UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Guidelines Rehashed

Guidelines — Policy Document This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This page provides guidelines as to the conduct of moderators, and the use of moderator abilities. All moderators are expected to follow the guidelines listed below, and not following these is considered misconduct.

These guidelines are the effective will of the community at this point in time. Modification of these Guidelines is expected as a part of the growth of this community. Those wishing to modify any part of this document should discuss the changes on this page's Talk page. Consensus of the community is required in order to change these guidelines.

Owner Privilege

As owner of this wiki, Kevan is not required to follow any wiki Guidelines, and he has full carte blanche of any activity within the wiki. Further, Kevan retains the ability to promote and demote moderators as he sees fit; assign or remove moderator rights from anyone; overrule any moderator promotion, no matter how much or how little support the prospective user may have; overrule any moderator decision or ruling; and generally exercise complete and total authority over any wiki activity.

General Conduct

Moderators are provided with abilities beyond that of normal users on the expectation that they will be used to fulfill duties on the wiki that normal users are not capable of fulfilling. Moderators are not any "more worthy" than any other user, and moderators are not to use their status to create the impression that they are. Moderators are merely especially trusted wiki users, and are beholden to the community just as any other user is. For most actions on the wiki, a moderator's word has no greater weight than any other user. As a wiki, for these actions, each user's voice has equal weight, regardless of his or her abilities.

In some instances, however, moderators are considered to have greater authority than normal users so that they can effectively fulfill their responsibilities.

• Moderators are considered "more authoritative" than normal users in the sense that only moderators can make decisions regarding moderator-specific responsibilities, and only moderators can definitively enforce wiki policies.
• Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored.
• Moderators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, moderators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it.
• Past moderator actions that are not explicitly governed by a policy may be used as precedent, but if a moderator believes that the precedent should be ignored for some significant reason, he or she may do so.
• Despite having access to CheckUser, moderators are still bound by the terms of the privacy policy.

For any moderator-specific actions, if a moderator is found to have been in error, the processes of moderation misconduct may be used to resolve the issue.

In short, a moderator is to be treated as a normal user, with all the rights and responsibilities therein, with some additional responsibilities and associated rights so that they can fulfill those responsibilities.

Deletion and Undeletion of Pages

Deletion of pages is restricted to moderators due to its permanent nature — deletions can't be reverted by normal users, and deleted images can't be reverted by anyone. The following guidelines outline when moderators may delete pages.

Moderators may only delete a page in one of three instances:

1. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions, and that page is eligible for Speedy Deletion according to the current guidelines for Speedy Deletions. Before serving the request, moderators are expected to review the page to ensure its suitability for Speedy Deletion.
2. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions, and that page has been deemed eligible for Deletion by the wiki community, in compliance with the rules of the Deletions page.
3. A page has been created by a moderator in the User namespace as a subpage of the moderator's user page, no user other than the moderator has made substantial contributions to the page, and the page is not required for any significant reason. In this case, the moderator should make note of his or her deletion on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions either before or after he or she has deleted the page.
4. When acting in accordance with approved policies.

Except in the third instance listed above, a moderator may not delete a page that he or she has requested be deleted. It is part of a moderator's responsibility to check the Speedy Deletions and Deletions pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above, and review the moderator Page Deletions page often to ensure that moderator user pages have been deleted properly.

The ability to undelete pages is restricted to moderators, as normal users are limited to recreate pages. As such, in the case that a deleted page is in need to be restored, regular users can request the restoration through the Undeletions page. Moderators may only undelete pages that have been requested to be restored through this page, or that they themselves have deleted by mistake. The repeated recreation of deleted pages not going through the Undeletions page is to be treated as Vandalism.

In some circumstances, scheduled deletions may be required to avoid clogging the Deletions or Speedy Deletions pages. In this case, it is not expected that each deletion be requested through the Moderation pages. Instead, the schedule should be approved by the community at the Schedules section of UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions. Approved schedules are listed in the following subsection.

