Greetings & salutations dear fellows, I am Ursuul. If you need anything or have any problems or questions, feel free to leave a message. I don’t bite :)
Hello Ursuul and thank you for your contributions. We hope you'll stay with us and continue to help us improve the wiki.
Here are some links to help you get started:
- The Community Page is a great place to find articles on our wiki that need help and any find out about any projects you can become a part of.
- Our policies and guidelines will inform you how we edit here.
- The help pages can help you learn how to edit and how use the wiki tools and are a great help if you are new to wikis. For test edits, you can create a personal sandbox.
- Recent changes lets you see what other people are editing currently and where you can help.
Discussions moderation Edit
Hey, Ursuul! If you're still interested, I'd like to take you up on your offer to help moderate the Discussions. I've got a new job and a bunch of other stuff going on lately, and I don't have the time or energy to devote to the wiki like I would like to. It's pretty chill over there and I know you're well aware of the few bad eggs we have, so I trust you. I'd still like it if you could give me a heads up on any major happenings (even if it's just after the fact), but consider this my blessing to deal with reports, monitor discussions, and block users if it becomes necessary. Cheers! --♫ Kelcat Talk 00:41, November 14, 2017 (UTC)
More Scripts! Edit
Hi Ursuul! There are a whole lot of new scripts for you to review.
Quests (Inquisition): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d7EyXATa1VfOA6NCLNiqJuCgOd0DKmKVkSeDAHnenHg/edit
Admin Nomination Edit
Hello there! I've started an Admin Nomination and your input and vote would be greatly appreciated. You know how vital admins are for the smooth work of our wiki so this is definitely not a minor issue. Thank you! 15:00, January 9, 2018 (UTC)
Discussion Scripts Edit
I just wanted to let you know that I've added the scripts for the discussions feed in the right rail and to create Special:DiscussionsFeed (I'd already added the discussions feed to the front page). Thanks for the suggestions! Loleil Talk 18:31, February 17, 2018 (UTC)
Re: Discussions Moderation Edit
That's completely fine I understand, thank you for checking that out for me. Good to know I was doing the right thing. And when you're not around I will be watching his activity and making sure all runs smoothly. Thanks again Ursuul! Have a good day/night!
RE: Our Moderation Edit
For a moment there, I read your message on the post and thought I was in trouble hehe.
Firstly, you did delete that comment. I was trying to approve of a report, and accidentally undeleted the wrong message. When I went into the insights it said that the comment was deleted and not approved so I tired to see if I did it properly then yeah. So you did delete it I just messed it up the redeleted it. My bad Ursuul
Secondly. Well. Discussions like that are never going to end well. It's something that you are either with or against. It's a very hard area to contain without anyone getting offended. I think we need to start being a little more strict, as some users are just plain ignoring us. The thread has gone completely off topic now, so closing it would fall along the guidelines. Speaking of which, maybe we need to create a guideline about keeping personal opinions, such as sexuality, to themselves. That should seem to close a lot of posts like this before it starts. But also in the mean time, it's not necessarily wrong, as people are entitled to opinions. So maybe keeping this wiki away from the sexuality talk would be for the best. I was trying to remind the users of their guidelines in my post, however Im not sure if eeveryone has seen it, so I think we should definitely try to reach out to all the users and make sure they understand the rules. What do think?
I never mentionedany insults on that thread? Perhaps we are talking about a different thread. Could you link the one you are talk about please?
I understand about the humorous warnings. A lot of the time I feel like a complete bitch.
I agree. I wasn't sure on how the guidelines where changed, so perhaps it's better if you do talk to the community. I don't really want to go down that path, I was more thinking that if we can make it more of a rule, that way we can define properly what can and can't be said. We need to find something of a middle ground for everyone, something that doesn't result in more arguments, so by doing as you said and creating a thread, we can hopefully find a peaceful middle ground. AmoraEnchantress (talk) 06:06, May 22, 2018 (UTC)AmoraEnchantress
If you wish to email me, my email is: email@example.com
Rule violation Edit
Don't know very well how this works but there's a guy named "Arishokk" (sic) that violated 5 rules in one post as well as being generally obnoxious. Just think the mods should check it out. Nicolò Fantini (talk) 17:34, July 19, 2018 (UTC)Nicolò Fantini
Suspect User Edit
Hey Ursuul, I haven't been around much (life and all that), and I'm glad you're a mod for the DA Discussions!
