UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Guidelines Rehashed

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

CREDITS

Major Influences — Bob Hammero, Matthew Fahrenheit and Xoid.

Feedback — Cyberbob and Gage.

NOTE

This was a huge, major undertaking, if there is to be any discussion of such a large policy it would quickly become messy and impossible to navigate without some form of order being imposed upon it. Please, any comments should go under a third-level subheading of the appropriate navy coloured heading.

Guidelines Intro

First of all hi guys! I didn't visit this place for a month but it seems that all is going well. Caiger fell, cool! As you know (thanks for the credit Xoid!), I was one of the developers of these guidelines, but I'm glad someone (again Xoid) revived the discussion. So I'm coming back for this baby to be born without needing to cut some bellies =P.

Now that that's clear, the change I want to make: Where it says "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." it should say something along the lines of "Those wishing to modify any part of this document should start a policy change on the Policy Discussion's page" and probably scrap the second sentence. It should be noted that the guidelines were made when there was no Policy Discussion's page, so the only way to change something was asking a mod, thus that was added to the intro. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm? I took it as being Wikipedic in the sense that minor changes to policy are normally done without a vote. Knowing Odd Starter, it seems to fit that that would be the case, more so than being a mere remnant from the past (which it is nonetheless, but I think you understand what I'm getting at).

No biggie, I'll clean it up. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

General Conduct

Something small, but I didn't know whether you'd want me to change it or not. A link to Moderator Misconduct would be good in here! Jonny12 ^Talk 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 08:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm all for it but are you sure you want to include *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.? the ambiguity that exists in the term best good-faith judgment is a loaded one and could get one brought up on charges of misconduct even when... I should know. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 23:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be loaded, but people are missing the point. The best way I can describe this is in in D&D terms: Lawful Good ≠ Lawful Stupid. If there is a reasonable possibility that someone was not being malicious whilst doing something 'naughty', then give them the benefit of the doubt. If it's a stretch to imagine them doing their bad deed without malice, then it's a safe bet that their actions were not in good faith — so act accordingly. If anything, this would have exonerated you in the Ken irons case, not made it worse. Though I'd love to know what your excuse was for the Comite double warning. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The only alternative wordings I could think of with similar semantical intentions would be "Common Sense", "judgement of true intentions", or "will of the populous"...all which share their own flaws and problems. It may be the 'best case' we can think of as it currently stands. --MorthBabid 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion and Undeletion of Pages

Since polices passed after this one (and perhaps some existing policies) may define rules for deletion/undeletion in special cases, I would say that moderators could delete/undelete in four cases. The fourth being

4. When acting in accordance with approved policies other than this policy. -- Bubba^T 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorporated. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Scheduled Deletions

Added another scheduled one in that was missed. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Pages

Editing of Protected Pages

I have a small quandary about where users may place requests for edits to pages which have had their talk pages protected as well. For example: As group pages and their talk pages should be protected when they enter Category:Historical Groups a brief synopsis of the groups influence on the game may need to be added/polished by those most familiar with the groups activities. Editing of protected pages happens so seldom that this may not be a problem. Contacting a mod via the moderators talk page might be the most straight forward way for this to be accomplished. UDWiki talk:Moderation/Protections might be another place to handle it. I've felt lost on this matter before if I'm not having vujede. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this up in the past and could've sworn I fixed that section. Since M/PT is so rarely used, I felt that simply adding another heading there would be the most expedient, rather than splitting it between the talk page and the project page, or making yet another project page specifically for edits. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

…and fixed. –Xoid 08:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning and Banning of Users

Introduction

I think:

"In the event of wiki...provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so."

should be changed to

"In the event of wiki...provided that the Moderator believes that the user is circumventing their account ban, or is planning to do so. The privacy policy as it pertains to CheckUser must be adhered to"

