On this wiki everyone seems to feel that TacticAngel owns the DNC.
But since the DNC is in project space, its a feature of the wiki. And therefore the community "owns" it but TA runs it. And by running it the only control he should have is make sure everything runs smoothly, and is done in a timely fashion to the needs and wants of the community.
But the way the DNC is updated is not regularly, nor frequently. And I doubt this is how the community would like it to be run. There would be no problem if the DNC was TA's own arena in his userspace, but it isn't. It's the community's arena. Any arena you find in userspace works exactly the same, bar not being an admin (and a bit less FF-focused content in a few cases), however they are not in project space.
I have no problem with how TA runs the DNC in theory, other than his irregular and infrequent update. And I imagine the community share the same opinion. It just looks bad, and for the wiki community to have so little control over a project in project space is bad.
So there are resolves. TA takes better control of the DNC, and meets community expectations (I'm just assuming most people have the same opinion, if I do not then everything I say means nothing); compromise is made and other users are put in-charge of the DNC's handling (who handle it based on community); or the DNC is moved to TacticAngel's userspace (where he can take ownership and act as he likes).
Thoughts? 22.214.171.124 23:21, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I think it needs removing from the main page. It looks a little amateurish and dominated by fanboys and its current spot could be filled with something more useful, like a link to the FFWiki Chat room (and I don't mean the IRC either). Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 23:28, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I vote for the second option, which seems the best. For example, we set it on a bi/weekly basis and operate it systematically -- e.g. at Final Fantasy Wiki:Dragon's Neck Colosseum/Nomination Page we select the most popular (the most Votes For). "We" means any user who happens to be on at that time who knows how to set up an arena battle.
That said, the Nomination page also needs cleanup. 104 nominations, not all of which are any good. Again, this could be done systematically: e.g. all fights with more than 3 votes against being included, all fights not voted in favor of in a month, or all fights already done are purged by the same person who updates the DNC that week.Also, getting rid of it from the main page would cut down on its popularity amongst the anons, for better or worse. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
The main reasons why I think DNC should be off the main page and moved to TA's userspace:-
I think many visitors would be sad to see it go, but as it is now it just makes the site look worse, because it's not being looked after. I agree with JBed that because the Dragon's Neck Colosseum is a main page feature, it should be the whole community's responsibility. I think it would be nice to have an arena of some kind, but it doesn't have to be Dragon's Neck Colosseum, we could develop something else that works better.
Though I wish to not be a part of the drama, since it has been brought up by those other than me I'll toss in my 2.6 cents. I've always been of the opinion that if he does a proper job of it, there's no reason why TA shouldn't run the DNC. Of course, he doesn't, nor does he seem to have any interest in such, so yes, other persons should be appointed. We just promoted three new Admins, I'm aware Henry likely doesn't care but surely Scathe or Bluesey would be willing, though IIRC Bluesey is busy these days with real life matters. And of course I'm always here, just to note my willingness.
As for the DNC itself, it should remain as it is if we can get it running smoothly. Even if it is a bit silly these days, it's a part of Wiki history, it's a tradition now, it would be a shame to just cast it aside when it can be fixed up.
EDIT - the idea of promoting user arenas on the front page is good in theory. The problem is that in practice, to be blunt, there's so many of them and only a few are run with a sense of professionalism.
Just a note on this, but I put my own arena on indefinite hiatus and wouldn't be willing to take over the DNC. First because I'm not familiar with the rules there and second because I already have my own format and fights should I pick it back up.I do know that TA is very protective of his ownership of the DNC and suggesting it be taken away from him is akin to suggesting he give up his first born child. I've been around long enough to have seen people discuss this a couple times now. Obviously making him share is a lesser request, which I think would be of benefit to everyone, but what we really need is TA to get in on this discussion. We at least need him to be aware of it.
I just wanted to further on drakes comments. Not only does only a few run with a sense of professionalism, but they generally don't last forever also. I seen some good arena's I use to regulery visit come to a stand still. For numbers of reasons. Leons arena was one of my favorites, then Jimcloud stopped updating her arena, I don't know why for her. Another thing is unlike the DNC, most user arena's require registered voters instead of annon votes. Not to mention specific other requirements.
Anyways on my opinion of the matter with the DNC. I really would like to still see it on the front page. But yea, the DNC can't be front page if it isn't regulery updated. Not that it wasn't stated already.
DNC would be a popular feature of the site if it was updated regularly. It would commonly appear as the most edited page in the Gaming Wikia in the past.
Nuking the DNC would be an even worse idea that leaving as it is now. It gets us traffic, or at least it would if it were updated regularly as it was in the past. Also, Catuse, I would shy away from doing anything with the nomination page until we've decided on a course of action here. It certainly wouldn't look good out of context to the anons or TA if he were just to up and show himself, if half the page suddenly disappeared, hm?
I used to enjoy the DNC until I noticed that the current fight has been up for ages. Now, I may sound a little silly here but has anyone actually taken it up with TA in a different way, as in maybe him putting in a little more commitment rather than passing the task onto another user? You say he's very protective but we're yet to hear his say here. To be honest I'm surprised he hasn't seen the debate, or if he has, made a comment. When was the subject last brought up with him if anyone knows? The arenas certainly bring in a fair amount of interest and it'll be shame to see more go to pot.
You're relatively new, but yes TA knows we are unsatisfied with his methods of running things, this has been brought up many times before. The problem is nothing ever comes of it.
The problem with TA is that he can come across as a bit stubborn, but he does see the DNC as his project so I can understand that to a point.The problem is Tactic Angel isn't very active on the wiki, and he hasn't been for a few years now. The DNC has been stagnating for a long time now. I've not voted in it for more than two years. Maybe it needs replacing with a new concept altogether.