Well I've been checking in more often lately and I'm highly suspicious that 2 accounts that have been banned beforehand were run by the same person and that they currently have a new account. I'm unsure of what to do about it, or if there's anything we can or should do for that matter. I'll give you my email in case you find need of it: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hey Ursuul, never actually used the talk page before, so I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway, I was wondering what the protocol is for when one user finds reason to accuse another of being an alt. account used to evade a ban. I know confronting them in discussions or on their talk definitely isn't the thing to do and figured asking here was my best bet. I've been suspicious of this particular user for some time now and after going through the evidence am now sure they are who I suspect them to be. The email I use for wiki-related stuff is email@example.com if you need to contact me off-wiki for any information. Thank you for your time. Saxhleel12 (talk) 01:43, September 26, 2018 (UTC)Saxhleel12
I sincerely apologize if this is not the way we are supposed to contact you guys directly to specify to moderators on what a given issue concerns, I'm not really all that familiar with the fandom wikis method of communicating on computers, again I apologize if this is not proper way. With that being said I believe it should be brought to the moderators attention that I'm certain now that discussion user known as Cassandra Penteghast has violated this wiki's guidelines of sock-puppeting. This individual has at least switched accounts three times now to avoid being blocked by the moderators. The first time was by the moderator Kelcat at which time they went by Fozzes and their ban, if I'm reading correctly, was to be forever and the second was hand out by you on their second known account as Arishokk. It seems there is little to doubt that these are all the same person after comparing all their discussion posts and general speech mannerisms and I would ask that you or another mod review them as well, I have left links to all the accounts, to judge the accuracy of my claims.
If I am correct then this individual has purposefully violated the rules three times and is likely to do it again (as well as the rules that got them banned in the first place) and in my opinion should be looked out for with extreme prejudice.
Short Spoiler template Edit
Hello Ursuul! I was wondering if you could help us out, in Dragon Age Fanon wikia, there is a spoiler template but we need a shortened version too. Could you take a look at the code and see if you could do something about it?
Hey Ursuul. I tried to follow you instruction but the MediaWiki:Wikia.css page is locked. 19:13, October 31, 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. Your instructions here have been added. Now what happens? Nothing appears to be working. 12:34, November 20, 2018 (UTC)
Message from Herah-Ataashi Edit
Hi ursuul, it's me again. Silver warden is attacking me, and getting really personal, then tries to turn it around on me, when he has quoted me first, calls ignorant on several posts, and berates me and disregards my opinions and views on things like he/she/they are better than me. I have a short fuse and don't like being attacked by this guy. is there a way to block him from responding to be? he not only seems to attack me, but berate others, calling things sexist, yet think the things they say about things, such as dragons, are not sexist. I feel unwelcome, and threatened to leave as if every opinion or reasoning I add to a discussion is not welcomed, or allowed, unless it bends the knee to Silver Warden's ways. I gave may reasons why I don't fully trust the wiki, and was scalded and treated as if I had never picked up DA. I am sorry to lash out at him, But he is like on every post, taking every moment to attack or try to, in his words "correct me from giving false Info". Others have seen how he treats me, even one member tried to confront him. just look at these 2 posts, especially the northern hunter post where he gets onto a member about bull being sexist. https://dragonage.wikia.com/d/p/3311529323659412221/r/3311529323659418733 https://dragonage.wikia.com/d/p/3311529323659412261/r/3311529323659418746 He is a jerk, And I would like him to stop. --Herah-Ataashi (talk) 09:48, December 3, 2018 (UTC)
Spoiler Template - Dragon Age Fanon Wiki Edit
Hey Ursuul! There was a lot of .js and .css additions in the Fanon Wiki recently. Is it supposed to work now?
New game spoiler Edit
I tried to create a new spoiler template but weirdly enough, it didn't work as intended even though I used the same methodology as for another spoiler I created 5 years ago. Can you tell me what am I missing? Also, is this automatically transferred for use in the Fanon wiki also like the rest of the spoilers? 11:45, December 17, 2018 (UTC)
- Alright I checked again The Last Court, searching for a fitting but smaller quote but to no avail. So we will need to use "Serault is not blessed in her neighbors." without the extra sentences.
