UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Power Abuse

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

AWESOME

I love it! Us mods need something to keep us in check, you know. Cyberbob  Talk  04:37, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Yep. I normally support my fellow moderators, but there need to be some guidelines. As it is, nothing is an offense punishable by demodding. Shouldn't be that way. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Discussion

I'm for this policy, as the problem it adresses is a real one, but isn't it too harsh and gives too much power to the Bureaucrats? As it is, if a Bureaucrat wishes to, he can ban any Moderator, strip him of his sysop status, and there's NO WAY to contest his decission. I'm not saying that you or Xoid are going to screw up, but you don't give people a bazooka to go and kill ants. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:44, 18 September 2006 (BST)

There would have to be proof before any banning/demoting takes place. Cyberbob  Talk  04:45, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Textually from the policy: Whether or not the evidence is sufficient is at the sole discretion of the active Bureaucrats. Legally, that says that proof is good, but not a necessity. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:48, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Also from the policy: "Under this policy, evidence that a Moderator intends to specifically abuse his or her rights or status to cause harm to the Wiki can be grounds for removal of Moderator status and rights for the Moderator in question." The reason we need such blanket powers is that a banned Moderator can simply unban himself or herself! –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:49, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Seems worthwhile to me. However, there should be something to prevent all power from resting in the hands of a bureaucrat. Maybe a 66-75 % supermajority of all sysops who aren't bureaucrats can overrule the decision? --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Do we even have that many sysops active? Cyberbob  Talk  04:52, 18 September 2006 (BST)
This would then inspire a policy to de-sysop completely inactive sysops. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:53, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I don't agree with that. Cyberbob  Talk  04:55, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Any reason? --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:56, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Why would that need to happen? Doesn't make sense. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:56, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I see no point in allowing excess powers to lie around. It can only cause problems. If needed, they can go through promotions again. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)
That idea has already been brought up and struck down. Don't even bring it up again. There's plenty of precedent for allowing absent mods to come back. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:03, 18 September 2006 (BST)
The wiki hasn't live long enough for the sheer quantity of mods to be a problem. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:05, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I understand that it's failed before, and others may think it's a good idea, but I think it's a good idea. (People who seem like they might be candidates for de-sysopation: LeakyBock, Morlock, Novelty (?), Odd (?), STER, Spiro) --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:11, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Last time I checked, Leacky Bock was one of the people running the wiki for kevan.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:30, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Write a policy about it. Nothing against you, but I wuold vote against' for almost any wording that demotes old moderators just for inactivity. If the danger resides in that someone can take their account in bad faith, this policy is trying to adress these kind of problems about bad mods. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:14, 18 September 2006 (BST)
None taken. But I am personally of the belief that extra powers can't help. However, I see no point at this time in opening debate on something that will just irritate people, then be shot down. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:19, 18 September 2006 (BST)
What about a clause allowing other Bureaucrats to overrule the decision if it is deemed invalid after the fact? The idea would be to prevent anyone below Bureaucrat level from being able to run amok. Once someone's a Bureaucrat, of course, it's pretty much too late. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:54, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Yup. At that point, Kevan would be required to step in. Cyberbob  Talk  04:55, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Not a fan of waiting for Kevan here. He ultimately can meddle in anything, but never does. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Not a huge fan because there are a total of three, one of whom is generally inactive (if quite fair). I may not always agree with all the mods, but I trust their judgement. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:56, 18 September 2006 (BST)
The problem is what Cyberbob pointed out -- two thirds of the active Mods could be only two or three people, whereas Bureaucrats are supposed to be the ones entrusted with the bestowing or removal of Moderator rights. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:57, 18 September 2006 (BST)
The whole idea of mods overruling these decisions is bad. Think of another system. Also, what does ensure that a Bureaucrat doesn't abuse his power here? There's any kind of punishment? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:58, 18 September 2006 (BST)
If a Bureaucrat was obviously abusing their powers, then the other 'crat could step in. Or Kevan. Cyberbob  Talk  05:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Well, it's even harder to get to that level, you know. But in the instance that Xoid or I abused our power, Kevan would remove us from power. If Kevan abused his power... well, it's his wiki. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I see the point, but I think there needs to be more than what's currently a triumvirate. However, I would still vote For this. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:03, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'd hope so, since the number of people who can make a decision isn't a problem with the policy itself. Cyberbob  Talk  05:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)

