UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibit Sysop Misconduct Self-Punishment

Adminy stuff

With your permission I'd like to move this to "/Prohibit Sysop Misconduct Self-Punishment", both to fix that typo and to make it fit a bit more with the slightly more generic text. Cyberbob  Talk  10:40, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Let me at least comment on the bloody policy before edit conflicting me!! ;P Yes... Move it, please and thanks. --WanYao

tis done. Cyberbob  Talk  10:51, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Policy Discussion

I am proposing this policy so that, in the future, potentially controversial situations such as this can be avoided. To me it seems common sense that the person being "punished" shouldn't decide what their penalty should be. In effect, that's what the status quo in Misconduct allows -- or potentially allows -- to happen. I propose we close this loophole. --WanYao 10:43, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I think it's a good-ish idea, though this really could be solved simply by the other sysops dealing out whatever punishment they would have given anyway on top of the self-inflicted stuff. Failing that, though, this is fine. Cyberbob  Talk  10:47, 6 September 2009 (BST)

You're right, in theory. The problem in practice is that, as it stands, if a sysop "pulls a nubis" :) and bans themselves, discussion can be too easily closed just by a 'crat saying something like this...

boxy said:

"Nubis has banned himself for 24hrs, so this case is pretty much closed"

This is what made people upset: the immediate shutting down of the discussion. Even if there was nothing official about it, the "power of the suggestion" is too strong, as so it the possibility of abuse -- or perception of abuse. Better to close the loophole, imo. --WanYao 11:02, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Okies. Cyberbob  Talk  11:05, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I agree with this. It isn't really much of a punishment if you do it yourself. Also, cutting off a discussion is bad. I must say I like Bob's "on top off" method. This way we can just ignore the self-ban, and we don't need to make a separate misconduct case for it like Jed did.--Thadeous Oakley 11:38, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Imo it just makes more sense, and is easier and more straightforward, to disallow the sysop from banning themselves. Although the abuse argument is legit (I made it after all), I don't think it's a necessary argument for this policy to make sense. "Just ignoring" the self-bans, etc. makes things too complicated and has the potential to lead to more drama than just banning self-bans, period. Make sense? --WanYao 17:52, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Isn't much of a punishment if you do it yourself? What, when someone like Cheese pushes the button it hurts more or something? They push the button EXTRA HARD to make that much more of a point? If the accused isn't fighting the punishment then no matter who applies it it won't have any more meaning.

How can you say it shut down all conversation? I wasn't going to be in there defending myself so clearly they could have continued on had there been anything more to discuss. It wasn't like there was even a tie or a chance of any different outcome. Did you just want them to go on and maybe come up with a lesser punishment or slap on the wrist? That's what normally happens in cases that drag on on A/M and then you all bitch about how the sysops let each other off too easily. Out of the last few cases that have been voted Misconduct how many actually ended with a punishment (other than the ones I inflicted on myself)? Seriously, I would love to know if anyone else has looked into that.

Other than J3D's demotion what was the last punishment given out by the sysop team? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

How many cases have we had that just grind to a halt with a tie vote and no one can be arsed enough to actually do anything other than archive it undecided?

So, which is better? A case that actually ends with a punishment or one that drags out until it is a slap on the wrist and a wag of the old finger? You seem to want that to be the case since you are so adamant about dragging on discussion.

It's not like the community can't pipe in during a case. All comments are to be made on the main page and not the talk page on A/M. It's not like someone couldn't go to a Crat's talk page and say, hey, I don't think that is fair, can you re-open that case?

But, no, making a policy is a much better idea that completely makes sense.