- Do you have everything you need in order to set up the spoiler? For the record I am planning on updating the spoiler image with a transparent version once I set my PS working. Can I do this by simply updating that file like we used to? Thanks again! 18:28, December 30, 2018 (UTC)
- Sure thing but my proposal is not related to The Last Court spoiler, I simply believe that your CSS skillset is particularly useful and the DA wiki will benefit if they have you in their admin team. 06:53, December 31, 2018 (UTC)
- To reach a consensus on a particular subject we use the respective talk page. Generally we avoid venturing into Discussions.. even with a ten-foot pole Oh and your nomination is up and running! 10:28, January 8, 2019 (UTC)
New game spoiler - continued Edit
How do I have the DAFanon import from the MediaWiki:SpoilersToggle.css from our wiki? I noticed that the TLC spoiler in DAFanon wiki didn't properly update like the DAO/DA2/DAI ones did. 16:35, January 21, 2019 (UTC)
RecentChanges does not auto-update Edit
- It's been so long since I had this gadget enabled that I forgot about it and thought Recent Changes were updated by default xD. Anyway thanks for your help, auto-update is very important to me in regards to wiki patrolling. 09:12, January 31, 2019 (UTC)
About the Anthem thread Edit
I just thought I should point out that my last response to Grandon1 was 100% sincere. It was my fumbling attempt as an apology to him, and an attempt to put the matter to rest. I wasn't trying to insult him, although I can see how if interpreted sarcastically, it might have looked that way. Silver Warden (talk) 22:20, March 9, 2019 (UTC)
About Adding More Personal Info to DA:O Companions' Pages Edit
Hi there, I have a question:
In the Toolset for DA:O, you can find in the character files that there is quite a bit of personal information about apparently all characters with name in the game. Information such as Age, General Description, Demeanor, Flaws, Morals, even Name Pronunciation and Intelligence Level.
So I was wondering if it'd be ok if I add such info to at least all the companions for DA:O, in their main page. Maybe put it under "Spoilers", if that's necessary (though probably not, since the entire page is about that character). I find these pieces of info very interesting, but chances are not a whole of players ever know they even exist unless they open up the Toolset and look into these files themselves.
Adding More Personal Info to DA:O Companions (Cont) Edit
I did consider listing some info on Alistair in my previous post, as an example, so you have a better idea what these details are like. I'm just going to post them here now.
Description: A stern-looking young man with a strong chin. Very handsome. Some resemblance to King Cailan.
Name Pronunciation: Al'-iss-ter
Speech Pattern: His voice is deep but quiet. His tone sharpens into steel when required, but more often he is conciliatory.
Demeanor: Generally self-depricating and conciliatory. Retreats into broody silence rather than raise his voice to be heard.
Flaws: Alistair struggles with the resentment he feels over his birthright.
Morals: Alistair has a strong moral sense that was taught to him in the church, but his bitterness makes him struggle with it.
Special Skills: Trained as a paladin, Alistair can fight and has the ability to dispel magic.
Occupation: Grey Warden, bastard son of the king's father.
Relationship to Player: NPC, companion, one of the only fellow Grey Wardens left after Loghain's betrayal.
It appears all characters with name in the game have at least some of these details, if not all. Major characters tend to have all (Ser Cauthrien, for example). That's a bit too detailed to be the typical cut contents. So I wonder if these details are available in some sort of guide book or something. That being said, I understand details like these could have major impact on the "stock" image of the character, so I suppose we could list them in a section called "Details from Toolset" or something, to make it clear to anyone who reads. Also, we can just include a couple of details out of all of these. --Ablake (talk) 08:42, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Manager Edit
- No problem!
Possible Edit War coming up Edit
Hello Ursuul, there seems to be some back-and-forth editing of Imperial Chantry. An IP removed (and keeps removing) a paragrah about teachings as implied by Codey Entry: In Hushed Wispers, apparently claiming it too much of stretch. User:Virrac keeps restoring the content without commenting.--Buckeldemon (talk) 14:22, June 27, 2019 (UTC)
Just something from a lurker. Edit
Hi, I've mentioned this on the Chantry talk but I'll post on here as I think it'd help if I actually detailed it to an admin.