I know I'm new(ish), Drake, but unfortunately there's nothing I can do about that ^_^ I suppose we'd all be annoyed if someone took away something we nurtured for a long time, but if nothing ever comes of asking TA every now and then, maybe we're flogging a dead horse. Still, it never hurts to keep hope.
You can't own something in project space. You can create it, and you can operate it, but you can't take full ownership. All the wiki has to do is to make TA realise this. Of course, if he still wants full ownership then we can just move it into his userspace, where he has the right to own it. There is nothing stopping the wiki then starting up a new community arena.
If he does comply and allow the DNC to become the wiki's project, then he can still continue to be the main person in-charge of operating the DNC. There would just be other users who can help out and keep to schedules when TA is unable to. And they would not be disciplined for doing so. 126.96.36.199 00:05, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean it as an insult, I just meant you likely don't know the history we (we being the wiki community as a whole) have with the DNC and disputing TA's ownership over it. I don't know for sure but I could probably dig up a forum thread about such from 2009, maybe earlier.
I was thinking that perhaps the DNC could work like the FI. Several members of the staff could rotate through the task switching off each week. Thus, if someone doesn't update, there are other people who could do it. TA could either be in that cycle or he could be an overseer, similar to what JBed was suggestion; he would have the final say in fights and have power over the DNC.The DNC shouldn't be removed or moved to TA's userspace though. It's an important part of the wiki and the community that we can't just toss aside. Many users come and vote in the DNC and it's still pretty popular even though it's not updated frequently. If it was updated frequently, then it would attract even more users and views, and the people who use it now would enjoy it more. Remember, even though most users who edit the DNC don't go on to anything, it can still attract potential contributors. I made an account here back in 2008 for the express purpose of voting in the DNC. And for those who don't go on to edit anything, still get enjoyment it out of it; I don't want to deprive people of something they find fun.
The truth is that the DNC has always been a gateway for new users and a place of recreation. While I haven't paid it any decent attention in recency, I can tell it's becoming a ghost town. I don't think the user arenas are guilty of this at all.
I have always respected TA's ownership of the DNC and still do to an extent, but due to the growth of user-managed arenas and after reading this topic, I am leaning towards favoring a communal management of the DNC by the staff. Of course, TA must agree with this with no doubts in order.
Despite this, I would like to point what I see as possible actions to take. I am aware this has already been stated and I am just resuming it:
I suppose that if a community does run the DNC it could work properly. I would consider doing the following, though:-
As for the nomination page:-
Hypothetically speaking, what if we abolished anon-voting on the DNC? I am aware this is an incredibly wild idea and I have very very mixed feelings about it myself. I'm not sure it'd work the way I see it should since this is a great change of its concept, which is to force new users drawn by it to register to take part in the voting and become more involved with the website in time. Of course, this can easily backfire.
I don't like the idea of running a project page based on "good faith". It is a nice thought, but an utopic one as well, and it's a very loose method of managing it. I'm not saying the wiki's arena feature should be ruled with martial law, but we know that those things are not exactly the Shire.I also support Jeppo's ideas to revamp the nomination area. That thing has always been so crazy and unorganized I actually avoid it as if it was malaria.
I see the DNC as an outreach sort of thing and therefore I believe we should welcome IPs to vote and not force them to join. People can edit as IPs just as much as they as users, and the larger amount of people the DNC is available to the more people will come to join.
Although forcing people to join up gives them slightly more commitment and therefore they may be more likely to repeated vote and check out the rest of the wiki. It could go either way. We have no way of knowing. JBed 17:48, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict: I'm opposed to doing away with anon voting as, like you can see above, a key selling point of the DNC was that it was so popular everyone rushed to edit it when it was updated, causing a surge in edits and thus increasing the popularity of FFWiki. Honestly, it clearly states that anon votes are only worth half a point, so I dunno if anons think it's worth it to make a new account.While good faith might seem tough, I think the best we can do is just not ban people over infractions of the DNC rules unless they are notorious repeat offenders. That, and get rid of "TacticAngel has the final say", because it's rather vague. Does that mean he can decide somebody won despite not having any votes? Of course not. So what does it mean?
As I see it, it says he judges and oversees the voting, more specifically, the votes. But that also means he has full responsibility over the project page, and he does things as he sees fit. But I don't think that single sentence is important to discuss alone since ownership and responsibility over the project is what's being discussed for a major change.Another very important thing that was mentioned here, and I'm happy someone pointed it out. Even though the project page is part of the wiki, and far more related to it than the IRC channel, blocks due to DNC misbehavior have to be considered: if it's going to be managed in group, then the responsibility TA has always had over that will have to be shared as well, and it needs to be defined.
Well since TA, though aware of the forum, has not commented, should we do something? 188.8.131.52 14:13, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that this topic is still alive so i decided i would voice my thoughts upon this matter, why not just have the admins/moderators take it in turns of running the DNC, have a schedule of some sort where one of you admins and or moderators watch over the DNC once a week, that way it can get updated when needed and TA being an admin can still look after the place to, if one of you admins or moderators can't attend the DNC schedule then just pass it on to another admin/mod. I had to say my peice on this matter, felt that i needed to throw that idea out there while i still have the chance plus this way the DNC can be run by the leaders of the community thus makeing the admins the owners
The place looks like a right mess with unsigned anon votes all over the place. If that's the best it can be run it should be removed altogether. Let's think of something new from the ground up.
