FANDOM


  • HazelQuill7445
    HazelQuill7445 closed this thread because:
    Issue is closed with no new info. Denomination did not pass.
    05:58, October 17, 2017

    Hello RWBY Wiki community!

    Wow. A lot of staff changes been happening lately, more than expected. However, there’s one that has been coming up a lot in conversation that needs to occur. We need another bureaucrat, possibly two.

    A few rights have been shifted to being Bureaucrat only, mostly role-assigning stuff. That discovery rather firmly brought home the fact that we’ve only got the one user to rely on for stuff like this. It opened a discussion of what role in staff a Bureaucrat should actually play… moderator, decision-maker, peacekeeper, site overseer, or simply button-pusher.

    The general consensus was that there should be at least two for a wiki this active so that there is more than one person to turn to when stuff requiring a crat, like role-assigning, is needed.

    It also brought up another topic, Sgt D Grif’s general absence and inactivity with the wiki.

    Phantomlink959 is drafting up a denomination, which will go into detail for his personal reasons for thinking Grif should no longer be ‘crat. As for the guidelines, this thread will serve as discussion for his removal.

    But we also need it to be a catalyst platform for the wiki to nominate another bureaucrat. More than one, if necessary.

    These are your administrators:
    ChishioKunrin
    General Esdeath
    HazelQuill7445
    Lauren Darkmore
    Minomelo

    You are welcome to nominate any of us for bureaucrat and are not limited in number. Meaning more than one admin can be nominated if that’s what happens.

    Nominations go here: http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/RWBY_Wiki:User_Rights_Nominations

    Please feel encouraged, even highly encouraged, to weigh in. And thank you!

      Loading editor
    • I saw The Sgt. less than a week ago when we had a particularly persistent and nasty anon troll.

      That said, he is rather infrequent in his appearences.

      I'd say Chisio seems the most active, but that may just be the hours I keep.

        Loading editor
    • I normally default to asking questions of Chish, Hazel, and Mino, not in any particular order- usually just whoever seems to be active at the specific time.

      I say Minomelo and ChishioKunrin.

        Loading editor
    • Sgt. looks hella active. http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sgt_D_Grif

      Bureaucrats can be demoted now? Since when? Why? 

        Loading editor
    • Nikoli the rebel wrote:
      Sgt. looks hella active. http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sgt_D_Grif

      Yeah, he's only active in bursts, as opposed to most days.

        Loading editor
    • I think a lot depends on exactly how much the Bureaucrat still can do as administrator... I don't see much of 3 of those admins around much... but I think 2 of them hang in chat more and 2 stay out of things they don't need to most days... for the most part I think Mino, Chishio and Hazel are really good at mediating situations and I'd hate to see them unable to do that because of taking the position.

        Loading editor
    • HazelQuill7445 wrote:

      The general consensus was that there should be at least two for a wiki this active so that there is more than one person to turn to when stuff requiring a crat, like role-assigning, is needed.

      It also brought up another topic, Sgt D Grif’s general absence and inactivity with the wiki. Phantomlink959 is drafting up a denomination, which will go into detail for his personal reasons for thinking Grif should no longer be ‘crat. 

      These are your administrators:
      ChishioKunrin
      General Esdeath
      HazelQuill7445
      Lauren Darkmore
      Minomelo

      So, we'll have to choose 2 between 3 ladies, 1 lad, and a melon, to be the new Bureucracy?

      The question here is, what values are looked for and prefered in a Bureucrat? And who have those values the most?


      As for absence and inactivity.......it needs to be clarified.

      I mean, just because they don't interact too much, it doesn't mean they aren't there, watching.

      At the same time, it should be noted that the things a bureaucrat could do, for the most part can be done by admins or mods. A guy could come and vandalize an article, and before the Bureucrat can try to fix it, an admin already did, with their Staff Roles not altering their efficiency on this matter.

      This is especially the case when there's like a dozen or 2 members on staff, including Rollbacks, Mods, and Content Mods. It's like having 20 police officers in a single room.

      Sure, a Bureaucrat could step in and fix the problem, but the fact is that multiple members on staff do act quickly and fix the problem before the rest could. If an officer already arrested the perpetrator, why should the other 19 officers rush to catch them too?

      Of course, one could also argue that this promotes lazyness. The Bureaucrat has no need to step in because his 20+ fellow staff members already do. On the other hand, there's also the matter of Impression; see, let's say you made a harmless edit trying to help, but it went against the guidelines and was removed.

      Imagine if you were suddenly "confronted" by the Big Boss of the Wiki for it instead of just an admin or mod. It would be a bit more "scary", no? It'd be like being confronted by the governor themself. That could cause a bit more panic than necesary.

      Just my 2 cents.

        Loading editor
    • The Bureaucrat position is effectively the same as admin, save for the ability to add and remove rights from other users. It will not interfere with their ability to perform other tasks.

      My personal choices would be Chish and Hazel, though I am not sure Chish would be interested in the 'crat position so we'll need to wait for her to weigh in.

        Loading editor
    • Nikoli the rebel wrote:
      Sgt. looks hella active. http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sgt_D_Grif

      Bureaucrats can be demoted now? Since when? Why? 

      Since forever. It's not the first time it's been done here either, Esdeath was demoted too some time ago.

        Loading editor
    • Sgt Grif has had 275 edits this year alone, which has been off season since February. And one of the replacement admins you propose, Lauren Darkmore has had less than that in 2 years. How is doing less acceptable? General Esdeath was given warnings before he was demoted, and now Sgt Grif gets demoted out of the blue? And after Maki K and Creed Keeper lose rights without any warning. Why are you clearing house if you claim to need more people?

        Loading editor
    • Maki stepped down of his own free will, nobody even proposed it, he simply said he wanted to step down.

        Loading editor
    • Why are "number of edits done in X period of time" important?