Wan hates things that are difficult and would actually require some thought about how they should be applied and used. That's probably one of those lines in the guidelines that he would like to get rid of. Why don't we write tons of policies and then give everyone sysop powers? That would be fair. If there is no room for sysop discretion in anything then everyone can be a sysop. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:15, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Of course it all comes down to something that will permit you to call me a name. Good argument there, Nubis. --WanYao 01:11, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Two words: "troll baby". Cyberbob  Talk  01:19, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Actually, the phrase I usually use is "troll-child". Note, also, the use of the hyphen. Thanks. --WanYao 02:52, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Just going by your little dummy spit in IRC yesterday. Cyberbob  Talk  02:57, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Other than J3D's demotion what was the last punishment given out by the sysop team? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? - Oookkaayy... i want this camera of yours removed from my house. I was watching this movie yesterday. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:35, 7 September 2009 (BST)

sysops should not issue their own bans in any circumstances other than them needing an enforced break. Simply put if the ban is for less than 24 hours there is nothing to stop them effectively avoiding the ban by issuing it before they go to bed and thus sleeping through a very large portion of it, if its longer a similar effect can be achieved if they happen to ban themselves for the weekend. I am not saying this has happened but there is no reason to make it easy to do and arguments that this rule would prevent a sysop holding his hands up and saying "no contest" are nonsense. They could still do it and let the next 'op to come online issue the ban--Honestmistake 12:26, 7 September 2009 (BST)

"Sysops should not issue their own bans". Exactly. It's that simple.

This policy is not about the severity of "punishments". It's not about "strangling" anyone. It's about common sense.

Sysops should not issue their own bans. I'm not sure why anyone would take that sensible and reasonable suggestion as some kind of assault on sysops' ability to do their jobs. --WanYao 15:51, 7 September 2009 (BST)

What is the difference in who issues the ban if the ban is the same? By saying that it has to be someone else you are just enforcing the idea that you want it all to be punitive. That's pretty damn petty.

What was the last punishment given out on an A/M misconduct case voted Misconduct?

These are two good points that no one has a response to. And the idea that you could apply your ban so that you get most of it while you are sleeping just goes to show me how too involved in this place you are, Honest. Next are you going to propose that bans are broken up into 16 hour segments making sure to only be applied while the user is likely to be online as determined by the IP time zone? --– Nubis ^NWO 23:30, 7 September 2009 (BST)

To respond to your questions, in order.

a) Of course a Misconduct penalty has a punitive element. However this policy is not about about creating stiffer penalties -- no matter how much you try to assert that it is. What I am suggesting -- and I'm not sure why I have to say this over and over and over again -- is that sysops should not issue their own bans. It's a conflict of interest issue. It doesn't stop anyone from pleading "No contest" in the manner boxy described below. It's a straightforward, logical suggestion the reasoning behind which I'd think would be self-evident.

As for the stuff Honestmistake said about tweaking the system, etc... Honestmistake said that. Not me. I don't agree with or endorse those statements and they have nothing to do with the letter or the spirit of my policy. So please keep them seperate from my position.

b) What relevance does that have? Imnsho absolutely zilch. --WanYao 00:30, 8 September 2009 (BST)

So, why is Misconduct punitive but vandal banning isn't? That's a might double standard there. If it is punitive why doesn't it have a better punishment ladder? What power does misconduct have over a sysop?

As I've clearly shown - NONE. Maybe you should be fixing the actual process of Misconduct cases instead of attacking me (one of the few sysops that actually suggests -and applies- a punishment on a case)? What you are setting up here that you continue to ignore is a situation where the other sysops can "talk down" the punishment.

Here's why I don't like your little idea about sysops not being able to ban themselves. It would piss me off if I was in the middle of something (orphans/category/templates whatever) and got banned because I didn't quit all my work and join the drama bomb that is a misconduct case. Sometimes, life and work go on even when your name is on A/M.

Why in the hell is it unreasonable for someone that accepts the punishment and is capable of doing it to not be able to do it when they have come to a stopping point in their work? Because, contrary to your little view of me, I actually do work on here that isn't A/M fodder or ignoring red tape. I do dull things like adding instructions and categories to templates, linking orphans, and unmerging locations.