The DNC is an institution in its own right and I don't think removing it is the answer. We just need someone to maintain it better. I compare it to The Simpsons in that it started out as something that everyone knew and loved, but then didn't really keep up as other factors changed around it. People say The Simpsons hasn't been good for years, but can you imagine the backlash if they cancelled it? The truth is it's still good in some respect, people still derive joy from it, and it simply needs to be maintained. That could be said for the DNC. The only difference is that the DNC has actually fallen into a state of disrepair that needs to be fixed.
We should wipe the whole slate clean and start with thinking, how often should a new fight be up, who's in charge of what, revamp the nominations system, make the rules more transparent, make the whole thing more open and community-driven.
Given that someone said TA knows about this and hasn't commented, well, silence is an answer, too. I'd say we don't want to completely overhaul the whole thing. We might just want to loosen things up a bit. We DO want to keep things familiar. Anons need to be able to vote, but the math done to determine a tie could probably go, for example. There's no reason a ten or whatever percent difference should not be recognized. Page-flooding votes should still probably not be allowed. That's all I can speak for, really. I never bothered with the DNC. But what we have already works. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I suppose his answer is that he does not wish to collaborate with us with improving the DNC.
TA's stance on the DNC is one of apathy. Actions speak louder than words, and while he claims to care about it, all he does is update it whenever he feels like it. And then, regardless of TA's actual feelings, people perceive he doesn't care and therefore many people do not care. There is no schedule, there is no real nomination process, I've seen several people say they pointedly do not vote anymore because they dislike how it's gotten, and in the past TA has updated fights without even tallying the votes of the last one (such as several fights here). There are user arenas run better than the DNC, and as the Wiki's official arena in the project space, this is unacceptable.
Given that he has been informed of this discussion and declined to participate, I would say we take that as a sign he doesn't care. In the past it's been said to TA that if he doesn't have the time or interest in he DNC to give it the attention it should have, he can simply say so and ask for help or pass it to someone else's ownership entirely. He has not, but obviously one or both of those statements is correct because it's only gone further downhill the more we have these discussions. At this point I say cut him out. He's the only one responsible for how the DNC is run and he's let it get this bad with no regard for others who are displeased with such behavior. Appoint someone else to run it and scoot TA to the side if he likes it or not.
The problem is here as so often in the past, we can discuss it all we like but even an agreed course of action is irrelevant without enforcement. I emailed Diablo about this forum and asking for his thoughts some time ago but he hasn't replied in email or here, so I'm unsure as to his status. Thus we have to go with the next highest authority and ask the rest of the Admins what they think. Frankly, if nothing else, let's get this finally over with. People have been unhappy with the DNC for years, appointing someone else will finally appease people, this issue will be done and settled.
TA's actual response was "oh, this again", and then suggested he'll make a comment sometime. This was a while ago, so I reminded him, and he's been on since, but when he came on he did nothing but ban someone.
But I felt a need to revive this topic since if we can't just wait and then do nothing when he doesn't make a response.
Also have you noticed how TA just started up a "Last Man Standing" thing that no one understands? I checked the nomination page and now I geddit. I don't like it. Clearly no one had any input into the LMS idea but TA himself.
Anyway, the difference between this discussion and other discussions is it isn't "the wiki against TA", it's "wiki ideals, and the DNC". Former discussions (IIRC) just had users saying they didn't like the way TA handled things. This topic aims to technically go "above his head" and overthrow him because the DNC, as a WikiProject, is not his but belongs to the wiki and its community. The wiki has all the authority to move DNC to his userspace, or to change his power over the DNC. We just never have.
We should discuss the things that the community would like and expect from a project arena. Then we can compile a list, and put it into action. TA's involvement in it will be up to him, however he won't be able to take control of it and any actions have to be in accordance to how the community wants things to be done, and not of his own accord. JBed 19:20, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
It's only quite difficult to assign new leadership if no one steps up voicing that they would like to do it. If we had a plan it would be much easier to "present" it to Diablo as well. If TA does not take part in this discussion, we just need to plan something without his input.The peanut gallery has got messed up too it seems...I'll go try sort it, I hope it's "OK".
I am still very partial to a system similar to the FI. We can appoint a few users to run the thing, and we can have them take turns in running it. Thus if something happens and one of the people can't update, there will still be an update by someone else. It can represent all the aspects of the community; we can have both normal users and the staff running the DNC.If worse come to worse though, I'm perfectly fine with running the DNC by myself.
As Bluestar and Drake said, TA's silence is his way of responding to this. That just leaves one party we haven't heard from on this situation: the people who do a lot of the voting.
Judging by a vote ("Are You Serious! Is this a Joke? And what is this "Last Man Standing Thing"? I hope that this wouldn't go on for 2 months like the last poll did!") the voters do care, but don't know what to do about it. Of course, I can't judge by just a single comment, which is why I'm going to suggest something that actually might be kind of rash, but at least would let the voters know what's going on: link to this thread in the Peanut Gallery.
The Featured Image system has worked very well for Featured Images, so Scathe is probably on to something. Also we gotta decide if we want to continue with the Last Man Standing system or not. It'll save us from having to deal with the nominations for a while, during which we can let this settle down and finalize the leadership decisions. But nobody agreed to it and unless you followed JBed's link to the nomination page, you won't even know what it is.Also, on the topic of unsigned votes, which I asked about recently — I haven't been here long enough, but do anons really try to sockpuppet their way through the DNC? It's a fan poll, and I doubt they're that dumb, but of course I could be wrong, and there really is cheating. It just feels like a shame that a lot of anons lose their votes because they don't sign — for whatever reason, on most wikis anons DON'T sign, even if it says so.
