Forums: Index > The Cathedral > Good Luck Icy

First and foremost, I would like to inform everyone that our founder Icysugarspike has stepped down as bureaucrat for this Wiki. I have worked very close with icy and has been with him since the inception of the Megami Tensei Wiki. It is unfortunate, but I would like to wish Icy the best of luck in all his future endeavors, and I hope he'll feel much better working in his other wikis.

Last but not least, I would like to again thank Icy for all that he has done for the Wiki. We owe it to him for founding a space to share our MegaTen knowledge. Icy, you are still welcomed in the Wiki. BLUER一番 08:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What is a bureaucrat?

To those asking, a bureaucrat is an individual who is able to grant administrator rights to an editor. This in turn, will allow the editor access to features such as page deletion and protection, blocking malicious user accounts, rollback successive vandalism and tweak the MediaWiki software for customization.

A bureaucrat can also grant a normal user/editor rollback capabilities. This is useful in reverting successive vandalism and bad faith edits.

For more info, check out the User access levels FAQ.

If this is all (as I suspected) then is there a problem with having multiple Bureaucrats? If not, the logical thing to do without one is promote all sysops to Bureaucrat (so no one can wrong or fear being wronged by anyone else) ...assuming a bureaucrat can't un-bureaucrat a bureaucrat, ha! --Yksehtniycul 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for Bureaucrat


Next, in the absence of a bureaucrat to oversee the wiki's development, I would like to nominate myself as Icy's replacement. I promise to uphold his designs for the Wiki, which is an English language Megami Tensei Wiki for all English speakers, providing both Japanese and English content as developed by Atlus Japan and localized by Atlus USA. I have also worked diligently and neutrally, avoiding any bias as much as possible. I also worked to develop the Wiki as close as possible to Wikia's policies and guidelines, as well as engaging the active content-contributing community in discussions, although these are not without strife.

For comparisons please see my contributions list or my edit count.

Just to ascertain my position in trustworthiness, I was a long time editor in the Final Fantasy Wiki for three years, and was given administrator rights with support from the community. I am also a bureaucrat in the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, where I devolve administrative duties fairly to those who deserve these rights. These two wikis are a testament of how my participation has not doomed wikis in any way, despite unfounded criticism from the other two sysops. At present, these two wikis are very successful in terms of active community participation and the sharing of information, not to mention that articles are consistently being created and written. I took to being sysop for this wiki wholeheartedly, convinced that my wikia experience will help this wiki. BLUER一番 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I nominate User:SeventhEvening. I hate for the argument to be purely in contrast, but 7th knows Megaten more holistically, seems to be transparent, seems not to care overly much, is dispassionate and can be talked to, and only appears to work on the megamitensei wiki. Whereas Bluer, you just know you're being duplicitous^ ...I respect wanting to have a squeaky clean discussion, but don't kick it off with stuff that everyone knows to be BS. I got nothing personal against Bluer period, but there is just a negative tension there, that should not be fed, and could very well spell doom for the wiki if not checked.

I pre-refuse any nomination due to conflict of interest. I would also like to see bureaucratic powers enumerated, because if it just means the ability to ban people and such, let the wikia administration handle any spammers. There is no need to ban people. Or promote them to sysop. And furthermore how does a community pass bureaucratic powers along in the absence of a prior user holding the position? I'm assuming it's just up to wikia staff to review stuff like this page?--Yksehtniycul 02:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I suggest Bluer step down from his own nomination if he want's to demonstrate any measure of solidarity whatsoever. --Yksehtniycul 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I accept this nomination. I do love Megami Tensei, but I don't see any reason to get this worked up over everything. I created an account with Wikia simply to edit and improve this wiki, and I've stuck with this goal for as long as I've been an editor, and will continue to do so, if I can. SeventhEvening 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, apparently you are already a sysop, so we have a obvious way to choose a Bureaucrat by three way vote. Your privileges weren't taken away were they?
Three is a quorum, so there should never be an argument that a vote can't solve. Is that not what Icy meant by making me the 3rd administrator in the first place? --Yksehtniycul 07:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikia scorns this practice afaik. Wikia encourages community participation, and what determines the result isn't a vote, but a community consensus. That's how it should work. BLUER一番 09:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The only community is the people talking. If the answer to a dilemma isn't obvious (ie. happening) then it should fall to the sysops, and the ones that go against/don't pay attention the talking community at large will naturally be less popular. At any rate, you're circumnavigating the obvious solution to all of these arguments, and in doing so alienating yourself as the primary antagonist. Why not just go with the flow? I see you relented on Set's page. That's very promising. I thought we'd gotten past this binary stuff from you a long time ago, but like a hydra the heads just all sprung back up. Face it, you'd do a lot better around here if you'd just let go and let nature take it's course. All wikis will eventually succumb to natural order anyway, why fight it? --Yksehtniycul 17:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A Third Way

Right now we have two sysops voting for 7th, and Bluer voting for himself (without a seconded nomination) ...I of course have stepped down.

