UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Misconduct Review

Discussion

I think there should be a stand alone procedure for just demoting sysops, but this is a way to make a misconduct verdict actually something to be afraid of. I have the rules about the conversation being on the talk page because it always tends to get off topic on any case. --– Nubis ^NWO 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read it all the way through, but yeah, we need this. Just one thing-if a sysop does something really stupid (think Grim,) can they be put up for reassessment immediately? After the past few weeks, we really need that bit about "Misconduct but no punishment," with the amount of baseless cases that have been brought up. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't read like the thing is set up in a way that it bars the current punishment method of A/M. So more than likely this is only going to be an alteration to how frequent offenders are treated.--Karek^maps?! 09:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the "long way" to clean up a sysop that can't follow the rules. It does not trump sysops deciding that one act is enough to be demoted over. --– Nubis ^NWO 09:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. This doesn't cover a user asking for a reassessment, does it? That doesn't really matter-sysops should only really be demoted if they break the rules, anyway. Finally, are 'crats able to be demoted this way-there is an obvious conflict of interest, there. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I just answered my own question via the edit summaries. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If it is a crat up for review then only 1 crat gets a vote. I don't see that as a problem since the "lone vote" won't likely be an attempt to create a crat opening, if you know what I mean. Besides, if it is a crat up for review then that is rather serious.

No, this doesn't cover asking for a reassessment, however, it is something that I have been working on. I think this is a great start and will hopefully head off any half-assed attempts at a policy just to get a policy.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's true. A reassessment policy will be something we'll have to get right the first time, as a bad one could lead to massive drama. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look too bad. Reasonably solid as it is. -- Cheese 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, with the public vote, will I be able to abstain, even though it basically won't count for anything? Linkthewindow  Talk  10:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No. what's the point of posting that you have no opinion? That always bothers me in A/PM, too. It's like you are trying to get your edit count up by making worthless edits. --– Nubis ^NWO 12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more so you can make a point without having to lean ether way-"Example User does this right and this wrong. I'm on the fence here..." But, then again, abstentions are more suited for a system where the 'crats do the decision, not a popular vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstaining serves the purpose of showing that you don't think they should be promoted, or in this case demoted, but only because you are indifferent or put into a place where you aren't quite sure of which side to choose. It's making your voice heard along with why you aren't choosing a side in the hopes that it is addressed and considered.--Karek^maps?! 13:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I concede your point on the Abstain vote and will edit to reflect that. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Simply too bureaucratic. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

With the recent trend of wiki lawyers I don't think it is bureaucratic enough. If there was a way I could add every possible interpretation of the intent, I would. --– Nubis ^NWO 12:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me simplify it. 3 strikes and you are out. Unless the ump is blind. --– Nubis ^NWO 12:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. It's not that the policy is too specific or too hard to understand, it's that the process is too rigid and convoluted. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Midianian, this is way too bureaucratic... I couldn't get through the whole thing.

As it stands, we already have a de facto "Misconduct-but-no-punishment" vote. People vote that way all the time. So, why fix what ain't broke? And what you desire is already the case, in so far as if someone comes up on Miconduct, then the team can basically review their record and judge whether it needs to go to a demotion vote. That is exactly what's happening with J3D right now. So, again, why try to fix what ain't broke? --WanYao 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell Iscariot that we have a Misconduct but no Punishment vote. He went after Hag for putting "slightly misconduct" in the archive. The point is to make it a deterrent, not to make it a process to go through. You shouldn't want to gamble on getting a Misconduct vote.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he is trying to both make the guidelines a bit clearer for such a demotion attempt, and make the "Misconduct but no punishment" vote more formal. That said, though I was not the creator of this policy. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't have three types of votes because then you can't achieve a majority one way or the other. Imagine 10 voters: 4 vote Not Misconduct, 3 vote Misconduct, 3 vote Minor Misconduct. Now what? Do you "merge" the two types of Misconduct votes together? If so, you have the same system as we have now. As I said: overly bureaucratic and it ain't broke anyhoo. --WanYao 13:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Majority wins. It does say The majority of votes by the sysops will be counted as that outcome. In the event of a 3/3/3 vote we will need to decide if "Misconduct but no punishment" will get lumped with Not Misconduct in a show of good faith or if it will count as a Misconduct = Misconduct vote. For the sake of review, I don't think a MBNP decision should be weighed obviously. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, in that sitution this is no majority -- just a pluraility. That's my whole point. I don't want people beng misconducted -- or not Misconducted -- because of minority vote situations. That's a VERY bad system.

