The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 18: Difference between revisions

 

 

== New user adoption ==

:I agree. It might encourage "newbies" to edit more and feel more helped and less "lost" when the wiki is full of more experienced users. I also feel it would be an opportunity for the community to get to know itself more. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small> 22:46, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

::I agree as well. I aren't that sure how we'll go around it though, since tbh most people who sign up make a few edits and leave. {{WHsig|05:35, February 29, 2012 (UTC)}}

::::A very good idea for the new user to become a great professional editor. It can be possible if they will sign up for this, since most (or maybe some) might edit a few and just leave without coming back or they may decline because they are experienced editors from other wikis and/or Wikias. Just saying.<div style="width:10em; height:2em; border:3px solid #366600; background-color:#99FFCC; text-align:center; padding-top:0em"><div style=" color:#33CCFF">ThomasWikia <small>^{[[User:ThomasWikia|Main]]|[[User_talk:ThomasWikia|Talk]]}</small></div></div>09:52, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

 

:Rather than locking an entire namespace, I think it would be better if we adjusted our fanon policies a little. [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki_talk%3APolicy%2FCreation_Policies#Altered_fanon_policies A proposal] was made some time ago and I'd rather go along with what LiR proposed back in August. That way, it may give less of an opportunity for an anon to vandalise an admin's userpage as a response to their fanon being immediately deleted. As for vandalising other fanon articles...I've only seen it happen on a few occasions in the past and I'd go along with how we'd deal with any other form of vandalism. Then again, I was, and still am, absent so I'm not sure how much of it has happened lately.

 

::Yeah, what he said :p -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 22:11, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

:::If we could actually manage to get discussion going on a policy for once, the one LiR made god knows when would be good. Otherwise this would be the way to go, since anons aren't allowed to make fanon anyway. Imo if they really want to they can just create an account. {{WHsig|04:03, March 9, 2012 (UTC)}}

*'''Other''' - Other/none of the above (please state in your response what you would prefer).

 

----

----

'''Option A''' - If they want to make fanon so much, they can just make a account. As it is, 95% of fanon now is made by registered users, so it wouldn't change much, and might even get more users registering this way. {{WHsig|01:19, March 11, 2012 (UTC)}}

'''Yes''' - Obviously the increase in traffic on the page and the fact that our administrators are having a hard time dealing with angry anons and accumulating anon contributions means that something should be done, or at least investigated. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 02:38, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

----

----

I'm sorry if I'm a bit confused since I wasn't following since the beginning of the discussion, but which one is the current policy of the fanon? Is it the one which the Fanon namespace has not been locked yet? If so, then I choose:<br />'''Yes''' - Refraining anons from creating fanons will eventually make them have to register. Registered users are easier to be communicated with and backtracked, so we can lend helping hands easier to them. Besides, if they can't make fanons, they might end up in player stories instead. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 11:38, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

:::#After we're satisfied with the outcome of that, we proceed to ranking the individual solutions by level of preference, with the idea preferred by the most people being implemented.

:::I realize this procedure may seem long and drawn-out, but previous efforts to make a decision have failed, so I don't see much of a choice other than to alter the process by which we make a decision. I'm very much open to other points of view on how we reach this decision, including the process we use. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 05:11, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. So, I've decided to act boldly and to utilize a rule in our policies, specifically [[The_Sims_Wiki:Policy#Amendment|Amendment rule #2]]. Since locking the namespace completely is a greater change from current practice than a change to our policies easing the rules on anon creation, I implemented the rule change that was proposed. The language of it is as follows:

:''Unregistered users who create fanon content (that is of good enough quality to keep on the wiki) shall be contacted by an administrator and asked to register an account and claim their fanon creations. These users shall have at least 72 hours to do this; after that time, an administrator may delete fanon created by anonymous users, regardless of quality. Anonymous users who continue to create fanon content after administrator contact are subject to warnings and blocks, as well as content deletion.''