      1) Doing a lot of edits doesn't mean one is a good candidate for mod/admin/crat. Nor is not making too little edits an indicator that someone wouldn't be a good mod/admin/crat. Quantity =/= Quality.

      One could have done, say, 500 edits in 2 months, of which 490 were so small they don't even make a difference. Or one could have done only 20 edits in 4 months, of which 18 were big, noticeable, and really improved the wiki's articles.

      2) Like I said, there are dozens of members on staff, many of them capable of doing the same basic functions, particularly when dealing with vandals or making edits to pages.

      Why should one make an edit to a page when someone else already did the job in a satisfactory manner?

        Loading editor
    • My vote's for Chish.

        Loading editor
    • 216.66.6.42 wrote:

      Sgt Grif has had 275 edits this year alone, which has been off season since February.

      Yeah, that's not very many.

      And one of the replacement admins you propose, Lauren Darkmore has had less than that in 2 years. How is doing less acceptable?

      Lauren is an admin, therefore she is on the list. She is not nominated unless someone actually nominates her onto the Nominations page, which will then open up for support and opposition. Pros and cons of the admins for a crat are presented there in vote form. A denomination, however, requires a discussion thread.

      General Esdeath was given warnings before he was demoted, and now Sgt Grif gets demoted out of the blue?

      Before my time, but Nedz was doing some fairly outlandish things that needed immediate public addressing for themselves, which then accumulated in people being so unimpressed with his behavior they didn't want him representing the wiki as a bureaucrat.

      Also, any staff is open for denomination.

      And after Maki K and Creed Keeper lose rights without any warning. Why are you clearing house if you claim to need more people?

      Maki stepped down because he didn't want to be an admin anymore, felt he wouldn't have the time and asked to be just a rollback.

      Creed said that he wouldn't have time for the Discord server and asked to be made simply a rollback.

      They both happened to do so today, because possibly today was the day for the finalization of Content Mod noms and the planned end of staff discussion on what to do about the bureaucrat situation and its moving forward.

      It's basically inactive people stepping down. We're not getting rid of anyone. And it's also why we could use people who are able and willing to make the time.

      Why are "number of edits done in X period of time" important?

      They represent activity. You can theorize that someone is watching without editing, and it's possible, sure. In the particular question of whether one member of staff is doing it, other staff would know whether or not that is the case.

        Loading editor
    • HazelQuill7445 wrote: Hello RWBY Wiki community!

      this thread will serve as discussion for his (Grif's) removal.


      Nominations go here: http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/RWBY_Wiki:User_Rights_Nominations

      "votes" for a new admin on this thread don't count as votes. The only votes on this thread are oppose Grif's denom, support Grif's denom.

        Loading editor
    • Since I did a stupid and posted a new separate thread, imma repost my denom proposal here.


      This is a motion for the removal of Sgt D Grif’s bureaucrat position; specifically moving him down one step, into the position of Admin.

      As many of you may have noticed Sgt D Grif, Grif for short, has been largely inactive on the wiki. Frequency of edits, participation in the forum, and general presence among the community has been increasingly rare over the past few years.

      It is difficult to cite examples of inactivity, however I will note that, by viewing his editing history it can be easily determined his contributions are generally several days to a week apart, compared to most other staff who are active for at least a short time every day.

      I will not disclose details, however by speaking with Grif directly I have determined that due to real life circumstances related to his work, his time and ability to contribute to the wiki is heavily limited.

      He has specifically stated he is not interested in the forums, which can be seen in that his last forum post was on the 17th of July, and prior to that on The 20th of June Nearly a full month gap; both of which were exclusively to weigh-in on decisions regarding the organization of the wiki; one for the decision to create an official Discord server, and the other to vote on user rights removal.

      It is my personal opinion that a Bureaucrat should be active to at least some degree on the wiki as a whole, not just sporadic edits and votes. A majority if his edits are typically either incredibly generic, or doing something normally handled by another admin or staff member who was unable to do it at the time; though this is also often picked up by other members of staff. Examples include uploading screenshots, moving pages, and issuing warnings/bans.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      though I am not sure Chish would be interested in the 'crat position so we'll need to wait for her to weigh in.

      I'd be fine with being a 'crat. I have a job now, but I'll still make an effort to check on the wiki each day.

      Generally, if I have time, I check the wiki while I eat before I head out to work. Then, when I get home from work, I get on the wiki again and periodically check it until I go to bed. I don't expect that to change when I finish my training and start working full time.

        Loading editor
    • I've posted a nomination for Chish to the appropriate page.

        Loading editor
    • 216.66.6.42 wrote:
      And after Maki K and Creed Keeper lose rights without any warning. Why are you clearing house if you claim to need more people?

      I can confirm that I stepped down willingly. I didn't wanna make a fuss since it's not that big of a deal for me.

      That said, Chish is a good starter choice for Bcrat. I've seen her work on the wiki long enough to say she can handle the role.

        Loading editor
    • Why did the other forum with the actual vote get closed? Because someone brought up some good points against removal? Seems fishy IMO. Fortunately the nominator and admin in favor of it didn't delete it, just closed it, so you can still read it. http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:520310#3

        Loading editor
    • I transferred the nomination post to this thread, and SYUTK copied his post in argument against it from this very thread. I had gotten myself mixed up, thinking it needed to be its own thread, when we are in fact handling all of the ongoing nominations for addition and removal of rights within this one.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      I transferred the nomination post to this thread, and SYUTK copied his post in argument against it from this very thread.

      I wasn't arguing against it. I haven't voted neither in pro nor against Griff's de-nomination.

      What I was doing is question the arguments used to justify said de-nomination. Basically:

      1) "X number of edits in Y amount of time" is not an indicator of whether someone is or could be a good or bad bureaucrat, admin, mod, etcetera.

      2) "Absence" needs to be clarified. Sometimes, an user is present, watching, but simply chooses not to interact, either because they don't feel like it or because there's no need for them to do so.