Anons who don't sign need to learn to sign, then. It's plastered everywhere around the wiki. My experience is users don't read unless you make them. I play dumb a lot of times at work when users call in so they have to actually read the messages they get, which often solves their problem for them or gives us necessary info in cases where, say, more than one user is having the same issue. Otherwise they often learn the hard way, like when they open Firefox and skip past the "do you want to make this your default browser" message and then are stuck copy/pasting most of our links into IE because they won't work and get mad because there's nothing I can do about it because of security. Some people respond to the nice way, some people don't get it until it's a lasting pain in the rear for them. I'd say removing a vote is rather harmless in comparison and we can start the nice way and inform them about it and tell them how to fix it, then if they still don't sign, they just don't get a vote.
I doubt people cheat too much, but it doesn't look professional to allow unsigned votes to count, even if anon votes count for less. I don't think the last man standing idea is basically a bad idea, but I would prefer it to include some introduction. Like is there some set time for this to run? Is there like an overall winner for whoever manages to defend their position the longest? Also, if a character was up for multiple rounds, especially when a single round tends to go on for weeks, voters may get bored of that character being there for so long.
I'm not even bothered with the Last Man Standing thing right now, the issue of ownership has to be settled first. IMHO, we've talked and talked ad nauseum on this issue on too many occasions to still not have an answer today. At this point, I honestly think a coup d'état would work just fine. As a group of editors, we have the right and the responsibility to fix what is broken about our community, and broken the DNC is indeed. Now, as for new leadership, who do we want? I'd propose that a group of users would be best as a system of checks and balances, but do we want a group of staff to lead it, a group of user arena owners, or just a group of dedicated volunteers?
People with user arenas are not the best choice. First off because being brutally honest, not all user arenas are that good and many have rightfully died out since they started popping up. Second because that's forcing people to not play by their own arena rules. Thirdly, with all of the ones still kicking, picking and choosing who has the requisite quality of work in it is only going to lead to contempt. I firmly believe that the DNC should be run by staff, and if there are normal users qualified to run it, they can be made mods specifically for that purpose.
I think I may have not been specific enough. I mean the owners of the well run, organized, professional, and timely-updated user arenas, like you Bluesey, or Drake or myself to name a few examples. People who actually know what they're doing, yes? I think if we can get a group of people together who meet these criteria and get them to agree on a set of rules, and if they can enforce each other on following those rules, I see no reason why it can't work. Also, I'm 100% against promoting a user to staff for the sole purpose of helping run the DNC. Editors should be promoted to moderator on judgment of contribution alone, not for the purpose of a promotion. Talented, work-oriented individuals without staff powers should be considered as volunteers if they want to help run it.
I think the DNC could be run somewhat like the Featured Articles and somewhat like the Featured Images.
Like what Scathe said, having a group of users running this project would ensure more timely updates. In the event one staff member is unable to update the DNC, the other members could step in. I am an example of how this system works - I have not been active over the past year, so Drake took my place in the group that selects the Featured Images. There are plenty of staff members willing to run the DNC and I think at least two people should be working on it together.As far as the Featured Articles go, I am not suggesting its nomination process or single management by Diablo inspire a similar system for the DNC (I do not have any ideas for the nomination process ><). Instead, I think the DNC should have a regular updating schedule like the bimonthly method of the FA, which has always been reliably updated by Diablo. I actually do think that posting new fights on the 1st and 15th of each month would be good; it would create some synergy with the FA updates.
I personally never had a problem with the old process of nominations. Enough support and it is added to the shortlist. Such a system would actually have to be monitored though. But we're likely to get problems with people always going for the same 50, or closer, characters. We could have a nominations each week where a topic is chosen, and people nominate fights involved in it... which will guarantee more diversity. So "Nominate FFII related fights", I don't know, maybe that's not such a good idea. JBed 22:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Apparently TA had a bimonthly schedule in mind. The DNC is back up.
For now, but we all know it won't last.
1. Why is our Wiki Generalissmo never here? Why does any of us think this works? And why can't you guys find a way to appoint somebody new in an efficient manner? Diablo doesn't even check his talk page, that means he's gone as far as I'm concerned. As a user, you're out at that point. Even I can respond to queries on my talk page (if a new one ever were to pop up).
2. 8bit, Drakey, and me have been complaining for years, along with dozens of other users since roughly 2008 that TA really sucks at his job. I like TA, but you know what, running a DNC isn't very hard. He's basically a troll on this site, and has been for an impressively long time. And for the grace of being an Admin, a position that holds WAY TOO MUCH unquestionable authority on this wiki, nobody is ever allowed to do anything to fix this issue. Its not a hard thing to do. Just fire the man. The DNC isn't a big deal, all you need to do is put up a new fight every week. That's not difficult.Thank Mr. Angel for services rendered and put somebody new there. I don't edit on a regular basis, but EVEN I can find time in my week to put a new fight up. Literally any user on this wiki can do this job, and the one person who actually is doing it, sucks. He's been playing you for fools for a really long time, and only now are people noticing. I noticed three years ago, nobody listened.
Huh, why are we petitioning to remove TA from management? I mean really, unless I missed something, as long as TA agrees to make the DNC a community thing there isn't a matter. TA would not enforce things as he wishes and they'd go through community first. He also wouldn't necesarilly have power above all-else. But I don't see why he can't be involved.
Really, the main problems with TA's solo-ownership is his tyranny (is that the word-- basically "what he wants happens") and his schedule or lack thereof. If there is a community involved (which can include TA) both problems are fixed. So why are we petitioning to remove TA, and not just change the management structure?
You also miss the point that he essentially owns the DNC, and should be able to stay in management of it if it were moved to his userspace. Then the wiki wouldn't have the DNC but we could put anything we wanted in its place. The DNC has been treated like it's his for all his time, we should at least give him the option to keep it his.
