FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room Addressing IRC vs S:C
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Hello. I am here to address the Divide between S:C and IRC. As of late, i have seen a... Well "Division" between editors that reside in there respective chats. All of this has just spiralled out of control. People in the Special chat may as well hate the IRC, and people in the IRC think that the special chat is.. "Lesser" and "Not as good". I have seen a number of times people downright being disrespectful to others just for being from one of said chats. First off, this is in no way for anyone to be acting. These chats are there, for enjoyment and conversation, not to create some petty war between people in the same community. All of the people involved need to understand that no matter the where you talk to people, be it on S:C, or IRC, We all edit on the same wiki, and we are all on the same team. Now It is beyond me how to stop this. Maybe having a forum will stop it, i don't know. Leave ideas/comments below. thanks PIPqm.png 04:23, January 23, 2012 (UTC) (Note: I well understand i have also been apart of this problem, and if i seem hypocritical bringing this up, so be it.)

DiscussionEdit

You are so right, maybe S;C people try out IRC RC 04:30, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

My main problem is when IRC people (especially admins, cause they set examples) go into chat and don't understand the rules quit as well. With IRC being more lenient with what is allowed and not, that doesn't mean people should come on and think the rules are the same. Offensive jokes are one of the main problems, not naming names (though it should be rather obvious), but some recent chat activity has been un-acceptable by chat rules, but would of gone by easily in IRC.

The worst and most infuriating part for people is that often times, these IRC people who come in and miss-interpret rules are admins, which can't be directly banned from chat, and could just go on and do wrong. Some of them don't even care for what mods (who probably have the best understanding of chat rules) have to say, and just put warnings aside.

While removing either of them would just be a bad idea, I think that when people from one chat joins the other, they need to understand the rules and who has what authority better. E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 04:34, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Smil, while you make a good point, Kat isn't talking about the problem with differing rule sets. He's talking about competition between which chat is better, IRC or Special:Chat. While your point is valid, it's not why the forum was brought up. KUDLq.png 04:39, January 23, 2012 (UTC)~
I completely understand that, but one of the main reasons for the entire problem is because of the different rules and what gets miss-interpreted, I know many chat people who don't like IRC for the sole reason that they will come in chat and not understand the rules. And also, since we're talking about problems with IRC and Chat relations, why not just get it all sorted out now? E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 04:49, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I see what your saying now. KUDLq.png 04:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I have a solution to end all this, right now. (Actually, it's Cod4's solution, but whatever.) If someone joins the Chat/IRC saying that one is better than the other, just have an admin ban them temporarily (or perma if it's bad enough) from the one they like and be done with it. I've always just imagined these "wars" like the U.S. Marines vs. Army. Pointless, because we're fighting the same war anyway. Delta icon FrohmanSitrep United States Army logo 06:14, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Except that administrators can't be banned from S:C unless they're sysop flags are removed. That is the problem. Shotrocket6 10:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Then their rights can be removed, it's only fair.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  14:02, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

