FANDOM


  • I have been going to Special:Chat for the past few days and noticed that the way moderators moderate is dangerously secretive. For example, here is a ban today where an admin went to chat, banned the user, then left, without involved in the discussion prior. There was no forewarnings or kicks. They also had the audacity to say not to comment in bans afterward even though they didn't supply a ban reason. When the banned person has a default summary when it's not obvious e.g. sockpuppet, I feel this is inappropriate conduct. This also brings in another point that I'd like to talk about.

    Now I'm well aware there is a Community Central cabal for the admins and mods, where sometimes they will deliberate with one another about a user who they are going to ban and the ban length to impose. This is all well and good. However, simply banning them with the summary of "Custom reason" or "Misbehaving in chat" when it's not obvious is simply lazy and unprofessional.

    Back when I was an administrator who frequented chat, I actually made an effort to make the ban reasons as transparent and useful to others as possible where I could. I feel some of the current moderation team don't care less about other users knowing why they were banned. Having implicit secrecy between the moderation team isn't the right way to go about things in regards to bans. Not all the moderators do this, but there's a small amount who do, and frankly they need to get their act together. Especially when one mod warns a user and then another immediately bans instead.

    This is mainly a rant, feel free to chip in with your own opinions.

      Loading editor
    • I completely agree with you. I've asked the moderator on the wall but they haven't even responded. There's no reason for my ban, I believe that. Nobody has complained anything and suddenly they banned me

        Loading editor
    • Update: similar thing happened again here.

      Here is the sequence of events:

      1. User swears
      2. Mod 1 warns them
      3. Mod 2 bans them

      So effectively there was no warning at all.

        Loading editor
    • Ozzy boo bear, do you have any other examples?

      In this particular case, Lady Furude, the previous reasons provided for the bans would indicate that the mods thought you were behaving inappropriately. The fact that you got subsequent bans would suggest that, despite previously being banned, you continued inappropriate behavior once the bans expired. When you repeatedly do something like that, you should expect each subsequent ban to get longer since you have already been given a chance to correct the issue. That being the case, I would guess this most recent ban was meant to be like an extension of the previous ban; which was for only 1 day.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I was a CC administrator earlier this year and I am returning next year.

      However, I do need to say this: any Staffing issues should be taken to Special:Contact. But. The administrators and moderators are literally not obligated to give a ban reason to other users of chat.. furthermore, if a user has a ban history, they quite frankly do not a deserve multiple warnings.

      There's only so much the team is willing to put up with and a lot of users have a tendency to view the chat-room as a free-for-all, admod-hating fest and I see a lot of them get away with stuff that they have and will not when I come back.

        Loading editor
    • To be fair, what you mentioned in the original post is a one-off situation. Comparing the whole chat ban log or even just Veralann's chat ban log to your ban log I can't really spot many differences. Yes, it shows laziness but you can't know what was behind the scenes. Was Vera resolving a user's report about chat misbehavior while on phone and barely able to access chat, let alone ban users? Considering this is his third chat ban since September I'm sure he hasn't been able to deal with chat much in past and can only do so rarely. I dunno, it isn't too surprising of an action for a rather inactive administrator.

      As for the second user, they were banned for a less specific reason that what they were reported for. Mod methods are not documented anywhere publicly so there's no warning required that we know of, and from what I remember cases of swear-and-run behavior get immediate bans. According to the report, the user was also warned for their behavior in past.

      Was there a certain consistency in how bans were handed out back when you were an administrator? Were you required to specify the correct ban reasons? Did you have to do a certain amount of warnings before a ban? Did the entirety of the moderator team hand bans out consistently and follow the same ban policy? It's obviously not the case today, but I don't know if there's anything that requires them to do so.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: However, I do need to say this: any Staffing issues should be taken to Special:Contact.

      I understand this, but S:Cing with my sole opinion I think wouldn't mean much of regulations. I just wanted to see if other users thought akin to me.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: The administrators and moderators are literally not obligated to give a ban reason to other users of chat.. furthermore, if a user has a ban history, they quite frankly do not a deserve multiple warnings.

      While I do understand that CC admods may not have to give transparent ban reasons, I do believe that it is something that an admod should do. It not only gives a clear reason to other users, but also to a user themself. At the very least, ban summaries such as "custom reason" and "no reason given" should eventually be changed. They don't have to be in detail, however, they should at least somewhat summarize what the ban was about.


      In general response to everyone: Do keep in mind that we aren't trying to "hate", "degrade", or "bully" the admin/mod team. Many of us have already sent S:Cs and talked to mods of CC personally. We're simply trying to start a discussion and give feedback. Again, we are not trying to put down the mods, get angry at them, or imply that they're awful or need to be demoted. We're simply trying to see the mod team improve. There is a difference between put-downs and constructive criticism.

        Loading editor
    • Hey all, just wanted to pop in and say this matter was resolved on Furude's wall. I would like to point out that bothering mods repeatedly goes against some of the notes about blocks here, for future reference.

      I hope everyone has a great rest of their day! :D

        Loading editor
    • Veralann wrote: I would like to point out that bothering mods repeatedly goes against some of the notes about blocks here

      Are you implying this thread is harassment?

        Loading editor
    • It's been unprofessional for a very long time.

      Granted, as anywhere, moderators each have their own way of doing things. Frankly, as non-moderators, all we can do is speculate, but I am not ignorant of how constant trolls sockpuppet on a day-by-day basis. Some are obvious socks, some not so much.

      I watch often some constant users act in a way I wouldn't consider appropriate, and some may get warnings, but it'll take some time before finally getting to a ban I believe shouldn't have taken so long. Or don't even get a ban at all, and just turn a blind eye to the matter. Or not make a more permanent, or at least longer, ban to a user who has repeated the same behavior before and clearly hasn't learned their lesson. Or even give warnings about something, but have no intention whatsoever to actually enforce the warning and just continue to "warn", basically making it an empty warning. But, as I said, every moderator does have their own way of doing things. No two are ever the same.

      I personally wish that the moderators took more care in being involved on the wiki. Yeah, they want to argue that they have lives, and I know they do as I do as well, but if they can spend the time to goof around on Discord on a constant basis then they can also spend the time on watching chat as well and not have to rely on other users who actually care enough to sit on the chat and ping them on Discord to do the jobs that they agreed to take on to do, as you, Oz, stated: join chat, ban the misbehaving user after being pinged to do so, and leave. It may be a volunteer job, but that's what makes it more sad.

      However, Oz, as a former admin, you should know that a lot of matters between moderators are discussed behind closed doors, so you can't quite say whether or not these current moderators are discussing these matters, nor entirely what has happened between said user and the moderator. And I kind of think it still should be kept that way.

      I have Special:Contact Staff regarding this situation, and they, clearly, just don't care what I have to say about it. As a result, I have not wasted my time reporting the matter, but will comment on it whenever it is brought up.

        Loading editor
    • Annabeth and Percy wrote: However, Oz, as a former admin, you should know that a lot of matters between moderators are discussed behind closed doors, so you can't quite say whether or not these current moderators are discussing these matters, nor entirely what has happened between said user and the moderator.

      It was a generic statement. There is a cabal for the CC admods, that is fact. I wasn't saying every ban is/was discussed there, but it has happened in the past from my experience.

        Loading editor
    • Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.. but that's the tea. I will not comment further.

        Loading editor
    • To give my 2 cents on this I will say if your going to ban someone you should at least try and make it easier for the other mods to know whom is a sock of whom or what this person did and if that person comes back into the chat on another account you have a solid reason to give them that new ban for that account.

      It would be easier for other communities as well in the long haul because everyone will know who is a sock of whom and if that person is banned on their wikia they can just ban that account as well. But to just give a basic reason like misbehaving without saying how he misbehaved or saying sock and not who the person is a sock off is basically making it harder to keep count of the trolls and people that do commit these sort of things.

        Loading editor
    • I worry that certain individuals are taking this the wrong way.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.. but that's the tea. I will not comment further.

      That is the exact thing nobody here is saying. It is also the exact same thing I've heard the CC team members use when they hear complaints about themselves from other users. Can anything really change for the better if all criticism is rejected like that?

      Annabeth is right about the passive nature of the CC team. It's not only about the chat, I'm very sure none of the administrators are watching recent changes either. Porn that stood uploaded for six hours before getting cleaned up, users that got to flood RC with over 300 uploads before getting them deleted and spam that stood for a month in an official category before getting undone, all while I was on my hiatus from CC and unable to watch the recent changes. I know it's tiring, I've been following recent changes on Community Central closely for many hours in past, as well as elsewhere, but glacing over the special page from time to time to spot misbehavior shouldn't be something we can't expect from a volunteer to do.

        Loading editor
    • Enchanted Iris wrote: To give my 2 cents on this...

      While I've seen people do this on a few wikis, the most common scenario seems to be giving a general reason like "Abusing multiple accounts" or "Sockpuppet" whenever someone creates a new account to evade a ban or block. I think one reason for this is that naming the main account of a troll can serve to feed the troll and make the problem worse. However, if it's a normal user doing this, I wouldn't be opposed to naming the main account in the ban reason.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: However, I do need to say this: any Staffing issues should be taken to Special:Contact.

      People do often Special:Contact over issues like this, and their concerns are turned away by Staff with the generic response of "Our moderation team has taken up time from their lives to handle these positions and I am just fine with them as they are." When users personally talk to various Crew members about concerns, they are met with varied responses of "Thanks for the feedback, we'll look into it!", "You're making a bigger issue than needed and here is why:", "If you have feedback to give, direct them to Staff using Special:Contact/general." which results in the concerned user getting a generic response from Staff. Over time, this has led many users to believe that Staff will never do anything about Crew concerns and it's simply a way to push over concerns without actually addressing them.

      PyroNacht wrote: The administrators and moderators are literally not obligated to give a ban reason to other users of chat.. furthermore, if a user has a ban history, they quite frankly do not a deserve multiple warnings.

      Just because moderators are not "obligated" to do something, it doesn't mean that they should not do it. In general, good moderation would be to give clear and precise warnings/rules that cover everyone, including moderators and popular users, and have a good line of communication with users and to detail what they are expected to do and not do, instead of a "guideline" page that literally covers nothing and only confuses users. It frankly seems that the chat guidelines are written for the moderation team to do as they please instead of as a reference page for how users are to behave in chat.

      Another factor is that everyone on this thread clearly cares about Community Central and we all want to make this a better place. I think it would do well to listen to each other instead of implying harassment and passing off feedback as biased or factless.

        Loading editor
    • Qstlijku wrote:

      Enchanted Iris wrote: To give my 2 cents on this...

      While I've seen people do this on a few wikis, the most common scenario seems to be giving a general reason like "Abusing multiple accounts" or "Sockpuppet" whenever someone creates a new account to evade a ban or block. I think one reason for this is that naming the main account of a troll can serve to feed the troll and make the problem worse. However, if it's a normal user doing this, I wouldn't be opposed to naming the main account in the ban reason.

      I agree. Imo, it's the same as adding a template on a userpage to mark troll accounts. It just usually makes things worse in the long run.

        Loading editor
    • I understand. You guys are discontent with how the chat-room moderation is being handled. As an administrator in the past and the upcoming future, I received immense input on this same topic. However, the concept I feel you all are missing is the fact that the admods do not purposely have it out for certain users, but are equally as exhausted of the chat-room as well. So, I am going to take every single one of your points and debunk it for you guys.

      “noticed that the way moderators moderate is dangerously secretive” - Ozzy boo bear Yes, the way moderators moderate is secretive. As somebody entrusted to enforce the rules of chat and possibly beyond, there are a lot of discussions that do happen behind closed doors. That is not something that just happened. It was simply action that happened, seemingly from even before I was promoted in May 2017. Before you hit me with the “just because it was from that period of time doesn’t mean it cannot change” bullet, I would like to mention that bans are typically discussed between Staff, admods, and the actual individual being banned. The reason why this is usually secretive is because of messy situations like this.

      “For example, here is a ban today where an admin went to chat, banned the user, then left, without involved in the discussion prior. There was no forewarnings or kicks.” - Ozzy boo bear Yes. That does happen. Sometimes, admods log in and deal with a swift ban as necessary. I know that I sometimes did that. I go out in public often, in real life, and I despise my iPhone. There’s been occasions where I literally only had time to log in, ban, then leave. Assuming that they know nothing about the chat prior is unwise. Furthermore, assuming that there needs to be a “forewarning” or “kick” for every single user who has had an extensive ban history is plain not reasonable. If there’s a history, then over time, it becomes clear that the user has no intention of respecting the chat-room rules, and thus, the ban is justifiable.

      “Now I'm well aware there is a Community Central cabal for the admins and mods, where sometimes they will deliberate with one another about a user who they are going to ban and the ban length to impose. This is all well and good. However, simply banning them with the summary of "Custom reason" or "Misbehaving in chat" when it's not obvious is simply lazy and unprofessional.” - Ozzy boo bear I feel like you simply threw the first statement in there for the sake of provoking others. The CC crew is chosen carefully. It just so happens that all of the people chosen follow the guidelines and don’t blatantly disrespect the admods. Saying they are a “cabal” implies you suspect there is some ulterior motive and conspiracy- which is untrue and unfortunate that you believe such. Furthermore, many of the ban reasons have not been elaborated on.. Likely because the banned individuals should know what they did wrong. If somebody entered and began spamming slurs, if I were them, I’d be more concerned about how that doesn’t seem wrong to them, rather than getting banned on a website. Especially if there is a history.

      “I feel some of the current moderation team don't care less about other users knowing why they were banned. Having implicit secrecy between the moderation team isn't the right way to go about things in regards to bans” - Ozzy boo bear You are sorely mistaken. At the end of the day, I firmly believe the admods want what is best for the chat. That was (and still is) what I want. When users that have only been back from their absence for only a month and toss out accusations to paint the CC crew as careless and rude, then I think that reflects more on the people who are upset than the actual crew.

      “I completely agree with you. I've asked the moderator on the wall but they haven't even responded. There's no reason for my ban, I believe that. Nobody has complained anything and suddenly they banned me” - Lady Furude You wrote your message on this board at 23:16. You wrote on Veralann’s wall at 22:49. You did not even give Veralann - who I know has a job and other life events - a single hour to respond. Admods get very busy too. Also, just because nobody complained did not mean what you said was wrong. Personally, I have noticed you say some particularly insensitive and/or downright rude things when you’re in chat and you believe the moderators are not looking. Combining that, and your extensive ban history.. That should be enough proof for you.

      “So effectively there was no warning at all.” - Ozzy boo bear Going off of the last paragraph I wrote - if there is a history that details multiple offenses, I personally don’t believe warnings matter. I moderated similarly. If people ignored 2-3 of my warnings in main chat (without a ban history and assuming they were simple mistakes), I banned for 2 hours. However, I was much more tough on the people who should know better because at that point, it’s clear that they do not respect the line drawn, time and time again.

      “I understand this, but S:Cing with my sole opinion I think wouldn't mean much of regulations.” - Ozzy boo bear Then why are you writing this? Are you seeking a regulation change or are you voicing your discontent with the CC crew just to see who will participate? I understand not wanting to S:C regarding regulations, but given the nature of some of your previous comments, I feel like this public forum was targeted and distasteful at best.

      “There is a difference between put-downs and constructive criticism.” - EarthlingnAkumi Yes, I agree. Constructive criticism is important, and I believe a lot of the admods do take it to heart and do their best. However, basing a foundation for accusations (with evidence from recent events that are rare as is) makes this appear more as a personal vendetta rather than a genuine concern for the chat-room atmosphere.

      “Or even give warnings about something, but have no intention whatsoever to actually enforce the warning and just continue to "warn", basically making it an empty warning. “ - Annabeth and Percy One thing you do not understand is that the policy of Assuming Good Faith is still valid. The admods always do their best to give room for understanding. I type 87WPM. Sometimes, I’d type a warning for somebody to stop spamming, and then somebody would hit send 0.1 second after. I did not kick for that, because I used common sense and tried to relax, because there was a high chance they would not see it. Furthermore, sometimes, admods get distracted. When I was around, because I have been diagnosed with ADHD for my entire life, I often had to tab out and multitask because it was better for my mentality. Doesn’t mean I didn’t care.

      “Yeah, they want to argue that they have lives, and I know they do as I do as well, but if they can spend the time to goof around on Discord on a constant basis then they can also spend the time on watching chat as well and not have to rely on other users who actually care enough to sit on the chat and ping them on Discord to do the jobs that they agreed to take on to do” - Annabeth and Percy You do realize that CCC is nobody’s #1 priority, right? The fact that you are implying that admods are obligated to spend 24/7 (which, seems to be the amount of time people in chat misbehave, so I understand your frustration there) is baffling. None of you know what goes on behind closed doors. Quite frankly, sometimes, yes, the admods do want to spend time on Discord rather than participate in chat simply because the Central Chat has become a pool of stress. I was growing increasingly frustrated as an administrator - to a point where I literally cringed every single time I had to enter chat (and I even gave up hours of sleep for it) because the same people didn’t know how to behave. Yes, it was my job. But it does not mean I was required to spend every waking second there, especially when my own mental health was taking a turn around that time.

      Now, I have read and responded to all messages on this board to up to 1:00am Wiki time. I am going to give my own full opinion.

      A good majority of the users who are regulars in chat are the ones crying wolf about how the rules are rarely enforced. But, when one of them gets banned for swearing or whatever, they get upset over that. So, honestly, yeah, a lot of the admods are probably tired. And many of them (including me) understood that it is impossible to please an entire community. There are always going to be people who don’t like you or your role.

      But before users start tearing the CC crew a new one over the chat atmosphere that has always been like this, then maybe they should look at their own actions first.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.. but that's the tea. I will not comment further.

      Sounds like you're being very resistant to criticism.

      Also might I add moderators have commented on bans, here's a couple examples:

      https://i.imgur.com/HNB0C1W.png

      https://i.imgur.com/QZ22EPG.png

      So why tell us not to do it?

      We as the chatting community are right to call those out on it, because at the moment it's one rule for us and another for the admods.

        Loading editor
    • Ozzy boo bear wrote: We as the chatting community are right to call those out on it [...]

      I completely, 100% agree with that statement. Because this isn't just something owned by admins, or mods, it's the community's place. And as community members, we should be allowed to discuss the issues we have within it, and not have it brushed off as "harassment". Which is why I think something like this is more appropriate than an S:C.

        Loading editor
    • The moderator team and most of its supporters seem to enjoy emphasizing the point that they are human and have lives on their own, so of course they can't deal with everyone properly. Of course they'll be in bad moods sometimes, say the wrong things, so we shouldn't hold it against them. The fact is that if you need to resort to using that as the generic excuse, you're doing something wrong.

      As an infrequent CCC visitor, what should be a welcoming place for all users to seek help is, in reality, a chatroom filled with regulations and moderators who aren't interested in getting down to one's level. From experience, the CC staff are weary and biased against troublemakers. Those who argue with warnings are inciting drama. Those who protest a ban are harassing. The ban hammer's shadow lingers before a warning is even issued, because the staff have been tired of troublemakers. They are so tired of the typical trolls who think they are justified to wreck havoc and insult people who are just doing their jobs that they start to see users in a negative light on their own.

