Forum:Charitwo's sysop

Unless you haven't seen yet, charitwo's sysop was removed by Jen with no summary. I see no reason for this, and have to wonder why. As far as I know, the community members here appreciate Charitwo's work as an admin here. Am I wrong in that?


 * There was no reasoning for that as far as I know, except for Jen's apparent attempts to remove his sysop and vstf&hellip; 1358  (Talk)  18:37, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Monchoman45 and others - Charitwo and I, as well as other members of the Community Team staff, have had many conversations (including today) about what being an admin on Central means. Community Central is going through a lot of changes and we're looking at how to provide the absolute best service and help to all community members - new, old and somewhere in between. Charitwo is a dedicated member of the VSTF and we are happy to have him continue to be a part of that team, and the Central community. Jen Burton (help forum | blog) 18:48, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that means we get no say in it. Surprising 1358  (Talk)  18:51, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * None of that has anything to do with the point of the forum. You can't simply desysop someone because you feel like it, people will notice and I believe we deserve at the very least a reason other than "stuff changes".


 * It's between Charitwo and the staff. 19:35, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it to be horribly bad practice for staff to remove the rights of a user trusted with administrator privileges on over 300,000 wikis for, quite literally, no reason.


 * I think it should have been the staff making this announcement ,instead of just doing it and hoping no one sees it in the logs.I would like to see the reason /a brief statement by staff telling us the exact reason why Charitwo lost his sysop powers --Tama 63  20:14, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Hey Tama - we didn't have a chance! The forum was made before we were able to post about it. Moncho - I understand you disagree with this decision, but we're not going to go in to the specifics here. I trust people understand that we made the decision based on what we believe is in the best interest of both the active members of Community Central and those who "drive-by" looking for assistance. Jen Burton (help forum | blog) 20:28, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, then staff should annouce it now then. -- Ben ( Talk ) 20:33, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * What i can gather then, the demotion was because of Charitwo's "Public Relations"?--Tama 63  20:35, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea what happened, but really need a good reason for demoting someone who has done so much. I know you might think this is between you and him, but a short statement about this is really better then to leave this blank and stir up speculation.
 * Beside that, a great concern is brought up by Monchoman45 which is not adressed about possible abitrary decisions being made. Those fears need to be adressed or the loyalty of the users involved will deminish as well that it will be looking bad for the company.
 * As i said before, don't have a clue what happened nor the reasoning, and take this as advice, or simply ignore it, but it's better to adress such an event shortly even tough it might be painfull or bringing bad idea's to the surface. Not adressing it causes more issues usually.

Jen the issue being raised here is not so much about Charitwo in particular losing his sysop bit. The issue that our — yours and mine — fellow Wikians are raising is that the method of de-sysoping runs contrary to wiki tradition, custom, and principles. From Wikia’s perspective it was a staffing issue and wanting to ensure the best fit for “customer service”. However, for your fellow Wikians, the method and the manner is foreign to us. It makes us wonder: Is this a future we all might face on our home wikis? Might any of us be next, if traditional wiki de-sysoping processes no longer apply? Thanks! — Spike Toronto  22:13, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Spike - that's a legit question. The answer is no - policies on Central (which are changing) will not affect the policies on your home wikis. As you are aware, staff stays out of local wiki disputes unless there's a situation where the ToU has been violated. Jen Burton (help forum | blog) 22:33, November 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * On central, sysops are promoted in votes, namely Community Central:RfA. And because of that, a demotion should also be voted, unless a bad action is made, in which case it should be reasoned. I won't consider fair the demotion if that's because of an internal or off-wiki (community central) discussion involved by Charitwo and a Wikia Staff. Also, Jen, a very *very* bad action should have been done Charitwo for being demoted without being accompanied with a blog post or forum page. 4 hours and still waiting for a reason. I think JenBurton is abusing her position in Wikia as a Staff member to do things that should be left to other groups. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 22:19, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, sysops aren't voted on here. Since Wikia can appoint sysops as they please, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to remove them the same way tbh. 22:21, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ciencia. the RfA process on Central is gone. All central admins are chosen by staff now and are demoted by staff.--
 * Ciencia - the previous promotions of admins on Central may have been done via RfA, but that will no longer be the case. Because Central is Wikia's communications hub and our chief support center, it's more important than ever that the people who are given the privilege of access to admin tools and responsibilities be chosen by staff as the best people for the job. I am not "abusing my position" as staff - Community Central is literally one of my top responsibilities here at Wikia and the decision was not taken lightly, made in haste, nor done on my own. Jen Burton (help forum | blog) 22:33, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of opinion, there could be something that we don't know about that isn't our business. I'm sure Jen has good intentions and has a reason for certain actions.
 * The fact is that Jen doesn't want to share her reasons. Just an extension of the lack of transparency of several wikia actions. The forum wouldn't had been created in the first place if a valid reason were made for the demotion, and Jen is still replying to this forum and not giving the reasoning. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 22:47, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I know and I would agree, but you have to consider that it could be a private reason that shouldn't be discussed among the whole community. However I definitely can see where you are coming from.
 * When an administrator or community leader of a community is removed from his position, the community is entitled to know all of the reasoning behind the decision. Hiding the reasoning only encourages members of the community to assume there was insufficient/invalid reasoning (possibly a reason why this forum was made), and hence it is not being presented. I'm not saying that's the case, but the point still stands. --Callofduty4 22:56, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * True. But there is still the possibility where this rule may not apply in this case. I mean how do/don' we know that it is very private to the point where it can't be shared. I mean that point is still a possibility.