But here is a more fair and logical proposal. In short the three current sysops become the three Bureaucrats, and from now on this is a three Bureaucrat wiki. Any discussions on editing which can't be resolved (as a last resort) must be presented as a binary choice and be voted on between the bureaucrats (any bureaucrat unwilling to vote must step down) and that is it. Future sysops will form a lower decision making body. If any of the current 3 bureaucrats leave they can choose a sysop to replace them. Bureaucrats also take part in sysop discussion as a sysop. Any editing user with a clean history and a fair body of work can request sysop status if they want to involve themselves directly in "governance" of the wiki. But if they're not a sysop their words are just food for thought. Also any non-coercive input from wikia staff is food for thought and nothing more.

Of course all decisions must be unanimous amongst sysops or they forfeit and it goes to 3way vote (until future reconsideration.)

That said editors can still edit however they are comfortable, but there should be no complaints or undoing of edits if actions are according to the Manual of Style where such decisions should be put in writing. --Yksehtniycul 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This "Third Way" is by far the most community-alienating of all Ycul's decisions. It assumes that a Wiki is owned by a sysop - which is not the case as far as Wikia wikis go - and its the least friendly to normal editors involved. So, no. BLUER一番 02:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Frankly, it's the most compromising. How does it alienate the community more than having a single Bureaucrat who decides on everything? In fact, it's not community alienating at all. It would cause the wiki to be run via a democratic voting system and the ruling party would consist of a larger portion of the community than any other alternative that has been suggested. But, if you feel it's so unfriendly to "normal editors" than please, please, please, let me know of an idea that will work better for the community. I would fully support it if it exists. Until then, I support the multiple Bureaucrat "congress", as it's the best plan that is currently on the table. SeventhEvening 04:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Because a Wikia wiki was meant to be edit by anyone and everyone - a Wikia wiki nature is open and simple. Sysops are editors with extra buttons used to maintain articles, not control the wiki. Bureaucrats are those trusted by Wikia and the community to choose which ones have enough trust for the buttons. In short; a Wikia wiki isn't a place for some rulership, which you and Ycul are too inclined on the matter, what with the notion for a "democratic voting system" and a "ruling party" - notions very much alien in Wikia; it surprises me somewhat if you two haven't collaborated on an off-Wikia MegaTen site. BLUER一番 04:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Bluer's idea is obviously defacto rule by whoever spends the most time hacking away at the wiki. Most people don't want to get involved in these sorts of matters. As I outlined, all they have to do to get involved is a little editing and ask to be a sysop. The way I see it, is this wiki is like Wikipedia, only it is more detailed, and therefore more complicated. So if it's more complicated it's going to require more direct governance, or at least that seems to be the case, because what we have isn't working, and there is no throng of editors lining up to voice their concerns or whatever, so therefore you do what is the most practical. Form a committee. I also think Megami Tensei is very complicated as games go in terms of documentation, therefore it's reasonable to take care of these things the sooner the better. Basically if you don't have a plan you're gonna waste a lot of peoples' time. And speaking for my self, I really don't appreciate that. I mean if you think all this discussion is a waste of time, it's nothing compared to the collective time wasted ing having to change the course of a wiki late in the game. --Yksehtniycul 12:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
PS: I gotta remind you, that you can't have a community wide vote, because it's very easy for one person to rig anything like poll. Even if polls track IPs many IPs are shared, mine are by people nation wide, and countless proxies are available to use for these purposes, so you can't really tell what is what that way. It's less likely any person would pretend to be multiple users over time. So if you don't have a voting system everything is subjective and that really isn't sound. But I gotta remind you that even though it sounds like all the sysops would have to vote on something, what would really happen is all sysops would have to gradually reach a compromise. That is the chief tenant of anarchist collectives and the basic foundation of wiki ethics. Just a manageable microcosm if you will (amongst sysops that is.) --Yksehtniycul 12:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


See the actual conversation(User_talk:Icysugarspike#Bluer)

Is there any reason a wiki must have a Bureaucrat in the first place?