      To those who argue that the moderators have lives outside of their volunteer jobs, the staff position are volunteer positions. They are not paid, and if you have decided to commit you should be doing it well. This is what we have learned in school for years; if you volunteer you should commit to the best of your ability, or don't commit at all. They are the face of Wikia on Community Central, the location that is supposed to be providing assistance to anyone who needs it, but they have not done a good job at showing a positive face whatsoever. 

      Unfortunately, the chat has had normal users and members of the administration breaking the rules, but they are getting off scot-free or with a slap on the wrist in comparison to the new users who violate the same rules.

      The excuse I am seeing repeated is the fact that everyone is human and makes mistakes. That is true, but the staff should only be using that if they are being accused for every little thing they do wrong. That is not the case. You cannot dismiss all the claims made against you with the sole reason that you are human. Users are human too, but that doesn't stop staff from banning them. If the only thing you are willing to do for change is blame it on your own stresses and problems, that just shows that you know you are doing something wrong. Own up to the mistakes instead of thinking that users are out to get you for it.

      Finally, it is extremely unlikely that staff are actually going to take action, and I have my suspicions that a majority of the time, when you tell users to find staff, you are doing it because you know that staff won't take action. They are busy with hundreds of social issues, bug reports, modernization tasks, profit, etc. Because of how serious a claim against a member of the administration is, and because a majority of users with global rights and staff believe that CC mods and admins are allowed to make mistakes and not own up because of the stress of the position, nothing will come out of it.

      I find it a bit baffling why you would want us to find staff anyway. Would you rather clear up misunderstandings about your position yourself and admit to anything you've done wrong, or would you rather wait for staff to call you out for it and take action? I can't fathom why any mod would want the latter to happen, considering how high they hold their positions, so I'm just going to assume you want staff to tell us "No we aren't going to take action" so you won't have to do anything about it.

        Loading editor
    • Since it was misinterpreted at the time (perhaps understandably), I was not stating that this thread was harassment, I was more alluding to the fact that making rude comments (whether to a mod or not) can be grounds for chat bans.

      I find it a bit baffling why you would want us to find staff anyway. Would you rather clear up misunderstandings about your position yourself and admit to anything you've done wrong, or would you rather wait for staff to call you out for it and take action?

      People can attempt to clear up misgivings and misunderstandings all they want, and some people just choose not to listen.

      I tend to have a lot going on and the simple answer is indeed, "life". As a kind of personal account, this is similar in a way to the first point: people can offer all the feedback they want and sometimes, people won't listen for one reason or another. Sometimes you're completely in the right, and sometimes you just have it wrong.

      The reason we tell people to talk to staff is because they are quite literally the ones who make this wiki's policies and guidelines. Whether something is actually wrong is sometimes (not always, but sometimes) a subjective matter, and again, nobody is perfect.

      I don't want to speak for anyone else here, so this is just me: I volunteer here when time allows which is sometimes less often than I would like. I'm not going to say people can't ultimately think what they want to, but I will say threads like this can end up being demoralizing at times.

      If anyone really wants to have an in-depth conversation with me about this I'm sure we could figure something out, but tl;dr is that yeah, nobody is perfect and there's some nuance to everything.

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: Yes, the way moderators moderate is secretive. As somebody entrusted to enforce the rules of chat and possibly beyond, there are a lot of discussions that do happen behind closed doors. That is not something that just happened. It was simply action that happened, seemingly from even before I was promoted in May 2017. Before you hit me with the “just because it was from that period of time doesn’t mean it cannot change” bullet, I would like to mention that bans are typically discussed between Staff, admods, and the actual individual being banned. The reason why this is usually secretive is because of messy situations like this.

      The team sure hasn't been discussing Mamvik's ban since less than a month ago. Sure, some complicated situations, like Oz's ban in the past, must have been discussed for a long time and the action taken represents the result of that discussion, but being secretive about something that's only been happening this month is pointless and just makes other users in chat confused.

      PyroNacht wrote: Furthermore, many of the ban reasons have not been elaborated on.. Likely because the banned individuals should know what they did wrong. If somebody entered and began spamming slurs, if I were them, I’d be more concerned about how that doesn’t seem wrong to them, rather than getting banned on a website. Especially if there is a history.

      I wouldn't have expected to hear this from you. You should know CCC is visited by all kinds of users, and those who misbehave are usually either underage, don't have a clear picture of what the site is for, have mental health issues or just constantly abuse the chat (possibly for the previous reason). Would you expect understanding of the ban reason from any of the first three groups? I've communicated with one of the users mentioned in the original post and it was clear they didn't know the reason they were banned for. That's not to say there is no reason or the reason was bad, it's just that you should expect users that don't understand their bans.

      PyroNacht wrote: You are sorely mistaken. At the end of the day, I firmly believe the admods want what is best for the chat. That was (and still is) what I want. When users that have only been back from their absence for only a month and toss out accusations to paint the CC crew as careless and rude, then I think that reflects more on the people who are upset than the actual crew.

      You're responding as if Oz said "I think the moderation team doesn't care about the chat at all."

      PyroNacht wrote: Then why are you writing this? Are you seeking a regulation change or are you voicing your discontent with the CC crew just to see who will participate? I understand not wanting to S:C regarding regulations, but given the nature of some of your previous comments, I feel like this public forum was targeted and distasteful at best.

      How is it bad to request comments on a certain topic that has been brought up way too many times in private channels up on a public forum, expecting users to respond in a civilized and constructive manner? We know Staff won't change anything there. We're not trying to get Staff to change anything there. Is it a real change in one's behavior if you have to get somebody other than the person in question to change that behavior?

      PyroNacht wrote: You do realize that CCC is nobody’s #1 priority, right? The fact that you are implying that admods are obligated to spend 24/7 (which, seems to be the amount of time people in chat misbehave, so I understand your frustration there) is baffling. None of you know what goes on behind closed doors. Quite frankly, sometimes, yes, the admods do want to spend time on Discord rather than participate in chat simply because the Central Chat has become a pool of stress. I was growing increasingly frustrated as an administrator - to a point where I literally cringed every single time I had to enter chat (and I even gave up hours of sleep for it) because the same people didn’t know how to behave. Yes, it was my job. But it does not mean I was required to spend every waking second there, especially when my own mental health was taking a turn around that time.

      Again, I am pretty sure nobody is implying the chat should be anybody's #1 priority or that the volunteers are obligated to spend 24/7 in chat. That's just putting it way out of the proportions of what was said.

      PyroNacht wrote: A good majority of the users who are regulars in chat are the ones crying wolf about how the rules are rarely enforced. But, when one of them gets banned for swearing or whatever, they get upset over that. So, honestly, yeah, a lot of the admods are probably tired. And many of them (including me) understood that it is impossible to please an entire community. There are always going to be people who don’t like you or your role.

      But before users start tearing the CC crew a new one over the chat atmosphere that has always been like this, then maybe they should look at their own actions first.

      A good majority of the users in this thread has not been banned for quite some time, so I'm not sure what kind of comparison you're trying to make there.

        Loading editor
    • (Temporarily popping out of my inactivity to write this comment; hopefully it holds some value.)

      I've had issues with CC moderation for quite some time, and that was admittedly part of the reason I've stopped going on the chat (and also part of why I'm not active on here in general anymore, but that's a story for another time).

      For one thing, the rules everyone is supposed to follow are inconsistent and have been enforced incredibly laxly, especially with admods. As Ozzy showed, regulars have always been instructed not to comment on bans, yet mods do it anyway. I'm not sure why – haughtiness? A superiority complex? No telling – but way to go against your own instructions, am I right?

      Second, since I know in advance that I'll likely get attacked over this comment: the CC moderation team cannot take criticism, even if it's constructive. Exhibit A: this entire thread. Exhibit B: that time when—actually, I won't name-drop, since a) I'm better than that, b) Staff won't listen to my qualms in any case, and c) what I said after the colon in sentence #1 of this mini-paragraph.

      Third, I'm able to recount numerous times when Staff's so-called "trusted" volunteers have engaged in blatant acts of harassment. I'd give a few specific examples, but I'm not petty, and, again, Staff won't listen anyway! Still, if the moderation rules weren't enforced so loosely, none of these issues would be problematic in the first place.

      As an additional note, the practices I've observed from team members are incredibly shady. Do I expect volunteers to mod the chat/wiki 24/7? Absolutely not. But they don't do much aside from lurk, and when they do say anything, they are highly secretive and at times even very rude. I get it, Staff like you, but no need to flaunt your meaningless rank.

      Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be going back to sites without a heck ton of internal drama and with no corrupt hierarchal systems (aka not Wikia).

      Peace.

        Loading editor
    • Look, we completely understand that, as moderators at Community Central, your hands can be tied sometimes, because Staff are the main controllers of this wiki compared to others. As a result, there is little you can change on your own. We also understand that of course we don't expect you to moderate something 24/7 as a volunteer. At some point, you need to start earning a living. That's why there's more than one moderator. That was very ignorant for you to actually believe I meant it that way when that is not at all what I said. Volunteering is to be involved when you have the time/are free to do so, but if there are other matters that take more precedence and takes up more of your time, we completely understand that. But if it's been a reasonable amount of time, say, six months or even a year, since you've been able to volunteer, we do wonder why you still have the rights to volunteer if you're just simply too busy to do so. We also are fully aware of how many users are harassing and even stalkerish towards you moderators. We see it every day on your wall or even a troll having made a username with your username to mock you on chat. We don't support that kind of behavior at all and totally back any ban/block as a result of it. But when we believe a user is being somewhat respectful, that they do deserve one explanation as to why they were banned/blocked.

      PyroNacht wrote:

      Quite frankly, sometimes, yes, the admods do want to spend time on Discord rather than participate in chat simply because the Central Chat has become a pool of stress. I was growing increasingly frustrated as an administrator - to a point where I literally cringed every single time I had to enter chat (and I even gave up hours of sleep for it) because the same people didn’t know how to behave. Yes, it was my job. But it does not mean I was required to spend every waking second there, especially when my own mental health was taking a turn around that time.

      If moderatoring Community Central puts so much stress and damage to your mental health, then why are you even coming back? By doing so, you could project that onto other users, and that's not good or healthy.

      As moderators, I do believe you should have a little more leverage than just regular users, but that doesn't mean you get a free pass/get it both ways. The moderators are expected to stay within the rules just as much as regular users, and are not above them. But as shown above, that is not always the case, and no one cares to do anything about it.

      PyroNacht wrote:

      The CC crew is chosen carefully. It just so happens that all of the people chosen follow the guidelines and don’t blatantly disrespect the admods.

      And how dare you actually say that the only users that follow the rules and respect the moderators are just you moderators? FYI, you weren't always moderators, as are the rest of us. We respect what time you are able to offer, but we need respect as well, as we are also trying to help the moderators maintain the same goal here. It's not just the moderators that keep this wiki going.

        Loading editor
    • I would just like to have this mentioned again that whatever any members of CCCrew current or former write it is their own personal opinion and does not always express the views of all of crew.

        Loading editor
    • Perhaps just keep bias and personal relations out of a moderator's decision?

      I personally believe that the mods have their hands tied in some situations, but it should always go like this: warning, kick, final warning, and ban. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules but the formula should be consistent. If it's that difficult, perhaps change the chat guidelines to make the rules more specific?

      However, I think that most users here are competent enough to follow the rules and not be blatantly disrespectful.  Nacht, not everyone can meet a person's specific standards.  We can't always receive rights or some shiny badge saying "hey look guys i know how to to follow rules" to show that we can be respectful. This isn't a personal attack in any way but I disagree with your statements as they seem to be unfair and biased. But I could be wrong. I'll add on to this discussion as it continues.

        Loading editor
    • BuzzyCut wrote: Perhaps just keep bias and personal relations out of a moderator's decision?

      I personally believe that the mods have their hands tied in some situations, but it should always go like this: warning, kick, final warning, and ban. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules but the formula should be consistent. If it's that difficult, perhaps change the chat guidelines to make the rules more specific?

      However, I think that most users here are competent enough to follow the rules and not be blatantly disrespectful.  Nacht, not everyone can meet a person's specific standards.  We can't always receive rights or some shiny badge saying "hey look guys i know how to to follow rules" to show that we can be respectful. This isn't a personal attack in any way but I disagree with your statements as they seem to be unfair and biased. But I could be wrong. I'll add on to this discussion as it continues.


      You have a long way down the rabbit hole, my friend. Bias will never leave this website in any "authority" that exists, on the site. The people in charge here are human beings filled with emotion and prejudice and bias and nothing will change that. If it took you this long to figure this out and you believe the bias and prejudice consists mainly and only in "PyroNachts opinion, it's even more absurd. You could try reduce the prejudice bias and personal relations on this site, but that's ALL you'll ever be doing, reducing it and never eradicating it, completely.

        Loading editor
    • Staff gets to set the guidelines and policies of the wiki as Vera previously stated. There has been internal discussion about the guidelines and the vagueness of it quite a few times, but Staff get the final say over how the guidelines are presented and what is in it.

      I understand that there are things that the team could do much better, myself included. I don't think there is anything wrong with a healthy conversation regarding what users would like the team to improve upon and criticism of the crew is fine.

        Loading editor
    • Annabeth, Korra, Kocka, Akumi, Q, Alex, and Oz have said most of my points already but I would also like to add that, while yes the mods have their own lives that they signed up for the job of watching chat and they are on discord daily and never in chat, when users need them the point of having mods and admins are to have them in chat helping out the users.

      Honestly, CCC used to be a good chat and the place to go to get help with wikis but its not anymore the crew is unhelpful, sometimes rude and unprofessional when users give them complaints as well as ask questions and often you see biased acts from the admins and mods for their friends

      Yes it's a volunteer job, yes they have lives but they signed up for it and they are not doing what they agreed to do. The whole crew needs to be reviewed and possibly repicked.

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the comments and feedback you have all made - be sure to know that we have been discussing the topics in this thread quite extensively as a team, and I agree that we do have areas that we can improve and act on. It's not true to say that we ignore or can't take criticism - we're always looking into how we can improve and moderate the chat and the wiki.

      Some specifics on things discussed here:

      There are always slight differences in how each moderator moderates, and that happens in any environment. We usually follow 'warn, kick, ban', but there are also cases where an instant kick or ban is needed. We also follow some internal guidelines that are much more specific than CCCG - which makes sure that our actions are similar. For bans that are not as clear-cut, we do discuss it in the team more thoroughly, and really that's most of what we talk about.

      For ban reasons: Banned users are welcome to dispute or clarify their bans, but we usually don't share specific information to other people, as it creates a bit too much drama. I agree though, that things like 'Custom reason' and 'No reason given' aren't great. Like quite a few people have said, we don't state who the sockpuppet is because it also causes unncessary drama - and we are usually pretty confident about bans for sockpuppets. There has been very little complaints about sockpuppet bans.

      We ask people to send feedback to FANDOM Staff because it allows them to collect it in a more organised manner, more so than through threads and private messages. This lets them filter and suggest improvements we can make. It also lets Staff be more open to changes and ideas from the community about things like chat and wiki guidelines - which we are always in communication about with Staff.

      I think it's fair to say that Community Central is a more stressful environment than other wikis. For the time I've been around, the turnaround of admods is pretty high compared to other wikis of the same scale. It takes quite a lot of effort to control and meet the demands of Staff and the community, and personally I feel like the current group is in a pretty stable state. But indeed, there is room for improvement and I promise to take the feedback on board in terms of how I moderate the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Some thoughts from me, as the staffer who is generally responsible for the CC crew. When I respond to S:C messages with "I have faith in the admins and moderators on Central", that's not a rote reply, or an unthinking one. It's how I feel about the group.

      Of course, they aren't perfect (and netiher am I), and we will be discussing this thread and the points raised - just as I pass on any feedback from S:C that seems helpful.

      We do this in private of course, and I am not going to start publicly airing our private conversions - which includes the many conversations we have about what actions to take when there are problems on the wiki or chat. We don't discuss every incident of course, but we do consult regularly.

      On that topic, I reject the pejorative word "cabal". We, staff and volunteers, are a team who try to work together to keep the site well moderated, with fair, considered and consistent actions. That's not a cabal, it's a normal process in consulting each other in a place where we can speak freely without causing extra drama on the wiki.

      Finally, this is a very negative thread, and I want to ensure that it doesn't cause more bad feeling in the community. So in the spirit of one of Trump and Clinton's debates, I ask everyone involved to say something positive to close out this thread 🙂

      p.s. I am travelling back to the US today and so will be completely out of touch for a while.

        Loading editor
    • I guess I can say something positive.

      As it has been said, everything is part of the learning experience as we become better as people and as a service to the users that need us. The criticisms and defenses are all valid, and each will be molded to provide a better service than before. I expect this and continue to respect the effort, and I have faith this can and will be done knowing the people who have commented here. We all would be upset if good results do not happen as a result of anything happening, so I wish the best to everyone.

      One thing I want to point out, though: it's not nice to know that there is quick access to other FANDOM and volunteer members beyond the options that are public to general users. Though the reason is completely understandable, it's a tiny tease on the limits a general user has when "private conversations" are stated to exist and receive "consult regularly." That is my opinion, however, and is something I will think more about myself on its validity and usefulness to others as potential feedback.

      That's all from me. All the best, everyone.

        Loading editor
    • Messenger of Heaven wrote: Annabeth, Korra, Kocka, Akumi, Q, Alex, and Oz have said most of my points already but I would also like to add that, while yes the mods have their own lives that they signed up for the job of watching chat and they are on discord daily and never in chat, when users need them the point of having mods and admins are to have them in chat helping out the users.

      Honestly, CCC used to be a good chat and the place to go to get help with wikis but its not anymore the crew is unhelpful, sometimes rude and unprofessional when users give them complaints as well as ask questions and often you see biased acts from the admins and mods for their friends

      Yes it's a volunteer job, yes they have lives but they signed up for it and they are not doing what they agreed to do. The whole crew needs to be reviewed and possibly repicked.

      I'm not agree! Whenever someone try to ask questions from administrators or chat moderators, then they give them the answers immediately!
      They are also human beings if they do not answer your questions, then obviously they are doing some important work?

        Loading editor
    • Anonminati wrote:
      I'm not agree! Whenever someone try to ask questions from administrators or chat moderators, then they give them the answers immediately!

      Everyone's experiences may differ, which was the criticism regarding a lack of consistency and attention. The resolution is to give as many users as possible their due assistance with notice if the assistance is not possible, though if a better idea exists, then we are happy to hear.

      Anonminati wrote:
      They are also human beings if they do not answer your questions, then obviously they are doing some important work?

      Indeed, but as the defenses and criticism above have stated, adjustments would be suggested to achieve the best resolution to adverse changes and circumstances, such as not giving quality time to the chat as one would want. As the CC staff position is volunteer work, the breaks are justified, but the noted "secrecy" and lack of transparent reason is a criticism that will be looked over if need be.