      And when it comes to Discord, as far as I've noted, Griff has been the oposite of absent, even if he doesn't talk much out of the Staff channel. In fact, he's online right now.

      3) "Inactivity" also needs to be clarified. There are dozens of staff members, and many of them react quickly to whatever stuff happens, be they bad edits, vandalism, etcetera. In fact, "reacts quickly when problems arise" is a commonly-used argument when nominating users for Staff positions.

      The reason inactivity needs to be clarified is because, due to the amount of staff members, if something happens, multiple staff members already dealt with the issue before Griff, or the rest of the staff, could even try to do it themselves. And when the problem is solved by someone, there's no need for the others to try to solve it.

      Of course, it doesn't help in that regard that nearly everything a Bureaucrat could help with can already be done by an admin, and in some cases a mod/rollback.

      And of course, in the Interaction side, being "confronted" about something you did by who is basically the Big Boss of the Wiki, instead of a normal admin or mod, is like being confronted by the governor of the state you're visiting. Just being the Bureaucrat automatically makes it have more weight, for good and for ill.

        Loading editor
    • "A majority if his edits are typically either incredibly generic, or doing something normally handled by another admin or staff member" So if an administrator does something, Grif isn't allowed to do it too? And aren't all your "big edits" handled in secrecy together behind closed doors on Discord and Skype? In fact, he was publicly "chastised" for uploading screenshots ( http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:263194 ) despite having done it for nearly every episode beforehand because you guys a a group wanted to pick who did what. And now you want to claim Grif didn't do enough? "We can coordinate and delegate tasks effectively to prevent this from recurring" So if Grif didn't do enough, it's on the fault of the administrators as a whole, as he was discouraged from editing himself. You then have the audacity to praise Chish for being chosen to do screenshots over Grif, and criticize Grif for stepping up to do the task he wanted to do when others failed? I find it very strange that all of these secretive groups on Skype and Discord continue to get more authoritative as the one staff member that pushed for transparency and community choice is now being booted. You have no evidence of real inactivity, you claim he's not around, but yet you had secret talks with him. Quite frankly, this nomination for removal is solely a power grab by the other staff and I hope everyone else sees that.

        Loading editor
    • When we checked to see who would be available to take screenshots that week, I said I would be available and had the ability to, so we had decided I would do it for that episode. Grif had been previously unable to take screenshots due to real life.

      As for Grif's inactivity:

      Phantomlink959 wrote:

      I will not disclose details, however by speaking with Grif directly I have determined that due to real life circumstances related to his work, his time and ability to contribute to the wiki is heavily limited.

      We're not judging Grif's inactivity strictly on a basis of what he does on the wiki and how often. He has told us multiple times that work tends to leave him unavailable and unable to help out, and Phantomlink even discussed this with him prior to the denomination being put into motion.

      Similarly, Maki stepped down due to inactivity after several months of clearly expressing to us that he was unavailable due to real life circumstances.

      As for the big edits being handled "in secrecy behind closed doors", it's more like we tend to collab a lot of the big edits over Google Documents in order to avoid edit conflicts and for more efficiency. We have been making an effort to ask the community what they think about ideas for big edits, such as new pages, new page types, layout changes on pages, etc. and when a community member suggests an idea, we check it out, discuss it, weigh in, and want to see what the rest of the community thinks.

        Loading editor
    • 208.83.7.219 wrote:
      Quite frankly, this nomination for removal is solely a power grab by the other staff and I hope everyone else sees that.

      Grif was made aware of Phantom's decision before he posted his demonination proposal here, days ahead of this thread being created. This is not an attempt at a power grab by other staff members, and in fact if no one else agrees with Phantom it will not go ahead - Grif will still be a Bureaucrat on this wiki.

      Speaking of which, I'm going to cast my vote.

      Against: Grif has been absent in the past; I can clearly remember multiple times trying to contact him due to shenanigans happening on the wiki and no admins being online at the time. However, a lot of that was due to Skype issues. Since the new Discord chat launched he has being online and much more reachable, able to assist and coordinate with other staff members more effectively. His work is demanding, true, but so is work for a lot of other people - myself included.  I don't believe work and real life should be a reason for denomination unless the user specifically asks for it, such as the case with Maki Kuronami stepping down yesterday.

      As for not being interested in the Forums; one doesn't have to be interested in all aspects of a place to be a part of it. Lauren is an administrator for the entire wiki and yet she sticks to chat, only coming to the mainspace when no other admin is available to help us here. Grif has a similar role; he is a Bureacrat for the entire wiki, and he steps up to help out in whichever part needs help, even if he only sticks to a small section. I think his willingness to help even in areas he isn't particularly interested in needs to be mentioned and kept in mind.

      Just because the wiki is well kept by the lower levels of staff doesn't exclude him from being a good contributor; it is after all the job of the lower levels of staff to keep the wiki running smoothly while he instead focuses on things like general layout, coordinating votes, and generally being the 'big scary man' at the top. Plus his willingness to help us lower level staff members where necessary instead of simply delegating and leaving it to us with no help at all is to be commended.

      SpiritedDreaming|EDGElord (talk) 03:12, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

        Loading editor
    • 208.83.7.219 wrote: Why did the other forum with the actual vote get closed? Because someone brought up some good points against removal? Seems fishy IMO. Fortunately the nominator and admin in favor of it didn't delete it, just closed it, so you can still read it. http://rwby.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:520310#3

      That's because the denomination discussion is here already, as the closure says. And of course I left it visible to still be read.

        Loading editor
    • 208.83.7.219 wrote: Quite frankly, this nomination for removal is solely a power grab by the other staff and I hope everyone else sees that.

      This accusation is an attempt at creating drama. There isn't any "power" to be grabbed. It's a wiki and people either communicate and pull their weight, or don't.

