User talk:Chris - Revision history

BRGSMan at 17:58, 14 November 2010

2010-11-14T17:58:28Z

BRGSMan at 18:28, 3 November 2010

2010-11-03T18:28:46Z

Chris: /* Moderators with Bad Edits */

2010-11-03T18:23:53Z

‎Moderators with Bad Edits

BRGSMan at 18:21, 3 November 2010

2010-11-03T18:21:01Z

Scotty167 at 12:50, 3 November 2010

2010-11-03T12:50:31Z

Clizard: re: Eve

2010-11-02T23:59:22Z

re: Eve

Chris at 07:42, 2 November 2010

2010-11-02T07:42:53Z

Eve at 22:20, 1 November 2010

2010-11-01T22:20:07Z

BRGSMan at 21:55, 1 November 2010

2010-11-01T21:55:46Z

Clizard: re: BRGSMan

2010-11-01T21:49:26Z

re: BRGSMan

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 14 November 2010
Line 59:		Line 59:

	I have sent you a longer reply via facebook for your information. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:28, 3 November 2010 (GMT)		I have sent you a longer reply via facebook for your information. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:28, 3 November 2010 (GMT)
		+
		+
		+	Sorry I haven't been on for a while, thought I'd take a well earned break after all these issues. Regarding Rebecca Finley, (I read the email that [[User:Scotty167\|Scotty167]] sent on the {{email}} address) I do know her and when I wrote the page, I was writing what she had specifically told me to write, I have done that with several pages (that I cannot think of at the moment) and obviously didn't mean any harm because that is what I was told to write. I think (I can remember correctly) that Rebecca actually changed what I'd put wrong with the account dumblonde or something like that. I hope that has cleared up some confusion. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 17:58, 14 November 2010 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:28, 3 November 2010
Line 57:		Line 57:

	''I know, I really could do with some examples from the network team. I haven't found anything so far that would concern me.''		''I know, I really could do with some examples from the network team. I haven't found anything so far that would concern me.''
		+
		+	I have sent you a longer reply via facebook for your information. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:28, 3 November 2010 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 3 November 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==Moderators with Bad Edits==		==Moderators with Bad Edits==
	I was mentioned at potentially having done bad edits. I may or may not have done, I honestly do not know, but if I have I did never intend any of those edits to be a personal attack to anybody and would be extremely sorry if any offense has been taken. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:21, 3 November 2010 (GMT)		I was mentioned at potentially having done bad edits. I may or may not have done, I honestly do not know, but if I have I did never intend any of those edits to be a personal attack to anybody and would be extremely sorry if any offense has been taken. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:21, 3 November 2010 (GMT)
		+
		+	''I know, I really could do with some examples from the network team. I haven't found anything so far that would concern me.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 3 November 2010
Line 51:		Line 51:

	Craig [[User:Scotty167\|scotty167]] 12:50, 3 November 2010 (GMT)		Craig [[User:Scotty167\|scotty167]] 12:50, 3 November 2010 (GMT)
		+
		+
		+	==Moderators with Bad Edits==
		+	I was mentioned at potentially having done bad edits. I may or may not have done, I honestly do not know, but if I have I did never intend any of those edits to be a personal attack to anybody and would be extremely sorry if any offense has been taken. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:21, 3 November 2010 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:50, 3 November 2010
Line 35:		Line 35:

	''{{User:Chris/sig}} 07:42, 2 November 2010 (GMT)''		''{{User:Chris/sig}} 07:42, 2 November 2010 (GMT)''
		+
		+
		+	Hi there,
		+
		+	I just want to make it absolutely clear that to my knowledge, no student has been reprimanded by members of the network support team for posting comments on the BRGS Wiki however, some students were asked to visit the network support office - in their own time - because of their connection to the Wiki and invited to have an informal chat about the recent changes to the site. They were given a verbal opportunity to decline if they so wished.
		+
		+	The reason for this chat was to simply get an opinion heard and gauge student reaction to that opinion concerning the editing of recent Wiki posts by Wiki moderators. There have been pages created by some moderators recently that have included what could be interpreted by the individual concerned as a personal attack, insult, cyber bullying or even character assassination which is - in my opinion - a breach of the editing policies which were also created/edited by the same moderators.
		+
		+	The point is, that those same moderators are removing or editing posts made by other users but have themselves created other apparently inappropriate pages which seems rather hypocritical and unfair and an abuse of their authority.
		+
		+	In hindsight, this should have been raised with Chris or David but it was felt that often, making a point directly to the source in person achieves a more effective resolution while retaining relationships between students and staff.
		+	Additionally, I have been made aware of the schools official concerns regarding the Wiki and understand that contact between the parties involved may be imminent.
		+
		+	Regards
		+
		+	Craig [[User:Scotty167\|scotty167]] 12:50, 3 November 2010 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 2 November 2010
Line 27:		Line 27:

