Feirund (Talk - Contribs - Logs - Block/rights log) (Back to requests for permissions - Grant rights - Edit count)


I nominate User:Feirund for the position of moderator. User is passionate about wiki function and is willing to dedicate time to the behind-the-scenes tasks of wiki maintenance. Moderator tools would aid him in better serving the wiki. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 18:36, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  • How would moderator tools improve your contributions to the wiki?
    • Most of my editing/file management work consisted of adding purely factual, unquestionable information to respective files and categories - however, due to many circumstances and a lack of data here and there, I often found myself having to triple-check everything and explain every little thing that I do, even though I knew my information to be infallible (a good example would be adding global champion buff information to their respective patch history pages, which then looked inconsistent due to earlier mismatches, changes in terminology (i.e. base stat definition); however, adding the information was necessary regardless of that. By being a moderator, I would be able to just add the information and then focus on other issues.
    • Another issue I've been dealing with and will probably have to for a long while, unless a permanent solution will be found one day, was uncategorized file categorization, with my duties consisting of categorizing/recategorizing erroneously categorized files and putting them to their rightful places. However, as a regular user, I am unable to delete unnecessary files and have to either wait for somebody with the proper rights to swing by or leave the mess hanging.
    • Finally, from time to time, discussions (concerning the whole wikia) arise and are given to the entire community to sort out. However, among those actively responding, there usually are absolutely no staff members (except TehAnonymous, the one bringing the issues to our attention in the first place), meaning that people with experience and understanding, rather than helping sort out the problem faster, are abstaining from any kind of involvement and leaving the less experienced users arguing among themselves, so that no swift resolution can be found. I try to participate in these discussions as often as I can and I feel my voice would carry a lot more weight if I had the proper star accompanying it. It would also allow me to have conversations with some of the editors that I find to be good people with their hearts in the right place, but with too much initiative and not enough forethought. Feirund (talk) 19:07, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the greatest challenge to the wiki today?
    • I believe the greatest challenge we're facing right now is a looming risk that the wiki's management will one day fall apart - we simply do not have enough fully active (local) staff memebers/sysops to risk losing even one. We have one truly active crat, one active admin and one active moderator, as far as I'm aware - and for a wiki as prominent as ours, this number is way too small for comfort. Feirund (talk) 19:07, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. [ kek ] As nominator, see reasons above. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 18:36, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Support — Feirund has proven himself to me time and again to be incredibly responsible. He's dedicated excessive amounts of his personal time in the past several weeks to making this wiki a better site for gathering information.
The only purpose that this rights request serves is in making it so that he can perform at his highest level of functionality in improving the wiki. Demise suggests that Feirund need only as other moderators for the ability to use their rights, but to that I say - Why compromise the general efficiency of a dedicated editor by making him have to seek the help of lazier editors? If Feirund is finding the issues that need moderator rights to be able to solve and the other moderators aren't, then he should be the one with the power to solve them instead of them.
TL;DR - Feirund is dedicated and giving him moderator rights will only increase his efficiency in improving our wiki.
SejuaniSquare Ozuar (Talk) 18:41, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

3. Support Support — Feirund is dedicated towards the wiki and has expressed an extreme desire to improve its facilities and further his own ability to edit to enable that improvement. While it is always true that he could offload the tasks of some low-level moderator actions such as file deletions to others, this causes delays and complicates his cleanup efforts for no real benefit.

With regard to his conduct as a moderator in chat, I am a frequent visitor there and I have not found his behaviour or usage of his power to be particularly biased or in bad taste. I do not feel it displays a potential for inadequate behaviour as full moderator.
Shaw Fujikawa (talk) 03:24, July 30, 2014 (UTC)

4. Support Support — After watching and seeing what Feirund have done, I like what Feirund has to offer for the wikia. He have showed countless time to show a logical sense of situations, keeps his composure, rather modest, and have shown the ambition of improving the wiki. ClariS (talk) 01:25, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Neutral

Oppose

  1. Oppose Oppose —Reasons:
  • I don't see any weaknesses in the moderator team that you would fill at the moment. Ninja's promotion to moderator has solved a lot of issues raised concerning the level of moderator manpower.
  • Chat moderator behavior has been lacking at times, particularly in regards to significant bias towards friends, often to the point of blatantly ignoring or supporting excessive breaking of policy. The trait is likely to transfer to on-wiki behavior.

Brief analysis of questioning showing lack of moderator qualities:

  • I feel my voice would carry a lot more weight if I had the proper star accompanying it. Nonsensical and misguided statement: the "star" is for chat, and importance of arguments is not based on
    • The first point is irrelevant, again stressing moderator as a position of infallibility.
  • I am unable to delete unnecessary files and have to either wait for somebody with the proper rights to swing by or leave the mess hanging. I've been consistent in cleaning up the NewFiles day in, day out. If you want things done, you can ask me about it. The general attitude with staff on the wiki concerning powers is as such.
  • one active moderator... I'm pretty sure we have more. Empty, Psyk, ClariS [,Ninja] and LuckyVampire are all active moderators.