      Anon, if you feel that Grif's denomination is something you oppose, then simply vote against it. Rules ask for a registered name for voters in order to prevent double votes. Derailing the conversation with accusations of conspiracies simply comes across as troll-like behavior.

        Loading editor
    • 208.83.7.219 wrote:
      Quite frankly, this nomination for removal is solely a power grab by the other staff and I hope everyone else sees that.

      There is no limit to the number of Bureaucrats there can be. There for no need for a power grab.

        Loading editor
    • SpiritedDreaming
      SpiritedDreaming removed this reply because:
      Comment was inappropriate
      06:30, October 8, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Comment removed for being inappropriate.

        Loading editor
    • SpiritedDreaming wrote:
      Comment removed for being inappropriate.


      It was honest though :/

        Loading editor
    • how rude am i allowed to be?

        Loading editor
    • Lord Jaric wrote: There is no limit to the number of Bureaucrats there can be. There for no need for a power grab.

      If this is true, I'd also like to cast my vote:

      Against: Inactivity is not the issue, availability is, so in this case it seems best to use this opportunity to bolster the number of Bureaucrats to 3 or possibly four, (we probably should not exceed the number of Admins), there is no point relieving Griff of the responsibility unless he abuses them or claims his right to step down himself, in the mean time we can always consider him a back-up, the Wiki would hardly have an issue occur that can't wait a month outside the season unless more active ones die suddenly or become permanently inactive for some reason.

      Edit: edited to clarify the part I was quoting.

        Loading editor
    • Against: To be honest, although I believe work still causes some unavailability for Grif, the biggest problem was that Skype doesn't work for him, so he has actually been more available and easier to contact thanks to Discord. On top of that, FIRST member exclusivity of episodes being changed from 24 hours to 3 days gives him more of an opportunity to help out in preparation for our updates on the newest episodes. As I recall, Saturdays are/were the worst for him.

      If people still feel there is a problem here, then I agree with 73 that we could add one or two more bureaucrats. I'd say probably add one more. Having 4 seems overkill.

        Loading editor
    • I will support you, Phantom, but only if you make me a Chat Moderator. 

        Loading editor
    • Nikoli the rebel wrote:
      I will support you, Phantom, but only if you make me a Chat Moderator. 

      He has no power, I think. According to Hazel in the OP, only Bureaucrats can promote and assign roles.

      So, you're licking the shoes of the wrong man.

        Loading editor
    • SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote: According to Chish in the OP

      Confusing me with Chish?

        Loading editor
    • HazelQuill7445 wrote:

      SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote: According to Chish in the OP

      Confusing me with Chish?

      Um...................eh..............................yeah.

        Loading editor
    • just kinda got here so......



      yeah....

        Loading editor
    • Hi all. I know it’s been a few days, but I hope you pay attention to what I have to say. I spoke with Grif about the burden I feel with this denomination in play and he gave me the go ahead to speak honestly.

      So, this is how I feel about things.

      Support: My number one reason for supporting Grif’s removal from Bureaucrat is that he doesn’t want the position but can’t make himself leave. This has been the case for, based on conversational content, at least the last two years.

      He has told me that it makes him “feel like a piece of shit to be honest” and how he “would have stepped down ages ago” except that he doesn’t feel anyone else is able to be ‘crat. “…there’s people who do 10x more work than me but they don’t currently have the leadership sort of things”.

      Back in January, Grif gave me a story-filled rundown of the lack of proper merits in staff members. I was also told a story of an admin Grif once thought had the potential for becoming a bureaucrat. He had informed them of his intention to nominate them as soon as they proved to him that they were ready. This situation between the two of them was not known to the rest of the admins.

      Even as Grif continued telling me this tale, it was clear that he had kept dangling the position of bureaucrat as a carrot to this other admin while continually judging their performance as a staff member, though Grif lacked the self-perception to realize this. Grif told me that in the end he didn’t post his write up nominating them because they started to ask when he would and he felt that they were copping an attitude and “taking a turn downwards”.

      This particular conversation with Grif included some heavy hinting that he wanted me to be next, even though it was never outright mentioned. I’d hoped that I was misreading this particular undertone, but it was proven to be so when Nedz sought me out a day or two later. He wanted to confirm that I had told Grif I was ready to become the next admin, which I answered honestly had never been mentioned and that at the time I had too much going on to be interested.

      Since January, though, I have looked at Grif as a person who doesn’t want to be where he is but can’t make himself let go.

      Other reasons for my deciding in favor of his removal come up when I take a look at what he’s done since I’ve come to the wiki.

      As a Bureaucrat, it is true that Grif is hardly ever present. When he is, he can be helpful, but he occasionally also behaves in a manner that I personally don’t see as good for the wiki.

      Primarily, Grif doesn’t particularly encourage growth and change, and will in fact block it. My first exposure to him relates to this, when I suggested on the Admin Request Board, after consulting with accessible staff, the need to split the image galleries due to lag. Grif resisted the logic for this and drew the decision out for several days despite agreement with it until finally a member of staff decided to just move forward with it.

      This is consistent with happenings after Grif joined the staff Skype group I was a part of. I would bring to his attention concerns that were brought forward by users of the wiki only to simply have the addressing the issue be refused. An example of this was when SYUTK pointed out on the old TopNav that a drop menu located rightmost gets cut off and could easily be switched to a heading that did not have a drop menu. There was absolutely no reason not to make the switch so that the wiki functioned more smoothly for users who encounter that problem, but Grif said no.

      Grif would also delay decisions based on the need for more staff input… even when several of us were present and in agreement. In other cases, when consensus was actually reached, Grif would backtrack the conversation into not actually having agreement so therefore we would do nothing. Most recently this happened more than once when we as a staff tried to address the “additional bureaucrat” issue.

      Probably the most frustrated I ever personally got with Grif’s approach to the wiki was when I had to have an extended discussion with him arguing my case about why a comment about assaulting a character via her arse needed to be removed. Grif finally agreed to edit the comment after I provided examples of when similar comments had been removed in the past.

