A workgroup for solving staff conflicts?

[Antvasima]

Given that I am very overworked and distracted, on top of being autistic, and as such not good at handling complicated social problems, I have considered appointing a workgroup of trusted levelheaded active staff members who discuss how to appropriately deal with any conflicts within the staff via private conversations.

It would, of course, be extremely important that any of the people that have been a part of such conflicts are not directly involved in the evaluation work group. That would increase the partisanship, drama, and blown up situations, rather than mitigate them. Professionalism is the key here.

I was thinking of Azathoth, Promestein, Reppuzan, SomebodyData, Darkanine, and Dragonmasterxyz. Ryukama has already declined, given that he finds such situations stressful.

Staff only.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I didn't have a chance to post in the other thread, since I was away at the time, but I think that this is an excellent idea which can work greatly if well implemented.

I think that the staff you suggested would make for an Excellent choice for such a group.

 

[Reppuzan]

I don't know if I'd be the best choice for such a workgroup, since I've gotten into numerous scuffles before and the comment that started the thread was my outburst against LordAizenSama's comment.

But I have no issues with volunteering if no one else is available.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

Thank you, but with apologies for being blunt, you should definitely not be involved in the work of the group. That would make it much harder for them to calm situations down, rather than make them worse.

 

[Antvasima]

@Reppuzan

There is a difference between getting upset once or twice, and being actively involved in a prolonged 9-month long complicated drama. I trust your commitment to the community and sense of judgement.

 

[Promestein]

Well, I don't think Matt was asking to join the group.

I'd be happy to be a member of this group, personally.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein

Okay. Thank you for the help.

 

[Golden_Void]

I think this sounds like a pretty neat idea.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I wasn't asking. I definitely understand I made my mistakes in the past and have gotten in conflicts. You know I've been since trying to improve, but I get that it should be made of people who've always been neutral.

I am just giving my support to the idea.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Seems like a good idea.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

I think it's a great idea!

However, after some consideration, I don't think I'd be fit for it. I have some bad anger management issues myself that I try to contain and keep calm. For the most part, I do, thanks to meditation and late night strolls, but I still have outburst from time to time.

I think Dragonmaster would make a good member. He's very calm, nice and friendly.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I honestly find this a terrible idea tbh. It is just not a good sign to have such a group, it rubs me the wrong way. If there is so much conflict and venom that we need a mediation group, it means we have to fix the problem, not add something that may or may not fix it. The only real suggestion I would even agree with is someone like Darkanine. Overall, I find the idea would just lead to furthermore controversy and possibly eletism.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

Okay. That is appreciated.

@Darkanine

Understood. No problem.

 

[Legion350]

I think this is a good idea.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think that such a group would do good for the wiki as a whole. One of the biggest issues people have with drama on the wiki is an inability to properly talk about it, and this could provide a place where it could be done, without always having to message Ant about it, who as he himself mentions, can't deal with such things very well do to his autism.

 

[Antvasima]

@FanofRPGs

The problem is that the current situation is unmanageable, and despite my best prolonged efforts, I have been unable to solve the problem. In fact I have been convinced to tag along on a few wild goose chases that only made things worse, and wasted lots of my time and energy.

As such, we need to use what resources we have to prepare for preventing the community from falling apart in the long run. To have no failsafe in place would be extremely unwise, as I and Kavpeny have barely been able to patch things up in the past. What happens if we are not around anymore? It is best if the community can manage anyway, preferably better in this respect.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, Matthew, I meant that you should not try to influence the work of the group. You are very convincing due to your training to be a lawyer, and that has consistently been dangerous when dealing with these volatile social conflicts.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Also, Matthew, I meant that you should not try to influence the work of the group. You are very convincing due to your training to be a lawyer, and that has consistently been dangerous when dealing with these volatile social conflicts.

I'm actually not in Law School anymore. I dropped out. That was a major factor in my stress some months ago.

I was just giving my support for the idea and listing reasons I could see it having a positive influence on the wiki. I have no intention of joining this group and I never expected to be invited.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

If such a serious issue is afoot with the staff, it probably needs a more heavy-handed approach than some kind of makeshift counseling group. I am not 100% sure what the situation is, but I do not like this idea. Seems like a "time out and hug" thread for Staff, which is completely the opposite of the image we should be presenting. I dislike the precedent this sets in addition to the group itself. Drama shouldn't be officially interwoven into the Wiki Staff's structure. I've never had a squabble and generally don't get upset over much, but I don't like the image this presents. If staff in-fighting is such a problem then positions themselves need to be questioned and possibly changed instead of slapping a probably-won't-work effort-filled band-aid on to it.