My implementation of that rule change is in line with current policies that give administrators the right to change policies, unless the community objects to the changes. So, if you object to the change I've made, I encourage you to voice that objection below. But I'd say that since we all agree that the status quo was not a good place to be, any change is better than what we had. I'd encourage you to give the new rule a chance before, but in the end the right to object to the rule change is up to you. Please understand that I do not wish to bypass the decision-making of the community; I am simply exercising a rule in order to break a deadlocked decision. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 03:22, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

 

==Katy Perry==

:::I'd rather it would be that a change would happen with the '''majority''' of the community agreeing to it via a "vote" or "consensus". The only reason that I personally feel a "vote" is more effective than a "discussion" is because a "discussion" has the tendency to die pretty quickly whereas a timed "vote" doesn't. I don't think adding something like "discussion should last for a couple of weeks" as a requirement would help much, if at all, because the fact that it dies down is probably more related to the nature of someone having no view on the actual proposal - they just want to either vote for or against it. In my view, a discussion is just...that but about the proposal in general, not about choosing whether to implement it or not.

 

::::Frankly, then, we're at an impasse. I do not believe that a majority is sufficient to make a decision (see [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_a_majority_vote|here]]). In fact, even using the term 'vote' interchangeably with 'consensus' dirties the idea of what consensus really is - a general agreement on a course of action, as opposed to what it isn't - a majority vote, or indeed any vote at all. Certainly just because the answer to the problem of dying discussions hasn't become apparent doesn't mean that the status quo is the best solution, so I'd encourage everyone (including myself) to be open minded in searching and discussing possible solutions, rather than sticking with the status quo simply because it's the most convenient and ''appears to be'' the most suitable of our options. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 20:35, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Georgie, a majority vote seems to be more effective at the time being as I don't think there is any other option - discussions get slow, many people seem to share their views with others but many don't as well. So, votes are quicker and more effective, but what I suggest is: whenever a vote occurs and something comes up (a solution), after a significant amount of time since the vote ended, we should begin a discussion concerning the solution that was decided in the vote to see if the community is actually satisfied with it or not. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small> 21:44, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

::::::::If we are to stick with voting, then I insist and repeat that a majority simply is not good enough when dealing with major changes. When we've done 'consensus drives' in the past (the example I will link to, the Fanon Namespace creation final consensus, visible [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Fanon_Namespace#Final_consensus_on_proposal|here]]) was, in my opinion, an ideal application of what we more-or-less perform now. That is, over a period of time an option, in this example case the creation of the Fanon namespace, was determined then the community was asked to formally show their support or opposition to it. Taking the results of the formal consensus-gathering, [[User blog:LostInRiverview/Update on the Fanon Namespace|I as an administrator at the time determined]] that consensus for the creation of the Fanon namespace did exist, despite well-articulated objection from some users. The final margin of support/opposition in that decision is somewhat irrelevant, as what mattered - whether the community by-in-large accepted and consented to the idea - was ultimately decided.

::::::::I would like to quote what I said at the time: "However, measuring consensus is not the same as voting, and consensus cannot be provided by a simple majority vote, but through stronger support from the community. Consensus is not like a vote total; it can't be quantified and analyzed deeply, since everyone will have different opinions and different strength of support or opposition (or neutrality) towards an idea." Two people who at the time opposed the creation of the Fanon Namespace - [[User:RoseGui|RoseGui]] and [[User:Eduardog3000|Eduardog3000]] - seemed to agree with what had happened despite being on the "losing" side. The decision on the Fanon namespace is ultimately the meter stick by which I, either consciously or unconsciously, measure all other decisions and processes. That is my personal judgment, not necessarily that of anyone else.

As this wasn't formally mentioned on-wiki, I thought that it would be a nice idea to set it up on a yearly basis (like the Oscars, the Golden Globes etc.) and as the Community Director, I don't see an issue with this and I'd like to know what everyone else thinks of it.

 

:I find it a great idea, although I suspect that the big preexisting ones will probably have most share of wins. Fannies IMO if we are to have one should be based on time (that is, those that are completed vs those in progress, for one) [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]]([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 18:52, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

::After much digging through archives I found [[The_Sims_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_11#Fannies|a discussion]] from around this time last year on this same topic. It seems it was generally supported, and since I support it as well, I say we try it out. Granted, we could have the problem we always seem to get of barely anyone voting, to which I have no solution for :/ Other than that imo the one from a year ago has a few too many categories, I'd prefer it to be something like [[User_blog:GEORGIEGIBBONS/The_Sims_Wiki_Awards_2011|The Sims Wiki Awards]] in terms of organisation, and maybe running some sort of external poll to protect privacy and all that stuff. {{WHsig|05:25, March 22, 2012 (UTC)}}

