User blog comment:MisterGryphon/The State of the Wiki./@comment-5195161-20121108070020

'''I am responding to many people in this article as well as general comments, and suggested reform to some issues of the wiki. I'd consider some of it at least worth reading.'''

MisterGryphon: I personally think the ideology to not help an anonymous IP is a very ludicrious idea, especially as a chat moderator, and I honestly think if you feel this way then maybe Chat Moderator is not the position for you. But I too, notice the increase in disputes between admins and could say its displeasing to say the least. I don't believe disputes between admins are necessary, but if conducted in the right manner can be very beneficial to a wiki such as this. A difference in opinion is good, provided its not a fight based thing and rather a structured debate, and I believe there should be a page made of a Tribunal for heated arguments. Obviously it is the Bureaucrats position to make final decisions, but it would be much better if heated discussions were edited onto a Tribunal page and someone could just add their opinion on the matter.. I.e. Each proposal had a heading 2, Proposal is stated in a short paragraph tops with a For's subheading, and an Against's subheading. This way a person may add their for or against points, as well as the ability to sign the debate which would show both opposition and support for an idea. This is I guess similar to many government motions made. This page with consent I would happily write and structure in a user friendly, easy read way. I think most people have 30%ish counts of mainspace editing, because a lot doesn't need to be added to a wiki as vast as this one, rather small edits to perfect the articles.

JGuy: I don't support the notion of innactivity causes a bad admin, we all have lives to live. But I also don't think making a single edit such as a word is a good show of editing in a way. No page is perfect, and I think that all pages could be written better (no offense to writers like myself), even my pages could be written better. But if I see a single typo on a page, I correct it, but I also have a quick skim through some of the article and look for something that could be written better, etc.

SirSilica: I think there should be support for a new position created such as an Vandal Remover, similar to a Rollback I guess, but with the ability to in a way 'delete' a person.. So not only rollback but remove fully their access to the wiki too. This person I'd possibily nominate you for, with there being a space on the userpage of an anti-vandalist agent or something which people may post on to state a vandal for quick removal?

Exterminator: I consider some of your response quite bad for an admin as I think that everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially on wiki's and an admin response such as yours I don't find fit for your position (No offense, simply stating my opinion on the matter, I consider you a great admin, but we all have our downfalls).

Cacher I too oppose your bot/manual introduction as I honestly thought you were an admin until I reviewed the admin list. However, it is a great gesture, but maybe should be modified to clearly state your just a fellow editor, and not an admin.

General Comments: I oppose inactive admins, if they're inactive for x amount of time, i.e 1 month without any notification to a bureaucrat (obviously people holiday, break, etc) then their position should be terminated. But activity doesn't make an admin, its the activity they bring when they can.. Do they voice their opinions in blogs, comments, etc? Do they contribute quality edits; yes I consider this to include a sentence or two of editing? Do they attempt to resolve conflict between themselves and others? Do they ban editors whom vandalize the wiki? Do they seek forgiveness/apologize upon error (i.e. Rogue's blog apology is a classic example)?

I think that there should be a third bureaucrat soon, and in times of dispute among any admins then those should vote on the issue in a public manner. As a wiki should have information not just hide administrator stuff.

Other than that, I could suggest that each ACTIVE admin has a role, and there is a set number of roles, and that admin must fulfil their role, as well as having general admins.. For example; Anti-Vandal Admin, Tutorial Page Monitoring Admin, Clean-up/Stub Admin, Dispute Resolution Admin, etc. These wouldn't have set jobs like the cleanup admin is not allowed to delete people as it's not their position, it's just that they should monitor specifically their area of expertise at the least. This would reduce conflict and increase structure in the wiki, giving the 'expert admin' the final say of the admin's, and obviously bureaucrats can override admin decisions.. My example would be if the anti-vandal admin tried to reform the tutorial pages, then the tutorial page admin could say, I don't think this should be like this, and revert it, or refer it to the assistance of a bureaucrat.