|!! ATTENTION - Problem Reports Should Not Go To Individual Admins - ATTENTION !!|
| All reports should be filed with the proper department:
Staff members are not required to respond to requests for assistance that are not filed in the proper department, and are not responsible for correcting your errors in cases where things do not get handled.
Very Important Message Edit
Well, I'll tell you it when I'm back and I won't be on for a couple of years. Here's a link-please read the message. User:*Starlingfoot* Bye, Atelda. I'll miss you and don't worry I'll be here again soon. <3 :) *Starling* Hey sexy lady! 22:12, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
TO DA WINDOWSEdit
TO DA WALLS
BETTA CLEAN DOS BATHROOM STALLS
Oh by the way... Edit
Image Rename Edit
Thank you :3Edit
Omg you made a box. xDD
Might I ask for what reasons the chat was turned off, and why exactly you did it without informing anyone of the situation? You know, I don't think it's right that you just turn off the chat at will like that, 'teldy. At least not without some form of warning or reason. ._. Just because you have the admin/'crat powers, does not mean you can abuse them to turn off one of the forms of communication we have without a justified reasoning behind it, and actually informing members before you do something like that. So, I ask that you turn the chat back on, and if you plan on turning it off again, please inform members before you do so. —Garrus ღ 04:48, 5/16/2013
But you're not allowed to only inform certain members, last I checked. That's not right, and extremely unfair to those who were not informed. I don't care if it's a "social experiment" or not, 'teldy. Only including certain members in your plans and information is not fair at all. Speaking as someone who was not told, and part of the staff, I was utterly confused, and quite offended. I was not attacking you, and I would appreciate that you not accuse me as such. I am allowed to say that I thought you were ignoring me, because I also messaged you on Skype and did not receive a reply. I'll claim what I did because there is a justified reason as to why I did so.
You cannot pick and choose as to whom you tell of your plans and who you do not. It's unfair, and totally against everything that this wiki stands for. I was assuming good faith with you, thank you very much. I think it's you that is not assuming good faith with me, accusing me of attacking you. Apparently it wasn't in your plans to inform the entire wiki of your plans. If we tell people that discussing things in the chat is not official, then why does it make you, and whomever suggested it, immune to the rules? You are not immune to the same exact thing that we tried to dispell with PCA, keeping things private and acting upon them.
I will question your actions as I see fit, because I am an editor of the wiki and entitled to such. To pick and choose members to tell your plans to is not the right thing to do. It's unfair and completely bias. I don't care that perhaps one or two other members knew. I did not, along with multiple other staff members, and editors that approached me, both privately and publicly. You are not above us just because you hold the power to be able to turn off the chat at will. You are just as subject to questions about your actions as myself. And I will question them, especially now, as I find this totally /unfair/ and against everything that I've ever learned about Wikia. —Garrus ღ 03:50, 5/17/2013
I am a member of community council because I love Wikia, and seek to help it by doing everything I can. My stance with matters outside of this wiki are not relevant to this. You're part of CC as well, along with Kitsu. You are doing the exact same thing that PCA did back when Iceheart was leader; picking and choosing users to tell about your ideas and implementing them. PCA got into major trouble for doing that, and I was one of the ones involved. I learned from that, and haven't done it since. Remember the lead meetings? Those were almost the destruction of the entire group of leads that the project had at the time.
You're not allowed to only tell a small group of people. ._. Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with you actually turning off the chat, 'teldy. It's how you went about it, and only telling a select group of people of your plans. Whether or not you actually intended to tell everyone else the true reasons are of no matter to me. The point is that you acted on your own. I know had I done the same thing if I had admin rights, I'd be facing another VoNC for abusing my rights. You need to inform the entire wiki of your plans beforehand, I'd think. Not after everything is said and done. —Garrus ღ 04:17, 5/17/2013
It doesn't matter who you talked to. I never said it did. I know for a fact you did not consult the entire staff of this wiki, based on the questions I was asked. Turning off something as controversial as the chat is not something you can do at will for whatever reasons they may be, and I am still unaware as to why you did it. —Garrus ღ 04:26, 5/17/2013
Eh, very true. Regardless of who was or wasn't consulted, it's still not right, and goes against everything that I've ever been told Wikia stands for. x.x Can we like, uh, not turn off the chat again without starting a forum discussion or something like that?
And I do believe either Kit or Eu turned /on/ the chat. I'm not entirely sure who flicked the switch for it. I think it was agreed upon or something along those lines to turn it on, but I'm not sure who exactly was involved with that decision. —Garrus ღ 04:33, 5/17/2013
- I didn't turn the chat on. I can't speak for Eu on the subject, though. At this point, given that we've voted and accepted Chatroom policies, it can be assumed that the chat is a formal (and consensus supported) part of the wiki. Regaurdless of how the chat came to be turned on, it seems to me that it's removal would only be acceptable through conesensus of wiki members at this point. Or prehaps through an agreement of at least all administrators/rollbacks in pursuite of a social experiment (and that would have to be an experiment with a serious purpose, or something that was passed through via vote like the proposed "day of editing" idea). (this is what guided my choice to restore the chat last night, when I could find no evidence of why, or of community support for, the retirement of the service: and I consider the spike in casual conversational editing to be a good reason to continue to support the chatroom as a service we provide). Wow... This got wordy fast. But I figure sine I was involved and I did reactivate last night, I should at least state why, or clarify what I know about how the chat happened in the first place. Den/CoSC 20:12, May 17, 2013 (UTC)