Your "solution" just adds more fucking red tape, more pointless and unnecessary votes and more fucking procrastinating to the whole procedure. As I keep saying, grow some balls and do your jobs. Without all the nancy prancing about in fields of pretty red tape. You vote misconduct/not misconduct. No half-assed fence-walking. Then, if it's misconduct, you figure out a punishment. It could be possible to have "minor misconduct" be a subcategory of "misconduct".... but guess what? That's basically the status quo!!

Seriously... since when did you fall in love with bureacracy, nubis?? --WanYao 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing that is broken is that we have no real procedure to call for a No Confidence vote or a review of a sysop. If there is a set time to do that then no one can reasonably complain. Like I said, 3 strikes and you're out (or maybe not). This doesn't override the ability to call for No Confidence vote on 1 case, but it makes it clear that habitual abusers will get called to task. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Good point. I haven't thought of that. My thoughts are ether a "runoff" election, or just a majority of the votes (ie: in your example, the 4 vote would win.) Both have problems (and hell, the second one has some darn obvious ones.) Linkthewindow  Talk  13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet it works out in Suggestions and Deletions. This would be much equivalent to Kill/Spam and Merge/Delete. Misconduct is misconduct is misconduct, the discussion about punishment comes after determination of whether it is misconduct in the first place.--Karek^maps?! 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And demotion votes should not be taken to the general userbase. There are damn good reasons it's not done this way.

That being said, I still think that the general userbase should have the chance to do scheduled "performance" reviews of sysops. This would act just like a promotion bid, except the other way around. The community would comment and then the 'crats would make a decision to keep or demote based on that input. --WanYao 13:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the general user base shouldn't get a vote, but if it is just sysops weighing in on demotion you get the outcry of witch hunt. I was trying for a check and balance. I don't think we should have a public reassessment vote for sysops. (at least not forced) because it would hinge too much on the "mood" of the users at that time. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that I said if the general users don't get the required amount of votes (20 for now) and 2/3 majority it is counted as a Keep. I don't want this to be an instant axe, but I do want to consider all points of view. If the public has a set forum where they can post their concerns it will allow those that have opinions but aren't "ballsy" enough to "interrupt" a case have their say. Posting on A/M when not a sysop is probably very intimidating to some users.

I don't think there should really be a scheduled review time (what if it just so happens when a user goes on hiatus? do they get a free ride or the axe?), but this will give a DEFINITE time when a sysop needs to be reviewed.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of sysops have done something like that previously-both Vista and Hagant have put themselves up for reassessment. I'll be happy if a decent reassessment policy (fixing the flaws in the idea,) gets voted in. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty good idea, but the confidence vote could be simplified to "reverse promotions," as in all users vote on the bid and then the bureaucrats make a decision. --ZsL 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very loath to give the 'crats power over demotions personally. There have been plenty of times in just the last year where I think that would have led to horribly abuse.--Karek^maps?! 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is making it like bureaucrat promotions by leaving it up completely to community vote. The procedure in the policy seems a bit too much. --ZsL 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Never. The public doesn't always know what work the sysops are actually doing and can't always evaluate how they use their powers. They vote based only on their personal opinion of a user. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a great example. Swiers. He's a great guy, has done a lot for the wiki, but other than dropping out of the Crat elections what other sysop functions does he perform? He doesn't weigh in on A/VB,A/M, A/MR, etc. He's "harmless" because he doesn't rub users the wrong way, but he really isn't a sysop either. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