In the end it isn't up to me but I am more in line with FanofRPGs here.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

Okay. Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I know the current situation, and while my personal views on what should be ordained is unorthodox, unseemly, and controversial, I feel the idea of such a group would be a detriment and lead to yet more eletism. One problem is that we are not a hive-mind, people within the staff have different views, aims, and motivations. I personally think the second best idea currently is to cut nominations for staff promotions for a while, as bringing more members would lead to more bloating.

 

[Antvasima]

@FanofRPGs

Well, my apologies, but the alternative would be that I have to try to continue to try to handle the problem on my own, which has not worked out very well so far. I would appreciate if we could stop arguing about this, as we are out of better options.

As for stopping recruitment to the staff, all bureaucrats, administrators, content moderators, discussion moderators, and chat moderators go through a very strict vetting process in which every single current staff member is asked for input about them. That information is then examined, and only those who get a strong support and no serious warnings are accepted.

Given that people gradually leave the wiki, we have to also gradually try to find new reliable recruits for the sake of long-term sustainability.

 

[Lina_Shields]

Don't pick from the admins when making this group. Pick from the content and discussion mods instead.

• Dark649
• ScarletFirefly
• Monarch Laciel

Would be good choices, for a start.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Fan

But it is precisely because there is conflict, and because people are not a hive mind, that the creation of a group that would deal with such issues in a professional and level-headed way would be very important. That would be a way to properly handle these events.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

We cannot start firing several reliable staff members, if that is what you are suggesting. All of them also have other staff members as friends, so this would likely set off a domino effect, and make the situation worse.

 

[ScarletFirefly]

Personally I don't think this is a good idea, at least I don't think anything will come out if it. We are neither psychologists nor a mediating group.

That said, I still obviously believe that conflict should be avoided if possible, and if not, well rules are there for a reason. And those rules are the same for staff as they are for normal members.

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if we could return to the subject of who would be best suited for joining the group, rather than the suggestions of doing nothing and letting things fall apart or to start to fire people.

 

[Antvasima]

@Lina

ScarletFirefly does not seem interested, and Dark649 is more focused on monitoring edits than social problems. I don't know Monarch Laciel very well, so I am neutral about this suggestion.

 

[Golden_Void]

I'd be willing to help in any way, but it looks like more staff are opposing this idea than supporting it. Perhaps we should consider alternate positions?

 

[FanofRPGs]

I don't want to be blunt, but I do feel we are on the border to doing such thing, and a mediation group is like using an (old and used) bandage to fix a gunshot wound. As noted, this wiki is not a mediation or psychology center. We need to slow down in general, I think we should keep our staff as it is and let time run its course. When I joined back in 2015, there were 15 (16 counting Polar-Kun) staff. Now we have just as many admins as we did the whole staff. I get VBW has grown since then, but we are now so big we went from not being able to keep up with growth due to a low number of staff, to mass conflict from too much staff who all are different in motivation.

 

[Antvasima]

@Unite My Rice

The alternatives are to either do nothing until the problem eventually explodes, to let me vainly spend an awful lot of time trying to deal with it in private until I get a burnout, or to start firing anybody who has ever been involved in these conflicts. The last option in particular would be disastrous.

 

[Lina_Shields]

But it is precisely because there is conflict, and because people are not a hive mind

So one would think...

 

[Antvasima]

@FanofRPGs

Speaking as the by far hardest working staff member, I strongly need the help of a lot of competent and reliable staff members to handle both content revision discussions and edit monitoring work. To stop recruiting people who fulfill the requirements would cause our community to stagnate quickly.

However, this is the entirely wrong thread for such a discussion.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I feel like my thread is causing more problems than helping....

 

[Antvasima]

@Dragonmasterxz

Well, I genuinely need help with this task, but it seems like this is being counteracted and sidetracked, so we may not get anywhere.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Well, I think that the members you suggested are great and could form a good team to deal with this kind of situation. Prom, Repp and Dragon seem to be okay with joining, though Repp is a bit reluctant.

 

[Promestein]

We should stay on topic. I think calling this a "psychology" group is inaccurate, it'd really just be preventing conflicts from getting out of hand. It's a simple part of management.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein

Exactly.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I'm thinking that some people are making this much more complicated then it actually is. As Prom stated, this is not "psychology group", it's a special management group. Nothing more.

 

[Antvasima]

@Dragonmasterxyz

Agreed. Let's stay on topic please. This is too important to sabotage.