Scheduled Deletions

• Unused Image Removal - Images on the Unused Image list that are a month old are to be deleted. Approved 11 Dec 2005
• Image revision removal - Image revisions that are older than 7 days are to be removed. Approved 16 May 2006
• Monumental Screw Ups - Pages in this form: with//////lots//////of//////slashes, and this one: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Example_monumental_screwup are unable to be moved or edited via normal means. Their content is to be manually moved to a sensible pagename without extraneous //s in its title and the original page is to be deleted on sight. Approved 23 August 2006

Protection of Pages

Protection of pages is restricted to moderators due to the inherent nature of the action — protections would not be useful if regular users could protect and unprotect pages at will. The following guidelines are the rules that govern moderator's actions in regards to page protection.

Moderators may only protect pages that users have requested be protected on UDWiki:Moderation/Protections, or (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism. Before a page is protected, it is expected that the moderator will ensure that there is good reason for its protection — these include protracted edit wars, and constant vandalism by multiple users on a high-visibility page. Further, except in the instance of heavy vandalism mentioned above, moderators may not protect a page that they themselves have requested be protected. It is part of a moderator's responsibility to check these pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above.

In the event of protection, a moderator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state.

In some circumstances, protections on a scheduled basis may be required as part of a system on the wiki. In this case, it is not expected that each protection be requested through the Moderation pages. Instead, the schedule should be approved by the Community at the Schedules section of UDWiki:Moderation/Protections. Approved schedules are listed in the following Subsection.

Scheduled Protections

• Suggestion Day Page Protection - Each Suggestion day vote page will be protected after its given voting period, and after the intro template has been replaced. Approved 11 Dec 2005.
• Policy Discussion Protection - Polices on policy discussion for which voting has ended, and their talk pages, will be protected. Approved 23 Aug 2006.
• Historical Groups Protection - Groups that are listed in Category:Historical Groups, and their talk pages. Approved 8 Sept 2006.
• Suggestions Archives Protection - The suggestions archives of undecided, peer rejected (after voting for the days have closed) and the previous days archives. Approved 8 Sept 2006.
• Banned Users Protection - Users who have been banned should have their user pages, user talk pages, and any subpages of their user pages or user talk pages protected for the duration of their bans. For example, a user banned for 24 hours would have his or her pages protected for 24 hours, and a user banned permanently would have his or her pages protected permanently. Approved 11 Sept 2006.

Editing of Protected Pages

As a subset of their Moderation powers, moderators also have the ability to edit protected pages. Given that moderators and bureaucrats are the only users who can edit protected pages, it is expected that moderators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason. Moderators are explicitly given the right to edit a page that has been protected due to constant vandalism, and changes are necessary to revert the vandalism. Requests for a moderator to edit a protected page should be placed under the Requested Edits heading on the protections page.

Unprotections

Any user may request on the protections page that a page be unprotected. If there is no longer a need for the page to protected, a moderator will then fulfill that request.

Moving of Pages

As a result of frequent page move vandalism, the 'move' permission on this wiki has been restricted to specific user groups (currently sysops and bureaucrats; this may change in the future). If a normal user wants to move a page, they will need to request that do so on the Move Requests page. All reasonable requests will be carried out by those who have the 'move' permission. Any user still able to move pages will not need to request another user move pages for them.

Warning and Banning of Users

Introduction

Warning and banning of users is restricted to moderators due to security reasons — a conflict between two users could easily escalate to a constant ban war if such power were available to all users. It is expected that a moderator will always try to look at a reported edit from the viewpoint that it is a good faith attempt to improve the wiki. Also, it is expected that a moderator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it. It is part of a moderator's responsibility to warn or ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines below.

In the event of wiki software being improved so that a moderator can view IP addresses of users, a moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user for the same duration that the user's account was banned, provided that the moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so.

When a moderator warns or bans an user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page.

What is Considered Vandalism

Moderators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.

When a User May Be Warned or Banned

Moderators may only warn/ban a user when:

1. The user is an alternate account of a vandal that is still under his/her ban period.
2. The user is an adbot (a type of computer program used for automated edits such as the creation of pages/links with no legitimate purpose).
3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki.
4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a moderator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the moderator or someone else. Furthermore, moderators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.
5. When acting in accordance with approved policies.