"I'm not personally involved, a mere lurker. However I do think Virrac should have some form of warning for removing messages from his talk page, not only is it insulting to the individual who took their time to actually explain the reasoning, it not only looks childish but unnecessarily complicates the situation at hand. 2A00:23C5:7306:7600:D09B:5DB1:52E1:278A (talk) 22:49, June 29, 2019 (UTC)"
From my time on lurking on the Wiki, if I recall it's not necessarily the first time Virrac's removed messages from his talk page, and it's just impolite and pretty petty just removing forms of discussion especially when he's causing an edit war, obviously I'm in no position to tell you what to do, but I do think some form of warning or at least some level of consequence should be taken with him. Especially since he's removed an administrators request to him beforehand, as well as your own warning to him about edit warring in the past; https://dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:Virrac?diff=prev&oldid=814314 it's kind of undermining your own position if he's not taking the warnings seriously. 2A00:23C5:7306:7600:D09B:5DB1:52E1:278A (talk) 22:51, June 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. I saw it happen, but I’ve not taken action against the removal of messages from his talk page because he is actually allowed to do that. Admins are just regular users with extra tools on DA, & I’m as bound by those rules as anyone else even in enforcement (although feel free to start a discussion to change them if you like). However, if the edit warring remains a continuous, major disruption then a second warning can definitely be given followed by a block. Feel free to let me know if issues persist.
New Wiki Manager introduction Edit
Hey Ursuul! I'm Bluerock, and I'm the new Wiki Manager, your first point of contact for Fandom Staff, taking over from PsiSeveredHead. Feel free to drop me a message if you have any questions or need any help editing the Wiki! --Bluerock (talk) 16:52, September 25, 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I actually just joined the Discord so that I could introduce myself there. --Bluerock (talk) 17:20, September 25, 2019 (UTC)
Vagueness of Guidelines Edit
I've read response you issued and I would like to address it, I hope it's not an problem that I'm writing here as my posts tend to be relatively longer than those of others and I don't want to pester moderator about it and unnecessarily involve a middle man.
To the point, I understand the desire to keep rules concise so people actually read them as if they're too long likelihood of people reading them will be even lower. However, I think keeping rules concise in form of current guidelines doesn't really make them understand what is expected of them better, as for the most part they will behave accordingly to own notion of general idea of appropriate behavior, what they would most likely do anyway regardless of reading it, unless their intention would be to do contrary.If one established set of behaviors to not engage in clearly, then at least people that did read rules could make sure to not engage in such behavior. I don't think that one would need to write pages long terms of service in order to cover many types of behaviors, as I've demonstrated during discussion with moderator, you could cover all forms of name-calling in reference to users and targeting/advocating against protected groups in which general set of rights would be violated, doxing and going off-topic in quite short sentences with some extent of precision that both users and moderators could refer to as more precisely established behavior to not do, instead leaving it to subjective interpretations of both users and moderators what leads to issues I've mentioned during discussion with moderator , what was demonstrated by issue I and moderator ran into.
Hence, I'm still confused In regard what I'm allowed to do and what I'm not in terms going off topic (as well in context of rudeness but that didn't seem to be reason behind removal of my comment so it is less of an issue at least in context of the incident), while I was explained what general rule I violated concerning writing somewhat short paragraph that was off-topic, what is fair enough in regard to violation as it was off-topic, I'm quite confused of principle behind it as why it was applied only in regard to my post and not, despite comment I was responding to brought up my behavior (topic my paragraph was referring to) meaning going off topic. So, now due ambiguous nature I'm not sure if I crossed some boundary in regard going off-topic that they didn't despite also going off-topic or simply rule was enforced arbitrarily. Now granted, I wasn't punished (or at significantly) and my comment was simply removed, what still is an annoyance as I spend some times writing it for nothing. Either way, both scenarios is something one would want to avoid as confused with guidelines users or arbitrary enforcement of rules negatively impact quality of forum as confused users will likely keep violating boundaries and potentially suffer ramifications of it as they don't understand where is the line and arbitrary enforcement of rules will alienate people that will become victims of it.
I think more precision in regard of not permitted behavior would reduce those issues and would help to people to understand what is expected of them avoiding a lot of confusion, without need to vastly expand content of current guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxCaulfield (talk • contribs) 23:20, October 9, 2019 (UTC)
In reference to your response:
Perhaps it's true that's simply rare occurrence but it seems at least some in some instances moderators seem to be unsure/confused about enforcing adherence to guidelines due it's vagueness.In fact, I'm aware that's it's covered in current guidelines but issue is that in addition to those, some aspects and terms are so vague that and broad that pretty much any type of behavior could be forced into such category given interpretation is left strictly each individual moderator what leaves moderator with little to none accountability as for a method and reason why something was removed, thread locked or someone blocked as specific behavior easily could be interpreted and brought upon such vague categorizations such as rudeness, belittling or off-topic for some arbitrary to moderator reason for an example moderator could simply dislike or like someone or what someone's was saying punish/remove/lock thread simply because of such reason, what would lead to inconsistent enforcement of rules, or even mods apply completely different set of standards even those standards are consistent, so one could mod tell me my behavior is fine and another could tell me my behavior is unacceptable. Unless we deal with vagueness and bring more precision we're stuck with that issue. In addition to common sense behavior, if moderators are one that decide on how to interpret behavior fitting category (ie not adhering to guideline) is it really common sense behavioral standard, rather than simply behavioral preference of moderator or simply their view of what constitutes norm (common sense behavior)that may not be indicative of actual norm.For an example your moderator called my comment rude, but in context of the internet It was cordial and even in real life in my culture wouldn't count as disrespectful. Maybe alienation were avoided or maybe simply people kept quiet about it and I'm only one that decided to bring it up to moderators and admins, regardless of that it still negative impact on conversation, at least in some cases.