	''[[User:Eve\|Eve]] 22:20, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''		''[[User:Eve\|Eve]] 22:20, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''
		+
		+	:: Although it is technically possible, it isn't a sustainable option. This means that people will not be able to correct mistakes in the wiki as rapidly, because we will need to approve the edits beforehand unless they already have an account. We will trial an issue-tracking extension instead, which will hopefully make it very easy to report problems and be of benefit to all areas of the wiki. [[Clizard]]

	If you could remind them that we have a system in place to deal with this - i.e. contacting moderators through the site, editing things yourself, an email address to use etc - and say we do work on keeping the site tidy as it is run completely voluntarily. Myself and David do have jobs to do after all. I don't really think any of these 'attacks' stay on the site for very long, and most people end up blocked if they keep abusing the site.		If you could remind them that we have a system in place to deal with this - i.e. contacting moderators through the site, editing things yourself, an email address to use etc - and say we do work on keeping the site tidy as it is run completely voluntarily. Myself and David do have jobs to do after all. I don't really think any of these 'attacks' stay on the site for very long, and most people end up blocked if they keep abusing the site.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ''[[User:Eve|Eve]] 22:20, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''
-There are several users who want to become admins, I've set up a discussion on the moderators notice board. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:37, 17 October 2010 (BST)
+Is this a concern from the network team or has it come from "on high" ?? I appreciate you're the ones in the direct firing line and it shouldn't really be your job to talk to the network team etc. They should really address any concerns to me or David seems how we've been here for longer.
-Please could you start me off becoming an Admin? I have wrote a few pages myself that where empty as well as editing current ones as I am kind of OCD on layouts and formatting. I often help Alan in his Admin dutys (reporting pages, problems, ect) and im sure if you asked him he could tell you how I help him. I have lots of free time to read through changes and are often on computers for most of the day so I think I would be able to help the Wiki. Read my page to find out more about me or ask Alan. What else do I need to do to become one or prove me worth?
+''{{User:Chris/sig}} 07:42, 2 November 2010 (GMT)''
-Many thanks, Taylornator
-−
-''[[User:Taylornator|Taylornator]] 00:05, 29 September 2010 (GMT)''
-−
-I've read the Admin Policy and I just wanted to know. What is the minimal specs to become an admin, and how far away I currently am away from it.
-−
-''[[User:Alan|Alan]] 18:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)''
-−
-There is no real minimal specs to become and admin, we just take requests and then discuss between ourselves whether you are fit for the job. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
-−
-Chris, can you start me on the trial?
-'''''[[User:Alan|Alan]] 09:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)'''''
-−
-Chris, can you get the following extensions installed?
-−
-* '''Wiki Parser Functions'''
-* '''Who's online?'''
-−
-'''''[[User:Alan|Alan]] 14:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)'''''
-−
-Not at the moment, but maybe over summer. The problem with extensions is that the mediawiki extension hooks keep obsoleting them and they usually aren't official production versions so they take longer than expected to install and maintain. [[User:Clizard|DavidB]] 16:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
-−
-About my admin trial, I'd like to know how I'm doing. Could you please post a review on my talk page of what I've done good, what I've done bad, things that I could improve on and what you want me to start doing in the future.
-−
-It's been over way over a week since my admin trial started, I'd just like to know how I'm getting on.
-−
-'''''[[User:Alan|Alan]] 16:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)'''''
-−
-Hello Chris can you make me an administrator please I will help you make pages and do anything you say. Can you please start a trial of about 2 weeks to see if I fit the bill,
-Thanks-Woozle44
-'''''[[User:woozle44]] 19:47, 30 april 2010 (UTC)'''''
-−
-−
-Yeah, he can become an administrator for now. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 20:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
-−
-I didn't insult anyone, I just recounted an incident which related to the person has it was related to me. I was not being insulting or offensive yet i was threatened with a ban from William (woozle44). My dad saw this and thought this was an abuse of admin power has the information was regarding something known within the class and was dealing with how the name occurred, not has an insult or insulting term.
-−
-It seems that to me that if both Alan and William are admins then they should then operate as admins and not seek to bully others who have not been insulting but have just stated a diffence of opinion. The site is not for some minority to control the majority though i agree that bullying should not be tolerated but this goes for the admins too.
-−
-−
-−
-'''21st October 2010'''
-−
-<s>Hello Chris, Can you please delete the page REBECCA LEYLAND at the request of her parents. Thanks</s>
-−
-''Deleted, and I'll make sure it doesn't return. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 16:54, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 1 November 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:

	I understand what you mean Clizard, but it seems the school are having serious problems with it and lots of people are having meetings about it. We need to sort it out as soon as possible because I know the school are going to take serious action. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:55, 1 November 2010 (GMT)		I understand what you mean Clizard, but it seems the school are having serious problems with it and lots of people are having meetings about it. We need to sort it out as soon as possible because I know the school are going to take serious action. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:55, 1 November 2010 (GMT)
		+
		+	''I was wondering if there was any way to change the system so that new users are put into a sort of moderation queue, where their first five or so edits would have to be individually checked before they even appeared on the recent changes. This would cut down on spam bots clogging up the recent changes, and also offensive/abusive edits. It could also be used for users who have been causing problems, just after they have been unbanned, to keep an eye on them. I have no idea if it's possible, and wouldn't know what to do if it was, but yeah... just a thought.''
		+
		+	''[[User:Eve\|Eve]] 22:20, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 1 November 2010
Line 21:		Line 21:

	I think it would be worth refreshing and reiterating the message of the first statement so I'll write another one shortly to inform new editors and remind existing editors. This issue remains the key concern of mine also and we should step up our efforts to review older content. I wouldn't characterise it as a growing problem, more a problem of tidying up edits on things admins don't know a lot about. As has been discussed before, knowing when to undo, modify, delete or ban is neither always possible, or as easy as it sounds. This is why I have made previous attempts to encourage admins from each year, who will be more familiar with their content areas. This is also a challenge for readers and editors. [[Clizard]].		I think it would be worth refreshing and reiterating the message of the first statement so I'll write another one shortly to inform new editors and remind existing editors. This issue remains the key concern of mine also and we should step up our efforts to review older content. I wouldn't characterise it as a growing problem, more a problem of tidying up edits on things admins don't know a lot about. As has been discussed before, knowing when to undo, modify, delete or ban is neither always possible, or as easy as it sounds. This is why I have made previous attempts to encourage admins from each year, who will be more familiar with their content areas. This is also a challenge for readers and editors. [[Clizard]].
		+
		+	I understand what you mean Clizard, but it seems the school are having serious problems with it and lots of people are having meetings about it. We need to sort it out as soon as possible because I know the school are going to take serious action. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:55, 1 November 2010 (GMT)
		+

	There are several users who want to become admins, I've set up a discussion on the moderators notice board. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:37, 17 October 2010 (BST)		There are several users who want to become admins, I've set up a discussion on the moderators notice board. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:37, 17 October 2010 (BST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 1 November 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:

	{{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 19:02, 1 November 2010 (GMT)		{{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 19:02, 1 November 2010 (GMT)
		+
		+	I think it would be worth refreshing and reiterating the message of the first statement so I'll write another one shortly to inform new editors and remind existing editors. This issue remains the key concern of mine also and we should step up our efforts to review older content. I wouldn't characterise it as a growing problem, more a problem of tidying up edits on things admins don't know a lot about. As has been discussed before, knowing when to undo, modify, delete or ban is neither always possible, or as easy as it sounds. This is why I have made previous attempts to encourage admins from each year, who will be more familiar with their content areas. This is also a challenge for readers and editors. [[Clizard]].

	There are several users who want to become admins, I've set up a discussion on the moderators notice board. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:37, 17 October 2010 (BST)		There are several users who want to become admins, I've set up a discussion on the moderators notice board. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:37, 17 October 2010 (BST)