User talk:Thundervolt/The Neutralists

Comments
The hell is this sh*t? I'm doing this already as an admin. We don't need more people stepping into any arguments, unless they want to find themselves in trouble as well. 23:16, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

This idea is kind of iffy if I may say so..... 23:19, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * And in addition, what authority does this group have to give people powers? It's things like this which make me mad. Just wannabe admins hoping to become a big shot through a usergroup which actually doesn't have any authority over anything. Anyone who joins this is diving head first into a ban when they get involved in an argument and start preaching some Word of some God to calm people down or whatever you guys plan on doing. Just keep out of arguments and let the admins, who have been elected to do this kind of stuff, do it. 23:24, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been many times that Admins don't respond to my messages and the vandalism/trolling still continues. It is not your choice to tell a user that they can't join, epescially if your not even in the usergroup. Don't do it again. Mercy.jpgot • Talk Welcome to Freedom.jpg 11:22, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Administrators of this wiki and the founder of the user group are automatically Master Members." As an admin, and therefore an automatic Master member, I can do what I like with this usergroup. Clearly you haven't read this page, so I might expel you from the group. 17:06, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, but you haven't joined yet so you're not a master member. Mercy.jpgot • Talk Welcome to Freedom.jpg 01:47, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes he can, it says right there that all administrators are master members by default. He doesn't have to join, it's meaningless compared to what is actually written in the fine print. There is nothing in there about joining. WaW Perk Fastreload.png  NCD   [Talk] 06:19, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, are you really going through with this again? You explained me on IRC that in order to make a usergroup, one would have to request it on the war room. Tsunami Volt didn't knew when he made the usergroup, you could've AGF, but all you did was make a big fuss about it.-22:42, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, that is for an officialy recognized CoD wiki usergroup. 01:29, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, that is for an officialy recognized CoD wiki usergroup. 01:29, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect your opinion and would like to know the problems you see with this usergroup. Mercy.jpgot • Talk Welcome to Freedom.jpg 11:22, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this group is kind of saying that the admins don't do enough work on blogs. Maybe this group could do something else, like report a troll or flame war. 12:31, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think there's kind of a misunderstanding here. Ignoring for now whether or not the idea is feasible, I think the whole intention of this group was merely to promote a positive course of action and try to help diffuse user-to-user problems that may occur on the wiki. While I realize that resolving these conflicts and punishing offenders is the job of admins, I think that Tsunami Volt understands that too. As he stated himself, "the goal of the usergroup is just to clean up 'wars' and unruly behavior without showing every case to an admin" and how "it's just a matter of helping others understand what behavior is unacceptable in this community". The intended effect being, I suppose, similar to that of the warnings users receive for, say, insulting behavior towards another user. It would be sort of a wake-up call or warning, the blocking policy stating that first users receive warnings for such offenses, I presume this would be similar. Now, if this idea overall doesn't work, because of infringement on the duties of the admins or the possible consequences of entering open fights, I think that'd be fine, but I think this group should just be viewed as what it says it is, an attempt to help to resolve conflicts, nothing more, nothing less. Eventually too, it could become what Bohater suggested, a sort of interpersonal conflict version of the CVU. :a. 01:36, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

To be frank, I don't really see the necessity of making this a usergroup. Someone can easily do what the purpose of this group is without some type of "neutralist" title, of which I'm assuming is to help in preventing or cleaning up from flamewars. I myself believe that dealing with flamewars is the job of the administrators, which is why they were nominated to become administrators. I'm also not really fond, while I am impressed that you've taken the initiative of trying to deal with flamewars, of the idea of regular users getting involved with flamewars, even if it is with a neutral point of it. The main issue that I have is that if a regular user gets themselves involved with a flamewar, odds are they'll become a main part of the flamewar and it will lead to more trouble than benefit. Another perplexing issue that I have with the idea of this group is that most flamewars can't be approached with neutrality, especially if one specific user is trolling or is expressing wrong opinions. While I'm a fan of users trying to help the administrators with their tasks, it'll essentially be much easier for the administrators if the group was to assist the administrators in finding flamewars and then reporting them to the administrators, so we can warn them properly - and, assuming they don't comply, blocking them for whatever offense they've done. -- 02:23, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

This is just a slap in the face to all the administrators here. Your basically saying they don't do their job when it comes to trolls and flamewars. Last I checked, every blog with flamewars is shut down immediately. Secondly, there is no purpose to making this a group, as Azuris said. Users can't DEAL with the trolls officially; they won't be able to block them, which is usually how trolls are dealt with. The people who try to intercept in flamewars are just going to find themselves in deep shit (pardon my French) with a block. I can see the good intention this group has, but I see no help it can provide.   NCD   [Talk] 05:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Uh, okay. It seems that opinions here are extremely divided. Also, who deleted my response to Cpl.Bohater and Callofduty4 earlier?

Anyway, to the argument about administrators automatically becoming Master Members, I may have mislead people. Administrators who join are automatically promoted to Master Members, but that doesn't mean every administrator is a Master Member. However, that doesn't mean administrators don't have admin powers - they only can't do things that are not related to their admin powers, such as kick a user out of the usergroup, or close down the usergroup. I apologize for any misunderstandings, and I will fix the page up shortly.

To the point where the goal of the usergroup is slightly off, I apologize as well. It seems that the basis of criticism is based on:

The usergroup is attempting to make users 'backseat' admins, and trying to remove the powers and responsiblities of admins.

The usergroup is not meant to change the responsibilities, powers, associations or abilities for either admins or normal users. It is meant as a bit of a comment patrol - we will attempt to sort out the argument if it seems possible, but if not, we will report the user(s) involved. It is possible that some people view the 'sort out' part quite fruitless, and it is understandable - some users will never back down with their side of the quarrel. I will discuss this with the usergroup's current members (not including admins, unless you have been invited and have joined), and see if any changes need to be made.

Again, I sincerely apologize for any misunderstandings or inconvenience I may or have caused. If you have any comments, you are again obliged to post it here, and the usergroup will rapidly respond. 08:14, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

For everyone that doesn't understand
'''This usergroup is not meant to replace an Admin/Bureaucrats' job. It is meant to see if we can stop /flam wars/trolling/people mistreating users/ without having to get an Admin. If the situation escalates, then an Admin is called.''' Dudebot • Talk 19:14, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * No. When there is a flame war, just stay out of it and contact an admin. 13:45, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal - Changes To Usergroup Goals
It appears that a lot of admins and some other wiki users appear to be against our current goals. Therefore, I am holding a vote to see whether the new changes should be made. Administrators of the Wiki and all current usergroup members are free to participate, vote, and discuss the proposal.

The current changes proposed are: If you have any other changes, leave a comment, as well as your proposed changes, and a Master Member will promptly add it to the proposal if he/she believes it is acceptable, will bring about a significant change, and is not biased against any user(s) in any way (unless it is related to the clan hierarchy).
 * The removal of the group's goal to directly impact and solve any flame wars or arguments, and to change the goal to reporting any misconduct or unacceptable behavior.

Support
13:44, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

13:52, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
Although I am the founder of both the usergroup and the proposal, I would like to remain neutral in the voting process. I would like to see what other users think of the proposal, and as of now, I actually cannot decide for myself whether I oppose or support the proposal 11:06, June 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the idea was mine :3 13:54, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to mention that the idea stemmed from you. Thanks for your comments. Uh, yeah, the idea was sparked by Cpl.Bohater. Thank you to him! 14:08, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to mention that the idea stemmed from you. Thanks for your comments. Uh, yeah, the idea was sparked by Cpl.Bohater. Thank you to him! 14:08, June 12, 2011 (UTC)