::::I can tell I'm prolific when ideas that I didn't even suggest are being attributed to me :p In fact, I couldn't find anything said by me in that discussion. On a serious note though, I like the idea of doing it externally. Who will serve as judge(s) though? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 20:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

:::::This reminds me to Bob's [[User:BobNewbie/sandbox#Fannies Templates|fannies templates]]. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 01:18, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

(resetting ident) Having been born in the UK, I don't find the name "Fannies" as offensive. Okay it may have some reference to a "graphic NSFW term" but to be honest, hardly anyone I know uses that term anyway, hence why I don't find it offensive. I feel the name is okay though if others can think of a more suitable name (tongue-in-cheek allowed) then feel free to suggest it.

 

:I think this is an awesome idea! "Fannies" may be a vulgar name to British users. I was thinking possibly calling it the "Emerald PlumBobs" or something sim-related, just like the Golden Globes or something... just a suggestion... [[User:AsherEire|AsherEire]] 17:31, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

 

::It's just a suggestion in case some immature people take "fannies" the wrong way. Other than that- I think this idea could and should go ahead! [[User:AsherEire|AsherEire]] 20:12, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

[[File:Simfest.png|left]][[File:W acting career actor.png|left]]

:::::::How about "Simmies Award"? Or simply "Simmies"? And if we intend to award the winner with recognition in their userpage, can I suggest that we make them special userboxes only for them, instead of casual parthenon? I imagine the userbox will be unique with cool colors and glowing, e.g. platinum, gold, emerald, etc. Also, perhaps I can provide some icons for this Fannies from ''Late Night'' or ''Showtime'' like these... [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 14:08, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Personally, I'd go with "Fanon Awards." "Fannies" just sounds stupid imo. —[[User:Random Ranaun|<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Random Ranaun|<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me!</font>]])} 21:41, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::So, when will we see actual nominations and voting things? Getting anxious here. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]]([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 23:24, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::The idea sounds great, but the name could be better, possibly "Platinum Plumbbobs". <span style="color:#A020F0">!</span>[[user:Schnetzka|<span style="color:#A020F0">SCHNETZKA</span>]]<span style="color:#A020F0">!</span> ([[user talk:Schnetzka|<span style="color:#A020F0">talk</span>]]) 23:46, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

That's the icon of Simfest, I guess, from ''Showtime''. Since Plumbbob and the logo are green, maybe "Emerald PlumbBobs" is better? [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 13:04, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

 

:Fanon pages in the "chapters" section can't be nominated in the featured fan fiction/fanon pages, can they (please correct me if I'm wrong!)? If this is true, perhaps certain chapters can be nominated or the series. Also with the naming, perhaps officially it could be Platinum PlumBobs. The Platinum PlumBob could be like the overall winner of a category, whilst the Emerald PlumBob could be for the runner-up? <font face="Futura">[[User:AsherEire|<font color="#74C365">Asher</font><font color="#FFA700">'''Eire'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:AsherEire|talk]]</small> </font> 17:42, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

== News blogs ==

 

:We have the Newsletter team, which is made up of [[User:Andronikos Leventis|three]] [[User:Auror Andrachome|sysops]] (including [[User:DanPin|me]]), a [[User:Woganhemlock|bureaucrat]] and only [[User:Mr. Totaldramaman|one non-admin]]. I think that we could get another sysop or 'crat and we could take care of the news. {{DanPinSig}} 21:47, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

:::Hmm... very complicated. Certainly users should be allowed to blog about things relevant to the game, and they should be allowed to provide some information on a release, if that is accompanied by a review or opinion of it. But the blogs that we place under the Sims News category are just that - news, not opinion. So one thing I'd say is that we make it a rule where only sysops can use the Sims News category. As for those other blogs, maybe we simply need to make it clearer that they should be opinion-based, not fact-based. The facts, after all, are most relevant in the content articles themselves. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 21:52, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

::::Disregard my paragraph, I just read GG's second posting, and I'd agree with just scrapping Sims News blogs. Most of what we report on is old news by the time we get to it anyways. I still think we should do community news regularly, not just in the newsletter. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 21:53, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