      Finding the conversation now recalls to me that it went down like this: He agreed to its removal when he saw “I was bothered by it”, but when he realized that as a rollback I couldn’t remove comments myself, and therefore hadn’t been given the rights to make the call to be bothered by a comment, he said it was going to stay. Even though we didn’t know each other at that time, he went so far as to insinuate that I was trying to ask for a personal favor of him to remove the comment and he wouldn’t “do it for me any more than he’d ban a person from chat for a random user”. I was completely flummoxed by this response to pointing out an inappropriate comment. I recall now that this situation had left me so upset at the notion that even keeping the wiki clean would require battles in which validity depended on your ranking in staff that I strongly considered quitting.

      There have also been times when Grif disregards staff agreement in favor of his own opinion. An example would be toward the end of Volume 4, months into our established rhythm of consult-and-do, the absent Grif decided he didn’t like one of our decisions on a profile pic and came into the group chat to make us change it, disregarding that it had been one of many group votes. A profile pic may have been too small to fight over, but it felt very disrespectful to those of us who had been doing the work all along.

      In the capacity of an administrator, Grif has some merit. He’s taken screenshots when others couldn’t. Since the move to Discord, when staff discussions are happening and he’s around he’ll participate.

      As a bureaucrat, though, when Grif puts himself down as “pretty fucking useless as it is”, it’s healthier for Grif, the rest of staff, and the wiki that he no longer be in that role.

        Loading editor
    • I support General Esdeath

        Loading editor
    • If you are supporting the nomination of an admin, please use the [nominations page] and follow the guidelines laid out in the page to make sure your nomination is counted.

      Only denominations should be held in this thread, such as the one regarding Sgt D Grif that is currently being held.

      Please note that proper votes need more than simply “I support this person.” A reason should be given explaining why you think they would make a good admin.

        Loading editor
    • Reconsidering my vote: In light of what HazelQuill said and revealed in her vote, I think I may reconsider my vote, so I'm retracting my "Against" vote and replacing it with "Undecided" for now.

        Loading editor
    • Reconsidering vote: For reasons similar to Chish, due to myself being unaware of certain events (some of which is due to my own lack of checking the Staff Discord), I will also be reconsidering my vote. I retarct my "Against" and switch it to "Undecided" as well.

        Loading editor
    • Nikoli the rebel
      Nikoli the rebel removed this reply because:
      20:52, October 11, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • ....I think you're misunderstanding something, I ain't up for nomination and even if I was I wouldn't take it.

        Loading editor
    • Phantomlink959 wrote:
      ....I think you're misunderstanding something, I ain't up for nomination and even if I was I wouldn't take it.

      Promotions/nominations are also outside the purview of this thread.

        Loading editor
    • 73.Anon.52 wrote:

      Promotions/nominations are also outside the purview of this thread.

      Exactly, Phantom. You didn't know this? You just lost my vote. tsk tsk tsk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

        Loading editor
    • General Esdeath
      General Esdeath removed this reply because:
      22:02, October 11, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • HazelQuill7445 wrote:

      Phantomlink959 is drafting up a denomination, which will go into detail for his personal reasons for thinking Grif should no longer be ‘crat. As for the guidelines, this thread will serve as discussion for his removal.

      But we also need it to be a catalyst platform for the wiki to nominate another bureaucrat. More than one, if necessary.

      As mentioned in the first post, the most relevant section I am quoting immediately above, the purpose of this thread is to serve as the discussion area for the potential denomination of Grif, the current bureacrat, as well as the area from which users are informed of the opportunity to nominate new bureacrats for the wiki.

      While discussion of both the nominations and weighing in on the denomination are encouraged, this is also an important matter for the wiki. I have not consulted with other staff while making this post and thus am only speaking personally, but with that said:

      I would like to request that we keep the unrelated topics and joking around out of this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Minomelo
      Minomelo removed this reply because:
      spam
      22:17, October 11, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Nikoli the rebel wrote:
      73.Anon.52 wrote:

      Promotions/nominations are also outside the purview of this thread.

      Exactly, Phantom. You didn't know this? You just lost my vote. tsk tsk tsk

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

      Dude, you know he can't be made Bureaucrat regardless of your votes, right? I thought this was pointed out to you after you tried to get him to give you a position in exchange for a vote.

        Loading editor
    • Arkantos95 wrote:

      Dude, you know he can't be made Bureaucrat regardless of your votes, right? I thought this was pointed out to you after you tried to get him to give you a position in exchange for a vote.

      ..............Were you so drunk that you took him seriously?

        Loading editor
    • Sarcasm via text has a tendency to get lost in translation unless made glaringly obvious.

        Loading editor
    • How about getting back on topic in this thread, folks.
      Glynda Profile Volume 3
      Looking up at Glynda
        Loading editor
    • So, while I didn't originally plan on commenting here due to not wanting to cause disruption (which unfortunately seems to have been happening frequently already in this thread), there is a few things on Hazel's vote that I'd like to comment on, due to the conversations involved taking place on Skype IMs and groups that people don't have the ability to see, unlike actions taken on the wiki itself.

      "He had informed them of his intention to nominate them as soon as they proved to him that they were ready. This situation between the two of them was not known to the rest of the admins. Even as Grif continued telling me this tale, it was clear that he had kept dangling the position of bureaucrat as a carrot to this other admin while continually judging their performance as a staff member, though Grif lacked the self-perception to realize this."

      With the user in question, I did NOT "keep dangling the position", the user was aware that I did plan on eventually writing a nomination for the position, however it did not ultimately pan out. As for this situation not being known to other administrators, it never came up because I never completed or posted the nomination. I offered feedback as to my thoughts on how they performed their role, yes, however I also provide that feedback to any other staff member that requests it. This user was not given any unfair or special treatment.

