UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Misconduct Procedures

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy proposes that Misconduct procedures be added to so that the system becomes more structured and readily transparent.

Summary

Whilst retaining the option of soft warnings, also alter Misconduct to:

  • introduce an escalating (three strikes and you're out) punishment system: only for those found guilty of Major Misconduct.
  • introduce a new, time-limited, method of determining an outcome to the case, through a Sysop/Bureaucrat vote.

Misconduct Results

Any charge of Misconduct will be found (through the processes outlined below) to result in one of the following three outcomes:

  • Not Misconduct.
  • Minor Misconduct.
  • Major Misconduct.

Minor Misconduct

  • This is, in effect, a soft-warning to indicate that the reported Sysop's behaviour was deemed unacceptable by their peers.
  • It must be recorded, for simplicity, as Vandal Data, specifying clearly that it's from a Misconduct case.
  • Any obvious reversal of actions must also take place. For example, if the Misconduct was unfairly banning someone, they should be unbanned. If there is any disagreement over this, the Bureaucrat team has final say (using whatever method they see fit to come to an agreement amongst themselves).

Major Misconduct (Escalation)

Any Sysop found guilty of Major Misconduct will face the following escalations:

  1. First Warning for Major Misconduct.
  2. Second Warning for Major Misconduct.
  3. Removal of Sysop status: (although, as outlined below, they may re-apply).
  • Bureaucrat status is automatically also lost if Sysop status is removed.
  • It must be recorded, for simplicity, as Vandal Data, specifying clearly that it's from a Misconduct case.
  • Any obvious reversal of actions must also take place. For example, if the Misconduct was unfairly banning someone, they should be unbanned. If there is any disagreement over this, the Bureaucrat team has final say (using whatever method they see fit to come to an agreement amongst themselves).

Major Misconduct De-escalation

  • One warning for Major Misconduct may be struck if 3 months have passed without any Minor or Major Misconduct from the Sysop, and they've made at least 500 edits in that time.
  • In the event that a Sysop has their Sysop status revoked, they may re-apply using the same Promotions system as all other users. Should they succeed in being re-elected to Sysop status, they effectively start with a clean slate.

Pre-Vote Discussion

  • Only the person bringing the case, and the Sysop accused of Misconduct may take part in this discussion, beneath the initial text that created the case in the first place.
  • Any other users (including Sysops and Bureaucrats) are encouraged to discuss the case under a relevant heading of the relevant discussion page.
  • The pre-vote discussion lasts for up to 48 hours (2 days). It may be closed at any time if both the user reporting the alleged Misconduct, and the accused Sysop agree to it.
  • When the pre-vote discussion ends, a Sysop/Bureaucrat vote must take place beneath it (see next section).

Vote

  • Each Sysop/Bureaucrat must (if they take part) indicate their judgement as Major Misconduct, Minor Misconduct or Not Misconduct.
  • They must also provide their reasoning.
  • They are encouraged to read any discussion of the case that may exist under a relevant heading of the relevant discussion page.
  • Any and all discussion of the votes must be carried out under a relevant heading of the relevant discussion page.
  • Any vote may be changed, as long as it is within the time period specified below.
  • The accused Sysop and the person bringing the case may not vote.
  • After 72 hours (3 days) of voting, the Sysop/Bureaucrat vote ends, with the following result:
  • Not Misconduct: if more than 50% (without rounding) of the total votes are Not Misconduct.
  • Major Misconduct: if more than 50% (without rounding) of the total votes are Major Misconduct.
  • Minor Misconduct: if neither of the above conditions are true.
  • In the event that everyone who can vote has voted (i.e. all Sysops and Bureaucrats with the exception of the accused Sysop and - if a Sysop - the user reporting the alleged Misconduct, and also excluding Kevan-alts on the basis that they don't usually participate), the vote may end prior to the time limit given above.


Reasons for change

  • Normal users are subject to measurable punishment for their actions, but Sysops are not.
  • There is currently no clear system in place to demote Sysops guilty of continual Misconduct.
  • Misconduct punishments often resemble Arbitration rulings, which are often then not enforced, and therefore of questionable value as a form of transparent and accountable control.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Voting closes after 2 weeks of voting. In order to pass, a policy must receive a two-thirds majority and at least 20 total votes.

