• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Why the wiki is managed the way it is

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
He/Him
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Administrator
165,925
73,634
I am extremely tired, but I thought that I should summarise my earlier responses to LordXcano's thread:

Much of the entire point of the staff is that we need a large amount of trustworthy individuals to evaluate and clear content revision threads, to minimise the number of unmotivated statistics that are inserted into the character profiles. This is what requires the greatest amount of work within the wiki. I personally handle most of the monitoring work for bad edits every single day, but need lots of help to handle this part.

The alternative would be to open up the wiki for complete chaos, with constant edit-wars, and far more unreliable edits than previously. A severely diminished staff would not remotely be able to handle them all.

I consistently ask all current staff members for input regarding every single promotion, and sort and order the information, so nobody who gets insufficient support or too serious warnings receives a staff position. It is not a perfect system, but it is the best that we have available, and we do our utmost to find people who are both dedicated, helpful, reasonable, and levelheaded.

The calc group is admittedly easier to join than the rest of the staff, as we are short on people experienced in this area, and it simply requires being able and willing to perform and evaluate reliable calculations, but the other positions all demand suitable dedication, experience, and ability to evaluate different issues.

Regarding the crucial point of the public letter, which was that I and Kavpeny should step down from our positions, we have no intention of doing so.

Although I do not like to admit it unless forced by extreme circumstances such as these ones, under our guidance the wiki has increased its monthly page view number by over 30 times from the level when I first came here, and I have spent an average of 8 hours of work every day for the last few years taking care of it. That is not a sign of wanton mismanagement. In addition, I am usually trying to be reasonable, helpful, and to treat others with respect.

That said, it is part of my job to evaluate potential threats to the structure of the wiki, and to set my foot down when something that could be dangerous is being proposed. I have however recurrently been as flexible as I can in this area as well.

I am not trying to run this wiki in an authoritarian manner. I am simply an obsessive-compulsive perfectionist, who wants everything in the wiki to run as smoothly as possibly.

I want what is best for the wiki, and as it is, it seems to need a lot of help every day to work properly. I do not want it to collapse, so I help out as much as I can. As such, I have spent several thousand hours attempting to help build this community into something worthwhile, for no pay whatsoever.

We are admittedly strict with rule-breakers, but that is because all of the wiki work is overwhelming enough to manage as it is. If we let people constantly severely misbehave as they do in various other forums, it would be completely unmanageable and make it impossible to cooperate and get anywhere with nearly any issue whatsoever.

We have grown into the the by far most popular character-tiering wiki in history because we make an attempt to keep this community relatively well-mannered, peaceful, and cooperative. It would just be a absolute mess of unreliable bickering chaos without it, and even so it has devolved too far in that direction lately.

However, as I have mentioned previously, although I do have a pretty good mind for structure and foresight, I am also overworked and autistic. As such, I am ill-equipped to handle lots of complicated interpersonal drama. Kavpeny is much better at sorting out such things than I am. Basically, I am definitely trying my best, but I do have my limitations.

Regarding the staff forum, we do need it in order to discuss certain important structure changes and to avoid more controversial threads from devolving into chaos, so I think that it should remain.

As for the other bureaucrat (Azathoth) and potential bureaucrats (Ryukama and Promestein), I do not see it as a matter of competition, but as collaboration.

I am good in certain areas, but am mainly forced into a quantity over quality position due to my sheer workload, whereas Azathoth is good at levelheaded analysis, Ryukama is hardworking and good at keeping the staff and community happy and balanced, and Promestein is very reliable, mature, orderly, and disciplined. We respectively contribute in different areas that we are better suited for.

In any case, attempting to instigate an overthrow of the current wiki management in a very public display that risks to cause massive amounts of dissent and drama, rather than taking the matter private, as the wiki rules strongly require of all staff members, is not exactly a constructive way to contribute to the wiki.
 
This goes back eight months ago. A lot of this comes from misunderstanding and failure to communicate due to the sheer arrogance and stubborn nature of certain parties.