::::::I'm fine for just keeping the Sims News blogs - the newsletter only comes up once a month and they aren't that hard to make up - I'm intending to make one for the Katy Perry stuff pack announcement soon (assuming it hasn't been done). And as for who makes them, I'm of the mindset it looks more professional if we get the admins to handle the news blogs. One of the main reasons I think we should keep the news blogs is that they often get a fair few comments and help with keeping the community engaged and a part of the site, as well as discussing the subject matter. {{WHsig|05:06, April 4, 2012 (UTC)~}}

::::::::Keep 'em or get rid of 'em, it doesn't matter to me. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 18:26, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree with Wogan. It would look more professional if admins were the ones to do the Sims news. However, that doesn't mean regular users can't make them, they can, but "official" Sims news would be handled by admins preferably. If something needs to be announced and the newsletter is far away from being submitted, I don't see why we shouldn't publish at least a "notify" blog. Maybe we should just make notify blogs for announcements - expansion packs, stuff packs, store content, and then let having those matters be further detailed on the newsletter. What do you think? Thank you. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small> 11:55, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

 

==Activating Wiki Achievements==

:Personally, I think it should stay deactivated for the same reasons we turned it off in 2010. A major flaw with the system is that it's comparable to say, a popularity contest. People would want to be at the top by having the most achievement points. Problem is a user could just go and make a collection of fluff edits or edit at such a fast rate to get points/badges/whatever that they mess something up and don't realise it, making it a potential headache to cleanup.

 

 

::I wasn't on the Wiki when this was deactivated, but on other Wikis, it's like PlayStation Trophies or XBOX achievements- one huge contest have the most badges. Although other Wikis have the badges system, The Sims Wiki has a fanon portal, which, in my opinion, is a excellent make-up for it. :) <font face="Futura">[[User:AsherEire|<font color="#74C365">Asher</font><font color="#FFA700">'''Eire'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:AsherEire|talk]]</small> </font> 19:08, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

::::I personally think it should stay deactivated. These achievement things are highly overrated, and as AsherEire has said, turns the wiki into a contest for the most badge, not that I would be interested. As GG has mentioned, there will be badge boosting, which I think is full of crap, for a lack of a better word. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 19:21, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

 

:Firstly, there's no point in reactivating Chat because the chances are it'll more than likely be just as redundant as it was before - I'd much rather further promote IRC; the vast majority of the community have shown an overwhelming support towards IRC in contrast to that of Chat.

 

 

::Well, all the new users we get here are people who love The Sims series and the people who leave the wiki are sick of it. Firstly, I believe we should try to improve ourselves in any way. For example, The Sims Medieval; we need to get some articles about it. Apart from that, I believe there aren't many things we can do. EA is responsible for The Sims series, not us, and Wikia is responsible for releasing new features that may attract users as long as they are (and can be) used correctly. There are not many things we can do, in fact. We just need some brand new ideas. How about starting a survey? This way we can know what users think of our wiki and see what they want to be added easily. [[File:Andronikos sig.png|175px|link=User:Andronikos Leventis|A trip to hell is an exciting experience, isn't it?]] 11:39, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

:::I like the survey idea. We could link to it on the mainpage and ask for feedback. That would be really interesting to see. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 20:31, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

::::+1 for the idea of a survey. I'll make one up as a draft somewhere (in my userspace or on my test wiki) and see if I can maybe get a site-notice or something for it. {{WHsig|06:08, April 27, 2012 (UTC)}}

::::::GG has made a simple yet very fundamental point. However, I do not believe we are responsible for that. It is no secret that The Sims series begins to fall due to the greedy company we all know. Unless EA changes its attitude towards the game, there is little we can do. We are boring because the game has become rather dull. If things do not change soon, we may end up in a few years like [http://www.legacyofkain.wikia.com a wiki of a game I love]. Only a handful of editors trying to handle some pages. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but really, if this doesn't go better, we are doomed. [[File:Andronikos sig.png|175px|link=User:Andronikos Leventis|A trip to hell is an exciting experience, isn't it?]] 22:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

 

== User right nominations ==

I've found an example of [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki:Requests_for_administratorship/Archive_3#Nikel23 an older RfA] where one nominated another but the nomination was declined because the nominee didn't nominate himself. The flaw which [[User:LostInRiverview|LiR]] pointed out was that nominating another user "''could pressure the user into applying when they might otherwise not want to''". While it is understandable, I don't understand how that only applies for an RfA but not an RfR or an RfB as the same flaw(s) can apply; I've known users who have had to give some thought as into whether or not they want to accept an RfB nomination or not.

