm point.

        Loading editor
    • TBH you need to RESPECT my opinion

        Loading editor
    • You can't have an opinion when you don't even know what it's about.

        Loading editor
    • Now I wish I didn't get involved... um, I'm gonna stop following this thread now.

        Loading editor
    • Julia Finitevus wrote: Now I wish I didn't get involved... um, I'm gonna stop following this thread now.

      What's wrong? It's just a discussion. I'm just taking this seriously. Everyone's opinion matters (unless you're that one guy above lol)

      Don't feel threatened or anything please.

      The whole point to having a vote like this is so that everybody gets a chance to make their opinion count. It's not like I'm going to go out and personally hunt somebody down because they voted no. Considering I fought so hard in the beginning to get this Democratic process setup I'm glad to see it working properly.

      I'm only responding in defense because I disagree with these points.

      To anyone who might feel afraid to make a post or something please don't. Let your opinion be heard. Nobody can act against you for sharing your opinion.

        Loading editor
    • I kind of get where Game's coming from, but also somewhat agree with the other side of the issue. At least, I think I get it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      "Quality" seems to mean two different things to Game and Chames. One believing it to mean "it meets a criteria that should be standard for all articles" while the other seems to interpret it as "worthy of praise or recognition". If that's the case, then perhaps some re-wording is in order.

      People's content should be on here without fear of it being removed or drastically altered without just cause, that much I think we're all in agreement on. However, when said "content" is only one paragraph, or some joke in poor taste, or a page with so little detail that it's hardly an aritcle in the first place, then a line should probably be drawn.

      We've got well over 9,000 articles on here. Some of them are "works of art", others are not so much. As long as they meet the requirements necessary for a page, that is fine. As stated, this is a place for people to post their Sonic-related content. It'd be snobbish to remove an article that some view as "bad". However, of those 9,000 articles, there are several that are so sparse and lacking in any sort of information or content that it's practically spam.

        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      I want to make the wiki more presentable, not delete everything.

      Stop enabling people to be lazy and continue to make the Sonic fandom look like garbage to the rest of the internet.

      I vote NO on this.

      Presentable to who, though? We have high-quality pages that are put on display, and even give out awards to the best of them. Some kid's below-standards fan character on here isn't going to make the internet's opinion get worse, and removing it won't make it's opinion get better; it'll just leave the kid upset that everyone hated on his or her page. Tbh we've had some bad incidents with bad pages in the past nickolas comes to mind, fighting ultra smash to a standstill, and I have to say that us as a Wiki really have not handled such situations very well, especially that one. I just completely disagree with that thought process, sorry.

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.
        Loading editor
    • Gamedezyner wrote:

      Julia Finitevus wrote: Now I wish I didn't get involved... um, I'm gonna stop following this thread now.

      What's wrong? It's just a discussion. I'm just taking this seriously. Everyone's opinion matters (unless you're that one guy above lol)

      Don't feel threatened or anything please.

      The whole point to having a vote like this is so that everybody gets a chance to make their opinion count. It's not like I'm going to go out and personally hunt somebody down because they voted no. Considering I fought so hard in the beginning to get this Democratic process setup I'm glad to see it working properly.

      I'm only responding in defense because I disagree with these points.

      To anyone who might feel afraid to make a post or something please don't. Let your opinion be heard. Nobody can act against you for sharing your opinion.

      Sorry I overreacted. I just was worried I offended you or something.

      As for you, RoaringRedRanger4, I suggest you accept the fact that you can't vote on issues like this yet and move on. I tried to vote on an issue myself when I first came to the wiki about a year ago. One of the admins told me I couldn't vote yet, so I accepted and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

      When you've been around a few more months and have some pages up, then your votes on matters will be accepted. Until then, again, move on.

        Loading editor
    • Julia Finitevus
      Julia Finitevus removed this reply because:
      Oops!
      12:29, February 19, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • I vote NO on this.
        Loading editor
    • Maybe it's just me, but aren't there other things Game can do than archive articles? You guys are focusing on that one aspect, but if you remove it, he's a really good admin. 

        Loading editor
    • I vote YES on this.

      I vote yes on this.

        Loading editor
    • I think this is over.

        Loading editor
    • It's all ogre.

        Loading editor
    • 81e6f25d99f3381705f29218185b2a9a6cb30cf3d42430978d16bb14375d6684
        Loading editor
    • Gettyimages-837567644
        Loading editor
    • Wait, is a simple majority all that's required to win? I assumed that a fairly solid consensus was required to win, and no real consensus seems to have been reached.

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