While I myself have never been on S;C for the simple reason being that my browser wont allow it, Ive always been on IRC. The questions that I have are, why is it that the rules of S;C are treated differently from IRC? Why is the S;C moderated by non-sysops and IRC is? Are there different rule sets for S;C and IRC? Not to my knowledge. In my opinion they should be treated exactly the same. I see users getting banned in S;C so often and probably for petty offenses I often wonder why, whereas in IRC users are not banned as frequently. As far as I can tell the rules for both IRC and S;C are they same. So the question begging to be answered is, why is S;C modded by non-sysops? Ive got a feeling that non-sysop moderators can be rather heavy handed and quick to press the ban button, especially if they are inexperienced users. Why is it that users would get banned for an infraction in S;C and not in IRC? The rules are the same remember?Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 06:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, yes, the basic rules of IRC and chat are basically similar; that is true. However, S:C is much more strict than Chat, for a couple of reasons. First off, IRC can be difficult to enter for new users (I couldn't figure out how to enter IRC until I had around 2000 edits xD). Chat, on the other hand, can be entered with an account and a single click. Therefore, it is much more open to trolling. With the large amount of potential trolls in S:C, admins can't be there 24/7; in fact, during late nights in Chat, there are usually NO admins; chat mods who are not sysops are the solution to this. Second, IRC is home to many..."experienced" users. There, people know the rules well, and as such, most of them know each other and can joke around without someone getting offended. In S:C, many users join our Wiki just for our chat, and are usually new users. As such, some jokes, comments, etc. can offend these new users, who also might not know the rules.
If you don't want to read that huge wall of text, here is a tl;dr version; IRC is a lot more different from S:C than you think. Happy Lyra Lyra(SPNKR)& Bon Bon forever <3Surprised Lyra 07:17, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought this up in S:C after being kind of pissed off at Damac's banning. So I think I should explain the context of why I wanted Kat to bring this up. Prepare for an extremely long boring story.

So I was there in the beginning when N7 and Smuff pulled an IRC conversation, jokingly insulting each other and the like. Soon, more IRC users, like Xd1358 and Damac joined. Soon, I don't even know how (I had left by then), the conversation drifted to 9/11 jokes. From what I heard, some users, especially one, were offended. Damac continued and was banned.

So there you have it. I know that the jokes were wrong and should not have been said, but what disturbed me most was that it was the admins from IRC who started this whole thing. They came in and essentially treated S:C just like IRC; Damac followed this example and was subsequently banned. This needs to stop; IRC users need to respect the rules of chat, especially the admins, who can evade chat bans. Just my view on things. Not blaming anyone here and I hope you are not offended if I referenced you. Happy Lyra Lyra(SPNKR)& Bon Bon forever <3Surprised Lyra 06:54, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Not really the main reason why i brought this up, more or less it's been leading up to this slowly. PIPqm.png 07:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if one chat has tighter rules than the other. There is no excuse for people from one chat to be purposefully annoying people from the other chat. Doing so counts as harassment and will lead to bans and demotions if necessary. Without discussion. What's more, the perpetrators are usually the guys from IRC who think they can do whatever they want in the Chat without punishment, because of what they are used to on IRC. Because I pretty much live in IRC and Chat, I'm pretty sure this is the case. I also have to regularly quiet users on IRC for talking smack about Chat and its users behind their backs. Again, it's harassment and will never be tolerated.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  14:02, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cod4, whilst I'm not a regular chatter in IRC, I do join it now and again if I need an admin (As I know that's where the admins tend to be) and I've seen cases where someone from IRC has done something in chat which got a user to respond, at which point they'll relay it back to IRC for another user to do. This can be an annoyance, as pointed out earlier, admins have been known to get involved, whilst I do understand it's all in good fun if a new user joins and sees this taking place they're going to think it's alright to do. I don't mind when the two chats mix, I just don't like when we turn it in to an argument just because we want reactions off of each other. 14:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely with COD4 and Sam, enough is enough. REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite 19:33, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