And I don't know what you expect to find from a petition. Or what you aim to achieve either. Nothing in project space is owned, all you need is an admin or two to either make the DNC community owned or to move it out of projectspace. We already know we have a consensus. 184.108.40.206 16:50, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
We know that, Diablo does not. The point of the petition is to acquire an irrefutable list of people asking for TA's removal to present to him so he can understand how strongly the community supports the idea. This was discussed on the IRC yesterday.
You know perfectly well from past instances of this discussion JBed that TA will not agree to anything if it amounts to him officially giving up some or all of his control of the DNC, if he would then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As you pointed out in your opening post, no he doesn't own the DNC, it's project space, he was just put in charge of it. And his refusal to comment on this discussion speaks for itself, as a lack of willingness to cooperate with us.
EDIT - I added two more petitions so we can see what the community thinks of a single or group effort to replace TA. The question now is, who is willing to be appointed? Scathe has mentioned he is, anyone else?
Diablo does not need to be involved. Diablo would only need to be involved if TA started a backlash and absolutely refused to co-operate. TA should be presented two options, take the DNC to his own userspace, or allow other users to collaborate with its management, including himself if he wishes. IMO, no comment should cause the former. Others may disagree.
And Drake, what is your problem with TA anyway? Most people who voted in the second petition made it sound that TA being involved or not doesn't matter as long as there is a group. TA's involvement shouldn't even be discussed. The one thing that will happen after this discussion (despite how long it drags) is TA will lose the total part of his total power. Once that is gone TA is like any other user who would manage it. He would have to stick to community decision, and it wouldn't be possible for him to update to a bad schedule since there are other users who can stand in.
The DNC is the only thing TA does here. It's the only thing that links him with the wiki anymore. He's a semi-active SysOp. Why does the wiki feel it's a "TA and everyone else" sort of thing? His decision to continue participating in the management of the DNC should be up to him and him alone. If he were to choose to continue managing the DNC (with others) he wouldn't be able to step out of line so all your problems with him would no longer exist.
And you are correct in stating he has not commented. But some people don't tend to like to comment in places where it just seems everyone's against them. Any defense you give yourself will be attacked, any attack you give meet equal flame.
All you have to is go to his talk page and give him the ultimatum I presented, "host the DNC in your userspace, or allow the DNC to be managed as a community effort, including yourself if you choose. If you do not give an answer the DNC will be moved to your userspace and the wiki will start its own community arena." 220.127.116.11 19:17, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
"Diablo does not need to be involved." - of course he does, to just seize control of the DNC would likely lead to an edit war between admins and one side would have to back down or Diablo would have to intervene. All this does is ask for his approval to remove TA from power before we take action, or perhaps he'll do such himself.
The rest of your speech is you saying what you think should happen in regards to TA and the DNC. Others obviously do not feel the same way. Relatively few people want the DNC moved to TA's userspace, and so far no one wants him to continue to be part of it. Deep down you know exactly why TA didn't comment - he doesn't care. We've had this discussion many times before, he has been standoffish and arrogant in the past, and these discussions have always died with nothing being done. The same happened this time until you revived it.
I will add a petition for the DNC being moved to userspace, if nothing else than to appease you. But the way you want to handle the situation will only lead to conflict between TA and the community including Admins.
- "and so far no one wants him to continue to be part of it."
Biased petitions are biased. That is not what's being said.
- "to just seize control of the DNC would likely lead to an edit war between admins and one side would have to back down"
And what would be different if Diablo would be involved? All Diablo can do that other admins can't is steal SysOp rights. And do you really think it will have to lead to that? 18.104.22.168 19:50, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
- "Relatively few people want the DNC moved to TA's userspace, and so far no one wants him to continue to be part of it."
I don't care what others want, it's common decency. The DNC has been TA's and it has been that way for a long time. If he were to want to continue managing arena he'd have to start from scratch, even if it's run in the exact same way as the DNC. While at the same time we're giving the DNC an overhaul and giving it a new image.
- "We've had this discussion many times before, he has been standoffish and arrogant in the past, and these discussions have always died with nothing being done."
No, you've had backlashes in the past every time he does something you disagree with. The wiki has went and complained to TA. This entire discussion started not specifically because I disagree with the way TA handles the DNC (although it is definitely in the problem) but of how the DNC is being controlled. I'm not complaining to TA about the problems, I'm seeking the wiki to come to a communal decision about how a arena in projectspace should be handles.
- "The same happened this time until you revived it."
It only happened because TA didn't respond and I was waiting on him to respond. I was disappointed. It wasn't just being left to die. 22.214.171.124 19:50, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
Please note TA has responded to JBed's prompt to get his opinion.
Discussion post-TA's response
So, are we just gonna sit around and talk about it? TA has responded, we've got massive support... what can we do but do it?
That said, TA, this is not a 'lynch' 'vendetta'. The majority, if not all, of us have nothing against you. However, the DNC is on the homepage and has the prefix Final_Fantasy_Wiki: and therefore should be well-kept. This isn't what has happened — it's out of date.Anyways, I don't even think that people favor a massive change. In fact the only thing people are petitioning for is for other people (probably they'll even be admins) being able to upkeep the DNC if you don't. Or at least that's how I'm interpreting it.
Not a vendetta for me either, my only issue with TA has been his always been his sloppy handling of the DNC. If he did a proper job of it I would be happy, but he doesn't, when we complain he ignores us, when people pick up the slack he is ungrateful. You can claim these are personal attacks TA, but they aren't, they're legitimate criticisms of your increasingly poor management that you refuse to improve.
Drake, TA used the exact words I would have used earlier. This forum has been about seeking new management, and then we had a discussion. Then you throw out a petition for the removal of TA. Few people actually care if TA is a part of it, it's just clear that him by himself isn't the best way to handle it. You have made it quite clear you don't want him.