Unfortunately, Ycul is more engaged in downgrading users than actually maintaining the wiki in his short tenure, thus why he started the convo in the first place. It's really unfortunate, because our first impression was that Ycul would be a helpful addition, and we had good faith on him. Turns out, it was a mistake.
As far as blocks and bans are concerned, the farthest I went was blocking a user for vandalism. I've never engaged in abuse, as the block log can attest, so Seventh's accusation is without basis. BLUER一番 03:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
And what users would that be, and who is we for that matter? My only interest is clearly a functional wiki community... and therefore a healthy flourishing wiki. In fact I could so care less about anything else. --Yksehtniycul 03:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
My interests is for the wiki to not only have a functional wiki community, but also a functional wiki community that provides content for all our readers, especially for those who are only starting to be introduced to the series, placing aside their disregard for localization. There is no development to be had if the functional wiki community is only interested in arguing why Japan is superior, and I aim to encourage more content writing than arguments.
And I also believe my experience with working on Wikis and cooperation with Wikia will be most helpful. BLUER一番 03:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Japan is not superior... in fact there are as many stupid mistakes in the original games as in Atlus of America games. That said the Japanese games tend to come first, and this is a "Megami Tensei" wiki, not the Atlus of America wiki, or the Bluer wiki. Furthermore the games are squarely set in Tokyo mirroring the entire city. Are loaded with real Japanese terms with no dictionary English equivalents. Also corresponds to mythology, history, and popular culture 100% of the time in a 1:1 way. So in order of priorities it should be, Reality > Japanese > English > Atlus of America > Bluer (for 100% of the games and merchandise produced so far)
PS: Of course, none of that matters if people can't leave their ego at the door. --Yksehtniycul 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. Japan isn't superior, but we are dealing with a very Japanese series. To disregard contridictions that appear in Atlus USA's localization just seems sloppy to me. If we were talking about Dante's Inferno, I'd say the original Italian manuscript should have the highest priority, because that's how it was written. Additionally, the book is steeped in Italian politics and the culture of the time. Then, localized versions of the book should be next in line in terms of priority. I don't think that that is an unreasonable stance to take. SeventhEvening 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
^I'm not really much of an editor. I'm more of a coacher. Good workers are not always good leaders. I think my content edits bring more quality than quantity to the wiki. Not saying either is more important, but my edits (though often multi-edits) are more valuable/thoughtful than typical edits. As for micromanaging the wiki, that isn't necessary. As long as the community is functional it will reach a natural equilibrium. The whole point of wikis is to be neutral. That is ego laden editing will naturally be wiped out over time. And that is how it should be. As for organization principals, there is only one. Document reality from the perspective of reality. The current organization of this wiki is way too "in-universe" as is. --Yksehtniycul 08:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In-universe is good. A wikia wiki is not Wikipedia, nor is it Yksehtniycul Wiki for that matter ^^. It's a collaboration of people who share the same passion, the same goals. Documenting reality is Wikipedia's business - and I do wonder if you do edit Wikipedia, Ycul.
Although, consistency is very nice and goes a long way. And that I encourage for that professional feel in a Wiki akin to a fansite. So yeah, Megami Tensei > Reality > Yksehtniycul for that matter too.
You did mention you'd want to found and control a Wiki outside of Wikia and its guidelines. I suppose that would be wise to lessen all the "hate". I'll contact Wikia and see how they can help. BLUER一番 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In-universe is never good except in fanfiction. I'm totally losing interest in this wiki day by day, sorry.--Yksehtniycul 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, don't get me involved with wikia anymore than you already have!! I've downloaded a backup of the wiki and am waiting for a file backup when the work week starts. That said, the backup process is extremely primitive, so I'd prefer it remain just that, a backup. Why would you encourage a competitive wiki? It just seems like whenever there are two sides, you always take the more ignoble one and without missing a beat. I don't want to criticize anyone, but it's impossible when you're always playing the arch villain act to a tee. It's seriously not helping. --Yksehtniycul 07:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, a Wikia wiki is not Wikipedia, and that's what appeals most people to edit a Wikia wiki; Wikipedia demands its info to be out-of-universe - I should know, I edited in Wikipedia for three years running now - and that drives potential editors, who are fans especially, away from Wikipedia. Wikia provides them with the space for the fans to share things they find from the media they love; character profiles, story elements, the like. If that doesn't convince you, see what Wikia is all about. As well, I am very happy when our editors start to write in plot elements; I encourage it very much.

Though, I never said I encourage a competitive wiki - you really do need to stop putting words in other people's mouths; such as when you claim to Wikia staff how "Bluer drove off even the founder/former bureaucrat" when it was apparent my edits were very much welcomed. Really, Ycul, all this "playing the arch villain" stuff; this is a wiki, not a soapbox :)))

I hope everything's going well with digitaldevildb. Last time, popanime got into the same mess, fortunately they got back up, but sad to see it being less used. User:Bluerfn 13:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Staff input

Hi everyone,

Since I became aware of the need for a new bureaucrat here, I've had a look at this page and some other talk pages around the wiki. I'll be happy to give the bureaucrat rights to whomever seems to have a strong consensus of approval.

I would very much like to see other users add their opinions on this page -- so far I've only heard from the three admins who, as they admit, have something of a conflict of interest in the matter.

