Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-34115-20150626061048/@comment-34115-20150627023943

Thank you KirinNOTKarin98, Aka Shi No Crow, and NeedleJizo. I understand that there are users who have managed to use the forums without getting in the middle of all this.

However the question is not whether Sajuuk has or has not misused his tools or behaved in an uncivil way. Incidents with Sajuuk have come up in the past and in them he has misused his tools and behaved very disrespectfully towards other editors. The question is what to do about it.

Complaints
The complaints I've got this time have come from a mix of users. A sysop, forum mod, and 1-3 editors. The big problem is split into two issues. Firstly, this happens again and again. Sajuuk does something; one or two users email me asking me to intervene; me or another sysop 'deals' with it with a warning, explanation, or something else; then this process happens all over again. Secondly, the complaints I got were even wider this time. Normally 1-2 users email me about a single event I should intervene in. This time I get more messages than I have in the past, multiple users pointing out not only the one event like usual but each pointing out separate lists of other issues and continued behaviour, and I get another user complaining separately about Sajuuk's continued behaviour over time and including a list of incidents I have and haven't seen.

Most of these users have communicated to me via private mediums. It would be crass of me to violate their trust and privacy by mentioning names or reproducing their messages here.

Forum operator creation
I believe I have tried to clarify this to Super Sajuuk several times now. I've even edited pages explaining group rights to try and clarify it. But I will do it again for the community.

Forum Mods/Ops were created so we could give users the community didn't trust enough to give sysop powers – (which include the ability to hide content from readers or prevent it from being edited, mass move pages in hard to undo ways, inject malware, and mess with the forum/rollback/chat rights of a bunch of users) which also requires trust that they can handle policies aimed at editing of articles correctly – just enough tools to do stuff in the forum without having to give them full sysop rights.

Having “Forum” in your group name does NOT mean that users without a group that contains “Forum” in their name cannot moderate the forums. Having “Forum” in your group name means that the tools that group grants you, are only to be used in the scope of the forums. The forums and article space are NOT separate regions managed by separate forum and non-forum operators.

We haven't had a case of it yet. But if we were to promote a Forum Mod or Forum Op to sysop. I would remove the Forum Mod/Op flag at the same time as it becomes redundant. Likewise this is the reason that when we promoted Seelentau I did not give him a Forum Mod/Op flag at the same time. For another example, when I promoted Tau, when adding sysop to him I removed both his rollback and Chat moderator group from him as they were redundant. The forum flags are the same.

Another thing I should probably clarify again. The Forum Operator flag does not mean those users get to decide forum policies alone or have any status above Forum Mods. It means they are trusted with access to tools that let them ban users who make trouble in the forums and remove spam from view.

Forum ops ability (or not) to unblock themselves
was introduced in 1.17. Prior to that within MediaWiki anyone with the block right had the ability to unblock themselves. Wikia is a pot of slow upstream adoption and implementation customizations. Old information on how block works has likely lingered on in the memories of most people here and most don't know of the change to its functionality. But ultimately when we thought anyone with block could unblock themselves and gave that to forumop, it was simply because there's no technical way to add any per-group conditions to the block right.

…though apparently I'm the one that added the documentation for  to the page on MW.org back in 2011. (Not that I remember; oh how time flies)

Wikia
I've seen some comments here on how Wikia would or wouldn't intervene in various cases and statements made about the TOU. Which frankly, should end. Most of it is rhetoric.

The TOU is a legal document is basically covers Wikia legally over extremes in the same way as every other website's terms. Unless someone doing something horrid that would probably have already had you permablocked from the wiki or messing with the site structure citing the TOU is a red herring.

History lesson as a side topic. Wikia has actually changed over time. Back when the Narutopedia was created Wikia was extremely community/consensus focused. Every wiki application was reviewed. No duplicates were allowed. Requests for wiki on not very notable topics were rejected (this is why the Animepedia existed). And if it was decided by the community Wikia would even replace the bureaucrats and sysops of a wiki.

Over time this has changed. Anyone can create a wiki instantly. Wikia permits duplicates or notability. And Wikia seems to now defer to the wiki's founder more often than I would like.

Wikia's staff already know about the incidents between Sajuuk and Seelentau. Staff consider the two users to be feuding. Staff have told our sysop(s) that they could vote together on whether Sajuuk was unfit and with a majority ask me or staff to revoke his rights. Staff have also told me I could warn them that they could have their rights removed and/or be blocked.

Frankly, in hindsight I wonder if instead of taking my usual soft tone I should have gone with staff's advice and actually included a heavy warning about rights removals or blocks in my messages to them back then.

So, as far as this topic is concerned. If we decide that keeping Sajuuk – or any other user who is at the centre of too many incidents – around is too much trouble for the wiki. Then staff have no interest in intervening in that.

((If you're wondering why the Narutopedia has such a focus around community consensus. Despite Wikia staff seeming happy to defer to the founder and Sysop votes. It's because I care about the consensus and use that to decide whether to act.))

Misc.
@Super Sajuuk, asking to hear from users who avoid forums/chat because of you won't make them appear or comment. Just as you feel that if you discussed something in public you'd be bashed for it. A user who avoids the place because of you would typically fear retaliation if they tried. Ops and users who contact me directly also fear the same.

@Super Sajuuk, treating everyone respectfully is a key part of being a user with operator rights. Despite whether you believe that someone has earned that right.

@Rachin123, the incidents involving Sajuuk and complaints I've got have gone on for longer and have come from more users than Seelentau. This isn't an “either or”, if incidents around Seelentau were to continue a similar situation would arise. (Btw, If you want an idea of what my inbox is like on this. Searching for complaints over time related to Sajuuk, I have been sent emails from 5 different users. Searching for complains over time related to Seelentau, every last email has come from Sajuuk)

Or, if you don't like having Wikia be above you in any way, you are free to suggest that the whole community be removed from Wikia entirely. Side topic, but actually we aren't free to. Even if the community decided it would be better for the wiki to self host Wikia would not allow the wiki to be removed or point to the new wiki the community moved to. Other wikis have tried to leave before.