FANDOM


  • CarloV3r
    CarloV3r closed this thread because:
    The matter has been postponed, an alternative solution has been found.
    17:44, July 16, 2016

    Hi everyone,

    I've been talking about this for some time now, but I think it's about time I put it up for vote. As most of you know, the Discussions are known for having some 'troublesome' users from time to time. Alot more when compared to the Forums. While some of time when we're dealing with a spammer, and admin is online, it also happens quite frequently that no admins are online. This, of course, means that Discussions moderators are completely powerless when dealing with a spammer at that time. The only we thing we can do is delete posts, which doesn't really solve anything as the spammer can simply keep posting them. Now, a simple solution in my opinion, would be to give the current Discussions moderators (Lilith and I) blockrights. This way we can solve spamming issues alot quicker when an admin isn't online, and overall keep the Discussions clean. Atvelonis told me that, while he trust us, that could be an issue with future moderators. While I agree with that, I think that's something that should be figured out while the person in question is being promoted, not afterwards.

    http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Adding_a_ban_power_to_Discussion_Moderators A petition for blockrights for Discussion moderators has also happened on the Fallout wiki, it was succesful.

    Tell me what you think, thanks.

      Loading editor
    • Khaleesi Zhavorsa
      Khaleesi Zhavorsa removed this reply because:
      Didn't work lol
      17:26, July 15, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support
      This is a great idea. We really need to be able to block people on the discussions. I don't like having to battle for hours just holding off a spammer. Or having to check constantly for them to come back. I also feel bad that I have to constantly contact an admin and bother them with these issues, because it is suppose to be our job to handle it, which we can't efficiantly do without blocking rights.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      because the current admins aren't capable of handing out appropriate blocks anyways.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      If the Moderators can start enforcing the law now without having to go through needless Bureaucracy and favours, I'm all game. :)
        Loading editor
    • Block options for Discussions users?
      Voting-support Support
      Kill them, kill them with fire! Before they write lore!

      We currently have a few admins and this feature can be real helpful to lessen the load on our current admins without hastily needing to elect more admins.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This was just passed in the Fallout Wiki, and it has worked out wonderfully so far, so I think it would be helpful here as well.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Shockstorm's post is correct, but at the end of the day the problem with blocking users is not limited to Discussions. There is no reason an admin can block on the mainspace and not on Discussions. If you give Discussion Mods ban rights, you may as well give it to patrollers. Too often our admins need telling who to block why, when and how long. Giving D Mods ban rights will still keep the problem in the mainspace, and give an unbalanced amount of power to one user group.

      Banning people is an admins job. There's no excuse that they're failing that.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with Shock and Bron's post as well. If they get block rights, they would have to go to patrollers and forum mods as well. I feel as though that is too much power going around, and giving the rights to d mods isn't the correct way to fix this issue, as it isn't just limited to discussions and would make it unbalanced.
        Loading editor
    • Hmmmm... Have no problem getting admins demoted, have a problem when less people cant get all the work done, refuse to add people who can help, have a problem with nothing getting done... Seems legit. Remove power and never add any? All problems, no solutions. Death to the wiki!

        Loading editor
    • RenzXVI wrote: Hmmmm... Have no problem getting admins demoted, have a problem when less people cant get all the work done, refuse to add people who can help, have a problem with nothing getting done... Seems legit. Remove power and never add any? All problems, no solutions. Death to the wiki!

      Are you saying "admins do their job" isn't a solution?

      But yeh, we were in a situation the other day where the VIP backlog was up to around ten for two days and it remained unchecked. If D Mods need rights to ban people on /d, Patrollers or someone will need it too.

      Giving them blocking rights turns them into pseudo admins. Not quite, but close. We need to be 100% sure about the effects this will have on the current staff structure.

        Loading editor
    • Kora Stormblade wrote:

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      I agree with Shock and Bron's post as well. If they get block rights, they would have to go to patrollers and forum mods as well. I feel as though that is too much power going around, and giving the rights to d mods isn't the correct way to fix this issue, as it isn't just limited to discussions and would make it unbalanced.

      That's a very interesting point, plus it could start to make Administrator become obsolete, if any staff position can block users.

      It's good to consider all sides of this.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I personally think this should've happened much sooner. Fallout wiki discussions have improved a lot with this.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Discussions is a mess, anything that helps make it less awful gets a vote in my eyes though I do agree with the previous posts, block right should extend to others within reason we don't want to make say admins redundant.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      Both sides raise valid points. At this point in time I am neutral, but this vote is up for change.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I have changed my vote due to the fact of the lack of admins that can ban users on /d. It is already a mess of the discussion boards and there needs to be change. If we had more admins my vote would have been different, but since we only have three active one (being Tim, FLightmare, and Atvelonis) Only one actively banning on /d under request, and that particular admin already doing a crap ton on the wiki having his plate full, there needs to be a change for ban right for Dmods.
        Loading editor
    • Surely we need to be looking at new admins/ getting the current ones to allocate their time to banning, instead of hastily editing our user groups? It may be the best option, but other avenues need investigating first. And if we were to give d/mods banning rights, it wouldn't solve the fact that Tim/Flight aren't banning people on the main wiki either. Will we be giving these rights to Patrollers too?

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I don't think this will solve much. Initially I would have supported block rights for discussions moderators but Kora makes a good argument: it makes the usergroups unbalanced.

      The solution to this would be to promote more users to admin. This is definitely possible—we have several active patrollers and editors overall, so it's not like there's a lack of candidates. The whole process might take a while, but it would still be better in the long run for the wiki.

      EDIT: I'd also like to point out that promoting more (qualified) users to admin would alleviate issues pertaining to the actual wiki as well. Recent Changes would be more closely monitored, community changes would be easier to handle, and overall more progress would be made.

        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.