Difference between revisions of "User talk:Chris"
m (Reply to scotty167) |
m |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
''Please post under here...'' | ''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'' |
| − | + | {{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]]. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | 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)'' | |
| − | + | :: 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. | |
| − | '' | + | ''{{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) | |
| − | |||
| − | '' | + | ==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.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:58, 14 November 2010
 |
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)