We could always just vote on it over say a 3 day period if someone needs their powers revoked, but then again if they are trying to target the wiki then that'ld give them time to do whatever to it. But there does need to be some constraint, the problem is trying to make it fair, effective and resistant to potential abuse. Probably the easiest way in my mind is just to remove the moderators powers and then have the vote on wether they should be permantly de-modded or if it was a mistake? - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:05, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Hm. A retroactive vote, you say. I like it. Removes the potential for a "last-minute" vandalism spree. Cyberbob  Talk  05:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)
There's a good idea. What if Bureaucrats are allowed to keep a mod banned in case of emergency only temporarily, until a "trial" takes place? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:08, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Hmm. This "3-day" thing is perhaps what this policy needs. Rather than a sudden execution, more of an open trial where both sides present a case/evidence, one that is edited to ensure non-flame/fallacious language? From time to time elect members from the Beaus or the the SysOps into part of our impartial judicial system? This could turn into a complex yet viable idea...but isn't quite there yet. Voting and shifting whos on the trial system, so no one person or group stays in power, would help remove a lot of the trust/corruption issues. Hold votes like we do for moderation status. Spread the system to apply mods/beaus/sysops and the same, with 'average' citizens not involved beyond the voting process? --MorthBabid 19:47, 5 October 2006 (BST)
I don't agree with a banning because then the moderator can't defend themselves, if they try to go on a vandalism spree without their powers they'll be stopped very quickly and it'll just confirm what was suspected. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:09, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'm sorry, I was referring about "banning/demoting", not only banning, but I understand your concerns. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:11, 18 September 2006 (BST)
One: undemoted mods can unban themselves. Two: Bureaucrats are the group entrusted with this responsibility. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:12, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Temporarily demote, yes. Ban, no. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:13, 18 September 2006 (BST)
What could a mod possibly do to defend themselves, if definitive proof of their intentions was given? This is unneccessary. Cyberbob  Talk  05:15, 18 September 2006 (BST)
But there's always circumstantial evidence and nonconclusive evidence that should understandably take a revokation, but may be shown to have been in error after the fact. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:19, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Just to know: who thinks Jedaz idea of "temporary preemptive demotions" is the right one? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:17, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I like the idea of permanent pre-emptive demotions, as any demotion would have to be backed up with rock-solid proof. Cyberbob  Talk  05:18, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Where would this "rock solid proof" come from? Anything from any site isn't going to be rock solid as people can easily pose as one of the moderators off this wiki. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:22, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Even if they post in identical manners, have the same habits, and associate with the same people? People have been banned on less before. Are you suggesting we should have a different set of rules applicable to mods? Cyberbob  Talk  06:40, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I don't get it. I meant the idea of giving the Bureaucrats the power to freely demote a moderator should they deem it necessary, and keep that demotion until "some more complicated process" (trial/voting/etc) reachs a conclussion on what kind of guilt does the mod have or not. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:25, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Still no. The mod in question would have to be banned. Others, if they see a flaw in the evidence, could choose to start up an appeal. Cyberbob  Talk  05:30, 18 September 2006 (BST)
How long would the ban be? Would it be a perma/year-ban? If thats what we are voting for I'm not agreeing. The moderator who is being banned/demoted should be able to have a chance to defend themselves otherwise it's not fair at all. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:33, 18 September 2006 (BST)
A preemptive ban accompanying the demotion wuold be a good idea if the moderator in question vandalizes even after being demoted. After all, vandalism by non-moderators is easily handled. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:35, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I think you misunderstand the concept of pre-emptiveness. A pre-emptive ban is one where the banned user isn't given a chance to commit vandalism. Cyberbob  Talk  06:30, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Yeah, I think I did, sorry. I wuold talk from now on only of "preemptive demotions". If the user in question shows the need to take further action against him (ban him because he vandalizes) that wuold be already enough reason to justify his demotion in-wiki, so it wuoldn't fit the cases this policy adresses. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:36, 18 September 2006 (BST)
BUT AT THE MOMENT NO OFFENCE IS PUNISHABLE BY DEMOTION. Cyberbob  Talk  06:40, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Wrong. No offence is expressely punishable by demotion, but in Misconduct cases a Bureaucrat could asign one with no problems. As Bob said: This policy just sets an explicit scenario in which we can do it without any harm having been caused yet, but there is nothing stopping us from removing a mod who has begun causing harm at any time. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 07:13, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. At the moment there is no codified rule where demotion is a punishment, so any demotion will be contested by the nitpickers of the wiki. Cyberbob  Talk  07:15, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Let them squirl and twist as much as they want, kicking the dust off the floor, that's all what they do =P. Talking seriously, even if the final decision of a Misconduct case looks like done by Solomon itself, they will scream, so let them do it: ultimately, who cares? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 07:21, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Good point. I say let's go with Bob's tweak of your trial idea below, but Bob will need to make the actual changes to the policy. Cyberbob  Talk  07:23, 18 September 2006 (BST)
This is because the instance where a person is judged in his abscense should at least tried to be avoided. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:38, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I do. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:19, 18 September 2006 (BST)