      As it has been demonstrated, everyone can and will do better as we continue to interact with and bounce off each other for the better.

        Loading editor
    • Not a lot to say here, but I feel like if every mod had to tell all the other mods who is a sock of who, especially if the user had multiple socks and VPNS, it would waste time actually moderating the chat.

        Loading editor
    • Tabuu5 wrote:
      Not a lot to say here, but I feel like if every mod had to tell all the other mods who is a sock of who, especially if the user had multiple socks and VPNS, it would waste time actually moderating the chat.

      Yes, that's why Community Central admins and moderators have CheckUser rights. Sometimes in chat, you can see that an account was banned right after they've joined the chat. It's because they've used an alt account to evade the ban. Changing IP addresses, or using VPNs, doesn't change their IP address far from the "user's" destination. 

      It's also a good reason why a chat moderator bot was watching the chat, although the bot may be out of chat for a while. 

        Loading editor
    • I used to be a regular chat-goer back in the days of Jazzi, Eladkse and Randomtime years ago. I won't say who I was, as it's not relevant.

      Anyway, the moderation may not want to admit it, but they are a circlejerk of buddies who hang together and will defend each other against any criticism. This has always been a recurring theme throughout the years of the chat on CC. They seem to think they are impervious to anyone concerned with their way of moderation, which I think PyroNacht has shown by trying to use users' past bans who commented here in an attempt to invalidate their opinion. Which I think is funny because I can remember her misbehaving once upon a time too.

      From what I've read on this thread it seems these issues raised haven't progressed since initially appearing years ago.

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote: Finally, this is a very negative thread, and I want to ensure that it doesn't cause more bad feeling in the community. So in the spirit of one of Trump and Clinton's debates, I ask everyone involved to say something positive to close out this thread 🙂

      While I understand and respect your points, I do disagree with this statement as I don't really think this thread is "very negative". Feedback that goes against the moderation team is not negative in itself and should be welcomed and accepted as any other feedback would be. Compared to most threads on Community Central, most of the users on this thread have tried to remain calm and respectful and I think that should be taken note of. Users, regardless of the wiki, should be able to create discussions where they can discuss their views and feelings on the moderation team. It's part of being a community, this wiki is no exception.

      On the note of saying something positive, I will say that I respect CCCrew and their work. I also want to thank Veralann, SayuriDarling, and Noreplyz for their calm and respectful responses to this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Since people are having a hard time understanding what I said about knowing the sock of whom I will give an Example so people can understand it more easily and watch how biased the mods would be if this would happen.

      Example:

      Say one of the staff made a second account in order to keep an eye out on the mods.

      They enter on a second account and not on their main account but they watch what happens and see lots of people asking for mods to help get rid of someone causing drama but the mods are either away or not on and when a mod comes back they are all disrespectful and rude to the people that asked for their help.

      This staff mod on their second account would see this and would most likely either call out the mod or ask the mod what they are doing and the mod would get angry and would most likely kick or ban that person for calling them out as they would most likely take that criticism as harassment but if they get angry for that and would then ban that second account.

      When the staff member comes into the chat on their main account are you telling me that the mods would ban the staff member as well like they banned the sock account or would they sit there and see they messed up.

      Now consider if someone normal did that a person without rights and say they entered the chat on an alt account and they were seeing how the mods where acting and they speak to the mod about it in pm and the mod considers that criticism as harassment they would ban that person and if that person came back on their main account they would immediately ban that account without prejudice.

      Do you see how biased that is for them to look the other way for some people and not for others.

        Loading editor
    • okay, I'll admit my personal opinion over this situation.

      I've been an administrator myself and I'm aware of how stressful it is to encounter criticism in your community. A year of my being an admod was pretty difficult (considering I was younger than the current moderators on CC) however I accepted my actions were wrong sometimes. If you, admods, continue to consider these discussions "negative" and ignore our words, I doubt a single thing would improve. People absolutely see it when you haven't even tried to get into the situation. Getting tired of your work? Either leave or get more people help you with this job. Just look carefully for people you're going to invite. Though, is there something really secretive? Don't worry, we understand you want to remain the same group, no matter how uneffectively you do this job :P

      additionally, I've got an assumption that this thread might not have any effect at all. We continue to write huge posts about our moderation system being corrupted and uneffective, but is there anything that's going to change? Don't look at my registration date: I've been participating, no, living in the Wikia FANDOM atmosphere for more than three years, and it has remained the same. Not counting that people have changed.

      unlike you, CC moderators, I'm an ex-volunteer who has never harrassed anyone. I've known many cases of your unfair actions against people you didn't like just for their world view or another single detail that didn't even matter. However you stay on the roles you've got. I could spend time by counting absolutely all cases I've encountered and writing them down, sending to Staff (who are the same as you, huh - even worse) and etc., but I'd rather find another place where I could put my effort. I regret returning to FANDOM, I've expected to see volunteers change better. What I see now isn't a good situation. I've always defended volunteers in front of everyone, however now I see the reason of terrible attitude towards you. Either improve or deal with it :P

      want me to reveal what I've had to handle in your "volunteer" teams? sure, I'll describe it with all details (not counting the exact date - I'm bad at remembering numbers, huh). Want to block me on CC? go ahead. I don't mind.

      hope you get to change yourself better.

        Loading editor
    • Enchanted Iris wrote:
      Since people are having a hard time understanding what I said about knowing the sock of whom I will give an Example so people can understand it more easily and watch how biased the mods would be if this would happen.

      Example:

      Say one of the staff made a second account in order to keep an eye out on the mods.

      They enter on a second account and not on their main account but they watch what happens and see lots of people asking for mods to help get rid of someone causing drama but the mods are either away or not on and when a mod comes back they are all disrespectful and rude to the people that asked for their help.

      This staff mod on their second account would see this and would most likely either call out the mod or ask the mod what they are doing and the mod would get angry and would most likely kick or ban that person for calling them out as they would most likely take that criticism as harassment but if they get angry for that and would then ban that second account.

      When the staff member comes into the chat on their main account are you telling me that the mods would ban the staff member as well like they banned the sock account or would they sit there and see they messed up.

      Now consider if someone normal did that a person without rights and say they entered the chat on an alt account and they were seeing how the mods where acting and they speak to the mod about it in pm and the mod considers that criticism as harassment they would ban that person and if that person came back on their main account they would immediately ban that account without prejudice.

      Do you see how biased that is for them to look the other way for some people and not for others.

      Okay, I'll get your point as I read through them:

      "Since people are having a hard time understanding what I said about knowing the sock of whom I will give an Example so people can understand it more easily and watch how biased the mods would be if this would happen." 

      Yes. Sometimes, a user was banned falsely because either their account name seems similar to the troll's account or their IP address is the same. Mods have CheckUser right. 

      "Say one of the staff made a second account in order to keep an eye out on the mods."

      Mods are trusted users who can keep an eye on the chat to moderate the chat. Yes, the guidelines may be strict, but it's important to listen to warnings, especially if they've given you one, let's say that you were linking other chats. Staffs really don't create another account to watch the mods. They use their main account to watch the chat.  

      "They enter on a second account and not on their main account but they watch what happens and see lots of people asking for mods to help get rid of someone causing drama but the mods are either away or not on and when a mod comes back they are all disrespectful and rude to the people that asked for their help."

      I mean, people are not allowed to mini-moderate if they don't have the chat moderator right. If an argument or fight occurs during the chat, and no mods were watching them, then that's a problem. That's why a staff created a "bot" account to keep an eye on the chat. The "bot" won't ban people as a human being, but ban people of what they know of. Staff have office hours and they do take a break once they've worked FANDOM during that day. 

      "People absolutely see it when you haven't even tried to get into the situation. Getting tired of your work? Either leave or get more people help you with this job. Just look carefully for people you're going to invite. "

      Mods can't get other users to help them to chat. If they really think that moderating the chat is boring, or if they don't want to moderate the chat anymore, they'll remove their moderator right. For example, Pyro removed her admin right because she have a lot to do IRL for months. But she will be granted once she's active again at CC. 

      "unlike you, CC moderators, I'm an ex-volunteer who has never harrassed anyone. I've known many cases of your unfair actions against people you didn't like just for their world view or another single detail that didn't even matter."

      Hello. I've been in the chat before, and I've seen mods and admins gave people chances and warnings before issue a ban. Keep in mind that chat are not just in Community Central. It can be at any wiki, if the chat was enabled at Special:WikiFeatures. Every wiki have different attitudes and rules about Chat Guidelines. And when they issue a ban, they issue a short ban, and gradually longer if failure to obey the rules and warnings. Many people thought that the actions were unfair, but the warnings given were pretty much fair enough, at least. 

        Loading editor
    • Anonminati wrote:

      Messenger of Heaven wrote: Annabeth, Korra, Kocka, Akumi, Q, Alex, and Oz have said most of my points already but I would also like to add that, while yes the mods have their own lives that they signed up for the job of watching chat and they are on discord daily and never in chat, when users need them the point of having mods and admins are to have them in chat helping out the users.

      Honestly, CCC used to be a good chat and the place to go to get help with wikis but its not anymore the crew is unhelpful, sometimes rude and unprofessional when users give them complaints as well as ask questions and often you see biased acts from the admins and mods for their friends

      Yes it's a volunteer job, yes they have lives but they signed up for it and they are not doing what they agreed to do. The whole crew needs to be reviewed and possibly repicked.

      I'm not agree! Whenever someone try to ask questions from administrators or chat moderators, then they give them the answers immediately!
       

      They are also human beings if they do not answer your questions, then obviously they are doing some important work?

      Yes, if mods already know that they've received new message, then they should respond it or at least take a look at it. However, mods don't really check their phone or their devices very often for see their notifications, because they may be too busy keeping an eye on the chat. 

        Loading editor
    • Applemasterexpert wrote:

      Mods can't get other users to help them to chat. If they really think that moderating the chat is boring, or if they don't want to moderate the chat anymore, they'll remove their moderator right. For example, Pyro removed her admin right because she have a lot to do IRL for months. But she will be granted once she's active again at CC.

      oh yeah sure, they can't get anyone help them but complain of how difficult their work is. poor moderators!
      seriously, there are many people who would love to help moderators. But I see admins would rather whine of their harsh job instead of solving their reluctance to work.

      Applemasterexpert wrote:

      Hello. I've been in the chat before, and I've seen mods and admins gave people chances and warnings before issue a ban. Keep in mind that chat are not just in Community Central. It can be at any wiki, if the chat was enabled at Special:WikiFeatures. Every wiki have different attitudes and rules about Chat Guidelines. And when they issue a ban, they issue a short ban, and gradually longer if failure to obey the rules and warnings. Many people thought that the actions were unfair, but the warnings given were pretty much fair enough, at least. 

      you didn't get what I meant. I was aiming towards volunteers, not you :)

        Loading editor
    • Applemasterexpert wrote:

      Anonminati wrote:

      Messenger of Heaven wrote: Annabeth, Korra, Kocka, Akumi, Q, Alex, and Oz have said most of my points already but I would also like to add that, while yes the mods have their own lives that they signed up for the job of watching chat and they are on discord daily and never in chat, when users need them the point of having mods and admins are to have them in chat helping out the users.

      Honestly, CCC used to be a good chat and the place to go to get help with wikis but its not anymore the crew is unhelpful, sometimes rude and unprofessional when users give them complaints as well as ask questions and often you see biased acts from the admins and mods for their friends

      Yes it's a volunteer job, yes they have lives but they signed up for it and they are not doing what they agreed to do. The whole crew needs to be reviewed and possibly repicked.

      I'm not agree! Whenever someone try to ask questions from administrators or chat moderators, then they give them the answers immediately!
       

      They are also human beings if they do not answer your questions, then obviously they are doing some important work?

      Yes, if mods already know that they've received new message, then they should respond it or at least take a look at it. However, mods don't really check their phone or their devices very often for see their notifications, because they may be too busy keeping an eye on the chat. 

      Not to be rude, but that doesn't really make sense. At least, not in the context we're discussing in. Nothing was said about mods having to keep an eye on their message walls/they are too busy keeping an eye on chat.

        Loading editor
    • I used staff as an example because the mods wouldn't block them just like they wouldn't block another mod for them having a second account even if they caused trouble in the past like a good example for that would be Nacht even thought she is wanting back her rights even if it costs her health which is also something she should take into consideration over being a mod.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to state my thoughts on this:

      1. Sannse, despite you having trust in the team, you can't exercise that trust to just dismiss feedback or not look into it enough. I recall trying to give some feedback on one of the moderators, yet I doubt it was actually passed on. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      Even if it was, I doubt it was significant enough to be discussed throughly. I strongly believe any issues need to be addressed and not dodged. Regardless of what it is.

      2. I'd like to mention that staying out of CCC for moderators is not the best way to go about it. Experienced users like them should be in the chatroom to moderate, assist and answer questions. Even though they're not being paid, I do not appreciate the fact that they excuse their lives for this. I mean, it's okay. I understand when life sometimes gets in the way, but the fact this has been going for so downright long is concerning. If you can't afford to visit the chat to actually interact and moderate, then you can't be a volunteer. There are users out there who are on chat everyday and show they can help but aren't CC crew so keep that in mind if you think you can always lay back when on CC.

      3. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of so quickly, as mentioned early in this thread, is downright disgraceful. I'm not sure what the issue is, granted I see at least one crew member online in the CC reports discord server. With the number of staff and volunteers there are for CC, I don't understand how that could even be possible.

      4. Communication is one of the key factors in administrating/moderating a wiki. If you can't display them efficiently, then that's a big issue right there. Regardless of what the ban reason is, if the user asks for elaboration, I've seen several of you say "check your chat ban log" or "contributions." That won't always help the user understand the offense they've made and the fact I see issues with the ban reason as well is a big problem. If this type of communication goes on, you can easily see why users are more concerned with their bans, and you.

      5. I firmly believe that there is some bias going on. For example, I've noticed a change in tone for volunteers when they speak to friends and when they speak to novice users. I'm not sure what this is all about but it's very immature. If you're trusted to help Community Central, you're trusted to be a resource to everyone and be kind to them. If you are going to help the wiki, I suggest you display a more appropriate attitude regardless of who you're talking to.

      6. Community Central is like the center of Fandom so this puts a lot of pressure on you. If you are someone who can't afford to spend too much time here, you should've never accepted the offer to help moderate. It's a job that requires some of your time and if you can't meet it, then what's the point.

      7. I disagree with how they always point bans that are being challenged to staff. While staff have the final verdict to any situation, the moderators should not dodge criticism by using that statement. Of course they should point users to staff, but that should only happen once they've at least attempted to explain themselves or the ban to see if that resolves the issue.

      8. The biggest issue I've had is how the CC mods sometimes hold this "grudge" against people. For example, if a mistake is made, they suddenly start treating the person differently. This may not be for all mods, but this breaks the point of assuming good faith and trusting the user has good intentions.

      I just want to say that none of this is intended to show disrespect for the administration here. I appreciate their work and time commitment. However, I feel there's a huge gap for improvement that has been ignored for quite some time.

        Loading editor
    • I would also like to add that this isn't a one-off thing. It's not that moderators or administrators occasionally lose their patience, or sometimes respond to trolls, and then the community jumps at your throat. Just...please don't try to play the victim by making the community out to be a bunch of negative, unappreciative people for trying to offer feedback.

      Growing up, we have been given feedback and ways to improve by teachers, guardians, and friends. They did it because they wanted us to grow and become better people, and I sincerely doubt you treated them like people who were just out to get you. So why is this so much different? How many personal attacks or rule violations can you find in this thread that makes you so averse to it?

      Granted, this certainly isn't a positive thread, but I cannot see how it can be one. If we are criticizing and providing feedback for the moderator team in regards do what we think they are doing wrong, how can it be positive? Negative actions aren't met with positive gestures. We certainly aren't going to thank the staff for feeding trolls. Of course, I don't believe this thread is very negative either, as others have mentioned above. If we lost hope in the moderator team we wouldn't even bother trying to provide feedback, so I believe that the staff team should be more thankful that there are people willing to help other people improve, instead of being impatience just because they are the ones being targeted.

      I understand the stress of moderating, as an administrator myself on a wiki with thousands of users and pages. I know for a fact that there's at least one user here who is an administrator on a large wiki with many issues, but they are still able to provide civil feedback, aren't they? The rules and regulations here must have been created with a lot of prior discussion between FANDOM Staff, meaning that everyone is expected to follow them on every occasion. If you try to say that the moderators will inevitably break the rules because they are stressed, they need to be warned just like normal users. If the moderators, the users entrusted with protecting the chat environment by staff themselves, are seen to be breaking rules, how are you going to expect normal users to follow the rules? Aren't we looking up to them because they are so trusted? If they break rules are get off scot-free for it, how can you set a good example for users without rights, who are punished for their actions instead?

      In my years of visiting Community Central Chat, I find that a majority of the administration are actually weary and negative- more so than the users providing feedback here, I might add. Please, consider this: Is it really a coincidence that so many users, without a ban or block history, are all speaking out and claiming that the administration have a poor attitude towards those who aren't their friends?

      Some of us have a completely clean history without even a warning on our message walls, so the claim that we are upset because the administration took action against us falls apart pretty quickly. Since I don't want to end up sounding like a broken record I'll just leave the feedback here, unless something else comes up that I want to respond to.

      As for positive comments, I will say that I am appreciative of the administration and staff's attempts to reassure us and tell us that they are taking feedback into consideration. I sincerely so hope that that is the case, and I suppose that only time will tell?

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Applemasterexpert wrote:

      Anonminati wrote:

      Messenger of Heaven wrote: Annabeth, Korra, Kocka, Akumi, Q, Alex, and Oz have said most of my points already but I would also like to add that, while yes the mods have their own lives that they signed up for the job of watching chat and they are on discord daily and never in chat, when users need them the point of having mods and admins are to have them in chat helping out the users.

      Honestly, CCC used to be a good chat and the place to go to get help with wikis but its not anymore the crew is unhelpful, sometimes rude and unprofessional when users give them complaints as well as ask questions and often you see biased acts from the admins and mods for their friends

      Yes it's a volunteer job, yes they have lives but they signed up for it and they are not doing what they agreed to do. The whole crew needs to be reviewed and possibly repicked.

      I'm not agree! Whenever someone try to ask questions from administrators or chat moderators, then they give them the answers immediately!
       

      They are also human beings if they do not answer your questions, then obviously they are doing some important work?

      Yes, if mods already know that they've received new message, then they should respond it or at least take a look at it. However, mods don't really check their phone or their devices very often for see their notifications, because they may be too busy keeping an eye on the chat. 
      Not to be rude, but that doesn't really make sense. At least, not in the context we're discussing in. Nothing was said about mods having to keep an eye on their message walls/they are too busy keeping an eye on chat.

      Well, okay. 

      Yes, in my opinion, admins and mods should answer people questions. However, there's one exception: harassing 

        Loading editor
    • Alex.sapre wrote: If we are criticizing and providing feedback for the moderator team in regards do what we think they are doing wrong, how can it be positive?

