 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
What[]
To get straight to my point, I think we should erase security desk. Delete it completely. To replace it, I believe we should have a new staff channel,(preferably by a new name since “security desk” carries negative connotations now), and have this channel be viewable to anyone in the server, but only staff can message in it. I have that exact thing implemented on The Outer Worlds Wiki discord server, if anyone wants to take a look.
Why[]
I think everyone pretty much knows the rationale, but basically it’s simply creating distrust between the staff and the user base. It’s been revealed staff has discussed personal things about a user without the users permission, and also it’s been used for staff to go into the channel and throw an insult at a regular user who is not in there. It creates more problems than it’s worth. I also think it’s fair for a user to see the decision-making process behind their ban rationale.
Let your thoughts be heard below. President Autumn 
20:12, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
Comments[]
I agree. It’s not like what we’re saying really has to be hidden anyways, unless it’s against the rules (which shouldn’t happen anyways). We are essentially elected officials and should be transparent to our “constituents”. Laat the Survivor 
(talk) 20:16, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
Definitely needs to happen. We've had this situation far too many times, of staff discussing users in a bad light within the safety of the staff channel, discussing them in a way that would get banned or atleast warned in any other channel. Despite what alot of staff says, comments have had to be leaked in order for action to finally be taken on them, its quickly becoming a fact that despite their efforts (if there are any), rules arent being enforced equally in the Staff channel. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 20:17, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
It shouldn't be deleted, it should be made public, where we users can see but not write. I can only imagine how much crap you have said on all of us, and now you just want it to disappear? We all have a right as users to know what has been said about us. There is concern for "confidential information" in there that can't be given out, as Cor said, but then you can simply remove that, if it shouldn't be made public, before the whole chat is made accessible to all of us, as it should be. Hauganz (talk) 20:23, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
- i understand where you’re coming from there, and that prompts me to include that as a voting option when this inevitably goes to a vote after the end of the discussion. President Autumn
20:27, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
- We can't open the room to the public right now due to the sheer amount of sensitive information of staff members contained within the rooms posts. Going back and deleting all those posts would take an incredible amount of effort and careful searching. I understand your displeasure at previous leaks, but if we do this we aren't going to keep the old channel around. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:00, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
- I don't mean to target all mods and admins in SD but it is very obvious that things are said in there, given todays events, and we users have a right to know what has been said about us Hauganz (talk) 20:42, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
I support, the conversation there is basically just common2.0 most of the time and the rare times it isn't wouldnt hurt to be public. If its regarding personal info, PMs are a thing, but honestly from my experience personal info has been very slim to arguably none, so it should be a non-issue going forward. - Chris 
20:55, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think any actions should be taken. Staff should be trusted. Any staff that had been talking behind a regular user’s back without consent should be re-evaluated as to whether or not they should have the rights they do. As I had said, staff should be trusted. Saturn's Mortal (talk) 21:45, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
We have a private Slack server for staff members on TES. We simply share too much sensitive information to open it up for everyone to see. This includes, but is not limited to, sockpuppetry investigation processes, private CheckUser info and other block information, and various details about our personal lives and the handling of our roles as staff members that would not be appropriate in a public setting; such things simply do not concern the community.
Generally speaking, total staff transparency makes things very logistically difficult. Certain situations have to be handled delicately, like community drama; in the event that our server were made public, we would move to private group chats on another platform. Private chats are a good place for staff to debate various approaches to issues precisely because ideas can be discussed candidly, instead of someone carefully constructing a particular twisted narrative because they know who is watching (and the way in which those people will react).
I know that it is frustrating not to know what the staff are talking about, but the best way to address any sort of toxicity among the staff is, in my opinion, by bureaucrats privately "calling in" people who are making problematic statements, not the community "calling out" those people in a public manner; the latter often results in hostility and defensiveness on the part of the offending staff member. This way, behavioral issues among the staff are still addressed, but the effects of doing so are not loud enough to cause a tidal wave among the rest of the community.
A public staff chat does leave staff members more accountable for their words, although I would note that if the community voted a particular candidate into a staff role here in the first place, it would be a little odd for those same people not to trust them to do their job. Then again, different approaches work for different wikis. My experience on TES might be worth noting, but the situation there is decidedly calm at the moment. I am interested in reading more perspectives on this matter. —Atvelonis (talk) 23:19, May 12, 2019 (UTC)
- The security desk, even if my time wasn't used as it should have been. The desk is there purely for sharing discrete information, that users shouldn't be aware of. For example you have someone who is trying to cause trouble, but need some extra eyes then you would do it discretely; if they prove the this suspicion to be true then they will know why they got banned. If they don't, then they don't, no harm done. Letting that person know that you suspect them will either give them more fuel to fire with, which hurts the community or they will back down and try again another day, making it harder to remove negative influences. The security desk shouldn't be a chat 2.0, nor a place for back stabbing and pitch-forking users people don't like, ultimately that is for PM's and if it leaks, that's is a personal problem.
- The security desk is there to pass information about problem users, to get a second opinion on something or to get an admin to handle an issue a moderator is unable to handle due to lack of rights. My counter proposal is to break up the security desk, have one channel for Content Moderators/Patrollers to pass on wiki page issues that need an admins attention, one for chat/discussions moderators to share relevant information about problem users and gain second opinions. Content moderators and patrollers don't need access to information chat mods and discussions mods need and vice versa. It would then be down to the admins to ensure that these channels are used for these purposes and these only. If someone is committing a rule vio on the quiet via these channels, it should be dealt with as if it were a public channel. The only other thing to do is abolish the channel altogether, which would then move private decision making out of the view of bureaucrats, who if they need to preside don't have verifiable fact to work from, as screenshots can be manipulated.
- If there is something that users should be able to see, then just use the common room, making a publicly viewable channel seems fairly pointless, as what will happen is is there will fallout into the common room anyway, resulting a fractured conversation that is very difficult to follow. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:41, May 15, 2019 (UTC)
I agree with what Atvelonis and Sakaratte has said, the security desk is a place where mods can discretely discuss discrete issues. There is no doubt the chat has been used to more than this in the past. Evidently, that is not something we can allow. The rules extend to all parts of the server, and although, as I think everyone are aware of, there have been some, but few as far as I can recall, situations where a staff member has broken a rule. Obviously the correct course of action then is to tread that user just like we would anyone else, and that is what we normally do, but as i said, we may have been slacking too much.
I think the desk being private is detrimental to it working correctly, staff cannot disclose private information publicly, we cannot discuss sockpuppetry in public, so on. There are a few things that should be kept private. I think staff members deciding on punishment should also be something we can do in private, but of course when we have come to a decision there will be a full explanation and reasoning.
Therefore I propose we actually get it into the rules that they do in fact reach everywhere. Also, I suggest we prohibit chit-chat in the desk, and redirect these to the common room. This is the solution I'd prefer to see. I am of course open to abolishing the desk if the community should so wish. Though I feel the aforementioned issues of privacy will be a problem if such action is taken. --DisgustingWastelander (talk) 19:22, May 17, 2019 (UTC)