The reason judiciary actions aren't handed out as much as they should be is that the ability to moderate on the chat feature is awful; as it stands chatmods have the same abilities as administrators, there's no quiet function and the only way to remove someone is to kickban them, which is a rather time consuming process when considering cataloging bans. If you'd like to see more action being taken in chat, by all means, please contact Wikia and ask for more features. Smuff[citation provided] 19:41, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I've discovered that we can request that administrators need to earn chatmod rights rather than have them by default via Special:Contact. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Shotrocket6 21:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
YES REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite 21:26, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
100% agree.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:31, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Wait, if admins aren't allowed chat mod. Why the hell would "normal" users be allowed it?! Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 21:34, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
They can, just like every other editor, they have to earn it. Phillycj 21:39, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Then who would get the flags in the first place? Smuff[citation provided] 21:37, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
The administrators would have to earn it just like the chatmods did. And before you bring up the point that "they are randomly selected," they have since proved themselves and all chatmods selected from that point on have been selected only after noting their trust.
To Smuff, the current chatmods and administrators that are in chat the most would recieve the rights by default, such as Callofduty4 and myself. Shotrocket6 21:40, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
How do you define "the most". Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 21:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
That's to be decided. Alternatively, we could go with Cod4's idea below. Shotrocket6 21:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
If anything I'd say I'm in chat more than most admins. (Albeit not always paying attention.) Anyways, as far as I'm aware, administrative duties stretch across the entire wiki, even as far as IRC. As op flags are a standard for admins on IRC, chat shouldn't be treated differently. Smuff[citation provided] 21:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
But IRC is different in that op flags can be removed from a user without taking away their sysop flags, and as it currently stands, that's not the case in chat. The vote is proposing we change just that, so that we may take away the chatmod rights should we need to. Shotrocket6 21:55, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

So, you want to remove the chatmod right from admins to be able to ban them when necessary? Seriously, what the fuck. So you guys make people admin when you still don't trust them enough to not be sure they don't have to be banned from the chat? Why the hell would you not trust everyone you trust with block and delete tools with chatmod tools? Joeytje50talk i is gud admin
supprot ma RfA
21:56, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

You all seem to misunderstand that the proposal is to simply allow administrators to be banned from chat. In IRC, that possibility exists. There must exist that option in chat for when things get out of hand.
Clearly this doesn't happen every day and it is not a common occurance, but we must not allow administrators the ultimate power to troll as much as they like (theoretically; if that were the case, flags would be removed) or things could be ugly.
Obviously, just because an administrator need be kicked from chat or IRC temporarily doesn't mean they have to have their flags removed. People will have low points and I'm not going to stand around while users become hypocritical to one another when they know that making mistakes could happen to anyone at any time. If an administrator needs time to cool down, then so be it; a short ban will be given and no problems will be withstanding. If they were unable to be banned, however, they may continue to do whatever it is they are that would be cause for a ban, which could lead to completely unavoidable and unnecessary de-sysopping forum.
Why there is so much opposition is beyond me, as this proposal will allow for a much less drama-filled environment in the chat and will apply justice where it is needed, as opposed to the current system where no such ability exists. I am not partial to either option of removing the rights for all administrators as a default or just allowing the ability to reside, but I hold firm the belief that the option must be there. Shotrocket6 22:21, January 23, 2012 (UTC)


I don't believe that sysops should have their chatmod rights removed. If the unban themselves then it would be an abuse of power and should be punished accordingly, but per everyone who believes that removing rights is a bad idea. If anything the amount of chatmods should be removed, as there is usually 6 mods in chat at any given time and I'm pretty sure it doesn't take 6 people to handle one mere troll.The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 22:24, January 23, 2012 (UTC)


VoteEdit

This vote is to decide whether we should contact Wikia for the point I had mentioned directly above.

SupportEdit

  1. Pictogram voting support Support — As proposer. There is really no other option. Shotrocket6 21:40, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Even if we need to give Chatmoderator to all admins by default, it means we can easily remove it if necessary, and actually allows admins to be banned if they need to be.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Per the nomination and Cod4. Sunglasses HitlerSammich Need help?Deal-with-it-Shepard 21:49, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting support Support — Per Cod4 Hud fnfivesevenStrike lll butt_crisisPichuBelle.gif 21:52, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting support Support — Per Cod4 and nom. If someone needs to be removed, they should be, regardless of adminship or not. Personal IW FTW Awesome Face 100pxI.W. F.T.W. (talk) 21:54, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting support Support — Per all and nom. EternalBlaze 21:56, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Per Callofduty4. 21:59, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting support Support — Per all. http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m119/steveisgreatsb/nerv.jpgCodfan5695 Talkhttp://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu62/MawsCM/Rei%20Ayanami/033.jpg22:26, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Pictogram voting support Strong Support — Excellent solution. REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite 22:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Pictogram voting support Support — Excellent solution E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 23:21, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