I remember being equally confused when Godisme was given sysop without any fanfare or announcement. Similarly, the appointment of chatmods on community seems to be a closed process. Perhaps I'm just out of the loop. Ironically, here on community the community doesn't really get a say in the sysop positions.

I find it a little strange that this place is described as "Wikia's...chief support center". Most technical support requests are answered by non-staff members of the community, and often staff's response is "ask on the forums, the people there will help you out". The staff rely pretty heavily on the "power user"-base to maintain this as a chief support centre, which could be reflected a little more in the decisions about the wiki-- Category:Acer4666 10:03, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * And to that end, desysoping charitwo doesn't prevent him from leaving comments like this. I fail to see how anyone gains anything from this. I know Jen has on multiple occasions lectured charitwo about being "nicer" and on how he does his job. Watching this unfold, I'm starting to believe that Jen did act alone and that this was more or less a personal attack. I also fail to see how someone with 3 months of limited experience with Wikia is qualified to judge the actions of someone with over 4 years of extensive work in countervandalism and wiki administration. Charitwo is quite literally the single most trusted user who doesn't get a pay check - he has more access than even the other VSTF. From the discussion, it appears to me that there is no reason why Charitwo was desysoped - his right were removed simply because someone didn't like him. Unless someone can give me evidence to show otherwise, this appears to be the logical conclusion that can be drawn from this conversation.


 * Why don't you ask Charitwo for the reason, if you're interested in it? Per Urbancowgurl777, this is between Charitwo and the Staff. Seeing how Community Central is not just another wiki, I don't think the usual promote/demote rules apply here. — Sovq 11:22, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Such a drastic action, especially one that affects the entire community, should not be done in private. Unless the reason is obviously invalid, Jen has nothing to lose by posting it publicly, and everything to gain.


 * Since we don't know the reason, perhaps calling it "drastic" is a bit much? Did you consider that maybe both sides agreed that this would be the best course of action and that the reasons for this decision would not be stated publicly? — Sovq 11:44, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * In such a case, I would expect Charitwo to remove his own rights, as that would indicate that it was (at least in part) his decision.

It was not my own decision, not did I agree with any aspect of it. I was told it was "staff consensus" more or less during a community team meeting and that the comment that Monchoman linked above was described by Jen as: However, my experience with Jen, our one-sided " Discussions ", and an unofficial skype chat while i was asleep with friends on the inside led me to believe it was all her idea, regardless of whether or not she pushed the team to make their "decision". And just so staff don't think I'm making all this up, Meighan and Trella want more females as CC Admins and a breakdown of the current "admin vibe" :)

I highly doubt I'll ever be put back in the position as CC Admin, especially with what some of the current staff want. Although, I would like to see some more fair and unbiased treatment in the future. Current central regulars feel they have to self-moderate while Jen is present because they also fear losing their rights here and/or elsewhere. The fact that this forum even exists just makes me feel that I'm not alone in that my desysopping was rash, untimely, and without clear public reason which goes against the community principles wikis were founded on. -- 16:13, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to add another staff voice here, firstly to say that this was not Jen's decision alone. This was close to happening several times before Jen joined us (as Charitwo knows from our long discussions over the years) and I and others support this decision.

It's been general practice on this wiki for a while not to discuss blocks with anyone uninvolved. I'm sure you can find examples in Charitwo's contributions of him telling various people this. The choice not to discuss the details of this change was similar - it's between staff and Charitwo, and we prefer not to discuss it outside of that. Obviously we still trusted him and respect the skills he has for his VSTF work, or we would have removed those rights too (remember, this was a social change, not a practical one in his case - he still had the same rights, but was asked to only use them as VSTF and not as wiki admin).

Sadly, his latest comments have meant he has lost that trust, and this is something we need to address publicly. He has taken private comments from an internal wiki, and put them on this forum. I recognize that he is not the only one at fault here (obviously those comments were passed on to him by someone else) but we cannot trust someone involved in that breach of privacy. Because of this, Charitwo will also be leaving the VSTF.

I'm sorry this has escalated in this way -- sannse http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb32675/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog)  17:55, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * All I have to say at this point is you're shooting yourself in the foot. I hope corporate understands what they've done here.

What I don't understand is how his apparent loss of trust affects his ability to maintain wikis and keep them vandalism-free. I think this is highly preemptive - he is yet to abuse the VSTF tools, so why is he suddenly deemed untrustworthy of holding tools that taking private comments from an "internal wiki" (this proves that details were being kept from the community regarding the initial demotion) have nothing to do with? Maybe there's something I'm missing, or I'm just so blind that I cannot see through this. --Callofduty4 18:16, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * My bet is that you (Sannse) will retract that post and that decision.
 * I'm not a fan of Charitwo but the fact is that the man has years of work done and experience accumulated and that you (wikia) now has to get someone to do this sort of work or the whole wikia will be infested with spammers and the like.
 * It's also very amusing to see how this whole forum standards versus wiki standards work. I bet that if this was built as a real forum people wouldn't have pulled that "standard practice in wikis is..." talk.
 * But then again... You (wikia) consider this community something owned 100% by you even though you contribute absolutely nothing, the big burden is upon us. At the very least you should have set it up separate from your centralized thing.
 * I'll take this opportunity to say Good Bye.
 * 18:35, November 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * What a mistake to do that. Talking of decisions not being "made in haste" - took a whole 1 hour 40 mins to make that one. Very much an overreaction, doesn't ease anyone's fears that there's an agenda here-- Category:Acer4666 20:20, November 4, 2011 (UTC)