It all boils down to this: when electing Bureaucrats, you're stating that you trust them not to abuse their ability to give and remove Moderator powers. Why back out of that trust in the instance that the Moderators you trusted to give Bureaucrat power believe that other Moderators will abuse their power? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:21, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I expect you to be fair and trustworthy. I don't expect you or xoid to be infalliable. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:24, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Keep cool Bob: nobody is saying that we don't trust the Bureaucrat we choosed, but there's a limit of what kind of power you want to give to the ones that are in charge. That is true here as much as in RL. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:25, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Except this is the whole point to being a Bureaucrat: controlling promotions and demotions of moderators. When you voted Bob and Xoid in, that's the kind of power you said you trusted them to have. Cyberbob  Talk  05:28, 18 September 2006 (BST)
There is truth on what you said. But still to give Bureaucrats power "to do what they want" is not the idea, but to do as it's better for the community. Moderators are entrusted users of the community too, allowed to protect, delete, ban, etc. But we still have some restraints on them because there's no reason for them to do that freely. Maybe too many restraints, but some of them are there for a reason. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:32, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Again, if the Bureaucrats start going crazy, and making obviously flawed decisions for petty/invalid reasons, Kevan would have to step in. Holding votes etc. is a bad idea, simply because all of the mod's friends will simply vote to keep them in. That rewards popularity over objectivity, which we shouldn't endorse. Cyberbob  Talk  05:35, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I would expect every sysop to make the decision that's best for the wiki. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:39, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I don't think that a trial, with the Bureaucrats ruling on the tail end of it, should be so bad of an idea. At least the Bureaucrat's decission wuold be backed up. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:41, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Correct, but this policy requires evidence. I couldn't demote Cyberbob if I wanted to, I could demote him if I honestly thought he was going to abuse his power -- and presumably if you voted me in as Bureaucrat, you trusted my judgement to make that decision. If I screwed up, Xoid or Kevan would overrule me. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:37, 18 September 2006 (BST)
What about the bureaucrat's friends hey? Either way it's all to do with what bonds you have with your fellow users. The thing is that if there is a vote that it's less likely for it to be biased in some way. Also with this if we ban the moderator forever that means that they can never use the wiki again because it'ld be circumventing a ban. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:42, 18 September 2006 (BST)
O RLY? Cyberbob  Talk  06:28, 18 September 2006 (BST)
My point is that we would be removing long term contributors to the wiki on no more then a posibiliy. Doesn't that seem a bit off to you? - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 08:42, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Why should we give them any different treatment? You know how the saying goes, Jedaz: "The higher they are, the harder they fall." Cyberbob  Talk  08:50, 18 September 2006 (BST)
So why are we treating the mods differently in this exactly? No user can ever be banned based of suspicion alone. When I banned The Devil it was revoked. Why? Because the user was banned on suspicion and not on any hard facts. (Sorry I took so long to reply, I just had dinner) - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 10:13, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Because they have been entrusted by the regular users to do the right thing by them, and in the very act of vandalism (or, indeed, the act of threatening to vandalise), they are betraying that trust. Cyberbob  Talk  10:17, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Thats grounds for de-moting a moderator but not banning. If a regular user threatened to vandalise then they wouldn't be banned now would they? What? Don't you think that would be treating everyone the same? I can't see why moderators should be banned for a reason that if a regular user did the same they wouldn't be banned. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 10:21, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Because mods should be higher than that. Like I said: they were entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining the wiki. If they abuse that trust, they don't deserve to utilise other people's work which they have worked to undermine. Cyberbob  Talk  10:24, 18 September 2006 (BST)
From M/G, "a Moderator is to be treated as a normal user", so they are higher then that hey? It doesn't sound like it to me. I belive that they abuse the trust at the point where the actually commit the case of vandalism, just like a normal user. Every user is trusted to do whats right for the wiki, which as we all know doesn't happen because otherwise we wouldn't need the M/VB page. I mean, am I wrong when I say that? Infact acording to you people who threaten to vandalise should be perma-banned, and those who do, well should as well, so shouldn't you be perma-banned? You have abused peoples trust while you are a moderator, just look at the vandal data, and yet, you are still here, so why are you still using this resource which you "have worked to undermine"? - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 10:37, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'll think you'll find that that second warning was given for a mistake; a hasty decision which I failed to think through. It wasn't bad faith, but it was stupid and I paid for it accordingly. Cyberbob  Talk  10:44, 18 September 2006 (BST)