  1. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — You can still ban admins (as N7 <_< demonstrated). Smuff[citation provided] 21:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    No you can't, since they can remove bannedfromchat from themselves.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:55, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    If they remove it then perhaps a review of their flags should be in order then. Smuff[citation provided] 21:57, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    I was just about to say what Smuff did, if they are getting banned from chat continuously for misconduct, and then just un-banning themselves to get back in, theres more of a problem then simply they need to be banned. KUDLq.png 22:00, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  2. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Since I don't have time nor interest at the moment to elaborate, per ajr below. 1358 (Talk) 21:53, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  3. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per SmuffkinsPersonal AdvancedRookie Sig2 21:53, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — I cannot think of a situation in which an admin would be abusing chatmod, but not the other sysop tools. If you can trust someone to have access to abusefilter, editinterface, block, etc, chatmod shouldn't be worth worrying about. Add to this the fact that all of the admin abuse stuff is hypothetical, and nobody has proposed just asking a hypothetical admin to not use chatmod in the way that they were, and you get a pretty strong oppose from me. If an admin is misusing chatmod, ask them to stop. If they continue, they obviously have lost the trust to be an admin, never mind chatmod. ajr 21:54, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    "I cannot think of a situation in which an admin would be abusing chatmod" Funny thing is that was the situation yesturday. :| REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite 22:55, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    If you want me to, I can list on accounts when some admins have gone beyond listening to mods and going on about breaking rules. It's happened to me more then once and when it does happen, I feel utterly dis-respected and disgusted with the admin in the scenario. E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 23:26, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
    Then, as I said above, ask the admin to stop and follow the rules. Take a screenshot. If they continue to misbehave, ban them like any other user. If they remove the ban, then start a forum on them abusing their tools. There is such a simple solution here, no need for some overly bureaucratic process of separating chatmod and admin. ajr 00:15, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Per ajr. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 21:57, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  6. Pictogram voting oppose Weak Oppose — Per ajr, and as pointed above, if the admin in question repeatedly unbans himself it's like unblocking self when not allowed to do so. Just because you're physically able to do something doesn't mean you should. I'm not still all sure, I kinda feel like it would be a good idea to let admins earn chatmod just as other users. I hope what I just said made sense. - Spetsnaz Logo MW2 MLGISNOT4ME [Talk] - 22:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Pictogram voting oppose Oppose — Per ajr. The Wikia Contributor T | C | E | Q 22:17, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — If I understand this correctly, then the whole point of having the admins earn the chat mod rights is so that "trolling" admins can be banned without them unbanning themselves. However, if that is the real reason, there is no real point in doing that. If said Admin proves himself unworthy by repeatedly unbanning themselves from a legit ban, that is clear power abuse, and the Admin's sysop status should also be reviewed accordingly. Becoming administrator brings many responsibilities, but as well as rights, but these rights (including chatmod) should not be abused. The chatmod right is no different from, say, the banning right. If said admin was trolling on-wiki and gets a cool-off ban, but simply unbans himself, it would be the same scenario as the chatmod one. But does that really mean that the admin should "earn" his power to be able to ban and unban users? Absolutely not. The admin's status as a sysop would simply be reviewed and, if necessary, taken away. PotatOSWanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar 00:01, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
  9. Pictogram voting oppose Strong Oppose — Excellent solution? lolno Per all. DarkMetroid567 00:22, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Pictogram voting comment Comment — What the fuck are you doing? Since when did we just go to vote with just a few lines of discussion. This whole vote should be voided. Iw5 cardicon soapN7 TC 21:43, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Aye, you've literally started a vote on a 2 hour old proposal... Smuff[citation provided] 21:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with N7 on this one. This vote seems very sudden, and more like an attempt to rush through your proposal before an opposition can be mounted in discussion.Personal AdvancedRookie Sig2 21:45, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I do see your point. I wouldn't have made a vote if I hadn't encountered such immediate and powerful support for it when I brought it up in the chat. Shotrocket6 21:46, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
If it was a codference then maybe, but chat doesn't have logs. Smuff[citation provided] 21:53, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — You all seem to be missing the point of why Katanagod posted this forum. No disrespect, these are some interesting ideas i'm seeing, but Kat brought up the forum due to Chat vs. IRC elitism, not the balance of power in chat. This was more of a PSA that any kind of hostility between Chat users and IRC users should be ended. When Smiluliar brought up the difference in rules, that was a good point because it does cause a rift between the two groups as they tend to have different personalities. Shotrocket, no disrespect, but your proposal should be brought to another forum, it doesn't solve chat vs IRC hostilities, it might even be seeding more. KUDLq.png 21:54, January 23, 2012 (UTC)~

