FANDOM


  • Paperluigi ttyd
    Paperluigi ttyd closed this thread because:
    december is over
    16:33, January 1, 2015

    I have decided to highlight this month's thread in order to remind all admins that "we will be using the thread and only the thread to determine whether or not future discussion should take place [here]", as I directly stated in my announcement thread yesterday.

    Topics for this month, listed in order of priority. Do not feel the need to discuss the topics in this order, but keep in mind that the ones at the top are the ones that need to be addressed with the most urgency.

    1. Whether or not admin discussion should occur in the forums
      • Resolved: For now, yes
    2. Demotion of inactive chatmods and promotion of new chatmods
      • Resolved: Dark and Cyber demoted; Brandon and Echo promoted
    3. The future of profanity/censoring on the wiki
    4. Defining official admin roles
    5. Finding a more consistent banning and blocking system
    6. New Features
    7. Other topics
      Loading editor
    • Chatmods who should be demoted: Dark and Cyer

      Users who should be promoted to chatmod: Echo, Brandon, and Ren

      Chatmods who should be promoted to admin: Ahmad and Toon

        Loading editor
    • I agree with Sub on the demotions and the promotions to chatmod. As for administrators, there's already six members (see Template:Admin), and we haven't had eight since 2012 I think, probally because eight is a lot. Plus moderators. If we promoted/demoted according to Sub's suggestion, there'd be 14 users with rights (6 mods, 8 admins). idk I have to think about this more. 

        Loading editor
    • We don't currently need any new admins. We currently have six, only one of whom is not active, that beings Roads. If anything, we should demote Roads, promote a new admin, and have a current admin become crat; however, I do not believe that this is necessary at the current time.

      As for chat mods, I agree with demoting Dark and Cyber, but I believe we should only promote Brandon and Ren in their place. Again, we want a set amount of chat moderators that should only change as the wiki grows, which as of lately has not been happening. If we demote two chatmods, two new ones should be promoted in their place.

      @Sub: As you was the only one who really opposed using the forums, but you didn't mention it even though it was first on the list of topics, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're okay with it for now.

        Loading editor
    • As for demotions from chatmod, I agree. Promotions, still unsure. As for promotions to admin..Again, unsure.

        Loading editor
    • I also think now would be a good time to discuss my idea for new admin roles and responsibilities. Basically, each of the six admins would be in charge of a couple areas of wiki administration. Users who have problems would be encouraged to contact the administrator in charge of the area that pertains to their problem. If multiple admins are available when admin action is needed, then the one in charge of the area that the problem is related to should take charge. Basically, each admin would become an expert in a specific facet of wiki administration, instead of trying to master the entire system.

      I have some ideas in mind for who would take what role, but it basically follows what we each of us do already. Honestly, this would just make it more official and organized.

        Loading editor
    • @Paper Good for you.

        Loading editor
    • So are you okay with it?

        Loading editor
    • I like the idea, Paper. :D

        Loading editor
    • Also, I talked to Roads on chat and suggested he'd step down from crat. He said he will be a crat a little while longer, then quit when he's finished with his series.

        Loading editor
    • I'm okay with it if everyone else is. @Paper

        Loading editor
    • Oh, and we have three admins, not six. Sci, Brian, and Roads are crats.

        Loading editor
    • Where exactly does it say that he's a crat..? ._.

        Loading editor
    • SubZero309
      SubZero309 removed this reply because:
      ...
      01:19, December 2, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • They also have admin rights, though, and the only right a crat has that admin doesn't have is promoting new admins.

      If Roads is stepping down, we would need one new admin to replace him, but I don't necessarily think we need a new crat, two seems like enough.

        Loading editor
    • Paperluigi ttyd wrote:
      I also think now would be a good time to discuss my idea for new admin roles and responsibilities. Basically, each of the six admins would be in charge of a couple areas of wiki administration. Users who have problems would be encouraged to contact the administrator in charge of the area that pertains to their problem. If multiple admins are available when admin action is needed, then the one in charge of the area that the problem is related to should take charge. Basically, each admin would become an expert in a specific facet of wiki administration, instead of trying to master the entire system.

      I have some ideas in mind for who would take what role, but it basically follows what we each of us do already. Honestly, this would just make it more official and organized.