      I think that what Sannse is interested in hearing is - is there any positive feedback? Are there certain changes or things we have implemented that are good or have improved the wiki?

      Lady Furude wrote: I've got an assumption that this thread might not have any effect at all. We continue to write huge posts about our moderation system being corrupted and uneffective, but is there anything that's going to change?

      We'll definitely try our best to act on some of the feedback in this thread. There's some that I personally feel are just a bit exaggerated, but we are definitely seeing some key takeaways.

      Last year, I spent the time to collect feedback and gather survey responses, and we ended up submitting a document of problems and potential solutions and ideas we could do in chat and on the wiki. This resulted in us changing the chat guidelines for the first time in two years - which wasn't fully what was suggested, but what I felt was a step in the right direction.

      Since 2018, Jr Mime and I rewrote and ran the chat bot, and we have always been tweaking and improving the bot to this month, based on the chat reports we have been receiving from the community.

      Golfpecks256 wrote: 3. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of so quickly, as mentioned early in this thread, is downright disgraceful. I'm not sure what the issue is, granted I see at least one crew member online in the CC reports discord server. With the number of staff and volunteers there are for CC, I don't understand how that could even be possible.

      I think we've improved in this area. In the past, there was no way for an issue to be resolved other than messaging one of us on Skype or on a message wall, or for the bot to block. Having a way to directly message us is, I feel, already a great step in the right direction. I also see little problem with the chat reporting channel - I think it's handled pretty well by our CC moderators.

        Loading editor
    • It's really interesting watching some of these users squirm around when they know that they're doing some harm to this wiki's chat and harm to this discussion. It's kind of funny because quite a few of these guys are in the wrong/a bit too set in their ways and they know it.

      Personally, I'd suggest petitioning to get staff to actually fix the chat guidelines to make them less vague. Or a list gaging actions and the consequences that should follow. (ie swearing excessively results in a kick, then a 3 day ban if it persists) This is getting ridiculous and I don't want the mods who actually care and do a decent job to get an aneurysm or to outright quit.  CC is a rather important wiki and it doesn't look good on wikia Fandom as a whole.

      Hope this thread can bring about the changes that need to happen. Or at the very least, allow us to take a step in that direction. Thank you. However this is just my opinion on the matter. I don't feel the need the need to comment further, and I certainly will not.  If you have a problem with my opinion, take it to me directly please.

      Thank you.

        Loading editor
    • I agree, they are also REALLY bias. We can't have that in our community.

        Loading editor

    • Lady Furude wrote: I've got an assumption that this thread might not have any effect at all. We continue to write huge posts about our moderation system being corrupted and uneffective, but is there anything that's going to change?

      We'll definitely try our best to act on some of the feedback in this thread. There's some that I personally feel are just a bit exaggerated, but we are definitely seeing some key takeaways.


      Obviously, you'd think some of the criticisms are exaggerated. Are you not a part of the team that's being criticized? So whether or not you think certain claims are being exaggerated should not matter, because you're biased.

        Loading editor
    • While I don't have any issues with most of the current cccrew members, I have to admit that I feel that some things could be handled better. For one thing, I've noticed that a lot of the current members were chosen because they were recommended to Staff by those who were already part of the team. My major concern around that is that prospective cccrew members are getting chosen because of their relationships with current cccrew members, rather than because of their quality when it comes to moderating.

      Since CC is one of the top communities, I feel that Staff should pay a closer watch on who gets selected, to ensure that the people who are chosen are the ones that have extensive moderating experience, those who have not had any recent negative history with other users who frequent CCC, and those who haven't shown any signs of bias.

      While I'm sure that most of the current members are not bias, there are a few users past and present that have shown bias. I'm not going to specify who those users are - at least not here where everyone can see - because I don't want to start any uproars.

      Lastly, I have noticed that there have been several consecutive hours where there haven't been any cccrew members available to moderate. I understand that everyone has lives outside of this site, and that not everyone is perfect. I'm not even sure whether that's something that can be fixed. But it is something that I have noticed which could potentially be improved if worked on. I'm sorry if this comes across as rude in any way, because it's not my intention. It's just my honest opinion.

        Loading editor
    • C.Syde65 wrote:

      ...

      Since CC is one of the top communities, I feel that Staff should pay a closer watch on who gets selected, to ensure that the people who are chosen are the ones that have extensive moderating experience, those who have not had any recent negative history with other users who frequent CCC, and those who haven't shown any signs of bias.

      ...

      Sounds good in theory, but we all know it is a lot harder to implement that than talk about it. Plus I am not convinced the "extensive moderating experience" would be as effective as it sounds. The way I see it, that would have to come from experience with another community since it is a prerequisite for gaining moderation rights on this one. That being the case, you still ideally want users that are involved with and understand this community. So in the end, you are now super limited to users who have both been involved with CC for a long time and played the role of a moderator for a long time. That doesn't exactly help regarding the issue of moderators not being around. If anything, that would make it worse because you have fewer eligible users.

        Loading editor
    • This is exactly why we don't take any of you guys seriously. The responses we are getting just from this thread alone we feel, at least to me personally, just shows ignorance and self-righteousness, and as others have said, extreme unjustified bias. Even, for no reason whatsoever, bringing a political topic/matter up, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, as this is not a political matter at all, is very unnecessary, uncalled for, and demeaning. We are doing our very best to remain civil, although some comments may not be the most intelligent, we would certainly appreciate the same in return, and not just being “negative” about it. Not saying that all of you aren’t, and I do appreciate the ones who are. Especially the ones who acknowledge that some changes are needed while others are self-righteous and don’t believe that any change is required.

      I don’t really believe that this is some kind of cabal. But something is definitely wrong here, and this thread proves it, but it’s only scratching the surface.

      We believe you when you say you document every feedback, but that’s all you ever seem to do, and don’t seem to care to take the time to address every concern we have listed. Yes, the rules were updated around the beginning of 2018, and it did seem to do well at first. But it has now deteriorated back to the way it was before.

      There is nothing that peeves me more when someone says, “I don’t get paid enough to care.” Why do you have to be paid to care about anything or anyone but yourself? You don’t want to talk about these “volunteers”, then perhaps we should talk about the actual paid employees who are in charge of the operation at hand and whom we believe are doing a very poor job at it. Whatever your requirements are for a moderator, if any at all, needs to be changed. Stop being unreasonably biased; stop holding grudges for years on end when there has been evidence that such past behavior has changed, because people can change and improve, believe it or not; and really focus on what a potential user provides to the wiki. There should also be an expectation from moderators about how often they are expected to actually be active in moderatoring, say once a week or so for a small amount of time if possible, otherwise, there's not really any point in having moderators. An inactive moderator is a dead moderator (not literally, of course). I also believe that there should be an expectation as to how moderators are to behave or act and/or present themselves. Not everyone is going to like a moderator, that’s just impossible, but really listen to what frequent contributing visitors have to say and don’t ignore them.

      I have absolutely nothing against using an alternative platform, such as Discord, as another way of contacting each other. It’s a lot easier to have private conversations, as not everything need/should be public. It can be very convenient. I certainly wish my fellow co-moderators on the one wiki I enjoy moderatoring would frequent Discord (it severely annoys me as much as I love them all, lol). But it is very possible to be on both Discord and chat at the same time. I also feel you’re a lot less likely to feed any trolls and even have them create a troll account that was a sentence you had said not one minute before. I also enjoy being able to laugh alongside others at trolls idiocy. It’s a good way to reduce stress. But if that troll is hiding on Discord, that could be very difficult to deal with. I also don’t believe we are entitled to know what the moderators discuss among each other, unless the moderators themselves wish to share that.

      I don’t believe block/ban should state the name of who the username is a sock of. I do believe reasons should be a bit of a brief explanation as to why they were banned, but sometimes a Message Wall is needed to provide a bit more details. I think it’s fine to tell other users who ask why another user was banned to tell them to read the ban/block log, but not to the actual user that was banned/blocked. They deserve at least more than that. However, that is only if they ask respectfully. If they want to yell in all caps and just hurl insults, then it’s pretty self-explanatory that they deserved the ban/block and it should not be reversed. If anything, extended with that type of behavior.

      There will not be any positive comments (other than the one that Korra stated, to which I agree with) unless and until there is positive feedback and actions. We have not seen that from any of the feedback we have sent to Special:Contact, as you tell us to do every single time, which is why we believe it is a waste of time because nothing ever comes as a result of it. You cannot actually expect to completely diminish a whole discussion such as this with us saying something positive when nothing positive has been given to us and nothing has been changed. That is not at all how you solve a problem, that’s not how life works, and nor should it.

        Loading editor
    • C.Syde65 wrote: For one thing, I've noticed that a lot of the current members were chosen because they were recommended to Staff by those who were already part of the team. My major concern around that is that prospective cccrew members are getting chosen because of their relationships with current cccrew members, rather than because of their quality when it comes to moderating.

      I agree that the process isn't unbiased. It's hard to find a balance between making sure that a team is functional and works cohesively, and picking people purely based on skill and behaviour. There are times where promoting friends that we know and trust (and the team all agrees is appropriate for the moderator task) is the easiest way to get new members. However, we also receive nominations through S:C, from private messages and as a team, and we do take a serious look at potential new members who we may not be friends with.

      Even when I joined - I was friends with Joey and Mime through my VSTF work, which is biased, but my adminship was a group and Staff consensus from people who were looking at my contributions and activity. And I think that this sort of process - of having a mix of knowing someone and objectively looking at what they've done - is what we all do on all wikis, not just on Central but in other volunteer groups and on some of our own home wikis.

      Perhaps the nomination process could be more transparent, in some way - and this may be something that we'll talk about and figure out with Staff.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote: Perhaps the nomination process could be more transparent, in some way - and this may be something that we'll talk about and figure out with Staff.

      I fully agree that there should be changes to the nomination process. In my opinion, it should be more transparent and there should be some form of community input. No matter the situation, with a system where there is barely any outside input, groups always become biased over-time towards their own friends and rarely look outside their friend groups when new members are needed. Back in the past, users on Community Central used to nominate others users for adminship, and while I'm not saying this is a good idea for a wiki of this manner, I believe that there still should be some community input, such as a way to vote on users who have been nominated or voice feedback on various possible candidates.

        Loading editor
    • As someone who is just a normal CC user though albeit not a consistent visitor, I can safely say that the relationship between CCCrew and us normal users is critically centered on communication. That is, I'd like to point out that perhaps the choice of diction and formality the CCCrew behave contributes to why there exists this level of distrust and wariness (for lack of a better word and/or description) with them and the community. To elaborate, obviously the CCCrew usually conduct themselves with an eloquence and aura of intellect when they respond or leave messages. However, the formal way they write (with the clear goal of being respectful yet authoritative and unbiased) can be interpreted to readers as cold, disinterested, and perhaps condescending. However, this all depends on the situation of course and written with the assumption of a normal, civil interaction with a user. Examples like talking with trolls and the generally uncivil would require more authority but at the same time no unnecessary harshness.

      Annabeth and Percy wrote: You cannot actually expect to completely diminish a whole discussion such as this with us saying something positive when nothing positive has been given to us and nothing has been changed. That is not at all how you solve a problem, that’s not how life works, and nor should it.

      I agree with A&P and to add on, as a bystander this thread has been nothing more than respectful constructive criticism and not exactly a round of throwing shade. In my personal opinion, saying something positive would mean us users saying generic, dull compliments already heard before. While the CCCrew isn't perfect, it isn't fair to ignore ongoing issues that need to be addressed.

        Loading editor
    • this thread has been nothing more than respectful constructive criticism and not exactly a round of throwing shade


      *groans* there are some unnecessary comments...

      Lesson: Be fair and objective at all times.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Lady Furude wrote: I've got an assumption that this thread might not have any effect at all. We continue to write huge posts about our moderation system being corrupted and uneffective, but is there anything that's going to change?

      We'll definitely try our best to act on some of the feedback in this thread. There's some that I personally feel are just a bit exaggerated, but we are definitely seeing some key takeaways.

      Last year, I spent the time to collect feedback and gather survey responses, and we ended up submitting a document of problems and potential solutions and ideas we could do in chat and on the wiki. This resulted in us changing the chat guidelines for the first time in two years - which wasn't fully what was suggested, but what I felt was a step in the right direction.

      Since 2018, Jr Mime and I rewrote and ran the chat bot, and we have always been tweaking and improving the bot to this month, based on the chat reports we have been receiving from the community.

      glad to hear you've put some effort to improve the system. I just wonder, is there anything that's going to change, according to this thread? You're talking about changes related to methods of your moderation, however I see you should check whether your team remains the same or gets new members.

      just look: your members complain they risk their mental health every time they do their job. I understand it's a "volunteer" work. However, in this case, why not invite more people?

      and a small advice from a user who has been on your place already: people always hate the ones who have higher places than they do. I'm saying it for these ones who admit they lose their mental health during moderation process. It's a common thing and there's nothing we could do with it. Members of moderation team should understand this truth completely and not take absolutely all comments seriously. And not ignore the constructive comments, too.

        Loading editor
    • Are there any particular examples where the lack of transparency has actually made the moderation policy unclear? I see no reason why the chat moderation team should waste time writing detailed reasons for every little thing.

        Loading editor
    • YuzuPear wrote: Are there any particular examples where the lack of transparency has actually made the moderation policy unclear? I see no reason why the chat moderation team should waste time writing detailed reasons for every little thing.

      for example, the ban I got this time. I'm not going to fight anyone to get unbanned (because it's pointless), just providing an example: I assumed my behavior would be fun, and I tried my best to act less harsh than I did previous times. However, I got banned practically for the previous times I acted rough. It looks like I must lose the access to the chat every time I join, just because I got banned some time ago.

      Additionally I have to tell I already find the chat guidelines unclear. For example, there's no rule about Caps Lock, excessive flood, inappropriate content, or anything else we've used to see in any wiki: just rules like "be polite", "be fun", etc. Chat Guidelines are created for users, not for pointless staying on the page.

      These guidelines let the mods to set the length of ban they feel like they should set. Therefore, the expiry time depends on many factors, including the mod's relation to users (or a certain user). Does that sound fair?

      I hate saying that, but are you afraid of global changes in the chat guidelines? Are you afraid it would become clear and truly rightful?

        Loading editor
    • Hello! I do want to be clear that the quality of CCC discussion and moderation is always a concern to the mod team. We are sorry to hear about the issue behind the thread reply - ban reasons are important, and so is a feeling of involving community feedback & input.

      I will try to briefly cover the 2017 intervention we've made about CCC, and be candid about whether these have worked or not.

      • Chat topics and quality - even after the topics change, chat can have frequenters (school students, new teen users etc) complaining about their lives & drama, which is definitely boring! The guidelines need work to address what behaviour is unwelcome at CCC, so that users understand that. Hopefully, improving the guidelines can improve mod intervention as well.
      • Moderator treatment of users - within CCC, the mod team is quite respectful to regular users. At times, this may have not been the case, but these mod issues are always raised & dealt with in private. A moderator entering an argument with a user on a social network shouldn't determine whether they stay as mod.
      • Consistency of mod actions - sockpuppet bans have actually been much less of a problem than accidental ones, which is good. However, care could be taken with ban reasons, and how warnings are handled in toxic situations. We haven't really been able to discuss warnings, because our main focus is adjusting the guidelines. But warnings is a concern we'll think of, alongside toxicity issues.

      I do agree with Noreplyz and SayuriDarling about the improvements being considered & suggested by users. Your feedback is very welcome. Although it would be honest to say the following, in regards to moderation on CC:

      1. it's not feasible to reveal sockmaster identities (for privacy reasons)
      2. the likelihood of Staff changing the whole team is effectively nil, as made clear by Sannse
      3. the existence of the ban example given in the OP is not in question at all. This forum is not for appealing bans to the community, and it detracts from the constructive feedback.
        Loading editor
    • off-topic but how did veralann even become trusted enough to become an administrator here when he got demoted for leaking private admin-only information on another wiki Think

        Loading editor
    • C'mon man. This isn't the place to poke and provoke people. I'm cool with listening to all the feedback, but messages like these are the reason why we stick with getting feedback through S:C.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote: C'mon man. This isn't the place to poke and provoke people. I'm cool with listening to all the feedback, but messages like these are the reason why we stick with getting feedback through S:C.

      I do agree with you trying to promote a civil atmosphere and appreciate the calm responses you and the rest of the moderation have given throughout the course of this thread.

      Though I'd like to say that S:C in this case ended up being not the right option in my opinion as a wide variety of users have given feedback that wouldn't have been included in a single S:C, or thought of initially. It's nice to have a communal response rather than a sole user in regards to the nature of this topic.

        Loading editor
    • Absolutely, although it would be good to remind that Community Central Guidelines apply here. Messages that prevent all users, staff and moderators from feeling welcome on CC are clearly "disruptive" :)

        Loading editor
    • do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

        Loading editor
    • The Last Booker DeWitt wrote: off-topic but how did veralann even become trusted enough to become an administrator here when he got demoted for leaking private admin-only information on another wiki Think

      Lady Furude wrote: do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

      Why are comments like this now being made? Go back to the intellectual discussion I expect ex and current FANDOM-picked crew members and volunteers to create and participate in.

        Loading editor
    • Cheeseskates wrote:

      The Last Booker DeWitt wrote: off-topic but how did veralann even become trusted enough to become an administrator here when he got demoted for leaking private admin-only information on another wiki Think

      Lady Furude wrote: do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

      Why are comments like this now being made? Go back to the intellectual discussion I expect ex and current FANDOM-picked crew members and volunteers to create and participate in.

      i can't tell if that's sarcasm or not

        Loading editor
    • Sounds absurd, but it's genuine. There's literally no need to make comments like that which can backfire and undermine one's own respectability like come on

        Loading editor
    • Lady Furude wrote:
      do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

      Someone has a bone to pick o.o

      It is clear there are people in this thread trying to incite a witch hunt against members of the moderation team.

        Loading editor
    • i couldnt care less for the outcome of this issue. i've just been itching to say that because i think it's kinda funny

        Loading editor
    • YuzuPear wrote: It is clear there are people in this thread trying to incite a witch hunt against members of the moderation team.

      I disagree. While I agree some of the responses have stepped over the line in regards to being civil, the point of the thread was to provide feedback and awareness, hence why I said in the original post it was a rant.

      Some users may be influenced by personal bias from treatment in the past, and are vehemently frustrated about some of the points made. Though I absolutely agree introducing the use of ad hominems helps no one.

        Loading editor
    • Cheeseskates wrote:

      The Last Booker DeWitt wrote:
      off-topic but how did veralann even become trusted enough to become an administrator here when he got demoted for leaking private admin-only information on another wiki Think

      Lady Furude wrote:
      do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

      Why are comments like this now being made? Go back to the intellectual discussion I expect ex and current FANDOM-picked crew members and volunteers to create and participate in.

      YuzuPear wrote:
      Someone has a bone to pick o.o

      It is clear there are people in this thread trying to incite a witch hunt against members of the moderation team.

      I see you're all just afraid of the truth. Other users like you two have no willing to face the true situation, and I respect that. I'm acting like this because the whole "volunteer" system of Wikia is corrupted. And the comment made by The Last Booker DeWitt proves that.