  • Since when is it appropriate for someone who supports a proposal to strike an opposer's vote without any reason? On just about any other wiki in existence that would be considered bad practice, and then rollbacking an undo of that edit would be considered abuse. ajr 22:05, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment Comment — Just a little issue I wanted to raise, Whilst in IRC I've seen Ops ban Ops, it cannot be done as directly in chat, whilst we can change their URM we have to wait for them to leave for it to take effect. 22:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment Comment — Why are you guys using what an admin does on chat with what an admin should have on wiki? While I understand that chat is part of the wiki, if say an Admin was lagging in and out of chat, and a mod quietly bans them through User rights and they remove the ban, nobody could really object, it's not like anybody was hurt. If they break UTP or DBAD or something like that and un-ban themselves, then yes, by all means remove their sysop flags. But if they do an action that only warrants a ban from chat (i.e lagging or spamming) then why remove them for shortening their ban, they would come back with a lesson learned.

The entire point of this vote is to decide whether we should have admins not have chat mod flags, if they don't have mod flags, they can't unban themselves in the first place, so it'll remove any possibility from them having to have their sysop flags removed. It'll be a good thing for both chat and making sure an admin can't shorten their ban from chat. E2uiO5T.png SmilularTalk KNXWYe1.png 00:16, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

What opposing the above thing will mean for adminsEdit

If they in any way do something that warrants a ban in chat, they will lose their rights for the duration of the ban, so that they may be banned like any other user. This goes for chatmods, admins and bureaucrats. Instead of losing just chatmod temporarily, they can lose their entire set of rights temporarily. Isn't it obvious, that it's better to lose one specific right, than to lose all of them? Or is this just not being understood?  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Who exactly gives you the right to remove sysop rights from someone who happens to be a dick in chat? I'm afraid this wiki is made up and run by a community, which should and must have a say in who has janitor tools. This is in no way something you alone can decide; just because you happen to have the tools to modify user rights doesn't give you the right to do arbitrary changes you deem fit. 1358 (Talk) 22:27, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
My bureaucrat rights imply that I am entrusted to remove and give rights as appropriate. I'm not saying I would do it on the spur of the moment. But I will have no qualms about doing it if necessary.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:43, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
My impression was that you are entrusted to carry out community decisions such as user rights management. 1358 (Talk) 22:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
What else would he do if an administrator is doing something unacceptable, like spamming porn links? What other option is there? Shotrocket6 22:31, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I would consider this wiki and its administration team rather fucked up if you even suspect someone would do that. Apparently you trust some people with tools (see ajr's vote above for a good one), yet not with a ban tool in Special:Chat. 1358 (Talk) 22:36, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding the point. This can be likened to John Marshall's quote "The power to tax is the power to destroy," except in this case it's more like "The power to do whatever you want with no consequences is the power to destroy." Shotrocket6 22:41, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
To be fair Shot did use a rather extreme example, but it's the message in it, there have been times when the behaviour is not really in line with policy. 22:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Shot: I must be doing that, since I have no idea what you are trying to say. 1358 (Talk) 22:47, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
What I believe he's trying to say is the fact admins can't be banned has an effect on their behaviour. 22:51, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Whether admins can be banned physically is irrelevant. If admins are allowed to remove legitimate bans placed on them, however, something is wrong. If an admin constantly overturns the decision made by a fellow administrator, this does not only show that the administration team is split, but also that the one who removes the ban doesn't give a flying fuck about the placer of the ban. This is grounds for a desysop forum. The thing that is being voted on above is focusing on the wrong thing. What needs focus is the fact that admins are allowed and are actually overturning others' decisions. 1358 (Talk) 23:07, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Then why allow them to overturn other's decisions? By removing the option to do so, we avoid a potentially volatile situation. Shotrocket6 23:14, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
By needlessly unbundling the sysop group to solve a problem which has a far more obvious and less bureaucratic solution, you are creating a potentially volatile situation by adding even more potential for drama into the process. You are also missing the point here - you can either trust admins or you can't. I don't know why anyone would trust admins with the ability to block on-wiki, but not ban in chat. Removing a ban on your own account is no less abuse of power than removing a block, and we should be treating it like that, rather than some ridiculous proposal to remove the chatmod ability from the admin rather than solving the problem. ajr 00:32, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question Question — If the idea we are voting on is passed this only counts for sysops and not 'crats correct? REDSKIN-26Personal Redskin-26 Squirtle sprite 22:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