Managing this place is not easy. Kavpeny and Antvasima want to create a friendly atmosphere here but apparently that doesn't sit to well with certain people because "this is the internet". Do we have too many editing rules? Not at all, do we have too many discussion rules? Maybe, but it's necessary due to past experience with certain topics. Again, debating this stuff is like debating politics. People are prepared to make troll accounts, sockpuppets, copy cat wikis, and then some just to push their subjective agenda about fictional characters. VSBW attracts bad attitude people who want things to go their way and some of these people even made it into the staff. That some staff members, the leaders of this community (and nothing more) would go as far as to bait each other in threads, insult their native heritage or even talk about their private business (such as marraige) on another site. And you think we have too many rules? Maybe we do but no one is putting their foot out to help these bureaucrats.

Ant has been afraid of "Staff Wars" for the longest time and it' been happening. Austrian-Man-Meat and I talked this over at least three times now. I don't give a damn what you say or do on Discord as long as you keep my private business out of it, that includes anything regarding my sister-in-laws. We tried every approach. Matthew Schroeder vents his frustration on Google Hangouts and someone shows his message to whoever and the same miscomunication that happened before, repeats itself. Even after we cleared it up.

Why is that? That people have gone to the same lengths as the dregs of the internet. We need to evaluate the maturity of staff candidates above all else from now on. Going as far as to personally attack someone is disgusting. To a point of wanting to overthrow the management as if its a literal governing body and not just "those with User Rights". Most of us are sick of it.
 
Come to understand that this is not Google+/Youtube nor is it 4chan, Tumblr, Deviantart, or anywhere else. We have try and remain stable. Kavpeny isn't as active as he used to be. So what? He's very busy. I understand it all to well. Seriously. To try and guilt trip the bureaucrats into giving up their positions and publicly no less...

Yeah, this is the extent that it's come to. What are we gonna do about it?
 
I'm very grateful and honored to have my strengths and abilities noted and to even be considered for the position.

I've worked hard to make this wiki as welcoming to new users and their contributions as I can. Staff elitism is a problem, but it'll always stick around in some form. We just have to combat it where it arises. But staff members are staff members due to their opinions being trusted. I don't believe we have too much staff members; many things that I remember used to take longer to address, such as vandalism, trolling, and other unacceptable behavior has been dealt with much more quickly, whether in the form of warnings or bans. And we have been able to tackle projects quickly and efficiently.

All of the staff members have their weaknesses, and the bureaucrats are no different. Instead of picking ourselves apart over them, we should work together for the advancement of the wiki. Serious issues should be dealt with among staff as opposed to dragged out into public, and the staff discussion is a necessary part about discussing major changes to wiki structure and rulings.
 
There's not much I can say that I haven't said in the previous thread or Promestein hasn't said.

I respect most of the decisions you make on this site. And while you have your flaws, you're overall a great bureaucrat and shouldn't step down at all.

However like Prom said, Xcano does have a valid point about staff elitism. Though that isn't really your fault.

I also really appreciate your kind words and acknowledgement.
 
Professor Voodoo said:
Wow what the hell happened? Can someone clue me in?
Click to expand...
Xcano retired but in his retirement post he said that Antvasima and Kav should retire and that sparked a big debate.
 
This happened on DBF before, nothing's really changed about this situation either. I'm seeing a mix of the same comments that I've seen before: "This isn't 4chan", "I respect everyone and my job", that kind of stuff. It's not that they're false or bad statements, its that the last person who said that retired due to stress/overwork and had a group of more corrupted admins and mods take over.

http://deathbattlefanon.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:227039

Here's the thread where I stepped in, makes for a nice origin story and it also shows some of the similar problems expressed here. Hopefully, you won't go through this mess.

The only point I 100% agree on is the staff elitism. I know this is a Staff Only thread, but at the very least I don't think that censoring regular users when they could have an equally sound if not better response. Delete this post if you want, because if I'm unable to express my thoughts alone without having a shiny colored name, that'd be discard. If Staff-Only threads can cover aspects as far as "What do you think of this look", then what'd be the point?
 