But, no, let's not fix the main problem (Misconduct). Let's just make a policy that probably only has one precedent in the history of the wiki. There's a pressing need for a policy!! --– Nubis ^NWO 15:14, 8 September 2009 (BST)

No contest

Basically what is going on in these cases is that the sysop is pleading "no contest" to the case, and taking a punishment that is over and above what is going to be the likely outcome. This is a good thing. I've done it before, despite disagreeing with the ruling (when I re-banned grim preemptively).
Even if you don't agree that this is what happened in the recent case, it's still not a reason to ban all instances of a sysop agreeing to ban themselves to finish cases without going through days of pointless drama.
If a sysop tries to abuse this, by picking a penalty below what the rest of the team thought was appropriate, they wouldn't be able to get away with it anyway, because the discussion can still continue if anyone thinks they deserve more -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:09 6 September 2009 (BST)

This policy isn't intended to affect sysops pleading "no contest" in the manner you outlined. That could still be done. The intent of the policy is simply to disallow a sysop from taking the physical action of banning themselves: another sysop would have to physically implement the agreed upon ban. Would that slow the system down a bit, and allow the opportunity for more debate (or somethimes drama)? Yes, it would: that is part the point. But at least as important is the idea of closing the loophole which can rightly be seen a bit of a non sequitor at best -- a blatant conflict of interest at worst -- i.e. the punishee enacting the punishment themselves.

Also, to make it perfectly clear, this affects only Misconduct cases -- it is not intended to affect the times when a sysop might ask for a "voluntary ban" via A/VB, for example as I think hagnat and SA(?) have done in the past to force a "break" from the wiki on themselves. --WanYao 17:41, 6 September 2009 (BST)

It's not a conflict of interest at all. It's something that a sysop can do to make it easier on the rest of the sysop group, by taking the punishment themselves, and making it so that none of the others have to bring out the banstick on an otherwise productive member of the community. I see no point in making another sysop do the physical banning... in fact I can see discussion just lingering as they debate how over the top the chosen punishment may be. The only reason J3D started bitching was because "discussion just stopped". He's a drama-whore, all that needed saying, had been said (wall'o'text)
This policy is going to achieve nothing but to increase the drama potential of the current troublemakers and serial whingers -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:01 8 September 2009 (BST)

Let me get this straight. So, you basically want A/M to become walls of text, J3D/Bob quip central, repetitive arguments, and pointless drama? You want to insult the other sysops (again) by saying that they are too weak willed to continue on a discussion when someone takes an action on a case? You want the whole process to be drawn out and pointlessly argued back and forth allowing many parties that are not involved to get their say in when they are saying either the exact same thing as the other sysops or aren't even following the whole debate?

You think this will somehow help the wiki by preventing a mea culpa action? Is the real problem the fact that I don't see a 24 hour ban as a scary thing? Is it the fact that Misconduct has no real authority since the "Popularity Vote" policy effectively nerfed it?

The problem is that there is no real ladder in Misconduct because every case has to be decided on its' own merits. (although many people do hold grudges and make it quite clear that they are voting on them) You think every case should be on the page for a certain amount of time? What about the ones that are voted Not Misconduct? Should those stay on there to be debated ad nauseam in case some rogue sysop pops in with a Misconduct vote at the last minute? Since it seems that many people think no matter when a vote is cast that it should be counted.

And how is the idea of double punishment fair at all? Are you really afraid that someone is going to come along in a case like those and say YES! THIS IS THE DEMOTION CASE! Hag had several Misconduct cases and Grim only had the one but clearly the gravity of the case determined the outcome. Even in J3D's case the abuse of checkuser information is much more serious than deleting an image that is a copyright violation and clearly didn't belong on the wiki. To be honest, a 24 hour ban was serious overkill for that action, but since I hate the pointless drama and really dislike giving that tribe any attention I ended it with the first punishment suggested. It seems Cheese really had a hard on for banning me because he thinks I am a problem child.

