mNo edit summary |
(closed (resolved long ago)) |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{Forumheader/new|archive=}} |
+ | {{Forumheader/new|archive=true}} |
<!-- Forums are automatically archived after 7 days of no editing. To force a forum to be archived or not to be archived, use "|archive=true" or "|archive=false" --> |
<!-- Forums are automatically archived after 7 days of no editing. To force a forum to be archived or not to be archived, use "|archive=true" or "|archive=false" --> |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
** "You can say that admins only carry out what the community votes, but blocking and banning is something that the community should have nothing to do with that the admins do regularly, even if it's to good users with lots of edits." Admins only carry out what the community says?! Admins can block, protect pages, edit the site interface, etc. without any discussion, as long as what they're doing isn't controversial. Nobody ever set up a forum to block a minor vandal for 24 hours, or to fix a problem in [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. And yes, we do consult the community when we have good users with lots of edits, and there's nothing wrong with that. Blocking good users is controversial. Admins are not left to resolve controversial issues single-handedly. [[Special:Contributions/75.0.177.16|75.0.177.16]] 00:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC) |
** "You can say that admins only carry out what the community votes, but blocking and banning is something that the community should have nothing to do with that the admins do regularly, even if it's to good users with lots of edits." Admins only carry out what the community says?! Admins can block, protect pages, edit the site interface, etc. without any discussion, as long as what they're doing isn't controversial. Nobody ever set up a forum to block a minor vandal for 24 hours, or to fix a problem in [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. And yes, we do consult the community when we have good users with lots of edits, and there's nothing wrong with that. Blocking good users is controversial. Admins are not left to resolve controversial issues single-handedly. [[Special:Contributions/75.0.177.16|75.0.177.16]] 00:00, January 25, 2012 (UTC) |
||
***That's not what I meant at all. What I was saying was that the admins can talk about it, and do certain things without the help of the community. I worded it very badly, I'm really sorry. It's not wrong at all to do what you are doing. All's I meant is that it's not wrong for admins to talk to each other, and decide without the community. I was suggesting it, because I think it works better sometimes. I am really sorry for how I wondered it. BTW, you might want to log in, you've made a couple posts under your IP :P [[User:Drew1200|Drewlzoo]]<sup>([[User talk:Drew1200|talk]]) ([[User blog:Drew1200|blogs]])</sup> |
***That's not what I meant at all. What I was saying was that the admins can talk about it, and do certain things without the help of the community. I worded it very badly, I'm really sorry. It's not wrong at all to do what you are doing. All's I meant is that it's not wrong for admins to talk to each other, and decide without the community. I was suggesting it, because I think it works better sometimes. I am really sorry for how I wondered it. BTW, you might want to log in, you've made a couple posts under your IP :P [[User:Drew1200|Drewlzoo]]<sup>([[User talk:Drew1200|talk]]) ([[User blog:Drew1200|blogs]])</sup> |
||
+ | ****You probably already know this, but when admins make decisions without advice from the community, it's usually because information is not allowed to be revealed for privacy reasons. This happens in checkuser situations where you don't want to throw around IP addresses in public. Out of curiosity, in what other cases would it be appropriate for admins to keep their discussion private? Admins are not supposed to be some super-special cabal group that makes all the decisions for us, whether we like it or not. [[User:FB100Z|FB100Z]] • [[User talk:FB100Z|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FB100Z|contribs]] 20:35, January 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | *****When it would offend people is typically a good time. Please don't respond to this message with a "but anything can offend people, that's their problem." :) [[User:Drew1200|Drewlzoo]]<sup>([[User talk:Drew1200|talk]]) ([[User blog:Drew1200|blogs]])</sup> |
||
+ | ******When it would offend someone, then wouldn't it be uncontroversial, and thus not require discussion? Offensive content is almost always bad-faith. [[User:FB100Z|FB100Z]] • [[User talk:FB100Z|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FB100Z|contribs]] 21:06, January 26, 2012 (UTC) |
||
+ | *******Judging the recent contest? {{User:Captain_Jag/sig1}} 06:54, January 28, 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:19, 3 September 2012
SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 21:03, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Support- This chat is a MESS sometimes. DUCK 02:39, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Chat is a mess if we make it one. Yes, there are people complaining about unfair blocks - we can ignore them. Nobody is forcing anyone to go on chat, and the situation really isn't that bad... every appears to be freaking out over one or two people complaining about perfectly justified bans. I have contacted the person who makes the logbot, and they say that fixing it is on their list of things to do. I say let's keep chat, and when we have the log bot, even better. If people don't want to hear about chat drama, they can choose to ignore it. ajr 03:01, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
|