No one should delete your post Arigarmy. The point of a staff only thread is to prevent certain sensitive topics from being overrun and thus it is limited to the staff. Staff Elitism is of course always a problem. The entire community is important to this wiki's growth.
 
What Sera said. As someone who demonstrated Staff Elitism in the past and is trying to kill that within myself, I think that it's a problem that should be solved the best it can.
 
We are however, one of the very few wikis I've seen with a staff discussion board. But to be fair, we are not as simple as a Bulbapedia or Narutopedia. Our "topic" is heavily controversial.
 
This might be an opinion that's not needed, but the reason we need so many admins is because of the ton of admin locked pages, and that every page needs to have that small restriction added onto it that only admins can do. Take my massive Kirby edit recently. If I wasn't an admin, no one would have the patience to wait 24 hours before re-locking it. I'd mention the tons of trolls or a-holes, but every wiki has their fair share of those.
 
Arigarmy said:
I don't consider this to be a sensitive topic, and sensitive topics in general seem to be quite rare outside of the few drama instances in which Staff should be limited, but its still rare.
Click to expand...
You are right, that isn't sensitive. But it is certainly something only the staff should discuss for obvious reasons (the main page is locked btw). It's not a big deal either. Admins have access to the Admin Dashboard for a reason. Fandom put a User Rights system in place for a reason. Again, I am against Staff Elitism in any form but certain issues are for the staff to discuss only to keep things leveled. Hell, some threads actually start out as regular Discussions but after they are overrun they are moved to the staff board. Less people to comment, potentially less chaotic and easier to manage.
 
Ant was just asking in that thread if it looked alright my dude, that doesn't really need much Admin-only needs if all you need is a "Yeah, that looks nice." or you could disagree and drop an opinion. Doesn't seem like much, man. But if that's how it is, I won't be able to change anything, so you do what you need to.
 
@Arigarmy

I can see your point. But as Sera stated, he reason why it was Staff only was because of the fact that the layout of the wiki is managed by and only modified by the Staff.

I can admit to elitism on my own part, but we can obviously always improve.

And I also agree with the notion that some things should remain under Staff control. We shouldn't be trusting newer users with controversial changes for example.
 
If i may, regarding the staff member threads. I personally don't see a problem in that since anyone can just send a message to a staff member involved into the discusion and just tell them their opinions,reasons etc. I have done so couple of times for things i was particularly informed on and even something like the thread "front page layout changes".

I mean if someone really cares about the thread in question they can always be part of it at least indirectly and not just use the "staff elitism" as an excuse.
 
For the most part, I believe that Vswiki Staff are very reputable and helpful individuals. I have seen Staff Elitism from a user who will not be named. When I first joined this site, I saw posts like these that gave me the impression of how civilized this wikia is. When I encounted the eltisim some of you speak of I took screenshots just in case something down the future happens.

But overall, I know you guys work hard. Re-doing the striking strength project is proof of that and showing that staff and the community can work together on a project shows that it can always be better.
 
Hmm...

Regarding the size of the staff

What most people fail to realize, is that the staff is not limited to "just" monitoring daily edits.

Some other critical tasks that staff members also perform are:

  • Monitoring Content Revision threads, and attempting to resolve them
    • Quite often, the results of one particular character's change in statistics result in the successive changes of multiple characters scaled from/related to the changed statistic; hence all direct corresponding changes, and subsequent indirect changes must also be decided and brought to a logical conclusion
  • Monitoring forums and chat for malicious behaviour, or violation of the site's rules
  • Monitoring the new pages log (which is an entirely separate log from the edit log, btw) to ensure that no nonsensical pages are created, and that created pages are up to scratch and in accordance with site policies
  • Monitoring the images log (another, entirely separate log) to ensure high quality images and prevent uploading of violent graphic/pornographic content
  • Monitoring and blocking troublemakers, rule-breakers, etc.
  • Monitoring the VS threads forum board to contribute to and evaluate the results of VS discussions
  • Ascertaining the validity of calculations, from the mechanics behind them, to their mathematical accuracy, and whether or not they comply with our calculation standards
  • Monitoring any new potential new staff members, and also partaking in any on-going staff recruitment
  • Monitoring any copy-wiki, and having them credit VS Battles wiki
And that's just the regular stuff I remember off the top of my head. There are plenty of more subtle actions such as redirect management, site JS and CSS management, unlocking and re-locking pages, etcetera. Believe me, there are a plethora of administrative functions going on in the background which most people hardly notice.