He is a really nice guy, but that is a good point. --ZsL 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why there's a push to make it a 'crat driven decision, I don't like it though and I certainly don't think we have to go to the two extremes of Anarchy or Tyranny. I'm more of the mind that we should give the sysop decision as much weight as the 'crat decision and require both to match up for a demotion, that of course would mean 'crats aren't regarded as part of the sysop decision. I'm not suggesting that the user commentary be given the same weight because at this point I believe it is obvious to everyone that the purpose of the general community commentary is to help inform the decision, not to control it due to the possible issues that would bring into the picture.--Karek^maps?! 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tl;dr? 3 crats with borgops being a hive-crat and unanimity of the 'crat votes for demotion. borgops vote with one voice, that of their majority.--Karek^maps?! 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Petition Kevan to make the judgment in this rare circumstance? Meh. This policy, while a bit complicated, is at least a stepping stone into fixing some problems, and I support it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think that Kevan's reply will be "what does the policy say"? And if we say we don't have one he will tell us to make one and get off his lawn.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Kevan thing was a joke really. We could vote in a policy removing his Owner's Veto ability, and he probably wouldn't even notice. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be funny! Then we could hold elections to see who would be the Kevan and give them "absolute power" for a term. Start writing! --– Nubis ^NWO 20:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i'd support that.----Sexualharrison 12:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hangover + Words = Bad

So a misconduct case, AND a review AND 3 more votes? and what exactly is the point of the public vote? as it seems that the final decision is still with the crats.

Also. It seems to say "Don't do misconduct, (but if you do as long as you also maintain the wiki that's fine.)"

Also. who does this review and deems a 'sops contributions satisfactory? It didn't seem clear.

Finally. NEVER drink two bottles of wine in an hour. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's saying don't expect to "get away" with misconduct unless you actually contribute a lot. The sysops review the contributions.

The point of the final vote is so that if someone is demoted this way you can go back and say that it was a "majority" decision. If it is just the sysops/crats that have complete power and input on demotion then it reinforces the "clique" belief. The sysop in question can still be demoted even if the public likes them, but in theory it will give the Crats more information when they are making their vote. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it gives more information, but why is it a vote? you don't get voted into sysopship by the community. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a deciding vote by the community. It is more like taking an opinion poll. It could actually be changed to a petition honestly. Sign if you want to save the sysop. It's just that a vote lets users express more than just a YES/NO. Unless I misunderstood your question.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think im just bothered about the language. It's not really a vote is it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the wine has made you foggy. To simplify: It is a 3rd Misconduct case, then a review (IF and only IF there isn't a consensus among the sysops/crats about the candidate during the review - THEN there is a vote.) The voting should be a very rare occurrence. It should all end with the review. The only way a vote should be needed is if the sysops are really torn on a sysop and the crats don't want to make a decision. The voting won't come into play unless the sysop is deemed UNSATISFACTORY. If you are a sysop that can't contribute enough for the other sysops to go - meh, he's ok - then you probably need to go. Which is more than likely what would happen with a vote anyway.

I could just edit the policy to stop there. But I really believe the users need at least somewhat of a voice in the process so I included them in a vote to give them the chance to air issues. I suppose the policy could just read 3 misconduct decisions and you are out - hope you don't piss off the people that will be voting on your cases!--– Nubis ^NWO 23:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's saying don't expect to "get away" with misconduct unless you actually contribute a lot. I really hate the way this came out on second reading. I can't quite figure out how I want to say it though. I'm not suggesting that working hard is a Get Out of Jail free card. It is just that your good should outweigh your bad. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, Ross... this is overly bureaucratic. Meh. --WanYao 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been lifted straight from Nubis' talk page, so it could do with some formatting. I agree that it could do with a toning down of bureaucracy, but at the same time, things should be clear when it comes to things like this. Demotions are full of drama, and we don't need loopholes. At the same time though, a very complex policy leads to wikilawyering... gah. It's a fine line. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

How's this:

• After vote in favour of Misconduct is concluded, if two (2) sysops call for a "Confidence Vote", then the issue is automatically taken to an immediate vote. There will be no discussion or comments permitted on others' votes, just "Yes" or "No" or "Abstain".

