Forum:Adding a ban power to Discussion Moderators

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Hi everyone,

This plebiscite is to work towards a solution for adqueate policing for discussions.

As it stands, there is a need for further staff with the ability to ban users from this service when the rules are broken, with what bans that are in place often done hours after the fact when I've woken up and the discussions have moved on.

The hurdle with solving this issue has been that discussions does not have a separate "ban space" like chat currently does. This means that any ban placed to resolve a discussion issue would also prevent the user from editing the wiki. There isn't any imminent plan with wikia to seperate this into a seperate ban space - the theory is if someone is a problem on discussions, they're probably not someone we want editing the wiki.

Traditionally wiki bans have required the position of Administrator to be able to place. There is however an option we can take up to also allow Discussion Moderators the right to also place bans.

There are three options that we could possibly use to go forth with this, with a fourth option of doing nothing.

If you're wondering if this is relevant to you - discussions is going to be more than just a feature of smartphone apps going forward.

In the future there will be greater integration with the main wiki as it takes a more "forum" based form with discussion categories, rather than just a twitter-esque timeline form. This will also open some further opportunities for us later on.

The options[]

Option 1 - Unlimited Ban Rights to DMs[]

With this option, we would ask wikia to add the "Block" ability to all Discussion moderators. This would not give any further admin abilities (Lock page, rename, access mediawiki pages, etc) to these users.

Their use of the tool would be as we admins use it for wiki business already - ban guidelines published, but durations technically at the discretion of the ban placer.

The only rules restriction we would place on DMs is that this tool could only be used when dealing with an issue in discussions. Misuse of the tool would be dealt with in line with our current misuse processes.

This would allow them to deal with any issues that arise.

Option 2 - Duration limited Ban Rights to DMs[]

With this option, we would ask wikia to add the "Block" ability to all Discussion moderators. However, we would place an additional rules restriction limiting ban durations to DMs to an initial period of a few hours, and only to deal with issues in discussions.

I'm thinking in the range of 3-12 hours, or perhaps 24 hours. Bans could then be "confirmed" by an admin and extended as the admin sees fit (although I would suggest taking advice from the DM as the "cop on the scene". It allows the initial issue to be stopped in its tracks.

Bans placed by DMs that fell outside those restrictions would of course be dealt with by the usual processes.

Option 3 - Giving one, or some DMs the Admin toolkit[]

With this option we would not ask wikia to add the "block" ability to discussion moderators. We would instead give one, or some, the full admin toolkit.

Their use of the tool by this "Super DM" would be as we admins use it for wiki business already - ban guidelines published, but durations technically at the discretion of the ban placer.

The only rules restriction we would place on DMs is that this tools could only be used when dealing with an issue in discussions - so they'd only be allowed to ban in the rules. Misuse of the tool would be dealt with in line with our current misuse processes.

Option 4 - No change[]

Whilst I personally feel this is completely unacceptable, something must be done, I can't deny it is an option to do nothing.

Voting Method[]

Copy the following code to your first prefered option * ~~~~

Please also list the other options in your prefered order in your comment.