In addition to all the above, staff members also partake in regular activity such as hanging out in the chat, taking to their friends in the community, and the like.

Please, keep in mind that this isn't "Kavpeny's list of reasons to worship staff members" or any equivalent nonsense, but a reminder; that there is indeed a humongous amount of administrative work beyond simply "monitoring daily edits" (a massive task itself).

Given the multitude of tasks going on at the wiki on a daily basis, I can say that our staff size is by no means excessive, and is in fact, short-handed in certain aspects (translators for one).

If anyone believes otherwise, then they are oblivious to the scope and magnitude of work required for the continuous and smooth functioning of the wiki.

Regarding the staff-only board

Seeing as I was the one who initially created the board, I would like to reiterate my reason for creating the board in the first place.

There were two reasons for creating the staff-only board:

  • To discuss certain sensitive Content Revision threads
  • To discuss site content and administration policies
Sensitive Content Revision threads discussio

The reasoning behind this is quite simple and obvious: certain characters are far too popular, and by extension, far too controversial. Content Revision threads often result in modification of statistics. However, certain Content Revision threads resulted in over 300 replies, constituting a variety of replies which resulted in a complete, jumbled mess with no one any the wiser about the conclusion. And that was just for the character's statistics. When you began to factor the corresponding statistical changes for characters in that Verse...well, you get the picture.

A large part of this was due members who disagreed with the previous rating interjecting with their own version of (oft-debunked) statistics, which would almost universally derail the thread.

As a result, I finally decided that it would be more efficient in the long run to have certain critical Content Revisions on the Staff-only board, so that the replies would be limited to a dozen members (approximate size of the staff back when the board was created) at the most. Furthermore, regular members weren't prohibited from partaking in such Content Revisions, but simply post on the message wall of a staff member, who could then determine if the argument didn't fall into the inflated or downplayed category, and thereby forward the argument on the thread. In effect, staff members functioned as a "filter" of sorts for the replies to such threads, and I can say quite happily that the system is indeed more efficient in the long run.

Site Content and Administration Policies discussio

Again, the reasoning for this is quite simple. As I listed in the previous section, staff members have a ton of administrative roles, most of which are on a site-wide basis.

As a result, it results in staff members having a better holistic picture of the site's current status, and thereby, the required future direction.

Please note my words, extremely carefully:
"Staff members are allowed to voice their opinions in the formulation of site content and administration policies, not because they are better, but because they have a better-suited perspective, and generally, a greater amount of experience."

Regarding "staff elitism"

I do NOT want to hear an argument in which a member uses a staff position to justify the validity of their argument, or state the opposing argument to be null-and-void.

I have heard of only one such instance occurring recently, and am glad that the member in question is now working to change his perception.

To clarify, the only cases in which one might make the "staff member overrules" argument are:

  • The opposing argument is not in compliance with site policies, or is against the site rules, and has hence been overruled as invalid by a staff member
  • The opposing argument has been discussed thoroughly before (or recently) and been debunked, and as such, has been overruled as invalid by a staff member
Of course, staff members are free to present their own opinions to bring a Content Revision thread rule to it's logical conclusion. However, they cannot dismiss the opposition argument in any case but the scenarios listed above.
 
@Arigarmy: I have explained in my earlier post the reason for the creation of the Staff board. Obviously, we are not perfect, and we may have made some missteps. Nevertheless, we will continue to improve upon them.
 