It links the privacy policy in; and also means people are more likely to read it. More importantly, it shows that moderators aren't exempt from the policy. Jonny12 ^Talk 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to do this last night, but I'm not sure that this is the place to put it. Should it go under General Conduct instead? If so, where's the best placement? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as an extra bullet point along the lines of In no way are moderators exempt from obeying the privacy policy; especially in its pertainment towards the CheckUser function? Something like that anyway; and maybe bold it or something so that it stands out? Jonny12 ^Talk 19:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should that point be bolded to stand out? The guidelines are supposed to be followed in their entirety, not just the points in bold. I've added it as a non-bold item, though. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point - thanks for adding it anyway :) Jonny12 ^Talk 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Considered Vandalism

Since some existing policies define specific actions as vandalism, I would make this change:

Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this Wiki, in general, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices other than this one. -- Bubba^T 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent catch, sir. Incorporated. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When a User May Be Warned or Banned

Since polices passed after this one (and perhaps some existing policies) may define rules for banning in special cases, I would say that moderators could ban in five cases. The fifth being

5. When acting in accordance with approved policies other than this policy. -- Bubba^T 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Added. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 08:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

-If we're going to rework mod policy, why don't we fix the biggest problem on the wiki? That is, why not move the power of ban from moderators to wiki members, the method being popular vote. [I]I'm not saying anyone should be able to ban, I'm saying that bans should be as a result of a vote, not handed down from a mod.[/I] Democracy: More than a good idea, anything else is just stupid.--J Muller 00:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we hold a quick vote why they are busy blanking pages too? Oh, that would be cool. Let's do that!--Gage 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know why I forgot I was on a wiki and tried to do [I] [/I] to italicize. On another note, facetiousness is unnecessary. Let's be nice here and have a reasonable discussion. Having members of a community vote on whether another member will be permanently excluded is just common sense.--J Muller 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable discussion is not possible. Your idea is inane and illogical at its core; for obvious reasons. Letting someone like 3 Page make a mess while you hold a vote is lunacy. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Xoid, how "surprising". I was wondering when you would show up. But anyway, obviously there would be some sort of restriction, perhaps a temporary ban while voting occurs. I doubt I can help you, however, as anyone who says democracy is illogical is either stupid, high, or fascist. Take your pick, Mr. "we can't have a reasonable discussion", and remember: now it's on.--J Muller 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a freaking game wiki, not a national government. It's designed for efficiency in management, nothing more. Get over yourself. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 02:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

*rollseyes* Of course I'd show up… I was one of the three major influences in the policy, not watching my baby's talk page would be sacrilege. Also: way to misread the point, Muller. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. Efficiency in management means nothing if the managers have no method by which they can ensure the people they manage are being represented. Don't tell me to get over myself, I'm just saying what only makes sense. And if I misread any points, feel free to illuminate my mistake, I need a bump down a few notches sometimes.--J Muller 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal banning requires swift action to prevent further damage to the wiki, and properly gathering a community consensus on vandalism would require far too much time to accomplish this. You could shorten the amount of time in which voting could take place, but that wouldn't really reflect on the community's wishes; only the people who maintain a hawk-like vigilance on the M/VB page, who tend to be the mods anyways. A temporary ban for voting is also sort of impractical, since most bans only last a day or two; a temporary ban for voting could easily last as long while finding the person innocent. You could argue that permabans should only be made by community consensus, but otherwise you can see that the entire exercise would be very unwieldly from mere practical concerns. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you do realize that we have M/M for when the mods mess up, so every decision that they make is checked about a dozen different times. This is even MORE work for the community this way. Your idea is nice in theory, but it would only result in more work. No thanks. Why don't you try to actually become a member of the wiki, and see how it works, before you come in and decide how everything is supposed to work. We based our system loosely off the systems of large major wikis like Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia. Maybe you have heard of them? I hear they are pretty good myself. The system isn't broken, so we don't need a major redo, just a sizable patch, which this policy is.--Gage 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Alan: Read again, further damage would be prevented because of the temporary ban. Of course a time limit would be imposed, no I don't know how long, we'd vote on it. Voting would probably be for permabans, sorry I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't seem to me that it would be too impractical, but it looks like you've been here longer than me. Gage: 1. Point, however this should alleviate some of the load on M/M 2. I'm already a member, or haven't you noticed yet, and I think I understand how it works. I've been around Wikipedia longer than I've been here. That should clear up everyone except Xoid, and when he posts I'm sure he'll require more time than I have right now to refute.--J Muller 02:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It wouldn't lighten the load on M/M. Exactly how many users who have done wrong have owned up to their actions? They would complain anyway. 2. You have an account and the only thing you've contributed so far is nonsensical babbling and utter irrelevancies. You're not a member of the community, not by a long shot. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