      Um... care sharing said ideas with Lego and Sub? (since I've already seen them)

        Loading editor
    • I would indeed like to see such ideas.

        Loading editor
    • Not knowing that Roads was stepping down, these are the roles that I came up with:

      Brian - Reviewer and Litigator

      • overviews all blocks and deletions to make sure they were justified
      • handles all user disputes not directly related to content (see lego)

      Sub - Chatmod Manager and Trainer

      • calls for/runs meeting to determine promotion/demotion of new chatmods
      • helps chatmods "understand" their responsibilities and "warns" them if they abuse their power

      Sci - 201X - The Year of Y manager

      • makes blogs about 201X - The Year of Y
      • runs official wiki contests (such as the category one awhile back)
      • in charge of updating featured user and featured series
      • has final say on creation of new teams/committees (such as the FCC)

      Lego - Content Manager

      • handles stolen content disputes
      • warns users about content that does not belong
      • helps compile the best content and services lists
      • in charge of updating featured alien and featured character

      Paper - Community Representative and Bot Runner

      • makes threads announcing policy changes
      • does the actual changing of the policies when they are approved
      • changes wiki css and js
      • does all the bot stuff

      For Roads, I couldn't think of anything significant other than just "Head of Admins", because that's kind of what he's been since he became an admin several years ago. I also tried to pick roles based on what we already do, for example, Sci has always made 2014 - A Year of Change blogs, I usually make the announcement threads, etc.

      Edit: and since we're going to be doing discussion in the forums now, calling for meetings would be replaced with simply deciding when we need to make some changes, I guess.

        Loading editor
    • To be fare, I've handled user disputes (Brian), called for meetings (Sub), updated featured alien and featured character (Lego), and I've done stuff with the wiki's css and js before along with making announcement threads (Paper) so techincally I've done everything lawl

      I wasn't aware Roads was stepping down ._.

        Loading editor
    • I always make the threads... lol

      I know several times Sub called for meetings to discuss chatmods.

      Lego seems like a good person to handle content issues.

      Brian is a crat so he should handle block reviews.

      And you just keeping doing your thing... lol

        Loading editor
    • Ok lets get to the subject.

      Chatmods who should be demoted: Dark and Cyer

      Users who should be promoted to chatmod: Echo, Brandon, and Ren

      Chatmods who should be promoted to admin: Ahmad and Toon

      What do you guys agree and disagree with? Be specific.

        Loading editor
    • Dark and Cyber being demoted: yes because they are inactive.

      Echo, Brandon, and Ren being promoted: Not Echo, but Brandon and Ren. They're active and they've been mods before I believe. If we do promote a chatmod to admin, we would need a third new mod but I don't who yet.

      Admins: Brian and Sci should discuss this because they are the crats.

        Loading editor
    • Chatmods: Echo, Ren, and Brandon are very mature, experienced, and are always found on chat. Plus Brandon has proven to be worthy again.

      If we're picking two chatmods though, I'll just say Echo and Ren.

      Admins: Ahmad has been with us for years, is a great chatmod, he's mature, and is also experienced. Same goes for Toon. They deserve it.

        Loading editor
    • @Paper Fine.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the Toon and Ahmad thing, since I discussed it with Sub before.

      Also I'm fine with my role. :v

        Loading editor
    • I would say that if only one admin is stepping down, then we should only promote one chatmod to admin, not two.

        Loading editor
    • SubZero309
      SubZero309 removed this reply because:
      Not an admin
      19:32, December 2, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • SubZero309
      SubZero309 removed this reply because:
      Not an admin
      19:32, December 2, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Cyber, you are not suppose to reply on this thread if you are not an admin. I 'm sorry but you will now be blocked.

        Loading editor
    • Does anyone know if Roads is willing to remove his own crat rights if he is indeed stepping down? Otherwise we'd have to contact Staff and get them to do it.

        Loading editor
    • I already told you he said that. Roads says once he's done writing his series, he will demote himself.

        Loading editor
    • Okay.

        Loading editor
    • So do we agree in the demotion of Cyber and Dark, and the promotion of Ren to chat moderator? (We can continue to discuss whether Echo or Brandon deserve the second chat moderator spot, but it seems like we all agree on Cyber, Dark, and Ren so why not get that out of the way, so we only have to just promote one other user). 