  • The opposing argument is not in compliance with site policies, or is against the site rules, and has hence been overruled as invalid by a staff member
and

  • The opposing argument has been discussed thoroughly before (or recently) and been debunked, and as such, has been overruled as invalid by a staff member
Are both still "I'm right because I'm staff" but with a few extra steps.

The first one is just someone going "I don't like this opinion so instead of making it my opinio I'll just make it a rule instead". And the second one is "Since I'm obviously right and the opposition is wrong their argument is invalid because I debunked it here".

Going off of the first one, we have over three times as many rules about what you are and are not allowed to say about specific franchises than we do actual rules about how to maintain order in a thread and make sure it's written properly.
 
He does have some understandable points.

It can be be a bit troublesome for a top moderator to not be very inactive just going by management logic. A community needs to be overseen quite usually if its going to function and perform at its best, and not be limited by in-available moderators.

Having revision projects be stacked up and set aside because somebody is not available to manage it isn't neccessarily a good thing either, as they can be frustrating and tiresome for normal members of a wiki. But then there are cases where this happens no matter what. Simply because of reasons the moderators could not totaly control, and thats understandable as they are still human and cannot handle everything simultaneously.

But this wiki is in no way disfunctional, not at all. There are wiki's with far more issues regarding management, and in plenty of worse shape than this wiki currently is in. The moderators can only do so much, and it should be understandable that they have limits, and are only able to do so much. Which is why normal members should do the best they can to be just as helpful and productive if they desire to see the wiki improve and continue to get better for them all.


I understand I am not a moderator, but this is just my personal unbiased opinion. I do think the moderators of this wiki work very hard and the evidence is plain enough to see. Thats all I have to say.
 
@LordXcano:

Yes, they are. Though I'm not sure what your point is? Going by your logic of "authority = BAD", there's no end to that trail of thread.

For instance, the Wikia Staff can override even the bureaucrats...does that mean they shouldn't any have powers either?

In case you haven't noticed, the staff itself has checks and balances. Nobody agrees with each other blindly. Even in the instance that somebody attempted to use staff position to justify their argument (which has happened ONCE, mind you), it was other staff members who were the first ones to disagree with the line of though of the argument, and the member in question was issued a warning to never make use of that argument again.

I really am not sure what the point of your argument is. Do you want me to "admit" that there is indeed a "loophole" in the system? Well, guess what. Every system has loopholes, and can be cheated or abused. No system is perfect, and each one has it's advantages and disadvantages.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. Heck, it's never going to be perfect. But even the current, imperfect system we have works, and works for two reasons:

  • we trust each other, and correct each other if necessary
  • more importantly, we want the system to work
Again, do those two mean our system is perfectly functional, fool-proof, corruption-proof, etc.? No, it doesn't.

So, are you going to keep sulking in your corner, and wait for the "perfect" system to arrive while poking holes in the currently functional ones by imagining their absolute worst case scenario, or are you going to goddamn GROW UP and accept that there's no perfect system?

Uh...what? Is this a trick question? Obviously there are far more rules regarding franchise-specific rules than general rules. Hint as to why: kind of in the answer itself.

General rules are far easier to lay down since they are general use cases, and hence do not require explicit specifics.

On the other hand, we have tried to implement franchise-specific rules only regarding specific situations where the scenario has been debunked multiple times, or is against the site rules.

For example, the set of rules:

  • The possibility for Madara Uchiha and the rest of the Naruto franchise characters to move at light speed has already been discussed and debunked repeatedly. Currently, any repetition of said discussion is highly annoying, and bar presence of a new canon movie, not subject to discussion.
  • Do not attempt to upgrade Naruto to sub-relativistic speed, especially based on feats from Naruto, The Last. This is an extremely exhausted topic that has been repeatedly addressed and denied on the basis of abuse of cimematic timing.
  • Please refrain from attempting to upgrade Kaguya to Star level, or above. We have exhausted the topic and decided it's inconsistent with the franchise's overall showing of power and thus it is now typically viewed as an outlier. Also, it was similarly decided that Kaguya should not be granted planet level attack potency for her casual attacks, as the only scene where this rating would be warranted is strife with PIS and a lack of feats, thus forcing us to rate her at this level only via the Expansive Truth-Seeker Ball. Insistence of this will be unappreciated. Also, although at least one of her pocket realms was confirmed to contain a star, the relative size of it was deemed questionable, and it was discarded as a result.
  • When upgrading Naruto and Sasuke, please refrain from powerscaling to the Sage of Sixth Paths. As discussed here due to the likelihood of the Sage creating the Moon with aid, thus placing him in a lower range of "Small Planet level" than previously believed, it would not affect their current ratings, as they were depicted to have gained half of this power. This is validated by their own feat, and appropriate calculatio.
  • Do not try to upgrade Toneri to Moon level, as a discussion regarding this was held here.
  • Avoid using the Naruto databook descriptions or statements from the manga about the Juubi, or otherwise, to attempt to upgrade the verse. These sources are typically not consistent and/or hyperbole and thus their contents are questionable at best.
  • Please delay the making of content revisions based on the Boruto Manga until a particular, relevant arc has concluded. The manga is still in the beginning stages of development making it difficult to accurately review feats.
could just be simplified to just one general rule:

  • No more Content Revision threads for Naruto, or any associated series.
All the way down from 5 to 1, right? Cool, right?

Come on man, if you're going to complaint about trivial issues (*cough* who cares if there are more franchise rules than general rules?), at least think through the ramifications of your own suggestions.
 
  • we trust each other, and correct each other if necessary
This is provably false by the mere fact drama exists.

  • more importantly, we want the system to work
We don't. That's why I asked for the leadership to be changed. We don't want a good system that is sustainable. What we want is for things to stay as they are. This is why every thread either ends with "Drop it" or "Case by case basis". Nobody wants change.

"So, are you going to keep sulking in your corner, and wait for the "perfect" system to arrive while poking holes in the currently functional ones by imagining their absolute worst case scenario, or are you going to goddamn GROW UP and accept that there's no perfect system?"

That's pretty rude coming from a bureaucrat. I know there's no perfect system, but there are certainly better ones than we have right now, and currently the leadership we have actively prevents any possibly changes to it.

You're saying that we're trying to improve, but we aren't. No change ever happens here.

Even right now you're trying to prevent even as minor a change as "staff should have less power"! You're just further emphasizing my point that our current leadership is completely opposed to any and all changes. I'm not saying what I'm proposing is perfect, but by trying to shut down any changes that ca be made you are treating it as if it needs no change and therefore is perfect.

"On the other hand, we have tried to implement franchise-specific rules only regarding specific situations where the scenario has been debunked multiple times,"

Wording this as politely as I can, how does "This is a controversial topic so we should shut it down and never discuss it again" sound like a good idea? At the very least change the rule so that it's "Don't bring this up unless you have evidence that wasn't presented in X, Y, Z threads."

"or is against the site rules."

Site rules set by who? Discussed by who? Justified by who? Who says these rules are necessarily good or correct? If there was a rule that you could no longe rmake any changes to a specific franchise would it matter as to whether or not that franchise is ranked correctly? No.
 
This is provably false by the mere fact drama exists.

Drama exists because of lack of maturity and certian staff having trollish behavior behind closed doors (offsite).

We don't. That's why I asked for the leadership to be changed. We don't want a good system that is sustainable. What we want is for things to stay as they are. This is why every thread either ends with "Drop it" or "Case by case basis". Nobody wants change.

No. You just want threads to end how you want them to. It doesn't work that way.

You're saying that we're trying to improve, but we aren't. No change ever happens here.

I've been staff for seven months and I have made several changes here. So has Ven ever since he joined. The wiki is willing to change.
 
@LordXcano

Look, I am too tired to reply properly, and both me and Kavpeny will go back to sleep now, but you have entered the territory of not just attempting to overthrow the current wiki management, but also instill pure anarchy with no enforcement of any rules whatsoever, along with endless repetition of already handled topics. It is not practically feasible without completely collapsing the wiki, and taxing the staff with massive overwork.