        Loading editor
    • Lady Furude wrote:

      Cheeseskates wrote:

      The Last Booker DeWitt wrote:
      off-topic but how did veralann even become trusted enough to become an administrator here when he got demoted for leaking private admin-only information on another wiki Think

      Lady Furude wrote:
      do you prefer feedback through S:C because there you don't have to face what the community actually thinks about you? :P

      Why are comments like this now being made? Go back to the intellectual discussion I expect ex and current FANDOM-picked crew members and volunteers to create and participate in.

      YuzuPear wrote:
      Someone has a bone to pick o.o

      It is clear there are people in this thread trying to incite a witch hunt against members of the moderation team.

      I see you're all just afraid of the truth. Other users like you two have no willing to face the true situation, and I respect that. I'm acting like this because the whole "volunteer" system of Wikia is corrupted. And the comment made by The Last Booker DeWitt proves that.

      The truth is users like you just want to see the community descend into an anarchic state like 4chan or reddit.

        Loading editor
    • Lady Furude wrote: I see you're all just afraid of the truth. Other users like you two have no willing to face the true situation, and I respect that. I'm acting like this because the whole "volunteer" system of Wikia is corrupted. And the comment made by The Last Booker DeWitt proves that.

      My personal opinion is that the comment is trollish and could possibly be removed or deleted since it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.

        Loading editor
    • I definitely don't support bureaucrasy that's enforced in the CC, too :)

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      Golfpecks256 wrote: 3. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of so quickly, as mentioned early in this thread, is downright disgraceful. I'm not sure what the issue is, granted I see at least one crew member online in the CC reports discord server. With the number of staff and volunteers there are for CC, I don't understand how that could even be possible.

      I think we've improved in this area. In the past, there was no way for an issue to be resolved other than messaging one of us on Skype or on a message wall, or for the bot to block. Having a way to directly message us is, I feel, already a great step in the right direction. I also see little problem with the chat reporting channel - I think it's handled pretty well by our CC moderators.

      Early on in this thread:

      KockaAdmiralac wrote:

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.. but that's the tea. I will not comment further.

      That is the exact thing nobody here is saying. It is also the exact same thing I've heard the CC team members use when they hear complaints about themselves from other users. Can anything really change for the better if all criticism is rejected like that?

      Annabeth is right about the passive nature of the CC team. It's not only about the chat, I'm very sure none of the administrators are watching recent changes either. Porn that stood uploaded for six hours before getting cleaned up, users that got to flood RC with over 300 uploads before getting them deleted and spam that stood for a month in an official category before getting undone, all while I was on my hiatus from CC and unable to watch the recent changes. I know it's tiring, I've been following recent changes on Community Central closely for many hours in past, as well as elsewhere, but glacing over the special page from time to time to spot misbehavior shouldn't be something we can't expect from a volunteer to do.

      That is why I'm concerned whether you guys are aware of how easy things like that can happen and be missed. You should moderate the activity and not expect reports to come from them. Of course it's fine to lay back and answer reports but that should only be the case after you did your own monitoring first. This also applies chat. As I'm not really active here, I don't know for sure what goes on and rely on the input of others to determine it. So perhaps there was some improvement. It'd be great just if things like that could be dealt more quickly than what was said. Either way, thanks for the attempts to take in feedback!

        Loading editor
    • PyroNacht wrote: Honestly, I was a CC administrator earlier this year and I am returning next year […]

      I hope the staff notice what you said on this post and have a second think of letting you back to the administration because to me you don't seem mature enough of returning back to administration.

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.

      This only gives off a superiority complexity over normal users. We're not all trolls. And as said above you have a history of your own so instead of trying to take the moral highground maybe you should stop trying to portray yourself as an angel because you're not. Also you put words in Ozzy boo bear's mouth such as saying she said you didn't care about the chat when it was chat reasons.

      I won't go any further because I think people will perceive it as harassment. But, I do not believe PyroNacht is suitable to be an administrator again, especially when they bring their mental health into the argument (which does not benefit anyone). A lot of us regular users have disorders too and we don't bring it into this. Help yourself first before trying to help everyone else.

        Loading editor
    • 172.98.82.16 wrote:

      PyroNacht wrote: Honestly, I was a CC administrator earlier this year and I am returning next year […]

      I hope the staff notice what you said on this post and have a second think of letting you back to the administration because to me you don't seem mature enough of returning back to administration.

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.

      This only gives off a superiority complexity over normal users. We're not all trolls. And as said above you have a history of your own so instead of trying to take the moral highground maybe you should stop trying to portray yourself as an angel because you're not. Also you put words in Ozzy boo bear's mouth such as saying she said you didn't care about the chat when it was chat reasons.

      I won't go any further because I think people will perceive it as harassment. But, I do not believe PyroNacht is suitable to be an administrator again, especially when they bring their mental health into the argument (which does not benefit anyone). A lot of us regular users have disorders too and we don't bring it into this. Help yourself first before trying to help everyone else.

      I can't agree more. All I see is a disgusting attempt to play the victim card and incite a witch hunt against the moderators.

        Loading editor
    • YuzuPear wrote:
      172.98.82.16 wrote:

      PyroNacht wrote: Honestly, I was a CC administrator earlier this year and I am returning next year […]

      I hope the staff notice what you said on this post and have a second think of letting you back to the administration because to me you don't seem mature enough of returning back to administration.

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.

      This only gives off a superiority complexity over normal users. We're not all trolls. And as said above you have a history of your own so instead of trying to take the moral highground maybe you should stop trying to portray yourself as an angel because you're not. Also you put words in Ozzy boo bear's mouth such as saying she said you didn't care about the chat when it was chat reasons.

      I won't go any further because I think people will perceive it as harassment. But, I do not believe PyroNacht is suitable to be an administrator again, especially when they bring their mental health into the argument (which does not benefit anyone). A lot of us regular users have disorders too and we don't bring it into this. Help yourself first before trying to help everyone else.

      I can't agree more. All I see is a disgusting attempt to play the victim card and incite a witch hunt against the moderators.

      Honestly, it's comments like the ones from Pyro that causes the tensen between users and admins, and while trying to not be rude, she should not be admin because admins do not act like that nor talk down to their users and put words in their mouth and completely disrespect the point they try to make by saying something as sarcastic as "Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place." I'm sorry if any of this is out of line or rude, But I feel it's better for it to be said. But I would like to add that the only thing i did not agree on was was the ones of her mental health, Someone can be a good admin even with issues. 

        Loading editor
    • Messenger of Heaven wrote:

      YuzuPear wrote:
      172.98.82.16 wrote:

      PyroNacht wrote: Honestly, I was a CC administrator earlier this year and I am returning next year […]

      I hope the staff notice what you said on this post and have a second think of letting you back to the administration because to me you don't seem mature enough of returning back to administration.

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.

      This only gives off a superiority complexity over normal users. We're not all trolls. And as said above you have a history of your own so instead of trying to take the moral highground maybe you should stop trying to portray yourself as an angel because you're not. Also you put words in Ozzy boo bear's mouth such as saying she said you didn't care about the chat when it was chat reasons.

      I won't go any further because I think people will perceive it as harassment. But, I do not believe PyroNacht is suitable to be an administrator again, especially when they bring their mental health into the argument (which does not benefit anyone). A lot of us regular users have disorders too and we don't bring it into this. Help yourself first before trying to help everyone else.

      I can't agree more. All I see is a disgusting attempt to play the victim card and incite a witch hunt against the moderators.

      Honestly, it's comments like the ones from Pyro that causes the tensen between users and admins, and while trying to not be rude, she should not be admin because admins do not act like that nor talk down to their users and put words in their mouth and completely disrespect the point they try to make by saying something as sarcastic as "Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place."

      Huh, in a discussion like this is it really necessary to make digs at others? Pyro's not neccessarily the only person causing "tensen" (which is actually spelled tension, for future reference) between users.

      .... she should not be admin because admins do not act like that nor talk down to their users and put words in their mouth and completely disrespect the point they try to make by saying something as sarcastic as "Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place."

      This conversation isn't just about single people, Mess. It's about the administrative team/moderation team as a whole. Honestly, it's quite useless and stupid to single people out and point out all their errors in a discussion like this (or any discussion, really).

      While I don't mean to jump in, I've got quite the handful of opinions on this matter, which will be spoken of later, because I'm busy and I have better things to do with my life than sit here and complain/argue.

      Don't we all?

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:26, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:28, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:28, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:28, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:28, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • KockaAdmiralac wrote:

      PyroNacht wrote: Today, I learned that the lives of CC admods need to revolve around the people of the chat-room who should know better than to disrupt in the first place.. but that's the tea. I will not comment further.

      That is the exact thing nobody here is saying. It is also the exact same thing I've heard the CC team members use when they hear complaints about themselves from other users. Can anything really change for the better if all criticism is rejected like that?

      Annabeth is right about the passive nature of the CC team. It's not only about the chat, I'm very sure none of the administrators are watching recent changes either. Porn that stood uploaded for six hours before getting cleaned up, users that got to flood RC with over 300 uploads before getting them deleted and spam that stood for a month in an official category before getting undone, all while I was on my hiatus from CC and unable to watch the recent changes. I know it's tiring, I've been following recent changes on Community Central closely for many hours in past, as well as elsewhere, but glacing over the special page from time to time to spot misbehavior shouldn't be something we can't expect from a volunteer to do.

      I agree with this comment. Most of the issues happening on this wiki have to get reported for them to actually get noticed.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:28, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Popstar792 wrote:

      YuzuPear wrote:

      HearthRaven wrote:

      Popstar792 wrote: O boi. CC has just gotten controversial.

      *Grabs popcorn*

      Tsk-tsk.

      Is that really relevant?

      Honestly, one of my many reasons why I can't stand CC 99% of the time is because of the users who jump in conversations and say completely irrelevant things just to add to the discussion. Ech.

      I could say the same about you tbh

      Lol thank you for putting her in her place. One thing I can't stand on CC is for when I wasn't talking to somebody and they just have to come and put their input into something that wasn't even directed to them. Learn to mind your own business.

      Hahah. Putting me in my place?! Likely story.

      One thing I can't stand on CC is for when I wasn't talking to somebody and they just have to come and put their input into something that wasn't even directed to them. Learn to mind your own business.

      At least I'm not the one who has to randomly start "grabbing popcorn" and making useless comments and such of the like.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:29, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:29, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • I am constantly reading new threads of this thread, and I think some users are trying to argue here instead of giving feedback, and obviously some users are clearly blaming the mods! Only FANDOM staff can change the new mods and rules of Wikia!
      So, I don't think we should argue with each other.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, and that is why I am saying this to get it back on track. Lady Furude, The Last Booker DeWitt, and YuzuPear, I do not appreciate the comments you have posted, as they are unnecessarily provoking and demeaning. I'm going to have to ask that if you cannot remain civil and stop bringing up irrelevant topics that you stay out of this thread from this point on, as they are not welcomed.

      I also want to make it very clear that this thread is not just about Pyro having previously been an admin and supposedly returning as one, but the moderation team as a whole. We have issues with some moderators, not just Pyro. You may not agree, but also understand that every comment a moderator makes on here is more from their own perspective and not speaking for the moderation team as a whole.

      I will say whatever I can to make sure this thread does not derail anymore.

        Loading editor
    • Anonminati wrote: I am constantly reading new threads of this thread, and I think some users are trying to argue here instead of giving feedback, and obviously some users are clearly blaming the mods! Only FANDOM staff can change the new mods and rules of Wikia!
      So, I don't think we should argue with each other.

      Exactly. My honest opinion on this thread is that sometimes the mod and admin team HAS been quite messed up on this wiki. But you know, things can get better if more effort is put into the staff team, OR Fandom staff elects new people to be a part of the staff. As for the previous comment I wrote, I agreed with what Kocka said. He definitely mentioned the fact that users break rules and it doesn't actually get noticed until much later, and sometimes when users complain, members of the staff don't know how to deal with the critisim. Sometimes the staff members can actually be hypocritical. Once, an admin was using caps in the chat while talking to the other mods and they never warned the admin for it. A user had to point out that they were violating the rules until they eventually caught themselves, but then it happened again and they still didn't get at least a warning from any of the other staff.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you, Annabeth, for getting the thread back on track. In any discussion such as this, the aim should be to demonstrate mature behavior. The likelihood of the feedback being ignored increases drastically if the constructive criticism derails into insults.

      I am not in the position to offer specific, technical comments on this issue- other users have logged many more hours in chat than myself, so I will not pretend to be an expert. I do, however, want to expand more on the issue of inactive moderators, which has been a consistent problem since I joined Wikia in 2015. This may not be CCCrew's most pressing issue right now, but is still present, and will likely become more severe as time goes on. CCCrew is also not the only group facing inactivity issues- the VSTF has gone months without enough members as well. Why? They had to wait for the "standard promotion times" or for Staff to notice the problem (usually months after group and community members noticed it). To that end, a few thoughts I had on inactivity and promotion:

      1) Mental health comes first- and if stepping down serves one's mental health, it will most likely serve the wiki too. If one loses enthusiasm for a volunteer job, there's no reason to retain it. A mod should not feel extremely averse to stepping down for a long while or permanently, nor should they hold onto rights out of nostalgia, desire to retain power, or lack of confidence in other users taking over the rights. This thread clearly demonstrates the capabilities of a multitude of users that Staff could- and should- consider in the event of a resignation.

      Disclaimer: I am not suggesting the entire current team, or even most of it, step down in the immediate future. That's an unrealistic proposition. But there will come a unique point for each current member where it is healthier for both the person and the site to step down.

      Granted, I was never a Wikia volunteer. But my yearlong hiatus from Wikia in 2017 turned out to be one of the best years of my life. Does that have everything to do with leaving Wikia? Definitely not- it was a great year IRL. My point is that stepping down should not be something to fear. I regret departing the site and Discord without informing my friends first, but in February 2018 they welcomed me back with open arms despite my wrongdoing. We will miss you, but we will understand!

      2) It is not completely the fault of inactive volunteers for holding onto rights. In my opinion, Staff should be more persistent in ensuring the activity of all their volunteers. "So a mod with a busy month IRL should get demoted by Staff?" Absolutely not! But seeing as the active members of Crew can't just decide to promote/demote when more activity is needed, Staff must not leave a few volunteers doing the work of an entire team. I've seen multiple examples of the above in Wikia's history and in my time here, and each time, the poor 1-3 users doing most of the work have eventually burned out. Even if Staff decide not to demote inactive volunteers at a certain time, some active users should be promoted to carry more of the load.

      I have been very inactive on all of my sites lately, but I still retain a few privileges such as moderator rights in a group on another site. I have only retained them as a result of the acceptance/desire of other users. If Staff displays this attitude towards CCCrew, the inactivity problem will only increase. CC is many, many times busier than other places such as my group or quieter wikis of the network. Tolerance of inactivity is not one-size-fits-all, and should be less present here on CC.

      I do support a revamp of the Crew selection process. But if that is too extreme at this stage, more attention should be paid to the activity of Crew (and all) volunteers in relation to the need of the wiki(s).

      As for my comments about stepping down, they are not directed toward any Crew member in particular- they are directed toward every member at the time when they can no longer maintain certain levels of activity and efficiency.

      Additionally, I do not mind anyone chilling on Discord and not constantly moderating the chat so long as they examine their individual capability to carry out their duties over the long-term.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      00:31, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Whatever, I agree the moderation team is bad sometimes. Just look at the CCCG, they're so useless!

        Loading editor
    • HearthRaven: You are absolutely one to talk, given your rude, offensive, and even discriminatory behavior in the recent past. Ableism goes against the ToU, y'know? ;)

      Lady Furude, The Last Booker DeWitt, and YuzuPear: Please, let's remain civil. The ugly truth about the mess that is Wikia can be exposed in better ways than via nonconstructive finger-pointing.

      FelineIva: Exactly my thoughts. If your mental health is suffering, why make it worse by holding on to what's hurting you? In the end, rights on a wiki mean literally nothing - any "respect" you may receive is illusory.

        Loading editor
    • FelineIva wrote:

      CCCrew is also not the only group facing inactivity issues- the VSTF has gone months without enough members as well. Why? They had to wait for the "standard promotion times" or for Staff to notice the problem (usually months after group and community members noticed it).

      There's no 'standard promotion times'. We quite frequently discuss potential new members.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      12:35, January 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz wrote:

      FelineIva wrote:

      CCCrew is also not the only group facing inactivity issues- the VSTF has gone months without enough members as well. Why? They had to wait for the "standard promotion times" or for Staff to notice the problem (usually months after group and community members noticed it).

      There's no 'standard promotion times'. We quite frequently discuss potential new members.

      Ah, that's good to hear. I've just noticed that new VSTF have been promoted around the same times historically, but I hope that can continue to change under the current team.

      I was mostly providing VSTF as a second example, as I often observed similar inactivity issues in both groups, and didn't want to paint them as issues exclusive to Crew. They have shown up in all sorts of Wikia volunteer groups- those are just the two I know best.

      Thank you for your moderation on this thread and expressed desire to consider everyone's feedback. I hope to see positive changes in 2019, especially for the sake of users who are more active than myself.

        Loading editor
    • Today is my first day back after my Winter break.  I popped in once to comment, but want to give the thread a deeper look, and catch up on later comments.

      Obviously I have a lot of other things to catch up on. Depending on other work, I may not be able to get to this today. I will definitely review it this week though.

        Loading editor
    • LightHouse38
      LightHouse38 removed this reply because:
      03:01, January 4, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • There is nothing wrong with this thread and it is not out of control, the admins support this thread has it allows users to give feedback and shows the issues the community have been having. 

        Loading editor
    • Sannse has stated that she is back from holiday and will be responding to comments. Admins currently see no reason to be closing the thread as for the most part everyone has been respectful and off-topic comments have been removed.

        Loading editor
    • It is only tyrants that ask for threads, which do no harm and allow the free exchange of ideas, to be shut down.

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote: Today is my first day back after my Winter break.  I popped in once to comment, but want to give the thread a deeper look, and catch up on later comments.

      Obviously I have a lot of other things to catch up on. Depending on other work, I may not be able to get to this today. I will definitely review it this week though.

      I'm going to assume you mean well, Sannse, knowing you, because I don't see it as if you're ignoring users but rather just don't know what's been going on but for the last couple of years on Discord (which doesn't really apply here) and CC chat, I have noticed a bit of bias coming from some but not all moderators and I have noticed that there have been Discord servers where they badmouth users they don't seem to like whether they mean any harm or not. I expect CCCrew who are chosen by you guys to act more professionally and take criticism appropriately so I don't think this is a "negative thread" per se. It does look like it from first glance but a lot of these concerns are legitimate so I do think calling it such was a leap on your part. I'm not saying you really did anything "wrong" but I would advise to a bit more careful before saying that as while I know you clearly don't mean any malice, some may view differently. :)

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Sannse wrote: Today is my first day back after my Winter break.  I popped in once to comment, but want to give the thread a deeper look, and catch up on later comments.