      "Nedz sought me out a day or two later. He wanted to confirm that I had told Grif I was ready to become the next admin"

      In regards to this, Nedz had independently and coincidentally contacted me later that day stating "I'm also thinking about nominating Hazel as an Admin when V4 ends, she has done a very great job and has some great potential." To this, I simply replied that I "had a lengthy talk with her" and that Hazel did indeed have potential. I'm not entirely sure why Nedz came to his conclusion that I had asked her if she was ready, but I did not state that Hazel was "ready", nor did I disclose a single thing about my conversation with her to him. In fact, today is the first time I've found out that Nedz and Hazel had said conversation, this is news to me. During my conversation with Hazel, I did express that she had great potential and thanked her for going above and beyond her duty as rollback when it came to improving the wiki, however I did not make any promises to Hazel, Nedz, or any other user that she would be "next".

      "In other cases, when consensus was actually reached, Grif would backtrack the conversation into not actually having agreement so therefore we would do nothing."

      On many occasions, due to time zones and work hours, I would enter a conversation after several staff members had already discussed it, but prior to anything occurring from it. If I had thoughts on the matter that differed from those mentioned at the time, then I would raise them. The hours I'm online and active tend to not coincide with a lot of the other staff members (for a while, I was watching the chat's "night shift" by myself as the sole staff member present, as we attempted to find moderators to cover that position). Personally, I do not believe a "consensus" can be reached when only a portion of the staff was witness to a conversation, and if said conversation has yet to be acted upon, then further input by those who have yet to see it should be encouraged. However, just because I by myself was in opposition to something, it never meant that the plan could not continue, the decisions were reached by a majority, not by whoever had the highest staff rank. Differences in opinion are why we have a diverse staff group, if we all agreed 100 percent of the time, we'd never take other viewpoints into consideration.

      "He agreed to its removal when he saw “I was bothered by it”, but when he realized that as a rollback I couldn’t remove comments myself, and therefore hadn’t been given the rights to make the call to be bothered by a comment, he said it was going to stay. Even though we didn’t know each other at that time, he went so far as to insinuate that I was trying to ask for a personal favor of him to remove the comment and he wouldn’t “do it for me any more than he’d ban a person from chat for a random user”. I was completely flummoxed by this response to pointing out an inappropriate comment. I recall now that this situation had left me so upset at the notion that even keeping the wiki clean would require battles in which validity depended on your ranking in staff that I strongly considered quitting."

      This situation unfortunately, I believe Hazel interpreted my statements different from how I meant them. I had said that at the time, I personally didn't think the comment NEEDED to be removed, but that I had no objections to if a forum mod or another administrator removed it (some staff members are more strict than others as to what's acceptable when it comes to borderline things). After talking with other Forum Mods during that day, I briefly thought that Hazel was a Forum Mod instead of a Rollback and mistakingly gave them the go-ahead to proceed as they saw fit. I then apologized to Hazel about the situation, but stated that because I found that the comment didn't NEED to be removed, acting on her request instead of going by my own judgement would be a violation and abuse of rights. However, I also stated that if there were past situations of similar comments being removed, then I would indeed remove it, since maintaining consistency in how we run the wiki is important and would change my judgement. Hazel then found examples of similar situations, at which point I acknowledged that my stance was more lenient compared to others' and then removed the comment. During this scenario, I also encouraged her to seek a second opinion if any other administrator of forum moderator was present.

      "An example would be toward the end of Volume 4, months into our established rhythm of consult-and-do, the absent Grif decided he didn’t like one of our decisions on a profile pic and came into the group chat to make us change it, disregarding that it had been one of many group votes."

      This situation, unfortunately, I do not remember very well, nor can I find it in the large group message history. To the best of my knowledge, I came onto the wiki after work and saw that an image that was decided upon and uploaded was of poor quality and did not meet the high standards of our wiki, at which point I logged on to Skype (I believe this was before we started using Discord) and raised my concerns that the image was of quality below our expectations and usual standards. However, I may be wrong on this particular point.

      As a comment regarding my overall activity on episode releases (to which the quotes about me feeling like a piece of shit and useless came from), sponsor releases used to take place on Saturdays, days where I would not come home from work until late at night due to Saturdays being a weekly mess at my work, causing me to finally arrive home completely exhausted after a 12+ hour shift with most of the work already completed. I am hoping with the Thursday sponsor release and 3-day sponsor window, I'll be able to contribue much more. In addition, there have been manager switch-ups at my workplace which has made my workplace less toxic than it used to be, leaving me in less of a downtrodden mood than I was in my January conversation with Hazel. Does my work situation excuse my lack of activity? Of course not. However it does provide context into my comments and why I expressed them.

      I do not intend to portray Hazel as being "wrong". Prior to posting her vote, I gave her my blessing to make an honest vote mentioning things from a conversation we had previously agreed to as confidential between the two of us regarding how I was feeling with my life at the time and a brief opinionated history of the wiki (where the whole bureaucrat carrot thing took place). I do entirely believe that Hazel has posted her take on the situation honestly, however in a situation like this, I feel that both sides should be heard from. The point of my post is NOT to discredit Hazel's in any form, simply to provide my perspective and feeling towards the scenarios mentioned so that users may feel more confident in a decision for or against this nomination, as two staff members have posted that they were not fully aware of the scenarios involved. Having heard from both sides should hopefully make more users comfortable in posting their opinions.

        Loading editor
    • HazelQuill7445 wrote: How about getting back on topic in this thread, folks.

      Sgt D Grif wrote: there is a few things on Hazel's vote that I'd like to comment on

      Well, that'll do. ^.^ LOL. That was amazing timing, I love it.

        Loading editor
    • I would just like to state that I have been monitoring this and my position remains unchanged

        Loading editor
    • Ah, hearing from both users regarding these events is very useful in this case. In which case, I return my vote to the previous Against for the same reasons I have already stated, as this has cleared up things I was considering in the wake of Hazel’s post.