Without the agreed upon regulations, that we have worked out through many long discussions and evaluations of what seems best for the wiki, our community would die, and devolve into chaos. That's it. Our wiki is pretty chaotic as it is, but loosening the reins completely would destroy us by turning the wiki extremely hostile, causing endless edit-wars that turn our profiles completely unreliable, and making the situation completely unmanageable for the staff, no ifs or buts about it.

In addition, this is not an environment that the Fandom staff would tolerate, and they would likely shut us down.

This is not remotely acceptable behaviour, and you may currently be causing more damage to the sustained survival of the wiki than any other member that we have ever had.
 
@LordXcano

1) I don't know about you, but I trust a great deal of the Staff here. I've had cordial relations with Antvasima, Cross, The Everlasting, Darkanine, Dragon, and at least have a decent working relationship with the rest of the staff. Heck, a good bunch of us are on a google hangout where we exchange pictures and daily activities with each other regularly because we trust each other. We might not always agree, and that leads to drama, but arguments and discussion are what drive the wiki. We may run into roadblocks, but we do in fact correct each other for the most part and try to work even when we disagree.

2) This is blatantly false. Since I've arrived, there had been massive revisions to numerous verses such as Digimon, Power Rangers, Fate, and My Little Pony. We've also done numerous wiki-wide revisions to try and make the system more clear and readable for new users. The idea that nothing changes around here is utter nonsense and a fantasy. I'm even more insulted by the idea that Staff have absolute power. We don't. We evaluate things and make adjustments if the facts seem to add up, but more often than not I find myself conceding to a newer user who is more knowledgeable of a verse than I am.

We all have our biases, but the idea that we're immune to change even though change is happening every day is baffling.

3) We implement franchise-specific rules because of the fact that it gets tiring. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of arguing Naruto threads on the same exact points after debunking them repeatedly and stonewalling other threads until they cough up actual physical evidence. We don't make these rules just because we don't like a verse or how its rated. We make these rules because it's exhausting for people on both sides of the argument to fight over the same points without tend.

4) Nothing on this site is set in stone. For example, we have a rule that states that Sonic can't be upgraded to Low 2-C, yet we have an upcoming revision that will overturn that by finally compiling Sonic's feats in a logical manner that can get him his upgrade without being ridiculous. We are not utterly immune to input as you seem to imply, and cutting down the members of the Staff when its viewership is at an all time high is like having a single radio operator run an airport after it expands.
 
@Sera

"Drama exists because of lack of maturity and certian staff having trollish behavior behind closed doors (offsite)."

Either way, staff isn't entirely trustful of other staff.

"I've been staff for seven months and I have made several changes here. So has Ven ever since he joined. The wiki is willing to change."

Name one that was actually significant. As in, it's not just a change in semantics or a content revision thread. Just one. A change to Wiki policy.

------

@Ant

"Look, I am too tired to reply properly, and both me and Kavpeny will go back to sleep now, but you have entered the territory of not just attempting to overthrow the current wiki management, but also instill pure anarchy with no enforcement of any rules whatsoever, along with endless repetition of already handled topics. It is not practically feasible without completely collapsing the wiki, and taxing the staff with massive overwork."

I think this summarizes most of my problems with you and Kav.

I'm not trying to say there should be "no rules" and that it should be anarchy. You're extrapolating things too far. Which is then continued in the next few sentences where you worry that if something changes all staff will be overtaxed and the Wiki will collapse.

------

@Reppu

1) Okay.

2) I'm talking about changes to the Wiki, not Content Revision threads.

3) Then at least change it to "Unless you have more evidence than was presented in X/Y/Z threads." That prevents the problem of repeating arguments. I already said this in the other post.

4) Then why have the rule there if it can be ignored?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Catzlaflame
Bans and Vandalism
Replies
28
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
The Necessity for references rule change/addition
Replies
23
Views
969
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
  • Locked
Problem with the healing page explanation
Replies
10
Views
1K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
201
Views
27K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
PrinceofPein
LET US BRING SHINZA BACK Part 1
2
Replies
51
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top