      Obviously I have a lot of other things to catch up on. Depending on other work, I may not be able to get to this today. I will definitely review it this week though.

      I'm going to assume you mean well, Sannse, knowing you, because I don't see it as if you're ignoring users but rather just don't know what's been going on but for the last couple of years on Discord (which doesn't really apply here) and CC chat, I have noticed a bit of bias coming from some but not all moderators and I have heard that there have been private servers where they badmouth users they don't seem to like whether they mean any harm or not. I expect CCCrew who are chosen by you guys to act more professionally and take criticism appropriately so I don't think this is a "negative thread" per se. It does look like it from first glance but a lot of these concerns are legitimate so I do think calling it such was a leap on your part. I'm not saying you really did anything "wrong" but I would advise to a bit more careful before saying that as while I know you clearly don't mean any malice, some may view differently. :)

      I agree. The whole ordeal is overwhelming, but the only real concern I have is the Admod activity. I have seen several times where the active mod in chat isn’t paying attention , and a troll disturbs chat. And when people try to bring it up to Staff, or any one for the matter, it is pushed away. I honestly think this is concerning, and while stuff like chat mod reasons are important too, having an active mod is more important. I understand mods are busy, but if the mod is willing to be a mod in the first place, they must know they are committing to a lot of work, and are willing to do it.

      I would also like to mention some bias modding. I have seen some unacceptable behavior in chat, yet the mods ignore it. Users mini modding or being rude, etc. I have tried to talk to Crew, yet it was denied and apparently, no one listened. This concerns me also. If a user isn’t following the rules and/or not having correct behavior in chat, mods are there to correct that. But if the mods are not willing to correct said mistake or action, it could cause problems. I think this should be brought up because users have gotten away with stuff that aren’t “acceptable”.

      That’s all I have, for now.

        Loading editor
    • Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote: I'm going to assume you mean well, Sannse, knowing you, because I don't see it as if you're ignoring users but rather just don't know what's been going on but for the last couple of years on Discord (which doesn't really apply here) and CC chat, I have noticed a bit of bias coming from some but not all moderators and I have heard that there have been private servers where they badmouth users they don't seem to like whether they mean any harm or not. I expect CCCrew who are chosen by you guys to act more professionally and take criticism appropriately so I don't think this is a "negative thread" per se. It does look like it from first glance but a lot of these concerns are legitimate so I do think calling it such was a leap on your part. I'm not saying you really did anything "wrong" but I would advise to a bit more careful before saying that as while I know you clearly don't mean any malice, some may view differently. :)

      Just exactly what I was saying a few days ago on this thread above, if anyone doesn't understand still and considers my posts non-civil and threatening :P

      and here's the question: why do I get negative reactions, but when somebody else tells the same thing, they get the support? Something is screwed up with this community, indeed. It's hopeless.

        Loading editor
    • Lady Furude wrote:

      Jackninja5DipperGravityFalls wrote:

      Sannse wrote: Today is my first day back after my Winter break.  I popped in once to comment, but want to give the thread a deeper look, and catch up on later comments.

      Obviously I have a lot of other things to catch up on. Depending on other work, I may not be able to get to this today. I will definitely review it this week though.

      I'm going to assume you mean well, Sannse, knowing you, because I don't see it as if you're ignoring users but rather just don't know what's been going on but for the last couple of years on Discord (which doesn't really apply here) and CC chat, I have noticed a bit of bias coming from some but not all moderators and I have heard that there have been private servers where they badmouth users they don't seem to like whether they mean any harm or not. I expect CCCrew who are chosen by you guys to act more professionally and take criticism appropriately so I don't think this is a "negative thread" per se. It does look like it from first glance but a lot of these concerns are legitimate so I do think calling it such was a leap on your part. I'm not saying you really did anything "wrong" but I would advise to a bit more careful before saying that as while I know you clearly don't mean any malice, some may view differently. :)

      Just exactly what I was saying a few days ago on this thread above, if anyone doesn't understand still and considers my posts non-civil and threatening :P

      and here's the question: why do I get negative reactions, but when somebody else tells the same thing, they get the support? Something is screwed up with this community, indeed. It's hopeless.

      I understand that's what you're saying but some are taking this the wrong way when it looks constructive to me.

        Loading editor
    • Okay, this is going to be a bit of an epic reply. I am going to try to address all points raised, although I may not catch everything in this giant thread.

      Although we encourage people to use S:C for complaints about staff/admins/mods etc. I'm glad this thread was started. There's obviously a lot to look at.

      This has been supplanted somewhat by Bert's announcement about our planned experiment of limiting chat hours for a while, but I thought it important to address the points in this thread.

      Note: I will refer to "moderators" or "mods" throughout this reply. This includes admins who are moderating the chat.

      As far as I can see the issues raised are:

      • Lack of ban reasons/not enough transparency in why admins block

      I agree we could improve here. I would argue that "sockpuppet" is a valid reason, it explains the reason without giving publicity to the troll, but "misbehaving in chat" or "custom reason" would be better avoided when possible. Remember though that admins often have to work quickly, especially if there is a concerted attack on the chat. Custom reasons may not take long, but that time can mount up and slow moderators down when they need to deal with one of our regular, persistent trolls.

      On banning a user who has not said anything, or banning immediately as the moderator enters the chat - I didn't see the incident Ozzy mentioned of course, but I would expect that what happened was that there was a sockpuppet in the chat that had been detected by IP or other tools, and one moderator asked another to pop into chat to ban - for example, because they were on their phone without full access. Admins ban socks without warning, and may know a user is a sock before entering the chat. As Qstlijku said, naming socks on bans is another way of giving them recognition, so we avoid that.

      • Moderators instructing people not to comment on bans.

      There are sound reasons for not discussing bans in public. Many trolls will come straight back to chat with a new account. What we don't want is for them to see any discussion in the back-scroll that suggests that they have successfully disturbed the chat. We want to give them as little positive feedback as possible.

      • Moderators not replying to those asking about their bans, or giving overly brief replies.

      In general, we have preferred to talk about bans privately. In the same way as global blocks, it's sometimes better to keep the conversation between staff/mods and the person banned - which often means sending them to S:C where the discussion is private. However, I think this can change somewhat and will ask moderators to ensure that they reply to message wall questions from the blocked user, unless they strongly believe it needs to go to S:C. So please don't direct people immediately to Special:Contact, the admin will direct people there if needed.

      • Inconsistency in dealing with bad behaviour.

      This is always going to happen to some extent, much as we try to avoid it. It's not possible to have guidelines for every situation, and mods may differ in their assessment of the severity of an incident. However, I think the warn/kick/ban guidelines that I have given the mods could be more extensive and clearer. I will work with the team to improve that.

      That said, the guidelines for racial, homophobic, anti-semitic etc. slurs are to give an instant ban. In fact, they are reported to staff for a global ban. Other severe swearing is also a reason for an instant block. Someone writing a stream of extreme language should know it's unacceptable and that doesn't need a warning.

      Lesser swearing should usually get a warning. In some cases this may have been given some time ago - so the kick or ban may seem out-of-the-blue. I am not trying to say this is the case all the time, but it's a situation to consider.

      Also mentioned was the problem of bans not being fast enough or users being given too many warnings. I think this illustrates well the difficulty in the path moderators need to tread. Are they not giving enough warnings? Or are they giving too many? Again, better guidelines may help with this.

      • Moderators should be more active on the wiki.

      I always like to see mods involved on the wiki, but this isn't something I would enforce. They are generous enough to spend time looking after chat, I wouldn't want to put more requirements on them than that (here I am talking about those who are mods only, admins should, of course, be active on the wiki too).

      • Are actions on chat discussed privately between moderators/staff?

      Yes, we have a Slack channel where admins and moderators can discuss their actions and get advice from each other and staff. For example, we commonly discuss lengths of bans and when someone has reached the point that they should be banned permanently. As Ozzy said, we don't discuss all bans, but it's a resource for moderators to use when they need a second opinion.

      This channel has repeatedly been called a "cabal". Again, I reject that pejorative term (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal). It is simply a necessary private space that allows us to talk freely about sensitive issues (and cats).

      • Chat guidelines should be more specific.

      This is something that the chat moderators have been asking for some time. My concern is "rules lawyers" - people who stick to the letter of the rule, but disrupt anyway. It's like the "3 revert rule" on Wikipedia. I've seen people revert exactly three times a day for months. That's why I think that a rule like "do not revert excessively" can be better.

      That said, I've been persuaded by the mods that we need to be more specific than we are currently.

      • "Another factor is that everyone on this thread clearly cares about Community Central and we all want to make this a better place."

      Agreed.

      • Admins sometimes break the rules themselves (e.g. commenting on bans)

      I agree that admins are not perfect. It's something they should (and do) strive for.

      • "We are human" and "we have other life things we need to do" are bad excuses.

      I would say they are simply facts, it seems to me that some in the community expect more from moderators than is reasonable. We don't guarantee full coverage on chat, and even when a mod is in the chat, they may be multi-tasking. Despite that, they give a lot of time to chat, and do their best to make sure it's moderated most of the time. It may be an unpopular thing for me to say, but I'm okay with the amount of time the moderators give to chat.

      • Staff don't care

      We care. I hope this massive reply demonstrates that.

      • Why do inactive moderators keep their rights?

      I review that periodically - sometimes it isn't often. As there is no harm in an inactive person having rights, it's not a priority to remove them; the issue can wait until I have the time and space to review the team.

      • Is feedback actually passed on?

      It depends on the feedback. Not all is passed on, but some is. Especially if it's specific rather than a general comment.

      • Moderators are biased or hold grudges.

      I won't claim that any of us are completely unbiased - however much we try to be. Regular, trusted users are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt than new users. And conversely, someone who has shown bad behavior may be watched more closely than others. I think that is normal and expected. But overall, I agree we should try to be as consistent as possible and assume good faith.

      • Moderators are not open to feedback.

      I would say that the active admins and moderators who have commented on this thread have been clear that they are open to feedback. And I know others have read the comments in full. I'm personally disappointed that there hasn't been more positive feedback, although there has been some (thank you!) but I recognise that more negative feedback is more common.

      • Moderators are negative.

      It can be hard to be positive when you are constantly dealing with the negative aspects of chat. Or to be seen as positive in that situation. But I hope that moderators can strive to be as positive as possible in chat.

      • This thread won't change anything.

      I've just got out of a meeting discussing the future of chat. Please see Bert's announcement about this.

      • Only friends of moderators are chosen to be moderators.

      It can be difficult to avoid this, as these are the people that moderators know best and trust to do well in the role. I agree that we need to think further about this though, and have already asked the admins/moderators to look wide in suggesting future CCCrew members.

      • Staff should watch more choices of moderators more closely.

      No new moderators are added without extensive checks by staff. It is definitely not the current moderators who make the final decision.

      • The nomination of moderators should have community input.

      As mentioned above, staff have the final say in this. I don't think it would be right to ask for community approval and then have us decide anyway. That said, I'm open to consideration of this (alongside my fellow members of staff)

      • Ongoing problems need to be addressed and shouldn't be ignored. Change is needed.

      That's what my reply here is about, along with discussions I've had with other staff here in the office.

      • There are problems outside chat.

      Yes, we need more admins too, I'm aware of that and keen on adding to the team.

      As I said, some of what I've written here is moot, but some applies to admins as well as moderators, and all of it may be useful when the experiment of restricting chat hours is over.

      Thanks for reading.

        Loading editor
    • I just have a few points to point out. Even if mods aren’t perfect, they should set a good example for the community. If a normal user sees a mod commenting on a ban, swearing, etc, it encourages them, and basically says “you can do this too!”. Which is dangerous. Mods are also examples of a fairly good user, and even if a mod slips, I think other mods have the right to remind their camarade. Not in a joking matter.

      Another thing I have seen, which can worry me, is if another user with rights (VSTF, councilor, Helper, etc), uses caps or cusses in chat, the active mod (who, in some cases, was very active during chat) doesn’t warn or remind said user with other rights. That could be dangerous too, for other users can set good examples for other newer users.

      Also, the “mod chooses friends” thing is strange. As much as mods trust their friends more, I have seen users mod on other wikis, and are even better then current CC mods. Those users are active in chat, yet because they aren’t in said “social cercle”, mods are not likely to choose them as potential candidates. This is a bit bias, as even if a good mod has friends, those friends might not be as good as the mod themself. Which is why I am glad to see that might be changed.

      Last thing is mods being bias. Even if mods may trust older users, that doesn’t mean they should let them off the hook so easily. The older user is also an example for newer users. If said older user is demonstrating inappropriate behavior, it might encourage the newer user. And if the mods aren’t controlling this behavior, it could result into drama or fighting or something out of control. Which is why people brought it up. I have seen cases of mini-modding, and the older user was let of the hook, while the newer user was warned.

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote:
      Okay, this is going to be a bit of an epic reply. I am going to try to address all points raised, although I may not catch everything in this giant thread.

      Although we encourage people to use S:C for complaints about staff/admins/mods etc. I'm glad this thread was started. There's obviously a lot to look at.

      This has been supplanted somewhat by Bert's announcement about our planned experiment of limiting chat hours for a while, but I thought it important to address the points in this thread.

      Note: I will refer to "moderators" or "mods" throughout this reply. This includes admins who are moderating the chat.

      As far as I can see the issues raised are:

      • Lack of ban reasons/not enough transparency in why admins block

      I agree we could improve here. I would argue that "sockpuppet" is a valid reason, it explains the reason without giving publicity to the troll, but "misbehaving in chat" or "custom reason" would be better avoided when possible. Remember though that admins often have to work quickly, especially if there is a concerted attack on the chat. Custom reasons may not take long, but that time can mount up and slow moderators down when they need to deal with one of our regular, persistent trolls.

      On banning a user who has not said anything, or banning immediately as the moderator enters the chat - I didn't see the incident Ozzy mentioned of course, but I would expect that what happened was that there was a sockpuppet in the chat that had been detected by IP or other tools, and one moderator asked another to pop into chat to ban - for example, because they were on their phone without full access. Admins ban socks without warning, and may know a user is a sock before entering the chat. As Qstlijku said, naming socks on bans is another way of giving them recognition, so we avoid that.

      • Moderators instructing people not to comment on bans.

      There are sound reasons for not discussing bans in public. Many trolls will come straight back to chat with a new account. What we don't want is for them to see any discussion in the back-scroll that suggests that they have successfully disturbed the chat. We want to give them as little positive feedback as possible.

      • Moderators not replying to those asking about their bans, or giving overly brief replies.

      In general, we have preferred to talk about bans privately. In the same way as global blocks, it's sometimes better to keep the conversation between staff/mods and the person banned - which often means sending them to S:C where the discussion is private. However, I think this can change somewhat and will ask moderators to ensure that they reply to message wall questions from the blocked user, unless they strongly believe it needs to go to S:C. So please don't direct people immediately to Special:Contact, the admin will direct people there if needed.

      • Inconsistency in dealing with bad behaviour.

      This is always going to happen to some extent, much as we try to avoid it. It's not possible to have guidelines for every situation, and mods may differ in their assessment of the severity of an incident. However, I think the warn/kick/ban guidelines that I have given the mods could be more extensive and clearer. I will work with the team to improve that.

      That said, the guidelines for racial, homophobic, anti-semitic etc. slurs are to give an instant ban. In fact, they are reported to staff for a global ban. Other severe swearing is also a reason for an instant block. Someone writing a stream of extreme language should know it's unacceptable and that doesn't need a warning.

      Lesser swearing should usually get a warning. In some cases this may have been given some time ago - so the kick or ban may seem out-of-the-blue. I am not trying to say this is the case all the time, but it's a situation to consider.

      Also mentioned was the problem of bans not being fast enough or users being given too many warnings. I think this illustrates well the difficulty in the path moderators need to tread. Are they not giving enough warnings? Or are they giving too many? Again, better guidelines may help with this.

      • Moderators should be more active on the wiki.

      I always like to see mods involved on the wiki, but this isn't something I would enforce. They are generous enough to spend time looking after chat, I wouldn't want to put more requirements on them than that (here I am talking about those who are mods only, admins should, of course, be active on the wiki too).

      • Are actions on chat discussed privately between moderators/staff?

      Yes, we have a Slack channel where admins and moderators can discuss their actions and get advice from each other and staff. For example, we commonly discuss lengths of bans and when someone has reached the point that they should be banned permanently. As Ozzy said, we don't discuss all bans, but it's a resource for moderators to use when they need a second opinion.

      This channel has repeatedly been called a "cabal". Again, I reject that pejorative term (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal). It is simply a necessary private space that allows us to talk freely about sensitive issues (and cats).

      • Chat guidelines should be more specific.

      This is something that the chat moderators have been asking for some time. My concern is "rules lawyers" - people who stick to the letter of the rule, but disrupt anyway. It's like the "3 revert rule" on Wikipedia. I've seen people revert exactly three times a day for months. That's why I think that a rule like "do not revert excessively" can be better.

      That said, I've been persuaded by the mods that we need to be more specific than we are currently.

      • "Another factor is that everyone on this thread clearly cares about Community Central and we all want to make this a better place."

      Agreed.

      • Admins sometimes break the rules themselves (e.g. commenting on bans)

      I agree that admins are not perfect. It's something they should (and do) strive for.

      • "We are human" and "we have other life things we need to do" are bad excuses.

      I would say they are simply facts, it seems to me that some in the community expect more from moderators than is reasonable. We don't guarantee full coverage on chat, and even when a mod is in the chat, they may be multi-tasking. Despite that, they give a lot of time to chat, and do their best to make sure it's moderated most of the time. It may be an unpopular thing for me to say, but I'm okay with the amount of time the moderators give to chat.

      • Staff don't care

      We care. I hope this massive reply demonstrates that.

      • Why do inactive moderators keep their rights?

      I review that periodically - sometimes it isn't often. As there is no harm in an inactive person having rights, it's not a priority to remove them; the issue can wait until I have the time and space to review the team.

      • Is feedback actually passed on?

      It depends on the feedback. Not all is passed on, but some is. Especially if it's specific rather than a general comment.

      • Moderators are biased or hold grudges.

      I won't claim that any of us are completely unbiased - however much we try to be. Regular, trusted users are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt than new users. And conversely, someone who has shown bad behavior may be watched more closely than others. I think that is normal and expected. But overall, I agree we should try to be as consistent as possible and assume good faith.

      • Moderators are not open to feedback.

      I would say that the active admins and moderators who have commented on this thread have been clear that they are open to feedback. And I know others have read the comments in full. I'm personally disappointed that there hasn't been more positive feedback, although there has been some (thank you!) but I recognise that more negative feedback is more common.

      • Moderators are negative.

      It can be hard to be positive when you are constantly dealing with the negative aspects of chat. Or to be seen as positive in that situation. But I hope that moderators can strive to be as positive as possible in chat.

      • This thread won't change anything.

      I've just got out of a meeting discussing the future of chat. Please see Bert's announcement about this.

      • Only friends of moderators are chosen to be moderators.