      Thank you to both Hazel and Grif for posting such lengthy and honest opinions on the situation.

        Loading editor
    • I intend another response, in light of Grif's refuttal, but it's taking awhile to put together and I've got a lot to do the next handful of days.

      Typically we have allowed a week for these. As this discussion is ongoing (unlike the rollback denom) I think it should be safe to say that this probably shouldn't close on the 14th. Which is also launch day. So... do we agree, or do we want this closed before the volume begins?

        Loading editor
    • I see no reason to oppose the denomination vote being extended for an extra few days. Have it done before the second episode perhaps? Maybe a day or two after the the first episode of V5 goes public to non-First?

        Loading editor
    • I would like to propose future denominations be extended to two weeks outright.

        Loading editor
    • I have to get ready for work soon, so I'll come back and post more about my thoughts on the situation. Though, I wanna say, what Grif said about staff consensus is exactly the reason why, when I bring something up to staff, I leave it there for a couple or more days to make sure everyone on staff gets to see it and give their opinion at some point before I act on it.

      Edit, hours later:

      Now that we have both sides, after taking Grif's side of the story into consideration, I'm tempted to put my vote back to Against. However, Hazel said she intends to respond to Grif's rebuttal, so until I see the response, I think I might keep my vote on Undecided for now.

        Loading editor
    • OK, I have a wicked-tired draft from the other day (yesterday?) that probably isn't professional enough b/c I went for paraphrasing to get a point across, and it was suggested to me that I provide screenshots with bits blocked/cropped out that are private or protecting people. This takes up a buttload of time, especially if I'm going to organize it by points, which seems wise at this juncture, and that's in addition to wiki and RL stuff.

      It also came up that one week is the minimum not the maximum that a thread like this is supposed to be up, but usually one week wraps it up. Sorry for dragging this out. I might have to respond in stages.

        Loading editor
    • I will point out that Grif doesn't want the role but can't make himself let go. He didn't even refute it.

      It's Grif's pattern of behavior to be both admitting and resistant about his desire to no longer be bureaucrat. Telling me he's miserable and wants out and hoping someone will magically take over for him winkwinkstuckouttongue, then saying that he doesn't really wanna go... probably after a bit he'll leave, since he definitely wants to eventually... And then stating me, or most recently Phantomlink, must have misunderstood what he said.

      Grif has come to me more than once since January to drop-hint about wanting staff improvement. Considering the topic started with him wanting better people around so that he could leave, of course I took these conversations as reminders that he wanted to enable his departure. I figured those were when he was in "don't want to be crat anymore" mood swings. He'll likely respond with saying he never meant to do that, I'm reading into things, which is as predictable as him claiming not to have pressured that admin.

      He pushes for replacements but changes his mind and claims that's never what he meant. He literally even picked a replacement (see previous mention about carrot dangling, which I am most definitely not changing my opinion on) but then found reasons not to go through with it. Mid-convo of telling me that he was giving this admin the crat position so he could leave he told me about how he actually wasn't planning on stepping down after giving it to them.

      Meanwhile, he's barely even involved with the wiki. He doesn't even do the stuff he claims on the staff page. Grif's not a bad sort of person; I am not saying that. But I am saying that this is what he's put me through about the wiki and his status as bureaucrat for the wiki. It's not a healthy situation to say he wants out, wants to step down and then push back when the discussion returns or the opportunity creates itself.

      Grif Screenshot multiple
      1. Grif's admission he wants someone else instead of him as a crat. Skype emotes move, btw.
      2. Grif's admission that he's wanted to step down for awhile.
      3. Grif claiming the wiki itself was his idea first.
      4. Another reference to not wanting to be crat with "ensuring it every day", which, of course, he doesn't do because he has barely been around all this time. This was even pointed out two years ago by someone. I can find the link later.

      Grif screenshot less than enthusiastic about

      Grif screenshot ages ago Grif screenshot backtracking step down
      Also, when I spoke about derailing/backtracking consensus, I meant conversations that he participates in, not the ones that he sees after the fact. As I said about the bureaucrat nom, we all discussed what role we wanted a crat to play in the wiki and there wasn't much overlap until we all pretty much, Grif included, mentioned at some point 2 was a good number to work with for now. As soon as I pointed out that we'd agreed on one thing at least, Grif started talking about not committing ourselves to a number. The encouragement to open up voting for a new crat was slated to be the Saturday we chose, to make it after the content mod and before the new volume. A day or two before Saturday came around, Grif made a speech and tried to stop it from happening, and I had to protest that we had agreed for more than a week that our discussion was toward this goal date. These are just two most recent examples.

      I'm out of time and need to leave for work. These are just samples of what I personally have been through with Grif. And I repeat, it's not healthy for any of us.

        Loading editor
    • Sgt D Grif wrote:

      I also provide that feedback to any other staff member that requests it.

      Sorry, one other thing before I leave. To my knowledge going to Grif for performance reviews is not something that happens with our staff. If any staff member has actually done this, please feel free to say so.

        Loading editor
    • Grif made a speech and tried to stop it from happening. That is not how it played out. In your original post (which was since edited) in the Discord there was incorrect information stated including that I was going to step down if two bureaucrat nominations were made. I stated "There still hasn't been a consensus on what course of action is even going to be taken" the prior conversation had ended with people voicing various opinions and overall no one really knew what was even going on, in fact not even every administrator had even seen the discussion. Bureaucrat nominations have ALWAYS been open, this announcement itself did not open them, nor did any issues I raise suggest that nominations should be closed. A final plan on what we were actually doing (Phantom posting this nomination and users simply being encouraged to nominate bureaucrats with a handy list of them posted) finally came about AFTER me pointing out several unanswered questions as to what was occurring (my so-called speech Hazel mentioned). Prior to this, people were still discussing if we wanted to do an admin-vote, if we wanted to put bureaucrats as a reelection sort of system, and I said we needed to RESOLVE what EXACTLY we're doing before we say what date it's happening. Sorry if this reply comes off as a bit emotional, but I never tried to stop this.