There. That's almost all you need. None of this wannabe UN committee bullcrap. --WanYao 13:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the way you have it there after EVERY A/M case we could be going through that for unpopular sysops. Or you could have a sysop that is popular in some way, but can't follow the rules and never get called out. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Two things-sysops only, or all users, and it would be worth noting that discussion could take place on the talk page. Other then that, I can't see any problems with it, but it's half past twelve here, and my brain isn't working. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, the point of the weighing in of the community, which happens along with the sysop weighing in, is much the same as a voluntary performance review; To gauge their standing in the community after serving for some time. The reason it's not left to a majority vote is the same reason why we don't have majority demotions and why they have failed nigh infinite times as they have been proposed without any alteration; Number votes are meaningless on a wiki or any group forum where the votes aren't cast from a group well familiarized with the user and their history. No discussion on the votes is just foolish, there should be plenty of discussion in regards to demotion of a sysop simply because of the nature of the act. This wannabe UN committee bullcrap is more in the spirit of the wiki than the wannabe congress bullcrap that would lead to the vote being driven purely on the user's cult of personality.--Karek^maps?! 13:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The point of no discussion is simple... Lots of discussion will already have taken place before any of this goes down. At that point, once you're at the demotion vote, then it's time to shut the fuck up. And, there will always be room on the Talk page to blather and engage in MOAR DRAMAHZ. Because that's the whole point of no talking during this final: to cut out the drama-whoring, i.e. to take it seriously, as opposed to using the vote as yet another stage for posturing and showboating. --WanYao 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for A/PD and yet there is almost always clear and relevant discourse that leads to vote changes in almost every policy proposed.--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues

After thinking about it longer, I now think something like this is needed. However, I see a several of issues with the policy:

1. Misconduct but No Punishment is too long a term. Minor Misconduct would be better?
2. Why clump Unsubstantiated and Misconduct but No Punishment together? Do you mean that MbNP would function similarly to Unsubstantiated, that a case could be completely removed with three of those rulings? If not, why is it a separate ruling? The multiple-choice voting introduces problems, which could be easily avoided by declaring a case as Misconduct but No Punishment (or Minor Misconduct) after the case is over if it was ruled Misconduct but no punishment was given.
3. I don't like the 6 month ban from promotions. If someone is demoted, it is highly unlikely they would be promoted within six months. It's just pointless having it there.
4. Lastly, the policy is quite messy and unclear. It should be organized and cleaned up.

--Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been cases (against Grim, for example) that weren't even sysop power related. He commented on someone's talk page and they didn't like so they made a Misconduct case because Grim told them it wasn't vandalism. Now, is it fair that that case should count on his record (even though it was voted Not Misconduct) when it wasn't even eligible? Unsubstantiated is a way of dealing with cases like that. Or one's like J3D's case against boxy. It's the 3 speedy delete votes if you will. Any case that gets another vote either Misconduct or Not Misconduct before it gets 3 U votes will be carried out to completion. The Unsub votes can then be counted as Not Misconduct if the voters do not change their opinions.

MbNP is the way of saying this is a violation of the policies, but the sysop team doesn't feel they need to do any more. It may be a long term, but it is quite clear on the desired outcome. You need different levels of misconduct because as I said - banning a user and deleting an image aren't exactly equal in power abuse. You can't have "Minor Misconduct" because again the question of what punishment should apply if this is minor comes up. It's either Not Misconduct, Misconduct (and you start down the road to a review) or it is Misconduct but not worthy of potentially getting you demoted however not something you can get away with at your pleasure.

If you look over someone's record and see several Not Misconduct outcomes you will think that the cases were just misunderstandings or something. If you see several MbNP outcomes then you will realize that this sysop has some issues. If you see Misconduct outcomes you know that they shouldn't be a sysop.