For

  1. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:42, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  2. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:59, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  3. I have some misgivings over the complete lack of punishment for Minor Misconduct, but I think that overall it would be a massive improvement. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:06, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  4. For Because I believe that grand sweeping wiki policies always fail, and by chipping away at problems, one amendment at a time like here, we will get a stronger end result. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 12:25, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  5. For - It's good to have a clear and specific document about misconduct punishments so that people can't be treated arbitrarily badly. This system provides a clear framework within which mods can still use discretion, and there's a lot of useful little details in here. - Toejam 12:47, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  6. For - Far from perfect, but then again perfect is impossible, and there is always the possibility of a tweak policy if something is not working. I don't like recording misconduct in Vandal Data, that is silly, what we have now is fine. I also noticed the 3 against are from sysops... chickens. Furthermore, the time limits will probably end up being ignored, just like how they are already ignored in policy discussion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:33, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  7. For - Meh. Why not? We don't have a proper Misconduct Policy so this seems to do the job in my opinion. -- Cheese 18:12, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  8. For - "An improvement but not perfection" sums up all of this policy achievements. Or, simplified, just an improvement. --Starplatinum 20:12, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  9. For - Does minor misconduct up the VB level, or just get noted there? --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:30, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Noted only. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:19, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  10. For Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 13:43, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  11. For Per Rosslessness. -Ornithopter (Talk | contribs) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  12. For As above. --Private Mark 21:39, 19 April 2008 (BST)
  13. For - in spite of some flaws (as astutely pointed out by some of the nay voters), i must support this on principle... the current system is too lax. --WanYao 18:49, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Against