        Loading editor
    • Alright. Had a conversation with Griff on Discord about this, and he gave me the Greenlight to share it here. Here are the pics.

      ConvWithGrif1
      ConvWithGrif2
      ConvWithGrif3
      ConvWithGrif4
      In other, irrelevant news, how very funny that Mercury was actually called "Marcus" back when the Wiki used Fan-Nicknames in V1.
        Loading editor
    • I have temporarily removed my first screenshot proving I was talking to Grif, due to Grif receiving unwanted stuff on Skype. Will amend later once home.

        Loading editor
    • Might be a touch rude, but Grif, I don't think you read my paragraph thoroughly. I said "encouragement to open up voting" meaning that we were encouraging people to step up and cast a vote. Of course voting is always open and I deliberately chose the word "encouragement" to avoid implying otherwise. Also, the context is specifically about you trying to prevent it from happening on the pre-agreed goal date of Saturday, not that you tried to prevent it from happening completely.

      I am also seeing in your post that you're taking credit for a consensus that you took no part in other than to say stuff to prevent the existing ones: ~"Final plan came about after I spoke up." Then there's redirecting SYUTK by offering up Preda as having anything to do with this discussion, which they do not. I see you telling SYUTK that your problem with admins was that they didn't take action after discussion while in the post here you are talking about how moving forward was what you opposed us doing.

      Also, if I edited a post, it was to fix a typo. Otherwise I create a new comment or explain that I edited to add (ETA). This has always been the case with me; I even remember Mini asking me about it when we first joined the wiki.

      I really am sad this is devolving into a debate between us. I set out originally to cast my vote because of your very clear expression of not wanting to be where you are. Putting my every word through the rails like this when my intent is to look out for you is just... I don't even know what to say.

      I am going to add that all admins saw the conversation and took part in some way, apart from Lauren who chose to say nothing. Chish, once asked why she wasn't saying anything, admitted that she didn't know what to say. Maki chose to finalize his decision to demote himself from admin, which he'd already put forth weeks ago that he was considering. Mino and I both encouraged the discussion.

      Sorry about the contactable info on the screenshot. I took it down once I saw it on my break and will replace the image with one that has it edited out when I am home.

        Loading editor
    • Alright, it came across as you saying that I was trying to stop the entire thing, even with the context you included, so hopefully you can understand why I felt it necessary to respond to that statement. Sometimes, different people take the same sentence differently, especially when pronouns get thrown into the mix. And it's no big deal about the discord tag, I figured out how to turn off messages/requests from people not sharing a server. So here's to hoping everything is cool on both sides.

        Loading editor
    • Well, hopefully the Hazel and Grif back-n-forth portion of this is over. I still haven't added a link to that thread I said I would, but I don't think it's significant or being waited for.

      So this is where things are at for active votes:

      • Phantomlink959 is in favor of Grif's demotion due to inactivity over the years.
      • 73.Anon.52 is against Grif being demoted because they figure the more the merrier and Grif can be a backup.
      • HazelQuill7445 is in favor because Grif doesn't want the role, has used his lack of desire for it to increase the stress/burden on at least two other staff members, and as a coworker has on multiple occasions stalled or derailed helpful actions for the wiki.
      • SpiritedDreaming is against because she feels that Grif is more able to be active and contactable since the staff's increase use of Discord.

      Any more discussion or questions to be had? At the moment, this looks to be 2 and 2.

        Loading editor
    • I vote...........Against.

      The reason being that, on one hand, it's true that Grif's attitude towards leaving is so zig-zagging that it's like a rollercoaster and that in itself is frusfrating, and he probably/likely has given input late in staff discussions due to his Skype-related problems.

      His "dangling of the carrot" over the staff can also be a problem if only Bureaucrats can promote other staff from now on. And if he "delayed consensus", even if it was only because others treated his word as absolute, then it's true that not much could've been done even if the ideas were unilateraly good.

      On the other hand, Griff is not the only Bureaucrat anymore. Chish is the new Crat, and that means the problems are solved to an extent by the sheer fact that you can choose which road to travel. If you ever felt like Grif's word was absolute and he had the final word on every decision, then you no longer need to feel like that because Chish's word is also available and has equal weight.

      If Griff prevented promotion of staff with ridiculously-high standards, well, now Chish also can dangle the carrot. And if she feels someone deserves a promotion, and majority agrees, then Griff can't really "delay/backtrack" this consensus.

      And if an idea has nothing wrong with it, but you felt like you needed Griff to give you the green light to carry it out, well, now you don't strictly need him to give you the greenlight, Chish can do it too.


      Basically, if you feel like dealing with Griff in decision-making is too frusfrating but needed to be done because "He's the boss, his vote overrules all of ours", even if it wasn't true, then just deal with Chish instead.

      At the same time, as has been noted before, ever since Discord was added in, he's been far more available than he was before, which allows Griff to remain helpful, if anything be more helpful due to more activity and availability.

      And in an overall sense, it doesn't hurt to have 2 Bureaucrats instead of 1. If anything, it's preferred since if something happens to one of them, we still have the other to carry on. Maybe, if another bureaucrat is added, Griff could be denominated. But at the moment, there's no real need.

        Loading editor
    • SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote:
      I vote.........

      Basically, if you feel like dealing with Griff in decision-making is too frusfrating but needed to be done because "He's the boss, his vote overrules all of ours". ...

      tbh I think the only real problems that I've seen with Griff are cases where Griff was mostly unavailable and didn't know what the concensus was yet had to make a decision.... but Griff should be far less intrusive on another 'crat's edits.

      It'd be a problem if Griff had trouble respecting authority, but he doesn't.

        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.