        Loading editor
    • Yes, I agree. We should get that out of the way first. I will demote them immediately.

        Loading editor
    • Ren abused the /announce command once though.

        Loading editor
    • Brianultimatedragon wrote:
      Ren abused the /announce command once though.

      That's a minor mistake that shouldn't be held against him, the positive reasons outnumber the negative.

        Loading editor
    • Ulti (I think) and I told him to stop. He didn't.

      He's still a good user, though.

        Loading editor
    • (...)

      You guys know that no one ever updated Featured Pages for December, right?

        Loading editor
    • Meh.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, so who's gonna be a chatmod and who's not? If only 2 users are going to be chatmods, then I say Ren and Echo. But Paper says Ren and Brandon. Now is the time to take action.

        Loading editor
    • SubZero309 wrote:
      Okay, so who's gonna be a chatmod and who's not? If only 2 users are going to be chatmods, then I say Ren and Echo. But Paper says Ren and Brandon. Now is the time to take action.

      Like I said, we pretty much all agree on Ren being a moderator, and I'm still debating on who the second one should be. Let's take the rest of today, tommorow, and saturday to consider the second nominee (and allow Lego to comment) and then on Sunday we decide once and for all. 

        Loading editor
    • ...Why not just decide tomorrow? Or today? That way, it'll get done quicker. There's no reason to wait that long.

        Loading editor
    • SubZero309 wrote:
      ...Why not just decide tomorrow? Or today? That way, it'll get done quicker. There's no reason to wait that long.

      Because I'd rather take till the 6th to make sure who I think should be a chat moderator is the correct choice, because the last thing I want to do is rush and make a decision I'm going to regret. 4 days in the long scheme of things isn't that long (dec 2-6). 

        Loading editor
    • We're not rushing. It's been 2 days. I think that's long enough. But if everyone agrees with Sci, then so be it. I, for one, don't think it's necessary.

        Loading editor
    • If you're not sure, Sci, then nominate who you think should be promoted. It doesn't have to Ren, Echo, or Brandon.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, me and Brian have decided that Ren is not cut out to be a chatmod after all. Recently, he's been acting very childish. So that just leaves Brandon and Echo.

        Loading editor
    • I agree. Brandon and Echo should be promoted.

        Loading editor
    • Paperluigi ttyd wrote:
      I agree. Brandon and Echo should be promoted.

      That works with me. 

        Loading editor
    • Same. 

        Loading editor
    • As #4 of the list explains, there can be other topics introduced as well. I have another suggestion I'd like to bring up.  This next section is a work-in-progress, and is not in effect yet. 

      Anyway, let me begin discussing the topic. Now, when there's a crisis on chat, we attempt to quickly give out warnings and then boom boom kicked or banned. There isn't a set amount of warnings for a certain situation, and when banning people, its usually how long we think they deserve to be banned. However, with all of these differences of opinions between chat moderators and administrators, there needs to be a constant. There needs to be a certain # of warnings for this, and a certain length of a ban for that. 

      So, I have created two new systems that will decide how many warnings someone gets, how long they last, and how long they should be banned. I have chosen to explain it to you now on here, so that I may properly explain these systems, any concerns, comments, or suggestions you may have can be explained.

      The systems are at the moment titled the Punishment System and the Ban Length System.

      I will begin with the Punishment system. As seen on here , I have created a table listing various "crimes", then dividing them based on what type of this "crime", how many times they have done it, and so on. For each particular action, there comes a consequence. For example, if I am showing Racism, I would get a warning. If I continue to show Racism, I would only get 1 final warning. After that, if I continued to be racist, then I would be kicked, and if that continued, well then I would be banned, the length depending on the Ban Length System (which we'll get to later).

      When a crisis is happening on chat, this and the Ben Length System will be used. So, if one of our users does something, we can refer to this, search for what the user did, know what the appropriate thing to do is, and then do it on chat. This will also be on the Chat Policy, for easy access. From here on out, this is how warnings will be handled.