I had short conversation in the past concerning discussion being off-topic with a Warden Nuggins (that is moderator as he issued a warning that we're going off-topic and he would lock a thread if discussion continued) but I disputed that we were discussing concept that was important in context of the discussion, soon after topic was locked due to continuation of topic or perhaps simply because OP requested so, either way moderator couldn't really pinpoint standard something qualified as off-topic. For an example if someone started a discussion whether or not Morrigan (dragon age character, in case you're unaware of it) was a murder and we started argue about definition of world murderer would it be off-topic or would it be acceptable as it would be crucial in order to determine whether she fits category of murder, ok but what if we started argue about validity of sources providing definition of word murder (you could perhaps call it a second-degree separation from original topic) would it be deemed off-topic? Is addressing important topic that would be crucial/important to provide answer to the topic , regardless of degree of separation of be within topic, off it or perhaps there is some degree of separation that crosses the line that determines between something within topic and off it?
Then in regard to recent issue, as I pointed out where I'm confused about the standard as I pointed out I was given general explanation as for why my post removed and to my understanding it's that part of my post was off-topic and so to ensure it would stay on topic, what I did agree with it did and potentially could lead to further derail. However, same was true regarding post I was responding to and initiated topic of rudeness of my comment and which lead to me responding in part off-topic (so said person also lead to further derail with their off-topic comment as it prompted me to respond), so I'm not sure if I crossed some line concerning being off-topic that other person didn't, that I'm not aware of and moderator couldn't really explain that line or simply I were a victim of arbitrary punishment (you could call it minor one as my comment was removed), if concern was to thread stay on topic, shouldn't both comments be removed and we both warned to not engage further in discussion, or perhaps keep our both comments and simply warn us to stop it discussing it further? I think it could be even cooler place if we resolved issues of ambiguity and moderators had more clear cut standard to enforce as it would avoid in great part issues I've outlined and faced in the past.
Well, to what standards they hold accountable to by administrators? Issue is there doesn't seem to be any, or to be more accurate there are many standards that are so broad and so open to interpretation that would be impossible to point to clear cut incorrect judgement of moderator (ie this user didn't behave in this way and as such didn't violate this rule) in regard to present terms used in guideline and judgement solely up to personal view of administrator and/or their interpretation of vague guidelines (what really wouldn't be any different from what moderator is doing), as simply administrator would apply own interpretation of vague standard (or even disregard it to play favorites and as rules are so vague that pretty much most or any behavior could be interpreted to violation of said standard so all they would need to to to come up with some excuse for doing so even if reason behind isn't enforced in other cases) that may or not align with moderator. If that was a dictatorship then system would function a little better (there still would be significant risk of arbitrariness without clear rules) as there would be person at the top which gets to determine who is right and their word being ultimate, but there are from what I see 5 administrators on this wiki and due to lack of clear cut standard I assume each with own interpretation of guidelines as well.
I wasn't aware there was voting system but I doubt moderators are picked on basis of system of rules they intent enforce and more so on basis of their likability and general impressions at best, what doesn't really have much to do creating own system of rules that would be consistently applied by them.So it doesn't really solve issues that vague guidelines cause. Not to mention let's assume I'm generally disliked by most people within this community or/and community is indifferent in regard to my fate and they will keep voting in administrator/moderator that also doesn't like me and is much more stricter with me than other users, would such behavior will be justified just because majority voted him up because they're indifferent or hostile to me? Or would it simply better have consistently and equally applied rules to everyone?