But, I like how everyone is rallying around to save their precious "porn" and can ignore all the evidence I had that the website it was taken from strictly prohibits the use of their property and somehow this wiki's policy of having to be "requested to be removed" trumps US Copyright Laws. That's rather egotistical of this place. It's almost like people didn't read the case and just saw my name and the word deletion and voted based on that. But that's just paranoia right? Not like people are going to go around making policies JUST based on me?

Oh, wait...

But, yes, Wan, let's make more policies to strangle this place. Maybe instead of writing a policy like this people should just stop uploading inappropriate or "illegal" images in the first place? We shouldn't have to have a debate on what porn is. This is supposed to be a game resource as everyone cries about, not some playground for trolls that have nothing better to do than to push limits. The argument that if violence is allowed that sex should be allowed is asinine as well since this is a wiki for a game about zombies and not some Second Life cybersex wiki. Offensive names are banned, obscene page titles are deleted, but should someone post an image of a chick with a coke bottle shoved up her cooch that is somehow art and must be protected and debated on? What the fuck is wrong with you people that you can't see how inappropriate that is for what this place is?

I'm not talking about "think of the children!". I am speaking about the basic core of what this place is. It's about the text based game. It should be neutral articles on weapons, skills, locations, and search/combat rates. But no, that would be a boring place that only first time players would visit. This has to be a hot bed of drama and in-fighting otherwise no one would come back. But, at the same time the self righteous on here cry that the drama is what scares away the new users!! Give me a break.

You want to debate and discuss the hell out of every case on A/M then so be it. I'm not even getting warmed up here yet.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:00, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I'm seriously not even reading this. From the very first sentence I can tell that you're not even paying attention to what's been said. Because everything I have said refutes your hyperbolic allegations.

It's come down to: you see my name, you oppose whatever it is I wrote. It's become that simple, thar knee jerk with you, Nubis: Wan proposed a change, and it's obviously unnecessary crap meant to strangle the sysops. It's not even worth wasting the time to argue with you, because you obviously don't even read my words nevermind understand them and respond to them appropriately.

And guess what? Now you can use this reply as fodder for how uncooperative and bullheaded I allegedly am. Brilliant! And utterly predictable. Well... whatever. --WanYao 01:20, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Wow... I actually read parts of that. It'd be hard to get much more off topic, more hysterical, more tinfoil-hat-wearing than that rant. This policy has nothing to do with definitions of pornography, with strangling you as a sysop, or with any of your other apparent obsessions. You seem to be opposed to this policy for two reasons: a) I wrote it and b) it's simple and it makes sense. --WanYao 07:12, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Well, you can understand how he could be confused or feel hostile, this policy was (I assume) launched after he gave himself a punishment the other day. So, it's natural for him to be annoyed. What he did is also perfectly legal under what the rules currently are. Obviously, or there'd be no need to create this policy. But that means that he was fine to do it, and this, accompanied by the second misconduct case he was given, makes him look and feel like he was in the wrong, which he technically wasn't. At the same time, this is a fairly important issue, as a sysop punishing himself could cause unnecessary levels of drama to exude from a single case. (Like that doesn't happen frequently enough). The major point here is that it eliminates the conversation from continuing, which may be a good thing, but it also stops other parties from stating their opinions, ones which might not have been considered. So, this does need a look-through, whether you feel it's deflammatory or not, Nubis.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:34, 8 September 2009 (BST)

before this goes any further... i just realised how this does negate the ability to call "no contest". i hope to discuss that problem when i come home this evening, but right now i am about to leave. however, a point to ponder is whether, maybe, if certain people didn't launch into wall-of-text tirades accusing me of every means under the sun to lynch them... then maybe certain other people would actually be a little more receptive to recognising valid critiques. this is for policy discussion after all. not policy shock and awe. that's all for now. --WanYao 12:53, 8 September 2009 (BST)