      It can be difficult to avoid this, as these are the people that moderators know best and trust to do well in the role. I agree that we need to think further about this though, and have already asked the admins/moderators to look wide in suggesting future CCCrew members.

      • Staff should watch more choices of moderators more closely.

      No new moderators are added without extensive checks by staff. It is definitely not the current moderators who make the final decision.

      • The nomination of moderators should have community input.

      As mentioned above, staff have the final say in this. I don't think it would be right to ask for community approval and then have us decide anyway. That said, I'm open to consideration of this (alongside my fellow members of staff)

      • Ongoing problems need to be addressed and shouldn't be ignored. Change is needed.

      That's what my reply here is about, along with discussions I've had with other staff here in the office.

      • There are problems outside chat.

      Yes, we need more admins too, I'm aware of that and keen on adding to the team.

      As I said, some of what I've written here is moot, but some applies to admins as well as moderators, and all of it may be useful when the experiment of restricting chat hours is over.

      Thanks for reading.

      Sannse thank you for starting to take action to fix things but I do believe instead of promoting at random you should take into consideration, how often someone edits and how often they are in chat and theyr maturely before making them admin, I'm not trying to ignore your points but activitly is really important so is maturely. 

      We all understand the crew have lives but if they are so busy they are never on chat perhaps they shouldn't be apart of the crew? 

      Admins and mods aren't perfect no one is, but there is a line between accidently making biased comments and actions, and banning users out of dislike (Which I've seen a few times when a mod was in a bad mood) correcting users who were the ones getting harassed by the mods friends instead of correcting the ones doing the harrassment and so on.

      We all care about CCC thus the reason we want it to improve. 

      And we know that staff make the final choices of who becomes apart of the crew, but we are a community as the wiki is even named so it's would be a step in the right direction to somehow give users a chance to give their opinions on promotions so it can be taken into consideration when Staff are discussing who to promote and etc. 

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote: Okay, this is going to be a bit of an epic reply. I am going to try to address all points raised, although I may not catch everything in this giant thread.

      Although we encourage people to use S:C for complaints about staff/admins/mods etc. I'm glad this thread was started. There's obviously a lot to look at.

      This has been supplanted somewhat by Bert's announcement about our planned experiment of limiting chat hours for a while, but I thought it important to address the points in this thread.

      Note: I will refer to "moderators" or "mods" throughout this reply. This includes admins who are moderating the chat.

      As far as I can see the issues raised are:

      • Lack of ban reasons/not enough transparency in why admins block

      I agree we could improve here. I would argue that "sockpuppet" is a valid reason, it explains the reason without giving publicity to the troll, but "misbehaving in chat" or "custom reason" would be better avoided when possible. Remember though that admins often have to work quickly, especially if there is a concerted attack on the chat. Custom reasons may not take long, but that time can mount up and slow moderators down when they need to deal with one of our regular, persistent trolls.

      On banning a user who has not said anything, or banning immediately as the moderator enters the chat - I didn't see the incident Ozzy mentioned of course, but I would expect that what happened was that there was a sockpuppet in the chat that had been detected by IP or other tools, and one moderator asked another to pop into chat to ban - for example, because they were on their phone without full access. Admins ban socks without warning, and may know a user is a sock before entering the chat. As Qstlijku said, naming socks on bans is another way of giving them recognition, so we avoid that.

      • Moderators instructing people not to comment on bans.

      There are sound reasons for not discussing bans in public. Many trolls will come straight back to chat with a new account. What we don't want is for them to see any discussion in the back-scroll that suggests that they have successfully disturbed the chat. We want to give them as little positive feedback as possible.

      • Moderators not replying to those asking about their bans, or giving overly brief replies.

      In general, we have preferred to talk about bans privately. In the same way as global blocks, it's sometimes better to keep the conversation between staff/mods and the person banned - which often means sending them to S:C where the discussion is private. However, I think this can change somewhat and will ask moderators to ensure that they reply to message wall questions from the blocked user, unless they strongly believe it needs to go to S:C. So please don't direct people immediately to Special:Contact, the admin will direct people there if needed.

      • Inconsistency in dealing with bad behaviour.

      This is always going to happen to some extent, much as we try to avoid it. It's not possible to have guidelines for every situation, and mods may differ in their assessment of the severity of an incident. However, I think the warn/kick/ban guidelines that I have given the mods could be more extensive and clearer. I will work with the team to improve that.

      That said, the guidelines for racial, homophobic, anti-semitic etc. slurs are to give an instant ban. In fact, they are reported to staff for a global ban. Other severe swearing is also a reason for an instant block. Someone writing a stream of extreme language should know it's unacceptable and that doesn't need a warning.

      Lesser swearing should usually get a warning. In some cases this may have been given some time ago - so the kick or ban may seem out-of-the-blue. I am not trying to say this is the case all the time, but it's a situation to consider.

      Also mentioned was the problem of bans not being fast enough or users being given too many warnings. I think this illustrates well the difficulty in the path moderators need to tread. Are they not giving enough warnings? Or are they giving too many? Again, better guidelines may help with this.

      • Moderators should be more active on the wiki.

      I always like to see mods involved on the wiki, but this isn't something I would enforce. They are generous enough to spend time looking after chat, I wouldn't want to put more requirements on them than that (here I am talking about those who are mods only, admins should, of course, be active on the wiki too).

      • Are actions on chat discussed privately between moderators/staff?

      Yes, we have a Slack channel where admins and moderators can discuss their actions and get advice from each other and staff. For example, we commonly discuss lengths of bans and when someone has reached the point that they should be banned permanently. As Ozzy said, we don't discuss all bans, but it's a resource for moderators to use when they need a second opinion.

      This channel has repeatedly been called a "cabal". Again, I reject that pejorative term (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal). It is simply a necessary private space that allows us to talk freely about sensitive issues (and cats).

      • Chat guidelines should be more specific.

      This is something that the chat moderators have been asking for some time. My concern is "rules lawyers" - people who stick to the letter of the rule, but disrupt anyway. It's like the "3 revert rule" on Wikipedia. I've seen people revert exactly three times a day for months. That's why I think that a rule like "do not revert excessively" can be better.

      That said, I've been persuaded by the mods that we need to be more specific than we are currently.

      • "Another factor is that everyone on this thread clearly cares about Community Central and we all want to make this a better place."

      Agreed.

      • Admins sometimes break the rules themselves (e.g. commenting on bans)

      I agree that admins are not perfect. It's something they should (and do) strive for.

      • "We are human" and "we have other life things we need to do" are bad excuses.

      I would say they are simply facts, it seems to me that some in the community expect more from moderators than is reasonable. We don't guarantee full coverage on chat, and even when a mod is in the chat, they may be multi-tasking. Despite that, they give a lot of time to chat, and do their best to make sure it's moderated most of the time. It may be an unpopular thing for me to say, but I'm okay with the amount of time the moderators give to chat.

      • Staff don't care

      We care. I hope this massive reply demonstrates that.

      • Why do inactive moderators keep their rights?

      I review that periodically - sometimes it isn't often. As there is no harm in an inactive person having rights, it's not a priority to remove them; the issue can wait until I have the time and space to review the team.

      • Is feedback actually passed on?

      It depends on the feedback. Not all is passed on, but some is. Especially if it's specific rather than a general comment.

      • Moderators are biased or hold grudges.

      I won't claim that any of us are completely unbiased - however much we try to be. Regular, trusted users are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt than new users. And conversely, someone who has shown bad behavior may be watched more closely than others. I think that is normal and expected. But overall, I agree we should try to be as consistent as possible and assume good faith.

      • Moderators are not open to feedback.

      I would say that the active admins and moderators who have commented on this thread have been clear that they are open to feedback. And I know others have read the comments in full. I'm personally disappointed that there hasn't been more positive feedback, although there has been some (thank you!) but I recognise that more negative feedback is more common.

      • Moderators are negative.

      It can be hard to be positive when you are constantly dealing with the negative aspects of chat. Or to be seen as positive in that situation. But I hope that moderators can strive to be as positive as possible in chat.

      • This thread won't change anything.

      I've just got out of a meeting discussing the future of chat. Please see Bert's announcement about this.

      • Only friends of moderators are chosen to be moderators.

      It can be difficult to avoid this, as these are the people that moderators know best and trust to do well in the role. I agree that we need to think further about this though, and have already asked the admins/moderators to look wide in suggesting future CCCrew members.

      • Staff should watch more choices of moderators more closely.

      No new moderators are added without extensive checks by staff. It is definitely not the current moderators who make the final decision.

      • The nomination of moderators should have community input.

      As mentioned above, staff have the final say in this. I don't think it would be right to ask for community approval and then have us decide anyway. That said, I'm open to consideration of this (alongside my fellow members of staff)

      • Ongoing problems need to be addressed and shouldn't be ignored. Change is needed.

      That's what my reply here is about, along with discussions I've had with other staff here in the office.

      • There are problems outside chat.

      Yes, we need more admins too, I'm aware of that and keen on adding to the team.

      As I said, some of what I've written here is moot, but some applies to admins as well as moderators, and all of it may be useful when the experiment of restricting chat hours is over.

      Thanks for reading.

      Thank you Sannse for the epic reply (XP; the XP is NOT indicating it's sarcastic; it's because of the "epic" lol). I am glad you have looked at the problems to improve and you have definitely admitted that there are some things that need to be improved. I do agree with you on that the choice of the moderation team shouldn't exactly be community-based as that can also have the risk of bias but I do think their voices should be considered as a factor among other things for the promotions done while still remaining a staff decision. I do agree with the fact that bans should not be discussed when implemented except maybe if there are queries but that should be taken to the message wall and involved both the banning mod and the banned user not just involve some users who were there.

      I don't agree with all you said but obviously we can't simply just base things on what I agree with. That in and of itself is also biased and will just create the same problems really but I am welcome to your solutions and I thank you for taking the time to reply to this and address the points while also have a meeting about this. It shows progress with our concerns. :)

        Loading editor
    • Hey kids, Brick (Former Admin) here. Community Central chat is hard to manage. But you can't blame the moderators. As volunteers, we only come in when we have time, and sometimes none of us can be on. As for ban reasons, there have been times when everyone knows why the person was banned, and all people do in chat is talk about it, creating drama. It's a rule not to talk about why someone is banned in chat, and most of the time people do not listen. All the admods discuss at length about banning, even kicking! It's not easy being the bad guys! But, we keep a record, and if the person banned wants to know why or appeal it, go to S:C. But you have heard all that, my perspective is that as a former admod, we all can do better to create a well inclusive Community Central, (and chat!) but we have to all work together, and we all have to respect the decisions Staff makes for it (even if we don't agree.) Thanks for listening!!

      -Brick

        Loading editor
    • LanaDelReyLove wrote: Hey kids, Brick (Former Admin) here. Community Central chat is hard to manage. But you can't blame the moderators. As volunteers, we only come in when we have time, and sometimes none of us can be on. As for ban reasons, there have been times when everyone knows why the person was banned, and all people do in chat is talk about it, creating drama. It's a rule not to talk about why someone is banned in chat, and most of the time people do not listen. All the admods discuss at length about banning, even kicking! It's not easy being the bad guys! But, we keep a record, and if the person banned wants to know why or appeal it, go to S:C. But you have heard all that, my perspective is that as a former admod, we all can do better to create a well inclusive Community Central, (and chat!) but we have to all work together, and we all have to respect the decisions Staff makes for it (even if we don't agree.) Thanks for listening!!

      -Brick

      I understand that you guys can't be patrolling CC 24/7 (which is not what we ask for), but there have been admods who could be more active, per se. In my opinion, if you are ready to accept the roll as an admod, you must be available when needed. If you can't be active, then there really is no point in staying admod.

      But I am happy, needless to say, about the effort crew puts into CC, but there is a lot of room for improvement, and some stuff are quite concerning.

        Loading editor
    • All of that is true, But I feel the action of closing the chat is simply an act of running away from the problem here instead of actually fixing it.

        Loading editor
    • Endercat TM wrote:

      LanaDelReyLove wrote: Hey kids, Brick (Former Admin) here. Community Central chat is hard to manage. But you can't blame the moderators. As volunteers, we only come in when we have time, and sometimes none of us can be on. As for ban reasons, there have been times when everyone knows why the person was banned, and all people do in chat is talk about it, creating drama. It's a rule not to talk about why someone is banned in chat, and most of the time people do not listen. All the admods discuss at length about banning, even kicking! It's not easy being the bad guys! But, we keep a record, and if the person banned wants to know why or appeal it, go to S:C. But you have heard all that, my perspective is that as a former admod, we all can do better to create a well inclusive Community Central, (and chat!) but we have to all work together, and we all have to respect the decisions Staff makes for it (even if we don't agree.) Thanks for listening!!

      -Brick

      I understand that you guys can't be patrolling CC 24/7 (which is not what we ask for), but there have been admods who could be more active, per se. In my opinion, if you are ready to accept the roll as an admod, you must be available when needed. If you can't be active, then there really is no point in staying admod.

      But I am happy, needless to say, about the effort crew puts into CC, but there is a lot of room for improvement, and some stuff are quite concerning.


      I would argue that there are too many of them and they're too active. The less of them, the better. The less VSTF, the less moderators, the less admins and the less staff , the better imho. The less active the hierarchy of power is, the less it will tend towards corruption.

        Loading editor
    • 209.50.52.75 wrote:

      Endercat TM wrote:

      LanaDelReyLove wrote: Hey kids, Brick (Former Admin) here. Community Central chat is hard to manage. But you can't blame the moderators. As volunteers, we only come in when we have time, and sometimes none of us can be on. As for ban reasons, there have been times when everyone knows why the person was banned, and all people do in chat is talk about it, creating drama. It's a rule not to talk about why someone is banned in chat, and most of the time people do not listen. All the admods discuss at length about banning, even kicking! It's not easy being the bad guys! But, we keep a record, and if the person banned wants to know why or appeal it, go to S:C. But you have heard all that, my perspective is that as a former admod, we all can do better to create a well inclusive Community Central, (and chat!) but we have to all work together, and we all have to respect the decisions Staff makes for it (even if we don't agree.) Thanks for listening!!

      -Brick

      I understand that you guys can't be patrolling CC 24/7 (which is not what we ask for), but there have been admods who could be more active, per se. In my opinion, if you are ready to accept the roll as an admod, you must be available when needed. If you can't be active, then there really is no point in staying admod.

      But I am happy, needless to say, about the effort crew puts into CC, but there is a lot of room for improvement, and some stuff are quite concerning.


      I would argue that there are too many of them and they're too active. The less of them, the better. The less VSTF, the less moderators, the less admins and the less staff , the better imho. The less active the hierarchy of power is, the less it will tend towards corruption.

      As much admods we have, most of them are inactive. I could name a few who join chat, yet spend their time AFK or simply not participating. I also don't see a lot of admin edits. So, I would argue that we don't have enough admods, as most are quite inactive, and/or not fit for their job. Simply changing a chat mod to discussion mod won't do much. Most of the admods are active on their own wikis.

      Having a few more admods wouldn't hurt, but ones that would be fit for the job. Simply promoting friends of current admods won't do much, because said friends might not be fit for the job. I am not sure this is true, but it seems that admods tend to recommend promoting their friends instead of recommending other users. Again, I am not sure this is true, but it seems so.

        Loading editor
    • The mods promote their friends so that they don't have to promote someone that would actually know how to use the rights of mod or admin.

      If the staff really want a fresh start they need to pick all new people to be VSTF, Admin, Discussions mods, and chat mods that way they can test if these people are qualified for those rights instead of just giving them rights and just walking away.

        Loading editor
    • Just jumping in to clarify some questions raised in the latest messages.

      Endercat TM wrote: Another thing I have seen, which can worry me, is if another user with rights (VSTF, councilor, Helper, etc), uses caps or cusses in chat, the active mod (who, in some cases, was very active during chat) doesn’t warn or remind said user with other rights. That could be dangerous too, for other users can set good examples for other newer users.

      Also, the “mod chooses friends” thing is strange. As much as mods trust their friends more, I have seen users mod on other wikis, and are even better then current CC mods. Those users are active in chat, yet because they aren’t in said “social cercle”, mods are not likely to choose them as potential candidates. This is a bit bias, as even if a good mod has friends, those friends might not be as good as the mod themself. Which is why I am glad to see that might be changed.

      I haven't often seen a user with rights not being part of the community central team doing any harm in chat as per you bringing up using all caps for instance. So that's a very rare thing and I don't think it's what we should focus on, however we do as a team share a channel with any other volunteers and we have also had instances we've advised via that channel responding or dealing in a certain way. That's not always about them doing something bad of course, it can be used in many ways.

      Also I've seen a couple of messages noting staff and the community central team only promotes 'their friends'. I personally believe it's a very complicated thing to look at as community central is a real network of users. For instance that helps if we come across a user having a specific problem and we can direct him or her to someone with extensive knowledge on the matter. Another example, if you're a lot in chat you might know the mod team better, but you know also more about the chat and it's culture. So it could look like only friends are being promoted, but it really is about the perspective you take and how you look at the whole situation. Of course staff and we as team try to have as open conversations as possible about who to promote and we try to look at everybody who's probably suited for the job.

      Endercat TM wrote: As much admods we have, most of them are inactive. I could name a few who join chat, yet spend their time AFK or simply not participating. I also don't see a lot of admin edits. So, I would argue that we don't have enough admods, as most are quite inactive, and/or not fit for their job. Simply changing a chat mod to discussion mod won't do much. Most of the admods are active on their own wikis.

      The fact an admin or mod isn't typing doesn't mean he's inactive. As argued earlier they could be multitasking at that moment, but it could also very well be possible (s)he's just watching and nothing wrong is happening without having to say anything on the topic that's perhaps discussed or talked about at the moment. For edits you can explain it the same way. It's not in the job description of admins to make the most edits here. Sure it helps if they jump into help threads and all as they're often users with extensive knowledge, but being an admin mostly is about keeping the wiki 'clean and nice'.

      Enchanted Iris wrote: If the staff really want a fresh start they need to pick all new people to be VSTF, Admin, Discussions mods, and chat mods that way they can test if these people are qualified for those rights instead of just giving them rights and just walking away.

      Before responding on this I want to clarify I'm not saying this 'to save my rights' or anything, I try to look at it from my personal perspective and the ideas I have of possible consequences. So let's say literally anybody with rights on community central plus all groups like vstf are being demoted. Apart from possibly a bunch of them getting less motivated to be on wikia this brings several problems, also if you not demote all but a good amount of them at once. It can create drama on the whole network of wikis as users might not know or understand why this is done. Then you need to have a good amount of users in scope you want to promote and test as you said. But that means they don't have any understanding of the tools being used now or how to deal in certain situations, and because of the amount of new users with rights few experiences of the past are available how to use the tools or how to deal with the situation. You see it's now already getting a long list of drawbacks so I'll just leave it here incomplete to not mess this thread up, but you get what I mean I hope.

      Also as a final note from me, we do try to improve chat and the whole of community central always (therefore also the chat experiment linked earlier in the thread) as this is a place we all like to be, also as admins and mods.