This is issue im talking about, but why you don't always get your post removed for violation? Let's assume moderator sees 2 people in same topic that commit the same violation and theoretically speaking bans one user and leaves another unpunished (or applies far more lenient punishment than to former) there should be some valid reason as for why one was punished and or another wasn't that will be consistently applied to other cases. Now, I do understand that not every site has enough staff to moderate entire user base and hence some or many rules violations would slip through mods attention, fair enough. However, in this case I doubt that was case of simply oversight as it was in the same topic, comments were in close proximity to each other and removed post was a response to that post. What leaves me blind in regard to line I've crossed assuming there is one and not simply arbitrary enforcement.
As I pointed out I don't necessarily suggest more restrictive guidelines but more precise and clear rules (unless you mean more restrictive for moderators as they won't be able to freely shot or not to whom they personally deem as a lawbreaker through unknown method of classification). I think having clearer and more precise rules would improve quality of moderation as moderators would know what is expected of them and what behavior they should punish and what is procedure for punishing specific type of rule violation ensuring moderators enforce consistent and agreed upon standard instead arbitrary ones and users themselves would understand better what they shouldn't do instead wondering what behavior would constitute breaking specific rule hoping their interpretation will align with moderator (and there are many different ones).
I realize that, this is why I brought up criticism of method as basically there is no existing standard for admin to enforce just like for a moderator, so admin is allowed to do as they please without applying any consistent methodology in regard of such process. That doesn't really change criticism regarding that method would yield, if method of determination of moderator and admin is based around opposition to notion and consensus when challenged , you not only face previously mentioned by me issue as let's be honest as this method hardly would demonstrate possessing a "good judgement" in regard to enforcing rules as moderators at lest some moderators seem are unaware of criteria by which they make judgement or apply said judgement inconsistently.From what I see in practice users hardly put compelling arguments for administrator and base it on personal preference in regard to unrelated reasons (as they don't simply not know how user will make judgement as an administrator and while there does exist option to question such user it isn't really utilized for such purpose from what I saw). In addition to that let's assume for sake of an argument that I have decided that you aren't fit to be administrator because you play favorites and allow to enforce moderators to enforce standard inconsistently, I would need a consensus and given vagueness of the rules that would be insanely difficult to reach as some could agree and others don't that you play favorites (assuming they will be even lead by such decision making process in the first place not simply side with other). So let's assume consensus can't be reached in that regard, what is then a procedure? Are you still administrator, your position is taken away or is it up to other administrators to make final judgment (what could easily lead to tribalism as administrators don't have standard to upheld here). If it's 1 & 3 then all mentioned problems remain as it would be near impossible to amend individual abuses unless you've convinced engaged user-base or deal with impartial/biased in your favor admins (that really don't have to be impartial in the first place).
The thing is, you can't say that moderators don't intent to be excessively strict with me or anyone else (assuming you could quantify excessive strictness) because you don't really know the process by which moderators determine if rule was broken and decide to take appropriate action that they are given freedom to take upon own discretion, so how do you know if I'm not held to higher standard than others because moderator just happens to interpret what i did as breaking rule or take action against me while ignoring others that also engaged in similar conduct?
Who is we (majority, admins, staff members)? Lets even assume that even if it happens occasionally (which we wouldn't really know as I've pointed above we lack set in stone standard to determine if person adheres to said standard and we don't know criteria by which moderators the enforce rule and perhaps even moderators don't know it) wouldn't that still better to fix the issue with very little cost required to improve rules that would improve the system by making moderation more fair and consistent and help users to better understand what it's expected of them not to do?
I was more demonstrating how things work in principle when it comes rule enforcement I talked about banning, rather than I talked specifically about banning on this site. Yeah, but they still have power to remove comments, lock threads and steer the discussion by giving the warning and from what I saw there is no really consistency required in process of doing so what could easily lead to instances of individual abuses and unless moderator/admin crossed vast the majority of community individual users would have little to none power to fix the situation should it occur as it would require consensus from public or agreement from one or more administrators none of them has established obligation to prevent such abuse as such abuse can't really be reliably determined under current guidelines. So there is no really established minimum, as each moderator can have own threshold at which they consider intervention required and that threshold doesn't even seem required to be consistently applied.
Cost is a little, what is the cost beyond little time required to update rules (and perhaps some to undergo some process to do so) and while you've mentioned that users may have problem with understanding rules and decreasing quality of moderation, I've pointed out that making rules clearer and more precise will have opposite effects as people will know exactly what behavior would be violation of the rules (instead just guessing what is or not or asking moderator/administrator that may have their own vision of what behavior violates the rule) and moderators would be more fair and know when and how they should to intervene (instead relying whatever criteria they wish apply at the moment ie "good judgement" that could be used to punish practically anyone for almost anything written due to vagueness of guideline).