Ycul, I must admit I'm not very pleased by your tone, here and elsewhere -- you seem to be very confrontational and derogatory towards Bluer's work here, and not interested in working towards compromises on how to handle content. There isn't any one right way to handle multi-lingual/multi-national content on any wiki, and only people who are capable of assuming good faith about each other are going to be able to reach the best solution for their individual community. Please moderate your attitude.

If you feel you can create a better wiki outside of Wikia's policies and guidelines, that is within your rights -- you have the resources to do so.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of this community discussion. Thank you! — Catherine@fandom (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep digging around and you will begin to understand my words to Bluer are much more generous than any other statements which have been levied in the past by other users. It is only I am a newcomer and am just recently experiencing Bluer's certain "Je ne sais quoi." 7th (the other sysop) I'm sure would agree he's been harsher with Bluer than I. And many other users have been much blunter. I am however a very direct (or confrontational) person, and I hope others appreciate that. Perhaps if Bluer was more direct from the get go the atmosphere around here would not be so stifled. 7th is not the only contributor who harbors some qualms with Bluer. But as I'm sure you can understand, most users have enough sense to not get themselves embroiled in this sort of situation, and as such would surely be be quite happy in leaving the circumstances to the admins dealt the wiki. To be perfectly frank, had I been aware 7th was a sysop himself, I would've interjected much sooner on behalf of a three way vote in any outstanding matter. And as such perhaps much of this would've been averted and Icy would still be the Bureaucrat in name only. I'm of the opinion myself there is no need for a Bureaucrat at this time, but if one is not elevated then Bluer will undoubted seek the position or better yet deem himself thus while ignoring protest from all sides. --Yksehtniycul 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I respectfully have no further interest in engaging wikia staff in these affairs in this way. I appreciate the service, but please do not single me out again. As far as I am concerned this privilege is reserved for editors of this wiki. --Yksehtniycul 21:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as I thought, it wasn't just me. No offense, but obviously if someone outside of the wiki can tell you're confrontational and derogatory, it's hard to say otherwise. As much as I don't want to take sides, it's clear that since you've arrived, all you've done is cause conflict for other people on the Wiki. A neutral party tries to intervene and you don't even want to consider their opinion? That seems kinda childish and a little hypocritical. I find it funny that Catherine suggested that you create your own better wiki since you came from digitaldevildb (I could be wrong, but that was the impression I got) and taking notice from a few days ago, I noticed that DigitalDevilDB is down (and even before, the news was rather dated and it seemed like no one was keeping the site updated). In the first place, why even consider being an editor on this particular wiki when you supposedly don't even have an interest in the subject matter. It just makes no sense to me. AetherMaster 03:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
^I don't really understand where you're coming from, but I am an adult, and having someone who is not my peer comment or even quasi preach to me is not something any self respecting adult would put up with for a second. I personally don't believe third parties should be involved in this discussion for a moment, but I just asked that I not be singled out to deal with third parties. As for I am the sole reason the site still exists since it's founder dropped it completely into the hands of someone who cared nothing for it. I was asked to take responsibility for it. And I am not a content contributor for the site, so whether or not it has content on it has nothing to do with me - not that the news has not been uptodate multilingual and relevant for several months now. My "job" is to make sure any contributions are made available on the site to the readers. The site is down now because the 2nd party let the host expire without contacting us, and over the last few days I've been doing everything in my power to try to obtain a perfect backup of the site, and have even found a new home for it, and am still dealing with taking over the domain name, so in short, there is not a more dedicated person to all of this megaten enthusiasm business than I. You can say fans like Tony (the founder) appear more dedicated, but where is he now? I'm the longest active member in the entire Megaten community afaik. Because I understand commitment and how to pace my energies and what I was getting into in the first place. --Yksehtniycul 19:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to get involved in this, but it's rather sickening to those who do not fully understand the situation to come in here and attack one of our sysops. Ycul is somewhat confrontational, but to say he is unwilling to compromise is ridiculous. He is the only person who had submitted a reasonable compromise for our manual of style, proposing something that was somewhat between what I and Blue had suggested. On the other hand, as can be seen by reading our most heated talk page, Blue has done everything other than listen to the community consensus, or compromise. While I admit I became confrontational beyond a certain point in the conversation due to a inability to get him to listen to my argument (and after being insulted numerous times), I was simply attempting to enforce the manual of style that the community had agreed on at the founding of the wiki (and the one that the community seemed to agree with during that discussion). However, in this case, the community was completely ignored. It was Ycul who then approached the situation with an argument of how the manual of style could be tailored to both of our views. So please don't attack him over a situation you don't fully understand. Regardless, I believe that this space should be a neutral location to discuss the future administrator for the wiki, not a place for users to come and attack one another while the throne is empty. SeventhEvening 04:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.