  1. It doesn't address any of the reasons for why it was created, it's a wordy document that essentially does nothing but force a longer period of time before the case can be closed and actually encourages not punishing misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 11:55, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that it actively punishes what it terms "Major Misconduct", and records any cases of what it terms "Minor Misconduct". Clearly, if a Sysop has, for example, ten cases of "Minor Misconduct" against their name, that may effect how they are treated in subsequent cases. So, there is a clear argument to say that it does punish Misconduct, whilst leaving room for soft warnings, which I think is a good thing. It is also innacurate to say that the policy "does nothing", when it introduces a "three strikes and you're out" system for "Major Misconduct". If enacted, this would be the only structured means of demoting a recalcitrant Sysop. Finally, it is also not accurate to say that this policy "[forces] a longer period of time before the case can be closed", as the time limits set by this policy would make a case somewhere between 0 and 5 days long (depending on various factors). In most cases, I expect the vote would last the full 3, so it's more like 3-5 days for each case. If you look at, for example, all the cases against Hagnat, you'll find that the most recent three lasted 7, 11 & 7 days respectively. All longer than would be the case under this policy. (It's interesting to note that, in the case of the 11-day Misconduct case against Hagnat, there never was a followed final ruling, so one could argue that it's still open, and could be considered a record-breaking 78-day case, and counting.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:22, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    No, if enacted popular frequent offenders will always get Not Misconduct and be let free to go and the people who actually follow the rules but aren't popular among the SysOp team will get demoted fast regardless of how good they are at their job. This basically encourages abuse of the Misconduct system and makes it absurdly easy.--Karekmaps?! 13:47, 17 April 2008 (BST)
    Well, I disagree with your opinion of your fellow Sysops (as populist sheep), but you've raised new points not made in your initial vote (which simply wasn't an accurate reflection of reality), and I respect your right to your opinion. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:10, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  2. Not needed. Major misconduct is already punished (example), and minor misconduct hurts no one -- boxy talk • i 13:33 17 April 2008 (BST)
    I hope everyone follows the link you've provided and sees that you ruled on your own Misconduct case there. It's exactly that kind of back-slapping, no-system, no-rules tomfoolery that the Sysop team enjoys (whilst everyone else does not in A/VB) and that I'm attempting to remove. I want a system where a Sysop might think twice about commiting an act of Misconduct, rather than shooting first and then letting themselves off incredibly lightly in a show trial afterwards.--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:17, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  3. Against - I really like the idea, but I think the differences between major and minor misconduct should be quite explicit, and that the time limits should be longer. --ZsL 15:18, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  4. Against - bad idea.--Jorm 18:31, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  5. EGo 22:54, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  6. Against - I don't see why this is any better. --Ropponmatsu 23:15, 17 April 2008 (BST)
  7. Against - it's not clear to me how this makes things any better; it would seem, without a definition (or at least a guideline) of what is major/minor misconduct then you're really just keeping the whole system subjective. I believe that will continue to result in arbitrary and inconsistent rulings based on personal bias. - Bisfan 05:17, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  8. Against – A/VB is such a wonderfully unflawed system and we should obviously be attempting to slavishly imitate it everywhere we can. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:10, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    Your sarcasm is so hysterically funny that I'm glad I wore my corset today because I've obviously split my sides laughing at your amazing wit. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:33, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  9. Against - Meh. Not needed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 05:27, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  10. As Bisfan.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 06:23, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  11. against - I think we should already have something like this, however as you have made no attempt to define the levels of misconduct this would just be giving sysops a way to be rid of one of their own who they didn't like while allowing them to continue slapping each other on th wrist the rest of the time.--Honestmistake 13:48, 18 April 2008 (BST)
    It sounds like you would be For a version that does attempt to define what is and what isn't Misconduct, and to what degree generally. Given that a few of the Againsters are saying the same thing, it gives hope to a version 2.0. In the meantime, I'll leave this to run the course. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:59, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  12. Against - I like the idea of accountability but this unfortunately brings none to the current sysop crew and gives them more leeway for bullshit. --Riseabove 13:57, 18 April 2008 (BST)
  13. Against - Seems pretty pointless to me. --Amber Waves of Pain 09:31, 19 April 2008 (BST)
  14. Against - Incomplete, and why can the sysop bringing the case not have a vote if they are a sysop? All this will result in is sysops ghost writing misconduct reports for another user they are friends with to enable them to have their rightful say. When the decsion is made by one alone, then the person bringing the case should not get to determine the outcome, but since you have outlined a democratic process the person making the case is entitled to his or her opinion on the case, which will almost certainly be misconduct, of one or the other type you specified (They should at the least be able to have a say in how bad it is in your system, which they dont under your current proposal). That said, the democratic process is deeply flawed (As i have detailed elsewhere, most notably in my little page on the subject of democracy in the wiki rants section), especially with regards to misconduct. We have had in the past popular sysops who are on good terms with the rest of the team get away with doing the wrong thing simply because members of the team liked the outcome or for various reasons related to unofficial cliquery and/or popularity of the sysop accused. A far better system is to have a set of rigid inflexible rules for handling misconduct cases completely immune to cliquing and summary acquittal, or granting of much more lenient sentences specifically because of the harm it has on both the running of the community and peoples confidence in those maintaining it (and FYI, the community is an awful lot larger than the regulars of thiw wiki, as you all so often forgot). Im not saying that such a system is flawless, im simply saying that compared to this proposal and what we have now, it is by far the lesser of the three evils. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:14, 19 April 2008 (BST)
    I pretty much entirely agree with you. There is a difficulty in defining what is and what is not Misconduct (of whatever degree), and an inflexible system would not be an answer (I feel) - because it's so often grey, not black or white. My intitial proposal was that the 'crat team (as a sort of more-trusted panel) should judge each case, but that fell by the wayside. I suppose it would be just as open to populist voting as any voting system - although my personal view is that the 'crat team (here assuming the onus of consensus) have more to live up to, as they're voted in by the entire community, as opposed to Sysops, who are only recommended by the community (or not). All of this, of course, simply because recent Misconduct cases have left a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps the system that exists is just fine, but not worked well. Certainly, there is a dichotomy between the opening statement of the page (something like "this is a serious business") and the outcomes, which more often than not are akin to "naughty boy - now here's some cake". </rant>. Thanks for a full explanation. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:49, 20 April 2008 (BST)
  15. Against - There's absolutely no punishment for a Minor Misconduct? That would only serve to give current sysops more fuck up space before any real disciplinary action is taken. And "3 strikes then you're out" would take FAR too long to remove problem sysops currently in office. --Kid sinister 06:58, 20 April 2008 (BST)
  16. Against Or rather change, but that doesn't seem to be an option. Sysops should be held to a higher standard since they are supposedly "more trusted" users. There should be no MINOR misconduct. Any misconduct that is brought up and declared misconduct should be considered major. Since they are supposed to know and enforce the rules themselves they can not be allowed a "warning". The system is in place to have checks and balances. When a sysop acts on their own and enforces a punishment or gets the "approval" of a sysop involved in the incident to enforce punishment - if it is deemed as misconduct there shouldn't be a warning. It should be punished right away as it is a blatant abuse of power.--DCC 23:10, 21 April 2008 (BST)
  17. Against - Far too complicated for something that's pretty much useless. Grarr 17:24, 23 April 2008 (BST)
  18. against - why is there no punishment for a minor misconduct? i am also not happy with the length of time this could take --Scotw 20:13, 24 April 2008 (BST)
  19. Against- Because Funt has no clue what he is talking about. -- BKM 01:46, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Voting Closed, 13 For and 19 Against. Policy Rejected.--Karekmaps?! 13:39, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Misconduct_Procedures&oldid=2257628"