As I outlined people rarely can hold you accountable with such tremendous requirement to hold someone accountable in form of consensus what requires almost or close to unanimity (judging by standard required to accept administrator with being 80 % for required and even then bureaucrats are free to dismiss opinions they find personally trivial or for particular opinion outweigh others). So essentially unless administrator did upset % of people required to establish consensus (assuming there is even one for removing administrator) what probably is quite large % you can't do really anything about admin abusing power against you or select group of people that would be unable to achieve consensus in order to remove administrator and prevent them from using their powers against specific users. Fact that guidelines are so vague makes only makes reaching consensus even more difficult as everyone makes decision based on their own whims instead being presented with clear cut established standard and process which mods ought to enforce and determining if mods punished for behavior that wasn't covered and as such not a breaking a rule, what would make at least process of reaching consensus somewhat easier.
I assume there are rules that even achieved editors consensus can't override in order to maintain quality and functionality of the site.So if for an example consensus was achieved to disregard method of decision making through consensus on the site in favor of random chance system like tossing a coin, it would be overridden by some authority on basis of some rationale on likely ground it would impede quality of the site by lowering a chance determining what is valid editing.So I don't necessarily think that consensus is the best system to apply in every area of decision making as i doubt that is in the case even currently and there are authority figures based on individual subjective judgement or written rules that would override occurrences of consensus in some instances. So, I don't see why even if you wish to maintain such method of decision making proces (despite it's flaws in using it as process of holding someone accountable) making more precise and clear rules would contradict or hinder it with said process, instead actually improving it by making easier for people to hold moderators and admins accountable by making it clear when admin should step in when moderators is doing something they shouldn't as rule don't cover their actions.
Why it isn't acceptable (what's rationale behind it)? If there is more reliable and consistent to "good judgement", that as I explained if flawed concept because what constitutes a good judgement in this case is determined through flawed system of selection that isn't necessarily demonstrative of good judgement in term of enforcement of rules and appointment of moderators but mere process indicating popularity among select small number of editors and then moderator is chosen by unspecified criteria so process is far from guaranteeing fair and consistent enforcement of rules as nothing in the process really requires and works toward that. That's not going into other numerous flaws that were found by me in the system and I've pointed out through this discussion.
So you're saying, unless 80 % of people (again assuming this is % that is required to achieve consensus in dispute) will agree on removing administrator, there isn't a reason to remove moderator or at least typically there isn't? Ok, so lets assume hypothetically there is case of where admin needs to be removed and you've situation where 40 % of editors are victims of abuses of power from administrator or a moderator and 60 % either enjoys favoritism from admin or indifferent to this as they aren't victims of that, you end with 40 % that is treated unfairly and you can't do anything about it as there is no consensus.Granted, I used more extreme hypothetical by including 40 % of editors but it was simply demonstrate flaw of the system even in extreme situation, that could be applicable to situations on lesser scale. That's ignoring what word needed means in context here as consensus seems to determine what's needed as as such you would need to conclude there is no action administrator would take that would lead to need of removal of said administrator unless admin upsets 80 %. So while consensus technically speaking could be reached doesn't mean it will likely to reached in situations like that I just mentioned to deal with such administrator.
I don't think you did or you did it only briefly without explaining what did you meant, you've spend most of our conversation explaining how things function currently and that you (admins/mods?) weren't interested in making such changes (what isn't really explaining rationale behind such decision) , the closet thing to rationale behind it was your claim that it would lower quality of moderation and make it harder for users to understand (you didn't really expand on how doing so would result in that) , but I think I've addressed those reasons and pointed out it would have opposite effects and brought up rationale as for why. I realize that but that's as I've explained that's provided figure required for fitting criteria for consensus when it comes to voting to approve administrator and only % figure provided that would establish consensus. Also, as I've explained hypothetical could be unlikely in itself but it was simple to simply clearly demonstrate on more extreme example where issue within system lies and I've pointed issue very likely happens simply on a lesser scale as process system operates on doesn't function to prevent discussed issue, for reasons I think I've explained extensively in my commentary.
Fair enough with that you're here to explain how things are but I would contest notion as I've explained in regard there being few or any issues, as in first place this whole ordeal came came from such an issue (who knows how many other such issues came from flaws I've pointed out but people didn't decide to dispute them or were overlooked) and don't think issue was easily resolved or even resolved at all, rather than authority saying basta and considering issue resolved. Specific issue that occurred in instance I was involved with to me may be indeed minor issue as single occurrence but incident is indicative there are no/poor measures of dealing with such issues should they occur. Anyway, If you are here to explain what's alleged rationale only and have no power to change system and not argue merit of the system, then this discussion is pretty much pointless. I've made my point and argued my case, not much else I can do in regard to improvement of forum aspect of the website.
