Difference between revisions of "User talk:Chris"

From BRGS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
(48 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Bureaucrat}}
 
Contact by writing below, or in [[Moderation Requests]], or by commenting in the [[BRGS_Wiki:Community_Portal|Community Portal]].  
 
Contact by writing below, or in [[Moderation Requests]], or by commenting in the [[BRGS_Wiki:Community_Portal|Community Portal]].  
 +
 +
The Archive: [[User talk:Chris/Archive]]
  
 
===Notes===
 
===Notes===
Line 5: Line 8:
 
''Please post under here...''
 
''Please post under here...''
  
I'm Connor's best friend, and he told me that he was vrry upsept about some of the contnet, espeshially the bit about things that annoy him and the names that annoy him [[User:TheJanitor|TheJanitor]] 16:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi Chris, the school have a concern and I will copy and paste the message I sent Clizard on facebook for you (it is a serious issue):
 
+
 
+
yes but the stupid thing was i was the one that had to fix it and i dont think he should have done it in the first place ! tubbzw
+
 
+
==Magical Trevor==
+
I would like to ask if we could investigate possible scokpuppetry by the user of this account. I belive some of the accounts he has used include:
+
 
+
[[User:!!!quigger!!!]]
+
 
+
[[User:Idiot123]]
+
 
+
[[User:Mee]]
+
 
+
[[User:Randomer123]]
+
 
+
[[User:Randomer777]]
+
+
[[User:Randomer789]]
+
 
+
[[User:Randomer999]]
+
 
+
{{User:Camponhoyle/sig}} 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+
 
+
Ah, the green eyed monster of jealousy, I have to admit, this accusation is true, I know for sure. But surely Magical Trevor has put his vandalism past behind him, as I did back in September, in that notable Camponhoyle wikipedia scandal. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+
 
+
Hold on - put them behind him ! He has made a sockpuppet today and then banned it. Probably to make himself look good. {{User:Camponhoyle/sig}} 18:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+
 
+
I don't think you are doing your admin chances any help by posting this. Just a thought. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+
 
+
People will be banned as and when it is necessary to do so. Speculating about who owns an account is pointless. We have a clear [[Bans]] policy for vandalism, I don't really see what more we can do. Admin status is not about power, or settling grudges, or bragging rights - it is effectively a job and a responsibility. If people are abusing that responsibility their status will be revoked. ''{{User:Chris/sig}} 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)''
+
 
+
== Camponhoyle ==
+
 
+
Camponhoyle wants to be an admin as well, what do you think? He seems to have a '''lot''' of good edits. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 14:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
+
 
+
<!-- Please post under this line and above "old stuff" or I might not see your comment.-->
+
 
+
 
+
 
+
===Old Stuff===
+
 
+
Hi again, nice to see you. Its been a bit hectic over the last few weeks, trying to sort out arguments. They all want to be admins and then seem to be falling out with each other, requesting each other to be banned. I was unsure what to do, and that was why the argument page was created. Glad to see you back, and we can now have some more sanity back on this wiki. Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
  
Hold on I have never tried to get anyone banned unless they have done something completely unacceptable. In fact it is all one sided with SellersWithAnN trying to get me banned.[[User:Camponhoyle|Campon Hoyle your friendly neighbourhood editer]] 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
''Hi David,''
  
Thank you very much for the clear guidelines on bans. As you can see SellersWithAnN's arguments for having me banned were not acceptable. I am sorry if I have made a few mistakes but if everything went to plan we wouldn't need admins. I have never intentionally committed vandalism and the ban imposed on me by BRGSMan had no evidence to justify it.
+
''I had to speak to the network team alongside Camponhoyle today, and they have a growing concern regarding attacks on other pupils. They said that the wiki is no longer what it was originally intended for and that there is too many attacks, even 'small' ones such as 'He/she is stupid.' I understand there was a statement written a while back, and although I have updated the date, I feel we have to create a new page with a new message, as well as contacting all the administrators to give them new instructions.''
  
 +
''Hope to hear from you soon,''
  
''Just to point out, I'm not having a go at anyone, just clarifying some points. Thanks for your understanding! - {{User:Chris/sig}}''
+
''BRGSMan''
  
Is there anything you need me to help out with? I am available for the time being. Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 17:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
{{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 19:02, 1 November 2010 (GMT)
  
Not particularly, just check over the new [[bans]] policy and whatever, see if I've missed anything. Otherwise keep up the good work :) ''{{User:Chris/sig}}''
+
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]].
  
Hi, I was also wondering what happened to the User Score Chart, it is now just an invalid special page, and I would love to see my rank on that chart. Do you know where its gone? Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 17:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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)
+
''No idea I'm afraid. I know when Clizard upgraded the software some of the plugins broke. I haven't got the access to fix it though. {{User:Chris/sig}} 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)''
+
  
I was wondering if we have an adminship policy or is it just down to the admin to decide criteria. [[User:Camponhoyle|Campon Hoyle your friendly neighbourhood editer]] 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
''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.''
  