So oppose, see reasons above. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 20:38, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose Oppose — I agree with the points Demise101 has brought up. Furthermore he appears to be overly confident to the point of believing himself infallible: "...even though I knew my information to be infallible..." Luckyvampire 22:40, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment Comment — Vote reasons should not be based on personal feelings. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 18:36, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

The remaining 3 mods are Emptylord, Luckyvampire (also largely based in user blog namespace), and Ilkcs, ranked in decreasing levels of regular activity.
None of these mods excepting Emptylord or Ilkcs routinely edit mainspace pages nor handle files.
Expanding that to what Feirund brought up about wiki leadersip: current admins number: 1 inactive Canadian-crat who never edited much anyway, 2 admins who got admin so that they could do fancy code things, 1 inactive founder-crat, 2 bureaucrats with significantly reduced activity levels, and 1 Demise (to summarize, that's a grand total of 3 "active" admins+)
I nominated Feirund in order have someone that would help handle the back-end of the wiki: file management & page maintenance with tools such as pagemoves. He has handled large scale tasks that I find myself without the time for, such as manually updating patch notes for universal stat changes and categorization of files, things that I have done in the past, though Emptylord and other users do a lot in those areas (specifically, patch notes).
Your described chat behavior has not been documented. Please provide examples or bring up the issue in an appropriate and timely manner so that such claims can be objectively verified and properly resolved.
Generally, your opposition is based on "lack of moderator [personal] qualities", which is unrelated to the point of how "increased user rights level would help this user to better maintain the wiki" in a more custodial sense. No other mods are able / willing to tackle these areas of the wiki, and there's a gap that a different moderator would fill. — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 05:03, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Great analysis, so I'll respond in kind (no sarcasm, apart from the snark at the beginning this is probably the most constructive answer you've given me to date).

''He has handled large scale tasks that I find myself without the time for, such as manually updating patch notes for universal stat changes and categorization of files, things that I have done in the past, though Emptylord and other users do a lot in those areas (specifically, patch notes). - This statement, again, refers to work done on an editorial level and less to do with moderator access. If you are willing to provide me with a list of tasks that need doing, I'd be perfectly happy to complete them: as of late, I've been underemployed in the sense that most of my duties have been strictly maintenance-based. Adding page-moves or page-deletes would be most welcome.

Your described chat behavior has not been documented. Please provide examples or bring up the issue in an appropriate and timely manner so that such claims can be objectively verified and properly resolved. Though I don't blame you for it, chat hasn't been logged in quite a long time. I could probably get Ozuar or some other person on chat to vouch, but I'm going to ignore the issue because at worst it'll mean a slap on the wrist by you, and frankly you aren't going to even slap him.

As for the moderator qualities v custodial, I think given that we've always crucified nominees based on behavior, and that we (as a wiki) are granting actually significant access to said nominee, it's of considerable importance to consider Feirund's behavior as a future moderator. And, unlike the times when you are online and he sits up straight, he's often more trouble than the people he's supposed to be watching, as I said earlier 'egging on or ignoring breaking of rules'. I've personally watched his behavior as a chat moderator, and I wasn't satisfied. To use an analogy, he's the kid that waits for the teacher to turn around before throwing paper planes at people.

The contradiction between the reason you nominated him and the reason he wants moderator makes it impossible for me to support this: You see him for maintenance, he sees it for bragging rights. And, to respond to the " No other mods are able / willing to tackle these areas of the wiki", I'd be glad to take on more work. I believe of the many things that have been hurled at me over the past year and a half, "everything's fine at the moment" has been thrown the most regarding my proposal for reform. Though I still believe things aren't fine, they're certainly manageable without more moderator inflation. With more judicious use of crat powers, our current moderator team could be improved greatly without adding more people to its ranks. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 10:06, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I would appreciate if you didn't start a comment wall here without any real need - you both had your say in the matter, let the votes decide. Feirund (talk) 10:33, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

This is the purpose of the comments section. What we're discussing is relevant to the wiki and to your nomination. I'm not quite sure why you're telling us to stop; the discussion would have likely proved helpful for future nominations and the structure of the wiki in general. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 12:47, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this particular section is to judge my capability, not resolve whatever issues the wiki might have - that's what the forum and administrator noticeboards are for. Your point won't get any stronger even if you assail me more. Oh, and if you want to judge my cmod competence, just compare my chat ban log with that of other recently (earlier than me) promoted chat moderators. I have a sizeable list of truly detrimental, harmful individuals that can and want to cause a lot more harm than, say, Nystus could ever intend. I am also the one who ends up banning borderline trolls that display all kinds of irritable behavior without clearly breaking the rules - and I do it at the request and with consent of others, not out of my own volition. Therefore, let facts, not impressions, speak for themselves. Feirund (talk) 13:24, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Don't act the victim; if you're nominated for moderatorship, you need to be scrutinised. That's what the nomination is for. Note that the voting section is nearly always done off of impressions instead of facts. In regards to your chat moderator competence, I could promote any user with the same level of activity as you to ban obvious trolls and complete ban requests. This is not of vital importance. What I've considered is the issue of off-cases in which the role of the chat moderator is more intimate, in which I've heard and seen you handle with contempt or apathy. Defending Nystus isn't helpful to your cause, since he has a long standing chat ban log and history of posting explicit pornography, which you've ignored.

Having said this, I feel my original reason for adding to the comments section has now been distorted. I'm not going to add more to this section unless a new subject is brought up. ~ Demise101 @ Talk! @ Contribs! ~ 21:45, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Closing

  • Not done Not done No longer relevant — TehAnonymous Avatar TehAnonymous <3 15:45, August 4, 2014 (UTC)