      Now to the Ban Length System. Remember when I told the story about how if I continued to be racist, I would be banned? Well we're going to continue that story. For this, look at Template:Ban Length System. In the Ban Length System, I've taken the "crimes", and I've given them a rank between 1-3 based on how bad I think they are. 1 is Bad, 3 is the worst/most horrible. I've then listed how many times you can be banned at the top, from 0 - 9. Between them is a series of numbers. This Table is like a Multiplication table (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/computer/multiplication-tables/multiplication-table-25x25.gif) but with adding instead.

      Now, based on the chat ban log, http://ben10fanfiction.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=chatban&user=&page=User%3ASci100&year=&month=-1 I have not been banned before. So that's 0. Now, Racism is under Harassment in the Warning System. So, Harassment is a #3 Crime Point. So that's a 3. So, now you would add those two numbers together (3+0) to get 3. At the bottom, you will find a "Key to Ban". Now, based on the sum (the answer you got from adding the Crime Point (3) and the # of Previous Bans (0), you determine how long the person is banned. Since I have a 3, I would be banned for 3 days.

      Both systems, if approved will put on the Chat Policy for easy access. So, does my explanation make sense? Any questions/comments? After any questions or comments have been addressed, we can vote on this. 

        Loading editor
    • That is kind of a tl;dr sorry.

      Honestly, the solution to "we need to ban fewer people" shouldn't be "give people more warnings before they get banned", in fact it should be the exact opposite. The warn-kick-ban system that admins are supposed to use currently is very strict and consistent, and it's harder to take advantage of. For example, in your proposed system, users get several warnings that only stay with them for short periods of time before they get kicked and banned. In this system, they can easily spam several times, then stop for a week to have their warning abdicated, then just go back to spamming for a week. Under the current system, a user can spam no more than twice before getting kicked.

      It's also relevant to add that there is nothing wrong with the current system. Our goal for 2015 should not be to block 0 users, it should be to make sure that we only block the users who truly deserve it. We also could better spend our time addressing other issues, such as admin roles.

        Loading editor
    • Paperluigi ttyd wrote:
      That is kind of a tl;dr sorry.

      Honestly, the solution to "we need to ban fewer people" shouldn't be "give people more warnings before they get banned", in fact it should be the exact opposite. The warn-kick-ban system that admins are supposed to use currently is very strict and consistent, and it's harder to take advantage of. For example, in your proposed system, users get several warnings that only stay with them for short periods of time before they get kicked and banned. In this system, they can easily spam several times, then stop for a week to have their warning abdicated, then just go back to spamming for a week. Under the current system, a user can spam no more than twice before getting kicked.

      It's also relevant to add that there is nothing wrong with the current system. Our goal for 2015 should not be to block 0 users, it should be to make sure that we only block the users who truly deserve it. We also could better spend our time addressing other issues, such as admin roles.

      Sorry about the tl'dr thing, I had typed this up a long type ago lol. 

      I get your point about the current warning system, but two things: first, did you even look at the ban length system (which we actually don't have a system for that we just decide on a ban while doing it at the moment)? I would think something like Harassment deserves an initial ban of three days compared to something like advertising which deserves more like two hours for an initial ban. 

      Second: I would disagree on the goal not being to block 0 users. We should try to make that a reality, as best as we can. Sure if there's a user who after everything just needs to be blocked, then block him. But we should try to be doing things BEFORE that happens. Try to take measures to promote this wiki as a friendly and collabrative place to write fan fiction, and make sure that we drive this message and our rules into the minds of our users to make sure that we don't have to block. 0 might be unrealistic sure, but we should at least make an attempt to go below 67 blocks in a year (which is our current total). 

      Third: Yes we should address admin roles but #4 clearly stated there could be other topics, and this is one I brought up. So techincally we can discuss this still. k i'm done </rant>

        Loading editor
    • Are you saying that it should be the goal of society to have no criminals? I agree with that, but personally I think the best way to do that is to have harsh punishments... which is basically the plot of Death Note.

        Loading editor
    • I think this calls for some more in-depth discussion.

        Loading editor
    • Paperluigi ttyd wrote:
      Are you saying that it should be the goal of society to have no criminals? I agree with that, but personally I think the best way to do that is to have harsh punishments... which is basically the plot of Death Note.

      1) Death Note srsly and 2) You still didn't reply about the ban length one.

        Loading editor
    • I don't think ban length is an issue, every offense is slightly different and deserves to be punished differently.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.