But "mods should be higher than that". Common, seriously, everyone makes a mistake here and there and perma-banning them for something less then a possibility is ridiculous. I mean, if we are presuming that people can't reform then we might as well ban Xoid, Conndraka, The General, Bob Hammero, and probably half of the moderator team as they all have commited vandalism at one stage. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 10:57, 18 September 2006 (BST)
This policy doesn't deal with mistakes, Jedaz. It deals with malicious, bad-faith, destructive (even if it is not apparently so) vandalism. And another thing - why are you getting so worked up over this? It's not as though the type of person we're aiming for is one who is a desirable wiki user. Cyberbob  Talk  11:19, 18 September 2006 (BST)
No, it deals with the potential of vandalism, not actual vandalism. And you are right, this policy doesn't deal with mistakes. How can you tell the true intent of a user until they actually do something? Would you like to know my motivation for insisting my point? Here it is, say one day I'm going along and I'm having a bad day, I say some things that I don't really mean and then the next day I find that I've been perma-banned and de-modded because I had a bad day. If I wasn't perma-banned then I could quite easily explain that I was having a bad day for whatever reason and I needed to take it out in some way. Obviously the other moderators wouldn't know that I had a bad day because I wouldn't be able to tell them so they couldn't speak up for me. Do you get my point now as to why we shouldn't ban moderators just for saying that they may vandalise the wiki? - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 11:37, 18 September 2006 (BST)
No, I don't, as we should have more fucking control than that. We cannot afford to risk the kind of vandalism a mod could perform on the basis that they could have had a bad day. It's really a very simple thing to avoid being punished under this policy. Don't say anything. Take it out on something IRL. Should we let people who make bomb threats go on the basis that they could have just been having a bad day? Should we ignore them on the possibility that there wasn't any bomb? Cyberbob  Talk  11:57, 18 September 2006 (BST)
No, we shouldn't let people who make bomb threats go, but whos going to die if the wiki is actually vandalised? It doesn't harm to have a little room to breath. Anyway it's not like you can really talk about self control. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 12:21, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'm not sure how attacking me furthers your side of the argument. If anything, it furthers mine, as it shows your inability to counter my arguments - and so resort to attacking me. I'm not attacking you - I'd appreciate it if you responded in kind. Cyberbob  Talk  12:27, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Actually I was making a point that all of us loose self control even with the best of intentions, I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough for you or anyone else reading this. Also the same goes for profanity you do realize, which I'm sure you do. None the less, I still strongly belive that the banning of a moderator for nothing but a whim is ridiculous. Demotion, yes, banning, definitely not. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 12:36, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Well, you will be free to express that view at the polling booths. Cyberbob  Talk  12:56, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I'd like to clarify something: you guys realize that there is currently no policy regarding the demotion of mods, correct? This policy just sets an explicit scenario in which we can do it without any harm having been caused yet, but there is nothing stopping us from removing a mod who has begun causing harm at any time. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:43, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I know that... And this is going to be no fun for someone who logs on tomorrow to go through. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:45, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I'm not keen on any of the ways of toning this down that I've seen so far, so how about this as an addition: if another moderator believes that the action taken by the Bureaucrat was incorrect, he or she can call for a vote to be held over three days and voted on by Moderators and Bureaucrats. If at least one other Bureaucrat, and 75% of the voting Moderators, believe that the action taken was too severe, they can reverse part or all of it. There will always be at least two Bureaucrats, keep in mind -- there are three currently (Kevan, Xoid, and me). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Sounds OK to me. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:52, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Doesn't sound that good to me. Why a voting? And why the action that could be undone by the other bureaucrat now it has to be undone by him and 75% of the current active mods? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:54, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Voting so that Bureaucrats can have their actions reversed by the Moderators (and another Bureaucrat), but only in the instance that another Moderator takes issue with the action. Other Bureaucrats would always be able to undo the actions -- this would allow Moderators to start an inquiry into the action as well. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:55, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'm happy with this as long as the moderator doesn't get banned and has a chance to contest the decision. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 05:58, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Again: no. The Bureaucrats would carry out whatever action they felt was necessary (none of which are required, just specifically allowed), and if another Moderator felt it was unfair, they could raise the issue. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:18, 18 September 2006 (BST)