 

:Some users might be a bit surprised when they're notified that they've been nominated, when they're not ready. The better approach is to encourage the user to nominate oneself, not to nominate one as an admin. Since rollback holds fewer privileges than administrator, if not limited; I assume it's safe to nominate users as long as they please. Admins are a bit different since they have more responsibilities. However, I don't understand why bureaucrats can be nominated by others. The case might be similar to RfA. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 14:22, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

:::How does this sound: A user may nominate another user for adminship, but the nomination will not be considered until the nominee accepts it. When nominating a user for adminship, please leave that user a talk page message so they know they have been nominated. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 18:27, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

:::::Typically, what Dharden describes is how it already works for RfBs... the request isn't really considered until the nominee accepts it. That said, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the nomination could have convinced a skeptical or unsure possible admin to go forward with the nomination process when they would otherwise not have.

:::::From a historical context, there's a reason why RfBs are done by nomination. I think that it's meant to deter users who are over-ambitious from applying for Bureaucrat before they have community support; having a person nominate potential 'crats means at least someone else has faith in that admin to do the job well, rather than the nominated admin deeming that they can do it.

:::::On the whole, though, I think I'd agree with Nikel - Getting sysop is much different than getting rollback, so the application process should be different too. Additionally, as a general rule sysop applications were typically not treated as community consensus issues; they used to be resolved by a bureaucrat without community input (though I suppose that input would be welcomed, especially if it would show an issue in the applicant). The application in that sense is similar to applying for a job, and job applications usually aren't debated and voted on by co-workers and colleagues. However, if the community decided collectively that they viewed admins in a different light than in the past, then that would justify not only introducing nomination of admins, but a full vetting process for those applicants.

:::::But, to sum it all up, until the community would do that, I support keeping RfAs as-is, with no nominating of other users. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 18:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

 

:::::::I have an opinion that supports and objects the subject: When I was a rollback, I was afraid of applying for adminship, and I recall asking other users if I would be a good admin if I applied and if someone had nominated me, it would have helped me in making up my mind.

:::::::On the other hand, if a user nominates another, the nominee may feel obliged to accept the nominaton and they may not be ready for the job (even if other users show their support), so this may be a double-edged sword. {{DanPinSig}} 19:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

::::::::IMO the whole concept of adminship is pretty overblown - it's really just a couple of buttons to help with vandalism and maintenance, and many of the features (e.g. MediaWiki modification) aren't even used by many admins. If you feel someone is competent as an editor, has enough experience, and is trustworthy, why not nominate them? They'd be free to decline if they wish. {{WHsig|10:32, April 27, 2012 (UTC)}}

 

=== Consensus ===

We are now seeking official consensus based on the question: '''Should one user be allowed to nominate another on an RfA?'''

 

----

----

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' - I agree with GG and I'd like to add that if a user nominates an unqualified rollback, the community has input in the decision. {{DanPinSig}} 21:54, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

 

=== Conclusion ===

 

==Voting on RfAs???==

::Most users agreed that the RfA system before we implemented the voting and such was unfair. Some users complained that there was an inconsistency regarding how long an RfA would last amongst other factors because there were no concrete guidelines on paper. If we can vote on an RfB and not an RfA then what ''exactly'' is the point of voting at all? Both user groups do require the community to trust a user with the tools provided and it's much fairer if we let the community have their say on a request (including bureaucrats) before a decision is made.

 

:::It just seemed strange because I didn't know. I agree that the consensus on IRC is a community consensus, though it's not always visible all the time. I don't think I have much to say here.. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 17:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

:::::IRC decisions are not community decisions. Community decisions must occur on-wiki. Not everyone uses IRC, the decisions reached there are not public to everyone (for instance, people not using IRC or not on IRC at the time), and the decision-making periods don't last long enough for there to be input from people who are absent. On-wiki discussions are recorded, open to everyone who edits on-wiki even if they don't use IRC, and are open long enough to allow any active or semi-active user the ability to give input.