Advisor program Edit
Hello! I'm Isaac, from Fandom's Editor Experience team. One project that we're excited about launching is an initiative to pair newly registered users with experienced advisors (which they can choose from). These advisors would be available for answering basic editing questions and guiding appropriate edits, in the hope that these users will become active in the local community.
Why do this, rather than rely on admins and moderators? We've seen from research and experience (from Wikipedia) that establishing a human bond with a peer "senpai" or mentor can have a better effect on the comfort of the newcomer, especially where the high volume of edits may cause the quick response of rollbacks rather than taking the time to walk new editors through their early work. While some communities do take that time and care among their leaders, we feel an additional level might put new users at ease and help them be more comfortable with editing. Ultimately, we feel like this project will either free up some time for admins and moderators, or designate them as approachable welcomers to talk to and guide new users. We want to see how effective this is on a relatively small number of communities and see if Fandom's results are consistent with those experienced on Wikipedia. If they are, we may pursue expanding the pilot program and perhaps seeking to build it into a core part of the new platform.
Here's what we would wish for your community to agree to:
- At least one volunteer advisor, acting as an advisor and advocate helping newcomers. For the most part, this means responding to questions that newcomers leave the advisor in Discussions. Sometimes this may mean the advisor interacts with admins and moderators to address concerns regarding the newcomer. We have some advisors-at-large (those not tied to the local community, but available as fallbacks) already, but if you have ideas on who you might want to represent you in this role (or if you'd like to do so yourself!), feel free to contact me on my Wall or this thread.
- Discussions / Feeds. Your community must have this active for the current solution to work. This is the primary method in which advisors have open communication with the users that choose them.
- A change to your Welcome Messages to allow a method where a newcomer can choose an advisor. As you are currently participating in the MyDashboard program, there will be a card there to interact with an advisor.
We are testing this for the next two months, and will see what the future of the program is thereafter. Is this a program you would feel comfortable with placing on your community? — FishTank (wall) 22:12, November 22, 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, just to let you know, I've made a blog here to gather thoughts on this program (from participants and others).
- There's also an in-progress set of guidelines with a pledge for advisors.
- It would be great if people from this wiki could visit and comment! -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:08, December 2, 2019 (UTC)
Checking in on the Advisor Program Edit
I'm just checking in with those taking part in the advisors project. Hopefully you will have had some time to see how it works, and have some ideas on how it can be improved!
How has it been working out for you and this wiki? We know that few people who sign up actually ask questions, but have you had any good (or bad) experiences with those who have?
Can you think of any areas we could improve on to make this a better system?
And my final question: looking at the project overall, how many stars out out of 5 would you give it (and why)?
Thanks so much for being a part of this experiment. Giving your knowledge and expertise to the next generation of editors is a great thing. Thanks! -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:40, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Ursuul, much appreciated -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:51, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
An update on the advisor program.
We've looked at the numbers and the project didn't give us the results we were hoping for. There just wasn't the boost in edits we wanted, and the number of users who followed though after choosing an advisor was very low.
On the other hand, it was an idea that was generally liked by admins on the test wikis and we got some great feedback on the process. We also think there's potential for something similar on the UCP, so we want to look into that.
This means we are going to wind down the project for now. We will leave it available to you, and add the set-up instructions to the Dev Wiki for other wikis to try. But it won't generally get updates and specific staff support.
It's a shame, we had high hopes for this, but it just didn't work out as hoped.
So it's up to you whether you are going to keep the feature or not. If you want to, then you don't need to do anything. The code will remain in place and work as before, and there will still be "at-large" advisors to help out.
If you decide to opt out, just let us know and we'll reverse the changes we made.
Let me know if you have any questions or need any help.
Found a possible vandal Edit
IP https://dragonage.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52 seems to like vandalising Variel. I un-did it for now. Buckeldemon (talk) 23:34, June 7, 2020 (UTC)
More vandals Edit
Thank you for the welcome!
Ursuul, thanks for the welcome! I know it's probably automatic, but it's very nice! Thank you! I hope my edits are helpful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacticslion (talk • contribs) 07:28, June 22, 2020 (UTC)