I'll make my concerns clear: While votes are good to weight the opinion of the community, a ruling made by a Bureaucrat taking in account several arguments made by the mods and even (if you want to) the normal user's community itself, Misconduct-ish way, wuold be better adressing this kind of cases. While that happens, preemptive temporary demotions and (in last stances) bans are probably as much as I wuold want to give to a Bureaucrat that wants to rule over a mod's status (an user that was choosen by the mayority of the community) without the need of solid proof. Period. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Sorry Matthew, I'm having a hard time making out what you mean... –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:19, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I guessed so =P. Let me say that again: As I see it, there's no need of a final decision to be made by a Bureaucrat alone, and the fact itself that the decision isn't discussed makes it so much weaker and controversial. What I wuold want to is that a Bureaucrat wuold be limited to temporary demotions if he feels that it's needed but has no solid proof or a real in-wiki vandalism to base it on, and after this demotion takes place, a "trial" process starts, where the demoted user and other moderators and anyone that has a valid point to make on the case discuss the case and finally the Bureaucrat, taking in account all these arguments, makes a final ruling if the demotion is neccesary or not. The limit of temporary demotions is set because in this particular case that you want to adress there's no solid proof that the moderator plans to harm the wiki, and he still didn't (it's not like we're reporting a vandalism, having the records on the history and such: they're only suspicions). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:29, 18 September 2006 (BST)
If there were only suspicions, nothing could happen in the first place. Definitive evidence of the mod in question saying straight out that they plan to vandalise the wiki would be what is required for anything to happen. IF someone doesn't think the evidence is strong enough, they can CHOOSE to start up a trial. Cyberbob  Talk  06:35, 18 September 2006 (BST)
So, the process you think of is the next one: Bureaucrat finds some proof that mod is going to make bad things. Bureaucrat demotes the mod and bans him for eternity. If someone thinks that his friend was unfairly banned (face it, to reach mod status you HAVE to have lots of friends, thus will happen everytime) trial starts (Misconduct-ish way).
Now, what I'm saying is that instead of the bureaucrat demoting and banning the mod for eternity or how much time he wishes to, the mod is temporarily demoted, and is allowed to defend himself in the trial (that wuold have happened anyways, Misconduct-ish way too). If the Bureaucrat's suspicion and the prosecutor users prevails, the user's demotion stands and he could be aditionally banned, making the Bureaucrats decision stronger. If the arguments of the demoted mod/his defenders prevails, the mod demotion is reverted, no harm done. BTW I'm talking about "prosecutors" and "defenders" as nicknames for the users that take one side or another, I'm not saying that users should make it that complicated of a trial ^_^. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:48, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Well, who knows what form the evidence could take. Hopefully the time will never come where Xoid or I have to demote someone because we think they're going to hurt the wiki, but the possibility is there. However, Matthew, I think your idea is a good one, but I'd like to tweak it a little. How about this: the Bureaucrat can demote (and ban if necessary) the Moderator in question, and then he or she would start a three-day process in which all Moderators could voice their opinions. After that, the Bureaucrat would confer with all other Bureaucrats, and after they reach a unanimous decision, they will decide what final action should be taken (permanent demotion, bans of whatever length, barring from future promotions, complete restoration of power, whatever). This would require that more than one Bureaucrat make the final decision, and would allow all the Moderators to voice their opinions. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 06:50, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I would assume this wouldn't include Kevan and his alt. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:54, 18 September 2006 (BST)
In my POV it's an improvement. Only one concern: don't only allow Moderators to voice their opinions, but all users that have something of value to add. I know: users use to add themselves on the discussion just for the drama, but sometimes a friend of the mod that participates in the same forum that got him accused/works with him on the same site/etc. could help the case either way. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:57, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Except then you're going to get idiots who think their opinions are always valuable. No. Some things should be mod-only. Cyberbob  Talk  07:12, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Why not? If Kevan wants to have a say, why shouldn't he be allowed to on his wiki? Cyberbob  Talk  06:56, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Actually I can see what kind of concerns does Darth have. Obviously both accounts are of only one user and thus have just one vote, but if Kevan votes "yes" and the other two mods "no", can't Kevan just overrule their decision? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 07:01, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Kevan still has his carte blanche to do what he likes here. And if he had to get involved, things wouldn't get done nearly as fast, because he stays rather uninvolved. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 07:10, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I suppose that Bob was referring to an "unanimous" decision by the active "resident" Bureaucrats, so Kevan's abscense syndrome wuold be no problem. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 07:15, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Kevan is on the wiki more often than you think. He only makes comments on conversations which are either of the utmost importance, or in reply to questions asked of him. Cyberbob  Talk  07:18, 18 September 2006 (BST)
If there is only one active Bureaucrat, Kevan would need to be involved. Otherwise, he wouldn't be unless he wanted to get involved or the active Bureaucrats needed more advice. Either way, Kevan has carte blanche to override anything on the wiki if he wants to. As to whether or not normal users should be able to vote, definitely not. It's already stretching it to bring Moderators into what is really a Bureaucrat decision. Regular users have no place in this process at all. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:35, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Except under this, any banning/demotion would require solid proof, invalidating your argument. Cyberbob  Talk  06:21, 18 September 2006 (BST)
I'm sorry but read above. That fallacy you made makes me suppose you didn't understand what I said. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 06:32, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Bureaucrats