Example

==First Preference: Option 5==
* ~~~~ Options 6,7,8,9

Gives

First Preference: Option 5

• Agent c (talk) 20:39, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Options 6,7,8,9

We are using the preferential voting system. An option must have 50%+1 of active votes to pass. On each round the option with the least options will be discarded, and the votes distributed through the remaining options in line with your preference.

If you do not list all options as preferences, then your vote will become inactive after all of your listed options are exhausted.

This vote closes June 16, 21:44 BST.

First Preference: Option 1[]

• Agent c (talk) 20:41, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Option 2, 3, 4
• * YoDsanklai (talk) 21:06, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Option 2, 4, 3
• --ArthurMaxson (talk) 21:08, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Option 2, 3, 4 Ghost463 option 1.3.5
• ☢ Energy X ☣ 21:11, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
• --SSJ3 Rusticus (talk) 21:25, June 9, 2016 (UTC) (Ok with Options 3 and 2 as well, in that order) I think Option 1 is the best option. We need help over there. I know. This is a big responsibility. I know, current admins feel the Discussions were "forced upon them". Some don't want to "bend the rules" to help us. But, the Discussions exist. It'll help bring new members into the community. Hell, it's the reason I'm here. But, we need help. If a new admin won't be promoted to help us, then this is the next best option. The Discussions remain in a half done state. Yet, we are severely under staffed. We have far greater problems on are end compared to the chat (at least in my opinion). Plus, IP bans don't work. So, if an admin is unavailable, us Discussion Mods have to take time out of our day to keep up with anything that happens. On more then one occasion, I've lost sleep dealing with spammers or trolls. That isn't fair to me. It isn't fair to my fellow Discussion Mods. It isn't fair to act like the Discussions are an annoyance that doesn't deserve that same amount of attention the rest of the Fallout wikia gets. That's why Option 1 is my choice. I'm adding this a bit late, but I cannot stress enough how much help I've gotten thus far from the Bureaucrats and the Admins. They have been extremely helpful and supportive. I just think we need to cut out the middle man in the ban process considering the circumstances. And I wouldn't mind trying to run for an "Discussion Admin" position. But, I can't guarantee that I'll get elected. Honestly, whatever is easier. I just want help in the quickest form. Alright, I'll try to stop adding on to this comment every other day ha.
• --What is the Music of Life? talk 21:51, June 9, 2016 (UTC) I personally believe that this will be needed, As there is a lot of trouble in discussions, that cannot be handled properly without this.
• Dweller111 (talk) 09:57, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Option 2, 3, 4
• Strongtapdatass (talk) 18:51, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Option 3, 2, 4

--DragonAce7 (talk) 21:56, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

• 184.151.112.144 1, 2. I have come to trust these people. Good job all.
• Happydance (talk) 18:19, June 16, 2016 (UTC) Options 1,2,3,4

First Preference: Option 2[]

• ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:07, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Option 1, 4, 3
• ^寧靜 22:35, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Options 1, 4, 3
• --Cassie ~可愛いの猫 ' 10:02, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Options 2, 1, 4, 3
• Sigmund Fraud ^{Talk Contributions} 00:06, June 11, 2016 (UTC) Options 3,1,4
• I vote for this option with strong hesitance and reservations. Many of the Discussion Moderators did not go through the normal vetting process of edits, and community election. They were chosen directly by Wikia, and while Wikia may be our higher authority, they are quite separated from past and current wiki issues. While I have come to know and like SSJ3, I cannot profess to know any of the other moderators personally, and I doubt many of our regular editors can as well. I appreciate their hardwork thus far in maintaining order on the discussions, but I have great hesitance in giving administrator rights to anyone who has not been been through a solid community vote of confidence. The moderators are currently under a lot of duress, as SSJ3 has outline above, and I think giving them some small amount of banning power with duration limits may be the right move in alleviating this, but I think we also need an administrator who's area of focus is the Discussion itself. Each of the admins has areas of foci where they concentrate, it's why each of us strove to become special rights holders, so that we might improve the conditions of our niches, and thus I think it's time we find someone who would fit this new mold perfectly. While I'm loathe to bend or break our administration rules, I think at this point we may need to make an exception and put SSJ3 in an administrator position in order to facilitate this. -bleep196- (talk) 23:20, June 11, 2016 (UTC) Option 3, 1, 4
• In my opinion, if we were to giving blocking rights without a case-by-case vote, including to those who never had a vote going into the DM position, then it should be done with the utmost caution, which is represented by this option. It seems to be a fair compromise to me. --Skire (talk) 02:14, June 13, 2016 (UTC) Option 1, 4, 3

First Preference: Option 3[]

• Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 20:58, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Options 3, 1, 2, 4
• NewRGI (talk) 21:06, June 9, 2016 (UTC) Options 1, 2, 4

CobaltJack (talk) 21:52, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

• CollinTheCourier (talk) 15:49, June 14, 2016 (UTC) Options 3, 2, 4, 1

First Preference: Option 4[]

Excluded votes[]

*21:35, June 9, 2016 (UTC)~ I say we give the power to SSJ3 Rusticus. -CobaltJack/Jack Clovis (no prior edits to the vote)

Okay, looks like we have a problem. The "must make an edit" rule clearly predates discussions. Surely we can count a post on discussions as an edit for this purpose. This user has many, many, posts Agent c (talk) 21:45, June 9, 2016 (UTC) - Peace has agreed to readd in chat. (in this specific case)

That user had many many posts, but what will we do now with the other accounts that had no prior votes and the anon vote? - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 20:33, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

I think if we read the "Edit" rule with a purposeful approach, and read it to include posts, then

• New RGI is at 794, and I can see them posting before the vote.

• ArthurMaxson is DM and I gave him those powers months ago, so I can confirm his existence long term.

• ColinTheCourier is at 319, and I can see them posting before the vote.

• Cobaltjack I've already eplored.

• Happydance is at 1358, and I can see them posting before the vote.

• Strongtapdatass and Dweller111 although I don't immediately recognise the names (Sorry guys) have edited the wiki before the vote.

• I am unable to presently confirm DragonAce7's presence in discussions. I have asked for Wikia for assistance.

So that to me leaves the Anon vote as out, and DragonAce7's as presently "provisional". Have I missed anyone that you would like to query? Agent c (talk) 20:51, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Dragonace has 2466 posts, again dating prior to the vote. Agent c (talk) 20:58, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Outcome[]

Round 1[]

21 votes made, 1 vote excluded as apparently ineligable (1 anon user).

• Option 1 - 10 votes (50%)
• Option 2 - 6 votes (30%)
• Option 3 - 4 votes (20%)
• Option 4 - 0 Votes.

As no option has achieved the 50%+1 mark, we move to round 2.

Round 2[]

As option 4 has the least votes, it is eliminated. There being no votes to distribute we move to round 3

Round 3[]

As Option 3 is the remaining option with the least number of votes, it is elimiated with the votes distributed thusly:

• Distributed to option 1 - Paladin 117, NewRGI
• Distributed to option 2 - ColinTheCourier
• Excluded due to an exhaustion in preferences- CobaltJack

There being 19 active votes, the tally now stands at:

• Option 1 - 12 Votes (63.15%)
• Option 2 - 7 Votes (36.84%)

Having achieved the threshold of 50%+1 votes, Option 1 wins the day, and the request shall be made to wikia. Agent c (talk) 21:56, June 16, 2016 (UTC)