''What do you mean? If you mean selecting who should be an Admin, it's the Bureaucrats' decision. I appear to be the only active one at the moment. Ultimately it's Clizard's decision as the owner. {{User:Chris/sig}} 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)''
+
''[[User:Eve|Eve]] 22:20, 1 November 2010 (GMT)''
  
To add, another problem I noticed was that files cannot be uploaded, is this because of the problem above? Its just that I can get images to upload. Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
:: 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]]
  
Sorry I meant to say is it the bureaurats decision. [[User:Camponhoyle|Campon Hoyle your friendly neighbourhood editer]] 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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.
  
Can you give me hand with deleting some templates I accidently imported? Its in the Import Log. Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Done now, doesn't matter.
+
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.
  
Camponquiggers has now been banned for a week, do you think this is a suitable punishment or should it be longer, because of all the vandalism? Thanks {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
+
''{{User:Chris/sig}} 07:42, 2 November 2010 (GMT)''
  
''A week sounds fair. Not like they haven't had enough warning {{User:Chris/sig}} 08:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)''
 
  
I agree, there are a couple of candidates that could be considered... if they ask us we can assess their edits and make a fair decision. Maybe we should make a page regarding this policy. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 12:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi there,
  
Add anything to Administrator Policy if you think it needs to be changed. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 12:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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.
  
Magical Trevor wants to be an admin...What do you think? {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 12:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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. 
  
Actually I think that link on wikipedia is helpful in 'promoting' the wiki. That's how I found it, the day when I changed the words chess club into Chess Club! {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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.
  
What is the future of the caption competition? You took the link to it off the main page, is this the end for it? Shall it be deleted? {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 22:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
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.
  
One of the slight problems is that images can't  be uploaded and I also fear the lack of users could become a problem. You see, the youngest regular editors appear to be in Year 9, and if no younger users get involved, then possibly the wiki could be relying on past students to keep it alive. Just a thought. Let me know what you think {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
Regards
  
Please could you consider making me an admin because I am helping stop the vandals and I have been contributing sensibly. {{User:Magical Trevor/sig}} 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
Craig [[User:Scotty167|scotty167]] 12:50, 3 November 2010 (GMT)
  
Just missed a vandal session, but we coped quite well...just about thanks to a bit of help from Magical Trevor. Just shows that we don't need that many admins. Just a good job we were online. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 
  
Work Experience still running, my friends and probably Eve did this last week. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 21:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
+
==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 know, I really could do with some examples from the network team. I haven't found anything so far that would concern me.''
  
==Red Links==
+
I have sent you a longer reply via facebook for your information. {{User:BRGSMan/sig}} 18:28, 3 November 2010 (GMT)
  
''There's been a lot of deleting of red links, which yeah, makes the page look better, but seeing a red link could encourage people to actually create the page, and if the page does get created, it means not having to go back into all the pages and put the links back in.
 
Just wondering what you guys think.''
 
  
''[[User:Eve|Eve]] 16:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)''
+
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)

Latest revision as of 17:58, 14 November 2010

Admin.png

Chris is a bureaucrat! This means they can delete, move and protect pages and make other users Administrators. They can also ban users if necessary. But don't worry - Chris doesn't bite! If you have noticed vandalism, want something doing or just want to learn about the wiki, don't hesitate to visit my talk page!

Contact by writing below, or in Moderation Requests, or by commenting in the Community Portal.

The Archive: User talk:Chris/Archive

Notes

Please post under here...

Hi Chris, the school have a concern and I will copy and paste the message I sent Clizard on facebook for you (it is a serious issue):

Hi David,

I had to speak to the network team alongside Camponhoyle today, and they have a growing concern regarding attacks on other pupils. They said that the wiki is no longer what it was originally intended for and that there is too many attacks, even 'small' ones such as 'He/she is stupid.' I understand there was a statement written a while back, and although I have updated the date, I feel we have to create a new page with a new message, as well as contacting all the administrators to give them new instructions.

Hope to hear from you soon,

BRGSMan

Any other help? Let me know! Thanks BRGSMan talk - contribs 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.

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. Any other help? Let me know! Thanks BRGSMan talk - contribs 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.

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.

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.

Chris talk - mod 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 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. Any other help? Let me know! Thanks BRGSMan talk - contribs 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.

I have sent you a longer reply via facebook for your information. Any other help? Let me know! Thanks BRGSMan talk - contribs 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 Scotty167 sent on the
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination
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. Any other help? Let me know! Thanks BRGSMan talk - contribs 17:58, 14 November 2010 (GMT)