How would this apply to gross misconduct by a bureaucrat? It never addresses it in the policy.--Gage 08:28, 18 September 2006 (BST)

The same thing would happen, except I'd say Kevan would have more of an involvement. Cyberbob  Talk  08:29, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Exactly. The instances of that happening would be far fewer, however, given how few Bureaucrats there are.–Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:39, 18 September 2006 (BST)
If we form some sort of judical system made of equal parts of our "governing bodies" as it were, and voted on shifting whose on those parties from time to time, that'd really help even things out. But yeah: This NEEDS to be addressed in the policy. A paragraph won't cut it. --MorthBabid 08:05, 6 October 2006 (BST)

Banning?

Right, I agree with most of this policy, what I don't like about it is the way in which it could be used to allow a bureaucrat to ban any moderator, without a vandal case, and without any warnings. There are no safeguards on this to prevent bureaucrats infinite banning a moderator without a reason.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:24, 18 September 2006 (BST)

If you look at the huge discussion up here, that was already adressed. We already agreed that the best idea wuold be to allow Bureaucrats to demote and (in last stances) ban only temporarily, and after the demotion is applied a 3 days "trial" process starts where Moderators are allowed to discuss the case and then the active Bureaucrats reach an unanimous decision based in what has been discussed. The only thing that's left is for Bob to update the policy text. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 17:34, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Yup. If the mod in question is found guilty, it's goodnight. They're demoted first to prevent the more... destructive vandal edits. Cyberbob  Talk 
As Cyberbob said. A preemptive ban wuold be (at least I think so) only done if the demoted Mod proves to be an asshole trying to vandalize. He could be banned even if his vandal record doesn't reflect the need of a ban but a warning, and after his trial ends the final duration of his ban and reach of his punishment (demotion or not, barring from the Promotions page or not) wuold be decided. The vandalism itself wuoldn't be something that the Mods haven't already seen, thus it's easily reverted. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:23, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Retroactive?

Should it be retroactive? I think it should be...within reason. Maybe, in the last week or two? Cyberbob  Talk  18:24, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Why wuold this need to be retroactive? Any taget out there? =P. Talking seriously, hardly any policy is, because the obvious flaws of asking people to obey a law before it was even written or, in this case, fit their actions to what can't be defined as counter-productive. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:32, 18 September 2006 (BST)
Except having intent to vandalise is having intent to vandalise is having intent to vandalise. If there is someone already planning a vandal attack, I want to be able to catch them. If it isn't retroactive, they could just see this, stop planning openly and thus avoid punishment. Cyberbob  Talk  18:51, 18 September 2006 (BST)
It could be retroactive for a short while (a month or so should be plenty). –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 23:15, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Intends?

How do you present evidence that someones intends to abuse moderator power? Phrases like "I could demote him if I honestly thought he was going to abuse his power" aren't really evidence of abuse or even conspiracy to abuse. I have no problem with a bureaucrat demoting a moderator for abuse of power because you need that check and balance. BUT, I think the word intends is weak and too open to interpretation. Demotion should be based on a clear act of abuse, which should be a violation of existing guidelines. Not thought crime, not future crime, but actual acts. Bubba 06:58, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I was thinking something similar. De-modding someone based solely on their alleged intent, without their having actually done something corroborative of that intent, strikes me as both difficult (unless the B'crats have access to some kind of Vulcan Mind Meld that I'm unaware of :) ) and unfair. --Centerfire 09:58, 24 September 2006 (BST)
I was just about to post the same question, Bubba. Have you all seen Minority Report? What next - a policy to ban users whose future relatives are predicted of thinking of intending to perhaps keep their library book out two days later than the deadline? How about a policy where the mods chill out a bit? --Funt Solo 15:03, 24 September 2006 (BST)
I'd vote for that one! --Dog Deever T•Nec 23:55, 1 October 2006 (BST)

Policy Dead?

Well it's been like a month of discussion, is it dead? Does it live? Whats next? Shall we vote? You Decided (or Bob does). Pillsy FT 19:19, 16 October 2006 (BST)

Yeah, this policy is dead in the water. I never really saw the need for this policy; misconduct handles 'most everything and preemptively banning someone just doesn't seem to get support. –Xoid S•T•FU! 19:42, 16 October 2006 (BST)
Are we really going to joke ourselves as to why this policy was created in the first place? It's clear as day as to why this was created.
Matthewfarenheit said:
(Jedaz) actually got forced to present a request for his own demotion in fear of being punished even harder by the harsh administration of this place
I don't trust Bob Hammero's judgement any more, not after I was forced out of being a moderator by this policy. I tried to explain to him that I didn't mean what I said. Well whatever, thats in the past now I guess. But obviously since this isn't going through it's obvious to everyone that it was only ever designed to target me. - Jedaz - 11:01/19/04/2024 13:35, 17 October 2006 (BST)
I'm amazed this isn't standard policy. Theres nothing worse than an immoderate moderator. User:Theseveredband 2:48 20 October {BST}
Well since it is dead then is there any chance this policy can be removed? Pillsy FT 10:56, 25 October 2006 (BST)
Yeah after sitting around for a month I think its dead too. Bob can resurect it should he choose. Moving to withdrawn. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 18:17, 25 October 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Power_Abuse&oldid=437205"