In the unlikely case that a moderator bans a user without merit or without following the guidelines above, and a Misconduct case is filed against him or her, said moderator may be banned for the same duration of time that the user was unfairly banned, should the ruling moderators on the misconduct case deem it necessary.

Additionally, some users may be under limitations imposed by an Arbitrator according to the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page. In that case, a violation of those limitations will be treated as vandalism subject to the same treatments as the fourth instance shown above, while ignoring warnings, as per the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page's rules.

Cycle of Warnings and Bannings

In all but the fourth of the above instances, and the fifth should the moderator believe that the case doesn't merit the permaban laid out by standing policy, he/she should impose an infinite ban without a warning. In the case of the fourth and fifth instances (the latter only if the moderator rules that a permaban is not applicable), the moderator is expected to warn/ban the user according to the following process:

The first action to be taken is to warn the user. A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before a moderator may administer the first ban. Warnings are to be placed on the talk page of the user's account and recorded on the vandal data page. To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single warning can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.

If the user is still found vandalizing this Wiki and his or her two warnings still stand, the moderator then may ban the user. The bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being for one week, the fourth being for one month, the fifth being for one year, and the sixth and last ban being infinite.

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.

For

1. These guidelines need fixing. Badly.--Gage 08:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
2. As one of the driving forces behind the writing of this policy, it only makes sense for me to vote for, doesn't it? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Empower the goddamn hammers already.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 08:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
4. A solid improvement over existing guidelines. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 08:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
5. More Better --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 08:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Banhammers with spikes on one side and a nice couchy surface on the other. Your pick =). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Gah, where the fuck did you come out from?--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

   Heh, as I said before, I came from my retirement to oversee the final development of this policy that costed us (BobHammero, Xoid and me) plenty of work to develop. Now it's time to dissappear again... that, unless you miss me too much =P. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

7. Well done to those who re-wrote these. Pillsy ^FT 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Good fixes. I echo the "well done." -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Awesome. Simply awesome. Cyberbob  Talk  11:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
10. I agree with EVERYONE -- I don't see any problem with these new guidelines. --Krauser43 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Aye Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Yes siree! --Axe Hack 14:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
13. Codified common sense, but good to have in writing.--The Envoy 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
14. Looks good. -- Bubba^T 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
15. for a better and brighter tomorrow. -Bullgod 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
16. Yes - Build like a loving god, rule like a goodly king, work as loyal slave. --MorthBabid 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
17. Jonny12 ^Talk 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
18. For Everything appears to be in order here.--Blood Panther 00:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
19. For Sees like a good assertion about wiki policy. --KingofSpades 22:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
20. For --Snikers 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
21. My voting is fairly unnecessary here, but I'll do it now I'm back for principle's sake. 'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 20:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
22. For -BzAli 12:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
23. For - because this bit is nice: a single warning can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes --Funt Solo 18:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
24. ForTheDictator 2146, 9 December 2006 (MCT)
25. 'For'--CaptainM 06:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
26. For - Need I say more? -Mark 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
27. For Looks pretty good. Let's just hope that the moderators that Kevan chooses aren't unethical weasels. TJHooker 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC0
28. for Asheets 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Against

1. Against - Read the discussion page before you question my motives, please.--J Muller 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   As I read on the discussion page, you won't change of opinion not even if we choke you with reason. But if you actually, arguing for a softer system of bans reject the changes we propose in favor of the current, broken and irreversible ban system (in adittion to a number of other improvements to the guidelines because they are not just about bans you know?), we can't do nothing about it. I have my own reasons to think that the "democratic" system you want won't work, mostly because the scarce ammount of users this wiki has and the seriousness of the bulk of them, but if you won't budge... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   But you haven't choked me with reason. You can count the number of actual, logical points made against me on the fingers of one hand, and that's being generous. The rest of the suggestion is fine, I'm just proposing my ideas about the bans. And, here's the thing: The scarce number of users on the wiki is exactly why the direct democratic system would work. In an actual national government, a republic is more manageable because the people who actually make decisions are finite in number and elected by the people. With such a small user base, a democracy would be wholly manageable here.--J Muller 03:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

   That is it. Further conversation will go on the talk page--Gage 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)