No. As Callofduty4 told me on IRC earlier, all administrators and 'crats will be given chat mod rights upon the closure of this forum (if it passes), which will be removed if needed. -- sactage (talk) 22:50, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • If we are going to do this for chatmod, we'd better do it for all of the other admin rights too. Someone is abusing block? No problem, we can just remove the block right from their account, but they can keep all of the other rights.
  • My entire point is that if you cannot trust admins with one area of the tools, you really can't trust them with anything. If they are unbanning themselves after a fair ban has been made, a forum should be started about removing their sysop tools. Removing their access bit by bit isn't going to solve the overall lack of trust in cases like this. ajr 00:28, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

What effect this will have on the CommunityEdit

I realize only the best of intentions come from this proposal. I realize the whole idea behind it is to strengthen the chats ability to be calm and orderly.

But you have to realize something, this is going to increase hostilities between Chat and IRC. Just because you will have a more orderly chat, does not mean the community will grow stronger because of it. KUDLq.png 23:18, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Then KATANAGOD's original point in this forum still stands: the hostilities between the users of chat and IRC are immature and contribute nothing to the wiki. Shotrocket6 23:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Yet this forum has done nothing to solve it, and the whole discussion only made it worse. KUDLq.png 23:22, January 23, 2012 (UTC)~
The discussion would be relevant regardless of the current situation. Shotrocket6 23:23, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
No, its not relevant. The Topic of the forum was to announce that Hostilities should be ended between the two sides of the wiki. You have managed to turn it into a power struggle. I understand your reasoning, truly I do, but it's not helping the topic of the forum. KUDLq.png 23:25, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
You're beating a dead horse. It's too late to make a whole new forum for this. Shotrocket6 23:27, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I may be beating it, but you killed it. KUDLq.png 23:29, January 23, 2012 (UTC)~
Clever bastard. Shotrocket6 23:36, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hold on! Edit

I have been talking with Meighan, a Wikia staff member, on Skype, and she has told me the following:

[8:11:53 PM EDT] meighan: There are good points in there that people should not be appointed if they can not be trusted.
[8:12:33 PM EDT] meighan: yes, we do not want to split the hierarchy of user rights. We would not consider going down that road.

tl;dr: [8:11:31 PM EDT] meighan: We will absolutely not allow it.

In short, the above vote is pointless and can and will not achieve anything. As such, this forum is now Closed. Feel free to re-introduce the original topic of this forum in a new topic. You may confirm the above quote with Meighan if you wish. -- sactage (talk) 01:18, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.