        Loading editor
    • Some context on the FANDOM volunteer system in general:

      It's staff who manage these teams, based on what they think the need is. If you ever feel that certain needs aren't being met, that's very welcome feedback for staff! It's possible that things (& people) could be shuffled around to satisfy the issues you mention. Staff will do their absolute best to address those needs (as Sannse has shown above).

      In general however, 2A is correct that changing all >250 volunteers, or even a sizable proportion, would be a lot of pain for not much (if any) real gain.

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote:

      • "We are human" and "we have other life things we need to do" are bad excuses.

      I would say they are simply facts, it seems to me that some in the community expect more from moderators than is reasonable. We don't guarantee full coverage on chat, and even when a mod is in the chat, they may be multi-tasking. Despite that, they give a lot of time to chat, and do their best to make sure it's moderated most of the time. It may be an unpopular thing for me to say, but I'm okay with the amount of time the moderators give to chat.

      I think you might have misinterpreted my point (assuming you were responding to my points about this). I have no problem whatsoever with the activity level of moderators. I haven't complained about how much time they put into chat because I agree that their dedication right now is good enough. My point was that sometimes moderators use those excuses to justify poor behavior. For example, if a moderator is being impatient and negative with users and someone calls them out on it, they might just say that they make mistakes because they are human. However, in that context, it is a poor excuse because they are implying that they don't have to answer to the bad behavior just because human beings all make mistakes.

        Loading editor
    • 2Actimv wrote: Just jumping in to clarify some questions raised in the latest messages.

      Endercat TM wrote: Another thing I have seen, which can worry me, is if another user with rights (VSTF, councilor, Helper, etc), uses caps or cusses in chat, the active mod (who, in some cases, was very active during chat) doesn’t warn or remind said user with other rights. That could be dangerous too, for other users can set good examples for other newer users.

      Also, the “mod chooses friends” thing is strange. As much as mods trust their friends more, I have seen users mod on other wikis, and are even better then current CC mods. Those users are active in chat, yet because they aren’t in said “social cercle”, mods are not likely to choose them as potential candidates. This is a bit bias, as even if a good mod has friends, those friends might not be as good as the mod themself. Which is why I am glad to see that might be changed.

      I haven't often seen a user with rights not being part of the community central team doing any harm in chat as per you bringing up using all caps for instance. So that's a very rare thing and I don't think it's what we should focus on, however we do as a team share a channel with any other volunteers and we have also had instances we've advised via that channel responding or dealing in a certain way. That's not always about them doing something bad of course, it can be used in many ways.

      Also I've seen a couple of messages noting staff and the community central team only promotes 'their friends'. I personally believe it's a very complicated thing to look at as community central is a real network of users. For instance that helps if we come across a user having a specific problem and we can direct him or her to someone with extensive knowledge on the matter. Another example, if you're a lot in chat you might know the mod team better, but you know also more about the chat and it's culture. So it could look like only friends are being promoted, but it really is about the perspective you take and how you look at the whole situation. Of course staff and we as team try to have as open conversations as possible about who to promote and we try to look at everybody who's probably suited for the job.

      Endercat TM wrote: As much admods we have, most of them are inactive. I could name a few who join chat, yet spend their time AFK or simply not participating. I also don't see a lot of admin edits. So, I would argue that we don't have enough admods, as most are quite inactive, and/or not fit for their job. Simply changing a chat mod to discussion mod won't do much. Most of the admods are active on their own wikis.

      The fact an admin or mod isn't typing doesn't mean he's inactive. As argued earlier they could be multitasking at that moment, but it could also very well be possible (s)he's just watching and nothing wrong is happening without having to say anything on the topic that's perhaps discussed or talked about at the moment. For edits you can explain it the same way. It's not in the job description of admins to make the most edits here. Sure it helps if they jump into help threads and all as they're often users with extensive knowledge, but being an admin mostly is about keeping the wiki 'clean and nice'.

      Enchanted Iris wrote: If the staff really want a fresh start they need to pick all new people to be VSTF, Admin, Discussions mods, and chat mods that way they can test if these people are qualified for those rights instead of just giving them rights and just walking away.

      Before responding on this I want to clarify I'm not saying this 'to save my rights' or anything, I try to look at it from my personal perspective and the ideas I have of possible consequences. So let's say literally anybody with rights on community central plus all groups like vstf are being demoted. Apart from possibly a bunch of them getting less motivated to be on wikia this brings several problems, also if you not demote all but a good amount of them at once. It can create drama on the whole network of wikis as users might not know or understand why this is done. Then you need to have a good amount of users in scope you want to promote and test as you said. But that means they don't have any understanding of the tools being used now or how to deal in certain situations, and because of the amount of new users with rights few experiences of the past are available how to use the tools or how to deal with the situation. You see it's now already getting a long list of drawbacks so I'll just leave it here incomplete to not mess this thread up, but you get what I mean I hope.

      Also as a final note from me, we do try to improve chat and the whole of community central always (therefore also the chat experiment linked earlier in the thread) as this is a place we all like to be, also as admins and mods.

      I understand, yet about the mod being AFK, there are instances where it is the only mod in chat, and a troll/sock has been able to stay in chat for quite some concerning time. As much as I support you having your own stuff to do, it has happened multiple times before, and several users have complained about it. I am not against multitasking (for I do it myself), but if the person is willing to be a mod, they have to be more or less active on chat. I am not saying staring at it 24/7, yet paying a close eye to it. I would go into more detail, yet I don't want to give away too much, for other reasons. Yet, mods being human, they can't control the whole chat.

      As in for the members with roles, it wouldn't be fair if the mod warns a normal user vs. the mod not warning the user with rights. As much as I respect the mods, it wouldn't be fair if just because one user has a tag with a certain role, doesn't mean the mod shouldn't take action. Chat mods are there to moderate chat, and no matter if you are Helper, or VSTF, or even a mod yourself, other mods should be able to kindly remind the other user what the rules are.

        Loading editor
    • Endercat TM wrote:

      2Actimv wrote: Just jumping in to clarify some questions raised in the latest messages.

      Endercat TM wrote: Another thing I have seen, which can worry me, is if another user with rights (VSTF, councilor, Helper, etc), uses caps or cusses in chat, the active mod (who, in some cases, was very active during chat) doesn’t warn or remind said user with other rights. That could be dangerous too, for other users can set good examples for other newer users.

      Also, the “mod chooses friends” thing is strange. As much as mods trust their friends more, I have seen users mod on other wikis, and are even better then current CC mods. Those users are active in chat, yet because they aren’t in said “social cercle”, mods are not likely to choose them as potential candidates. This is a bit bias, as even if a good mod has friends, those friends might not be as good as the mod themself. Which is why I am glad to see that might be changed.

      I haven't often seen a user with rights not being part of the community central team doing any harm in chat as per you bringing up using all caps for instance. So that's a very rare thing and I don't think it's what we should focus on, however we do as a team share a channel with any other volunteers and we have also had instances we've advised via that channel responding or dealing in a certain way. That's not always about them doing something bad of course, it can be used in many ways.

      Also I've seen a couple of messages noting staff and the community central team only promotes 'their friends'. I personally believe it's a very complicated thing to look at as community central is a real network of users. For instance that helps if we come across a user having a specific problem and we can direct him or her to someone with extensive knowledge on the matter. Another example, if you're a lot in chat you might know the mod team better, but you know also more about the chat and it's culture. So it could look like only friends are being promoted, but it really is about the perspective you take and how you look at the whole situation. Of course staff and we as team try to have as open conversations as possible about who to promote and we try to look at everybody who's probably suited for the job.

      Endercat TM wrote: As much admods we have, most of them are inactive. I could name a few who join chat, yet spend their time AFK or simply not participating. I also don't see a lot of admin edits. So, I would argue that we don't have enough admods, as most are quite inactive, and/or not fit for their job. Simply changing a chat mod to discussion mod won't do much. Most of the admods are active on their own wikis.

      The fact an admin or mod isn't typing doesn't mean he's inactive. As argued earlier they could be multitasking at that moment, but it could also very well be possible (s)he's just watching and nothing wrong is happening without having to say anything on the topic that's perhaps discussed or talked about at the moment. For edits you can explain it the same way. It's not in the job description of admins to make the most edits here. Sure it helps if they jump into help threads and all as they're often users with extensive knowledge, but being an admin mostly is about keeping the wiki 'clean and nice'.

      Enchanted Iris wrote: If the staff really want a fresh start they need to pick all new people to be VSTF, Admin, Discussions mods, and chat mods that way they can test if these people are qualified for those rights instead of just giving them rights and just walking away.

      Before responding on this I want to clarify I'm not saying this 'to save my rights' or anything, I try to look at it from my personal perspective and the ideas I have of possible consequences. So let's say literally anybody with rights on community central plus all groups like vstf are being demoted. Apart from possibly a bunch of them getting less motivated to be on wikia this brings several problems, also if you not demote all but a good amount of them at once. It can create drama on the whole network of wikis as users might not know or understand why this is done. Then you need to have a good amount of users in scope you want to promote and test as you said. But that means they don't have any understanding of the tools being used now or how to deal in certain situations, and because of the amount of new users with rights few experiences of the past are available how to use the tools or how to deal with the situation. You see it's now already getting a long list of drawbacks so I'll just leave it here incomplete to not mess this thread up, but you get what I mean I hope.

      Also as a final note from me, we do try to improve chat and the whole of community central always (therefore also the chat experiment linked earlier in the thread) as this is a place we all like to be, also as admins and mods.

      I understand, yet about the mod being AFK, there are instances where it is the only mod in chat, and a troll/sock has been able to stay in chat for quite some concerning time. As much as I support you having your own stuff to do, it has happened multiple times before, and several users have complained about it. I am not against multitasking (for I do it myself), but if the person is willing to be a mod, they have to be more or less active on chat. I am not saying staring at it 24/7, yet paying a close eye to it. I would go into more detail, yet I don't want to give away too much, for other reasons. Yet, mods being human, they can't control the whole chat.

      As in for the members with roles, it wouldn't be fair if the mod warns a normal user vs. the mod not warning the user with rights. As much as I respect the mods, it wouldn't be fair if just because one user has a tag with a certain role, doesn't mean the mod shouldn't take action. Chat mods are there to moderate chat, and no matter if you are Helper, or VSTF, or even a mod yourself, other mods should be able to kindly remind the other user what the rules are.

      No they should actually pay less attention to it, if I were to be candid.

        Loading editor
    • Sam Winc wrote:

      Endercat TM wrote:

      2Actimv wrote: Just jumping in to clarify some questions raised in the latest messages.

      Endercat TM wrote: Another thing I have seen, which can worry me, is if another user with rights (VSTF, councilor, Helper, etc), uses caps or cusses in chat, the active mod (who, in some cases, was very active during chat) doesn’t warn or remind said user with other rights. That could be dangerous too, for other users can set good examples for other newer users.

      Also, the “mod chooses friends” thing is strange. As much as mods trust their friends more, I have seen users mod on other wikis, and are even better then current CC mods. Those users are active in chat, yet because they aren’t in said “social cercle”, mods are not likely to choose them as potential candidates. This is a bit bias, as even if a good mod has friends, those friends might not be as good as the mod themself. Which is why I am glad to see that might be changed.

      I haven't often seen a user with rights not being part of the community central team doing any harm in chat as per you bringing up using all caps for instance. So that's a very rare thing and I don't think it's what we should focus on, however we do as a team share a channel with any other volunteers and we have also had instances we've advised via that channel responding or dealing in a certain way. That's not always about them doing something bad of course, it can be used in many ways.

      Also I've seen a couple of messages noting staff and the community central team only promotes 'their friends'. I personally believe it's a very complicated thing to look at as community central is a real network of users. For instance that helps if we come across a user having a specific problem and we can direct him or her to someone with extensive knowledge on the matter. Another example, if you're a lot in chat you might know the mod team better, but you know also more about the chat and it's culture. So it could look like only friends are being promoted, but it really is about the perspective you take and how you look at the whole situation. Of course staff and we as team try to have as open conversations as possible about who to promote and we try to look at everybody who's probably suited for the job.

      Endercat TM wrote: As much admods we have, most of them are inactive. I could name a few who join chat, yet spend their time AFK or simply not participating. I also don't see a lot of admin edits. So, I would argue that we don't have enough admods, as most are quite inactive, and/or not fit for their job. Simply changing a chat mod to discussion mod won't do much. Most of the admods are active on their own wikis.

      The fact an admin or mod isn't typing doesn't mean he's inactive. As argued earlier they could be multitasking at that moment, but it could also very well be possible (s)he's just watching and nothing wrong is happening without having to say anything on the topic that's perhaps discussed or talked about at the moment. For edits you can explain it the same way. It's not in the job description of admins to make the most edits here. Sure it helps if they jump into help threads and all as they're often users with extensive knowledge, but being an admin mostly is about keeping the wiki 'clean and nice'.

      Enchanted Iris wrote: If the staff really want a fresh start they need to pick all new people to be VSTF, Admin, Discussions mods, and chat mods that way they can test if these people are qualified for those rights instead of just giving them rights and just walking away.

      Before responding on this I want to clarify I'm not saying this 'to save my rights' or anything, I try to look at it from my personal perspective and the ideas I have of possible consequences. So let's say literally anybody with rights on community central plus all groups like vstf are being demoted. Apart from possibly a bunch of them getting less motivated to be on wikia this brings several problems, also if you not demote all but a good amount of them at once. It can create drama on the whole network of wikis as users might not know or understand why this is done. Then you need to have a good amount of users in scope you want to promote and test as you said. But that means they don't have any understanding of the tools being used now or how to deal in certain situations, and because of the amount of new users with rights few experiences of the past are available how to use the tools or how to deal with the situation. You see it's now already getting a long list of drawbacks so I'll just leave it here incomplete to not mess this thread up, but you get what I mean I hope.

      Also as a final note from me, we do try to improve chat and the whole of community central always (therefore also the chat experiment linked earlier in the thread) as this is a place we all like to be, also as admins and mods.

      I understand, yet about the mod being AFK, there are instances where it is the only mod in chat, and a troll/sock has been able to stay in chat for quite some concerning time. As much as I support you having your own stuff to do, it has happened multiple times before, and several users have complained about it. I am not against multitasking (for I do it myself), but if the person is willing to be a mod, they have to be more or less active on chat. I am not saying staring at it 24/7, yet paying a close eye to it. I would go into more detail, yet I don't want to give away too much, for other reasons. Yet, mods being human, they can't control the whole chat.

      As in for the members with roles, it wouldn't be fair if the mod warns a normal user vs. the mod not warning the user with rights. As much as I respect the mods, it wouldn't be fair if just because one user has a tag with a certain role, doesn't mean the mod shouldn't take action. Chat mods are there to moderate chat, and no matter if you are Helper, or VSTF, or even a mod yourself, other mods should be able to kindly remind the other user what the rules are.

      No they should actually pay less attention to it, if I were to be candid.

      That would be a terrible idea, seeing that people could get away with much worse then that. Just because said user has a right, doesn't mean said user shouldn't get a warning. I have seen mods (or other people with certain rights) use all caps in chat, or even feed the troll, etc, and this encourages normal users, almost saying "hey, the mod did it, so can I". Mods are also in chat to show a good example, not just enforcing the rules. If your rule enforcer is doing something against the rules, some people might think "oh, because this person, who is supposed to enforce the rules, did it, then so can I". It's like if a police officer steals, it indirectly sends a message to others saying "you could steal, because the officer did it". I'm not saying everyone is like this, but some people are, and since we all don't think the same, for you it might be "oh, this human being made a mistake, they must've forgot", but for another person it might be "oh, this person did this, so that means I can do it too!".

      Even though, as mentioned before, we are all human beings and we make mistakes, but over time, mistakes are usually corrected, if the right amount of effort is made.

      Even though I went off track here, the point is, the mods should enforce the rules, no matter who the person is (I am not sure for Staff, but, Staff are pretty good at following rules). No matter what right you have, if you are a Helper, or VSTF, or GDM, the mods should always enforce the rules. Simply ignoring it will make the situation worse.

        Loading editor
    • Just a clarification - admods are likely to suggest someone they know and trust for wiki positions, but that doesn't mean they get in with out extensive checks by staff (usually me). And, as I've said, I've asked them to look further afield for new people to join the team.

        Loading editor
    • Sannse wrote: Just a clarification - admods are likely to suggest someone they know and trust for wiki positions, but that doesn't mean they get in with out extensive checks by staff (usually me). And, as I've said, I've asked them to look further afield for new people to join the team.

      You have a bad judgement of character.

        Loading editor
    • Sam Winc wrote:

      Sannse wrote: Just a clarification - admods are likely to suggest someone they know and trust for wiki positions, but that doesn't mean they get in with out extensive checks by staff (usually me). And, as I've said, I've asked them to look further afield for new people to join the team.

      You have a bad judgement of character.

      Explain, please. Criticism without explanations is not welcome.

        Loading editor
    • All criticism is welcome here, of course, as long as users are being respectful and helpful when giving criticism. That's actually the purpose of this thread, so I wouldn't exactly say criticism without explanations are not welcome here.

        Loading editor
    • Uh, I would.

        Loading editor
    • I would too. Criticism without explanations doesn't help anybody improve (which is what this thread is all about), so what's the point of it? That's not constructive at all.

        Loading editor
    • Popstar792 wrote: All criticism is welcome here, of course, as long as users are being respectful and helpful when giving criticism. That's actually the purpose of this thread, so I wouldn't exactly say criticism without explanations are not welcome here.

      I'll clarify my position a bit.

      Say I tell you that "You failed at judgeing someone's character appropriately." That would be it. You would wonder why, but that's all you will get. This leads to three outcomes:

      • You will never know why you failed.
      • You will never know how to do better in the future.
      • The comment given is empty and won't amount to anything.

      This is where feedback and feedforward become important.

      • Feedback: "You failed at judgeing someone's character appropriately, for you have misinterpreted [insert]"
      • Feedforward: "By adding more thorough methods of checkup on the character of a recruit, FANDOM's judgement on the best fitting users for volunteering positions will benefit them for the future."

      This is far better because it answers the two questions: What deserved the criticism? What can I do to be better? As a result, the critical comment has amounted to something, and everyone is happy.

        Loading editor
    • She has really really really bad judgment. Also, I can criticize who I damn well want. Freedom of speech is a thing and if anyone thinks I can't criticize anyone I want to, you're a Fascist

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      02:16, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      02:16, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Please just stop. We're not discussing this.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      02:15, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Lets keep the thread on topic please.

        Loading editor
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      02:15, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Noreplyz
      Noreplyz removed this reply because:
      Off topic
      02:15, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Sophiedp
      Sophiedp removed this reply because:
      offtopic
      02:21, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Sophiedp
      Sophiedp removed this reply because:
      offtopic
      02:44, January 9, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • I agree that if you are giving back constructive criticism, you have to say why you think this thing, as a person.

        Loading editor
    • Endercat TM wrote: I agree that if you are giving back constructive criticism, you have to say why you think this thing, as a person.

      You do not "have to" say why you think anything. >_>

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.