I was going to make a response on TA's talk page, but I stopped writing half way. The fact of the matter of these petitions have just killed the point in this forum. Yeah, we're getting numbers (irrelevant numbers since TA's future involvement in the DNC does not matter to anyone but Drake). The wiki wants a community-managed arena. We know that. But how? What do we want changed? What do you expect to happen from these petitions?
I'm no longer interested in this forum or the DNC. Handle it how you like. 126.96.36.199 13:51, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Forgive my pessimism, I don't think anything will come of this petition either. How many times have we had a discussion, come to a decision on what we should do next, then do nothing? It is no wonder TA isn't overly concerned about this forum.
- Oh, and Drake, please change your speech bubble colours. I can't read what you are writing. Jeppo (Talk | contribs) 14:59, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
ILHI, I made these petitions because it was being discussed on the IRC channel that we wanted to get organized regarding who wants what so we could make it clear to Diablo what we action we expected on his part. I took action because no one else would, then added more options for TA's involvement or not since you made the fair point there were other options besides just getting rid of him. Excuse me for taking action when everyone else including Diablo is struggling with indecision.
"irrelevant numbers since TA's future involvement in the DNC does not matter to anyone but Drake" - that's precisely what we're all discussing here and some people feel he should be removed, not just me.
I really didn't want to be part of this bullshit drama again and am disappointed in myself for allowing myself to be swept up in it again, especially since I've come to the realization I don't want to run the DNC. But since ILHI and TA are going to try and make me the scapegoat, then fine, I'm out. I'm taking my name off the petition, you guys do whatever you want, doesn't much matter because like every other time nothing will get done, no one around here has the balls to actually do anything and prefers to discuss it to death then forget about it. It's how things got this bad in the first place.
@Jeppo - I've tried every shade of purple I can, this is the most visible to me. You come up with a better combination of purple on red, lemme know.
Well, the votes thus far are absolutely unanimous on two points: there should be a team, and the DNC is not to be moved to TA's userspace. So we can probably just close those two petitions outright. Given this, TA has his ultimatum: he either agrees to work in the team, or he's out. Now is also the point at which we should start taking names of people interested in being on the team. Finally, if TA does agree to be in the team, that's the point at which we can hammer out the exact terms as to whether he's the nominal leader of the team or an equal partner in it, or whatever.
We should be able to deal with this systematically and objectively. If TA doesn't want to be involved in the discussion, that's his choice, not our problem, and if he keeps us waiting, we'll just move on without him. We are not an anti-TA mob, and even if we were, that doesn't excuse him from having to justify himself. His claim that he'd just be mobbed if he dropped in on this thread is backed up by nothing whatsoever, and thus is not a valid reason to avoid getting involved. What's the worst that can happen to TA, anyway? If*, as he predicts, he is set upon as soon as he so much as pokes his nose in here, he'll be able to validly say "I told you so." Conversely, it's conceivable that a civil discussion might actually take place, shocking as that sounds. It should be win-win from his point of view, really.
*and only if. I rather hope we're all better than that, though.
Sorry for bursting in on the (rather heated) debate, but if this isn't going anywhere, then a decision needs to be made soon, someone caves in TA's head till he finally has an opinion, or this back and forth rowing carries on. What else can be done? The results get tallied up, but what happens then? If TA isn't that bothered, this whole thing has been for a lost cause.
How about we nominate Scathe as the new (perhaps temporary until it is all sorted) leader of DNC, and he can choose team members who would help him with the running of it, and TA can be involved in which ever way he wants to be involved in it. Then tell TA that you will be updating next week's fight.It's a shit position, but we'd all be unanimously behind you!
Just don't shove it all on Scathe just because he said he might be interested. As of now, I'm going to open up a section down below for people who want to sign up to volunteer to be a part of the group, and whoever wants to can, and we can finalize a roster later.
I agree entirely that it must not be shoved on just one person, that's why we should be as supportive as possible to any potential new management. Well done "signing up". :)
I have been discussing it with TA, and he is willing to let a committee run this thing, with or without his support. We are currently just ironing out a few minor details, but it should all be fine in the end. Diablocon 18:58, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Ok, TA would like to help oversee the transition. Basically he wants to just see who wants to join the committee and discuss the new schedule. I've asked him to pop in here so he can discuss it in person. Diablocon 19:58, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
It's about time. Mind you, he did say he reckoned he might get attacked by angry users with no real motives if he came to discuss it here. But it's nice to know that he's wanting to express himself. Tia-Lewise 20:02, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Jeppo's pessimism has come to be truth.
Just wait. You may be in for a surprise.
|Please note there is no conflict between these petitions, if you sign multiple ones it shall be assumed you support all of the options you've signed for. Feel free to voice in your vote if you feel more strongly towards one option over another.
Seek New Management
Sign here to formally voice your support to remove TacticAngel from management of the DNC and appoint another party, be it an individual or group, to run it.
Sign here to formally voice your support in finding a single new user to take TA's place running the DNC.
Sign here to formally voice your support in appointing a group of two or more people to share management of the DNC.
Group Management With TA
Sign here to formally voice your support in a group effort to run the DNC, and TacticAngel remaining a part of that group.
Move DNC to Userspace
Sign here to formally voice your support to have the DNC moved to TA's userspace where he will continue to run it as he wishes.
Sign here to informally express a desire to volunteer to become a member of the new group that would potentially take over overseeing the DNC.
