So, after a bit of a discussion with User:Callofduty4, I'd like to bring attention to the possible creation of a system on how to handle issues with the wiki's current administrators and/or Special:Chat moderators (or to bring up a topic on if a user should be made a moderator) in a way that allows the majority of the community to reach an agreement on any possible changes.
The page could operate as a way for any user to bring up any concerns with any adminstrators or moderators that they feel should be brought to public attention, and so the community can reach an agreement peacefully on how to handle any concerns. It would, for the most part, function as a miniature War Room, and would encourage anybody to voice their opinion/concerns on any issues.
The reason I'm bringing this up here is because the current "system" means that not everybody gets a say in who becomes a moderator on Special:Chat and has no way to bring up any issues in public without it turning into some sort of awkward situation. There's also really no place to bring up concerns with adminstrators outside of the War Room (which should only be used for major situations - such as a possible desysoping/decrating) that can be dealt with by the community (or just administrators and/or bureaucrats if need be).
To put it short: This page would function to bring up somewhat minor issues with moderators/administrators/bureaucrats so that they can be dealt with over a variously short period of time. I'm open to suggestions on what you guys think we should do as well, so feel free to say whatever you think would help. -- Azuristalk 22:17, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
It would be sort of name-and-shame but since it will hardly be used anyway, that's not much of an issue. I guess it would be a good place to gather thoughts and/or complaints.22:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Cod4. 22:31, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
"...so the community can reach an agreement peacefully on how to handle any concerns." Pardon me, but isn't this the sort of thing we trust admins to handle? I don't see why the community should have a say in something that is supposed to be the admin team's job. Sgt. S.S. 08:51, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed isn't it that admins where chosen by the community and i such represent us. Agree with Sgt S.S saying that since the community chose the admin, shouldn't it be the teams job?09:11, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Except for situations where any admins are part of an issue - any "noticeboard" could be used to bring attention to any issues (such as general disruptive behavior for either an administrator or chat moderator). The page is made primarily for Administrator intervention, anyway - but it also allows any users to give input if they so please. -- Azuristalk 14:08, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Sam, some issues which are likely to be brought up on this page are better kept away from mass community viewing. Its been proven that the more these things are in the public eye, the more arguments start. Seeing as the vast majority of issues that would be raised on this page can be resolved quickly and quietly, I don't see a massive need or use for this page. Any exceptions can have a forum, just like in the past. DrRichtofen (Talk) 10:40, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- As Callofduty4 said, the page would hardly be used as it is meant to be a place to bring up issues involving any administrators/chat moderators and would function as a way for other administrators/bureaucrats to intervene while allow some input from the rest of the community. This also could prevent any jumping of the gun in certain disagreements that lead to questionable behavior. The page isn't for every minor issue, really, but for bringing up any semi-major issues with adminsitrators by users that can be dealt with by another administrator with community input. -- Azuristalk 14:12, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by this, but from what I understand, it would be used as a way to address complaints/suggestions/compliments regarding users, mods, admins, and crats. But it seems this would be an "out in the open type deal". I feel an anonymous "drop box" per say would be a better system than an out in the open thing. That does leave the problem of trolls and such though. 16:35, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- The problem of trolls is something we'd just have to deal with. The anonymous "drop box" sounds a great idea though. If we make it so everyone who visits the wiki can see, it'd lead to plenty of arguments. Conqueror of all Zombies 16:49, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I like damac's idea of an anonymous drop box. Perhaps only the b'crats can view the "tickets" (messages), and bring in more people if needed? I think it would go badly if they were public info, as opinions are widespread in this community and it might actually start a war between supporting and opposing a user.22:57, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
A similar thing is used on wikipedia, and its basically a huge wall of shit. I think Damac's solution is the best if we were to do anything like this. 13:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
We can nail the trolls when they come. I like the idea and Damac's proposal would also work.15:52, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I totally support Damac1214's idea, and deleting spam/troll messages doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem.17:27, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
A suggestion: the "anonymous" portion should only be to people who cannot access the messages; if they were wholly anonymous, a user like myself could possibly spam the messages with nonsense without repercussion. Also, how would such a system be set up?20:29, June 10, 2012 (UTC)