The 6 month thing is there to show that even a demoted sysop has potential to clean up their act and get back in there. Just not right away. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I get what Unsubstantiated means and I'm in no way opposed to it. I get what MbNP means, and as a way of recording a case into the archives, I'm not opposed to it either. But... firstly I don't get why you've listed the two as a combined ruling on the policy (which would imply that they work similarly):

Cases will have 3 dispositions: "Misconduct","Not Misconduct", and "Unsubstantiated/Misconduct but No Punishment".

Secondly, I don't get why it has to be a separate ruling. It could just as well be achieved the way I described above. Looking at a sysop's Misconduct history it'd still read Misconduct but No Punishment, but the process would be simpler.

And about Minor Misconduct: I simply meant it to be a shorter term with the same meaning as MbNP. It quite clearly establishes that it's not on the same level as Misconduct and is much more comfortable to use than "Misconduct but No Punishment" or "MbNP". --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, I didn't realize we were talking formatting here. Sorry. Actually, the grouping of Unsub/MbNP was a bit of an accident. I forgot to separate them. I will change MbNP to Minor, but hopefully it will be clear that there is no punishment for Minor. Anything else? --– Nubis ^NWO 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much. Could do with some more headers, just to make it look a bit tidier. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Major change to fight the bureaucracy monster

I think I see part of the problem. The 3 strike review of the sysop should be sysop/crat only. The public shouldn't weigh in on that. If that review comes up Unsatisfactory then it goes to the public voting part. I think the way it reads is that both reviews are involving the users. Sorry. I did not mean it that way. Sometimes when you read something over and over you stop seeing what it says and only see what you think it said. I'm editing it to change that. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe add that the general wiki public should be able to comment on the talk page? Linkthewindow  Talk  04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and you might want to state the obvious-in the event that a crat is demoted, then another voting round opens immediately. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Except in a misconduct case all talk is supposed to be on the main page. I do still consider this part of a misconduct case, so it should follow those rules. I suppose there could be a section for them at the bottom.

I can add that bit in. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Having the long bid on the misconduct page would just make it harder to follow both. Probably best to just make a separate page called Misconduct Review or Sysop Review for that purpose.--Karek^maps?! 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point.--– Nubis ^NWO 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid question-would it be a subpage of A/DM or A/M? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, I answered my own question. A/M, if anyone's wondering. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Still needlessly over-complicated.

For example, after you've misconducted 3 times someone AND ruled them unsatisfactory... why the fuck does it need to go to any kind of vote???? You've already gathered more than enough reason to just fucking demote them.

Have some fucking BALLS and do your jobs and demote people when it's appropriate. --WanYao 11:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SURELY it would be easier to say something like

"If a sysop has 3 rulings of Misconduct against him within a certain time his position must be reviewed by the rest of the sysop team. The issue of Demotion must be raised." --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking old rulings

Can old misconducts be striked, like vandalism warnings? Obviously not such a short time (a month, 250 edits,) what about six months and one thousand edits? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct seems to be recorded on A/VD and I haven't found a policy that applies just to A/M decisions so I'm pretty sure that it is the same. --– Nubis ^NWO 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... okay. That means that a sysop would have to have three miscounducts in a few months in order to get rassessed right? Linkthewindow  Talk  06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood you. No, you can't strike a misconduct for the purpose of review. That would defeat the point of the review. With the changes in voting outcome (adding Minor Misconduct) it is pretty serious to get 3 misconduct votes. If you haven't done anything to get a Satisfactory review then you probably need to go anyway.

When a case comes up, more than likely someone is going to check the sysop's record and notice if they are on their 3rd case or when their last review was. That's why I am saying to record all reviews in the archives.

I've always thought that it was pointless to have sysops fall under the 250 edits/one month rule to make a misconduct go away since it is easy for sysops to get 250 edits with all of the users (like you) that drop potential edits at their feet. Just lurk any A/ page and whammo - instant 250. --– Nubis ^NWO 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Your right-if we where to implement a striking clause, the sysop would have to have several thousand edits for it to be useful, 250 is much to little. Although I don't think we should, with the minor misconduct vote. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)