- - +DeadlySlashSword+ 18:17, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
- ScatheMote 01:05, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
- While it's not something I am wildly excited about, I wouldn't mind doing it, and if there aren't that many other people interested in it then I'm willing to assist in it. Jimcloud 03:02, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
- As a backup or whatever. I'm pretty inexperienced, which is why.C A T U S E05:37, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
I thought that Last Man Standing could become a side thing where the character who wins this week's fight would go on to battle the victory of the Last Man Standing. I've come up with an alternate template for the fight as well. If we're making the DNC bimonthly, two fights should be posted so that there are four altogether. Perhaps since there are four fights, we could divide up the work accordingly. Although, it would be easier if the person who updates the main DNC updated the LMS as well. We could have it that some of us moderate the DNC (remove illegal votes, etc.) while others update the fights. It always possible that we could alternate being moderators and updater depending on the current fight.Regarding the nominations, I think we can revive the earlier nomination process. It worked, and we currently have a huge backlog of fights to make our way through anyways.
Well, here goes:
As for Scathe:
Hmm. Well, I've thought about it a little, and here's what I think.
Actually, JC, Deadlyslash and I have been talking it over and I'll be dropping out of this (although I might still update it if it's running really late) seeing as I'm so new-and-all. (Actually, I've been expecting that ever since I put my name up, but I ignored my wiki-instincts and did it anyways. Meh
Does it really matter if you are new? Really? Does anyone have a problem with that? If so, why?
Two fights at the same time is a bad idea. Alternating between LMS and norm DNC is a better idea, however I think we could do without LMS altogether. It's not that interesting, and it just keeps the same characters appearing in fights over and over again. 188.8.131.52 17:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
My thoughts are as follows:
Should I update for February 15? Or perhaps we should wait a little while longer for the Kain/Fang fight since it's been floating in and out of limbo for awhile. Of course, the fight is also quite old, so we might want to change it. We should assign a day for the DNC updating; this shouldn't be too near Sunday since the FI updates then. I suggest perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.
I've made a new icon which can be a placeholder for now. I'll also do some tweaks to the template later.Because it seems like Cecil and Fang tied, I think we can just give the victory to Cecil like it was. The defending champion should just win if they tie, though perhaps in the future the person updating the fight can be the tiebreaker.
Okay, so, Fae prodded me for a fight today, so I take this as sort of a sign that the brainstorming session should probably be starting to wind down. Here's what I'm getting from this:
Now, then, some suggestions:
And, finally, a question:
The DNC was always weekly before TA began to let the schedule slip, though it's several years in the past the update history for the DNC demonstrates this itself. Why TA wishes the fight to be bi-weekly when this has never previously been expressed, I do not know. Regardless, the DNC's text still treats the fights as a weely occurance. If this changes then said text should be adjusted accordingly.
If it is agreed upon for it to become bi-weekly it should be subject to a trial period, if the voting continues on a steady stream for a full two weeks then that's fine, if it dries up then it should go back to one week. If a specific fight fails to generate interest from the community or is an obvious landslide, which is likely to happen occasionally, I say that, on the judgment of the person who is updating next, it could be ended after a week. Experience on my own part suggests that when the votes are stacked say, 35 votes to 8, people will be disinclined to vote either way as the result is certain at that point.
The winner of the fight entering LMS is a good idea, if it is agreed LMS is a secondary fight and there is still a whole new fight every period. For example, under the current state of voting, if Kain faces Cecil in the next round of LMS and then a new fight is put up while that continues, that's good.
There is also the matter that the longer a single combatant runs, the mindset of voters will change - people may vote against the character for the sake of finally seeing them lose, or vote for them just to see them keep going. If this is a concern to those who will be in charge or not, their choice, but this is likely how it'll go. I would also suggest, if there are concerns about a single character going on too long, we set a limit on how many periods they can be involved in, at which point they retire, two new LMS characters be chosen, and things proceed from there. Under that rule there's the possibility for an eventual "championship", where characters who have won enough to be retired from LMS go up against each other.
Day for updates is a minor detail, aside from agreeing the weekend is a good time it doesn't matter much. However, I think of the weekend days Saturday would work, would mean users have all Sunday to come in and see the new fight.
I don't see any real point in LMS. It was an idea thought up by TA out of the blue... and honestly, though people may believe it's interesting, it isn't really.
Alternating between LMS and normal fights just gets confusing, and puts too much emphasis on LMS which I don't see as as important as a normal fight would. And I also disagree with having two fights at the same time.
And I'm inclined to not update at the same time as the FI. Things updating at different times is more fun. 184.108.40.206 19:55, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
All of your points are extremely subjective, JBed. If you don't find LMS all that interesting, that's fine, just you're the only one who's expressed any sort of opposition to it. Alternating between fights every week isn't too confusing a concept to understand, either. Though I do suppose regular fights still will be more important since they will determine who fights in LMS. What we're really trying to do is make the DNC fun and relevant again, and at least I am of the mind that LMS helps spice things up a bit.Also, I wouldn't find it fun if I were a causal visitor having to come back to the wiki on different days because the FA, FI, and DNC are all updated on different days of the week.
I second DSS on all counts. As for the points Drake made about the LMS, both Scathe and DSS separately came up with the idea that a fighter should be retired after 5 wins, and that sounds fine by me. As for the idea that retirees could potentially fight one another at some point, I believe it would be a good idea to do fights between retired LMS combatants when the current fight of the week is about a spell or music or something non-sentient that would go weirdly fighting up against a sentient being, but I guess we'll see what people think about that before we decide on it.
Blegh, sorry about the way I came over on my points in LMS. I just haven't heard much support for it, just comments on how it could work in the DNC.
As for your comments DSS, so you say. The FA is already updated on a different schedule to the FI. For the DNC to update at the same time as the FI seems like a strange pairing.