 

::::::No offence but you seem to be taking this a bit too personally and seriously. It was just a misunderstanding by a small group of people who were acting in good faith and I think we all need to [[The Sims Wiki:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on everyone's behalf here. Nobody is pefect.

 

:::::::I don't take this personally, but I do definitely take this very seriously. It's not about the decision that was made or why it was made - it's the manner in which the decision was made. Even a good decision, if made in a way that is exclusionary, is a bad decision. My passion could be misconstrued as 'taking it personally', but I assure you that I am passionate about this simply because I know when something is definitely right and when something is definitely wrong, and having wiki decisions taking place off-wiki most certainly is the latter. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 03:20, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

 

=== Let's try this again... ===

:First off, I want to assure you all that this is not a pointless endeavor. Having an open discussion on these things is important to allow everyone to give input.

:Now, onto the matter at hand. As history shows, I'm skeptical as to voting for administrators, as it comes across to me as being more of a popularity contest than a process for vetting skilled users. The reason I preferred the previous system is because in that system, it was left to the bureaucrats - the most skilled users on the wiki - to determine whether a user was ready to become an administrator. But, I see the point that has been made; that bureaucrats are community-elected and so would be affected by that same 'popularity contest' when their vote came around, and that it doesn't make much sense to have a double standard in between the positions. So, my ultimate conclusion on this matter is one of '''reluctant support'''. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 16:03, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

::Indeed. I'm glad this is being discussed where I can see the discussion and contribute to it.

::I support the idea of allowing time for community input on an RfA. I think a week is a good amount of time, with the option to cut it short if there's clear consensus one way or the other. However, I don't think it needs to be a formal <u>vote</u>. The final decision can be left to the bureaucrats, though we should, on principle, go with the consensus unless there's a pretty good reason not to. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 17:12, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

 

== Chat updates ==

I'm guessing I'm not the only one who got a notification saying "''Your wiki has been chosen to test out the new chat updates. You can learn more [http://community.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog%3ASarah_Manley%2FUpdates_to_Wikia_Chat here].''" I took a look at the blog and saw that it does seem to be an improvement to the older system. While it still lacks some of the functionality of IRC, it does seem to be more logical and more productive, as there does seem to be a "Kick" function in addition to banning a user.

 

:I'm inclined to believe that if we reactivated it, things would go largely as they did before, with IRC users still using the IRC exclusively and the chat getting little if any attention by regular editors here. If it was decided by other IRC users to use chat more often, I'd see a point in reactivating. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time after reactivation before it's decided to deactivate again. I do think the changes Wikia made are in the right direction (for once), so I'm totally favorable to reactivating it if others desire it to be reactivated. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]^{[[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]}''' 17:54, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

::It's just going to be unused as it was before, but there is no harm in having it, so I'm fine either way. {{WHsig|04:26, May 8, 2012 (UTC)}}

:::::::To me, it's not really broken, and actually, the chat doesn't look really bad. One easy way to promote it is to make the chat look crowded. You know, just click the button and then it looks like someone is there, even though you don't really care. This assumption is made by my PoV, because I never know how crowded the chat or IRC is usually like. Right now, at the time of writing, no one is there. I don't know if <u>anyone</u> ever uses it anyway. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 13:48, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I just realized that admins can set users as Chat Moderator. What do Chat Moderators do, and what can they do? [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 13:33, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

 

==Fanon Survey Day==

 

It's not necessarily a day. It might take up 2-3 days, so maybe it's better called Fanon Survey Days or something. :P Also, this is to add some variations to [[Template:Event|our wiki's events]]. IRC days and birthdays are... too sparse. :P [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 15:13, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

::I'm all for this. Last night I spent half an hour adding defaultsort keys to fanons, which I haven't finished yet :( If we do this, I'd be willing to help as well. {{WHsig|23:26, May 17, 2012 (UTC)}}

:::Others must also voice their opinions. Otherwise, we can't go on if other people hasn't recognized this yet. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;">_''Talk''</span>]] 09:21, May 20, 2012 (UTC)