But if that reasoning doesn't change your mind (which it unlikely will), things updating on different days is how all things work. Just for a second, think about a website or a blog that writes articles. Say this website/blog has different article-series. In a five week period, would you prefer them to upload one article every week, or would you prefer them to upload five on the same day on the fifth week? Most people will choose the former. Same goes with YouTube subscriptions, users much prefer to see frequent activity than activity in larger quantities. Uploading multiple videos at the same time is what has caused people to unsubscribe to YouTubers (with them gaining weekly net losses, it's rather humorous).
Of course, that's not quite what's going on here. But we'll take that five-article idea a bit further. Say the schedules for the five different articles were based on the day of the week. So you'd do one on Monday, another on Tuesday, etc. You would much prefer them to be added on different days rather than all on one day.
The thing about uploading them on different days is that users who visit everyday can see something new on each day. People who visit once a week can still see all the things on one day if they like, but if they visit more frequently they don't have to.
So users won't get annoyed. They don't have to come here everyday if they don't want to. They could still come here every two weeks and see all the updates at one time. But most people prefer frequent small updates to less-frequent large updates. The difference is that the wiki updates features two times in two weeks over three times in two weeks. And the latter sounds better. 220.127.116.11 14:17, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
If we had five or six weekly features, I'd agree with you, but we don't. I'd take an educated guess in saying that the DNC pulls in a much higher amount of visitors (not as much now as it used to) than the FI, being a more established and interactive feature. I don't imagine a great number of people checking back here for the FI, negating much need for updating on separate days. It seems logical our visitors come here for our encyclopaedic content first, with our features such as FI and DNC being little fun side projects, though I'm sure we get visitors who do come just for the DNC.
Agreeing with Deadlyslash here. FI/FA aren't big things, not everyone comes for them, they just exist to spice up the home page. Meanwhile, we constantly get users who make accounts for the sheer sake of getting a full DNC vote (and I've found a lot of evidence for socks -- users named similarly and all that -- which frankly indicates how dedicated people are to their DNC votes).On the topic of LMS, I like the idea, but if it gets contested enough, I suggest having a vote over it at the top of the DNC or something. No really, people seem to disapprove of voting to solve problems, but we can't expect anonies to write 5-bloody-paragraph-essays on LMS the way certain users do... >;3. It's a quick-and-dirty way to see if people would rather have a DNC fight every week, or LMS <-> DNC. I personally like LMS, but whatever.
Completely disagree. We shouldn't treat projects unequally. When a website starts up the website will have to act like it has an audience. If they say "no one's probably reading this"-- it is both annoying to readers and unprofessional.
Also your opinions on who pays attention to the FA and FI is unfounded. DNC is interactive, the others are not. Therefore you are definitely going to see more focus around the DNC.
It is equally easy to update on different days to separate days, especially since those who work on one do not on the other. It is not "more convenient" to users to update things on the same day.
So as much as you can argue that the DNC is more popular and the others, this hardly justifies updating things on the same day. If this were the case, then the DNC would further overshadow everything that isn't the DNC (since users will visit the mainpage to check for a DNC update and pay less attention to other changes on the mainpage as that is what they are mainly there for: if they were there and the DNC had not updated then they would pay more attention to other things). 18.104.22.168 16:17, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
This discussion derailed really quickly, so I'll just say this. We picked Sunday because the three of us are all free to update on that day. If you still have an issue with that, I'm not quite sure what else to tell you.
That is a rational reason and I am fine with that reason alone. I just happen to disagree with every other reason given in this topic. 22.214.171.124 16:54, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, and sadly, no one who actually votes in the DNC cares to contribute an opinion, so it's up purely to the staff running it how to do things. I'll offer my opinion of a new fight each week wit LMS running as a secondary fight, for what little it's worth.
Well, what more is there for them to comment on? I made a "Voter Comments" section at the bottom of this page, but...
Maybe no one is saying anything because there's so much confusion, or it's not their place, but that's probably just me. Maybe, just maybe, it is now running fine the way it is.01:31, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
Since Drake thinks we don't care, I'll contribute and prove I do. However, anything I say is probably unneeded, because things seem to be running fine the way they are now. The fights are more frequent and updated when they actually need to be. I don't know what everyone's moaning about, personally. Tia-Lewise 13:03, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what they WERE moaning about! Well, at least that's what I was, and I know BH was kinda annoyed we don't have a bureaucrat, but you said you AGREED with him on that one, and we now DO have a bureaucrat -- getting off-topic here. Whatever, I don't think I could stay on topic if I was held at gunpoint :3 C A T U S E 17:32, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean we have bcrat? 126.96.36.199 20:08, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- ???? - +DeadlySlashSword+ 20:12, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- TA is a bureaucrat, is he not? BH complained about not having a bureaucrat on both this thread and Forum:New bcrat, did he not? C A T U S E 23:15, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- "BH was kind of annoyed we don't have a bureaucrat"
- This could mean one of two things, BH was annoyed we didn't have an active bcrat, or we didn't have one at all. Of course the latter is wrong. And anyway, Diablo is still here, even if only infrequently.
- "and we now DO have a bureaucrat"
- This is what confuses me. We had bcrats, they just weren't active enough.
- And now we have TA who is NOT active enough. 188.8.131.52 23:36, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Well waddaya know. I honestly thought TA was relatively active -- guess that's not the case. Disregard everything I said after "That's exactly what they WERE moaning about!", 'kay? :/ C A T U S E 23:40, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
- I am reasonably present at all times. Watching. Judging. Judging. Watching, but really more judging. T·A·C·T·I·C·A·N·G·E·L 00:38, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
- TA is a bureaucrat, is he not? BH complained about not having a bureaucrat on both this thread and Forum:New bcrat, did he not? C A T U S E 23:15, March 13, 2012 (UTC)