They are represented by being allowed to vote on wiki policy at all. They are represented by being allowed to vote on moderators and bureaucrats. So far the only point you've made is "people shouldn't be permabanned, period", then tried to ram that down people's throats. Guess what? In some countries there is capital punishment. Most of those countries are either indifferent or wholly supportive of that penalty. Take a guess which sort of place this is.

People do not support permabans for any reason other than the fact that they are necessary. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there are clauses in this reworking to actually slowly phase out people's warnings so that a permaban is nigh on impossible to earn without constantly and flagrantly disregarding policy that other users have already voted into place.

Perhaps you should also take into account the fact that this game is barely over a year old and the only previously legitimate user would currently be banned for another year and a half. Oh, wait, if we include the warnings he got as "God" and evading his previous ban, that'd be four and a half years. Something tells me no reasonable person is going to wait that long. His being permabanned or banned for four and a half years makes not one scrap of difference.

The only other permabanned users we have are constant vandals who've never contributed anything of worth. More cheese with your whine, sir? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I see my prediction was not far from the mark. So here we go. 1. Half a point, I'm saying that other people who support them have the opportunity to voice their opinions in voting, where they would normally go to M/M. 2. Well, I'm sorry I'm not in your super-secret club, membership of which is apparently restricted to people who agree with you. Here's a question: If I get to join, do I have to wear an X (for Xoid) armband and end every post with "Heil Xoid!"? 3. Your first two sentences are partially valid points, but I'm arguing for extension into other things of that privilege. I admit I'm against permabanning, except in extreme cases and by community vote, but I've never tried to ram anything down anyone's throats. If you don't agree with me, fine, I'll try to change your mind but I won't force you to abide by my rules and my rules only. And also, just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's right. To say that something shouldn't be questioned simply because that's official policy is the kind of mentality that is so prized by dictators the world over, because people who believe that will be unquestioningly loyal. Being that your user page says you're Australian, I'm surprised you are unfortunate enough to come off thinking that even though you live in a democracy. 4. A valid point, actually--What's that, Satan? You're skating to work? 5. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, it's kind of unclear. 6. The only person whining here is you, Mr. "Nothing you say makes sense, because I don't agree with you." Nothing I've said so far is founded on any sort of logical fallacy, and it's your constant insistence that I'm babbling that makes it you that's doing the whining here.

But it's obvious none of this is going to change your mind, because the root of our running battle of words is the incompatibility of my core values with yours. One of my core values is that democracy is important enough to bear inefficiency for. Quite frankly, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when I see democracy in action. Obviously, you don't value democracy as much, and it's that core belief, beyond my charisma to change, that's causing this little discussion, which I've tried to keep reasonable despite your admonitions that it is impossible. Until such time as you change your core beliefs to value democracy more, I'm afraid we may be condemned to eternally disagree on this issue.--J Muller 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

*shakes his head in bemusement at J Muller's belief that his opinions should be valued when he hasn't contributed anything to the wiki other than drama* Cyberbob  Talk  02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Users who put the most time and effort into our system get the most say. Respected members of the community (which J Muller is currently not) and mods are usually the ones people will listen to. How do you become a respected member? That is easy. All you have to do is not act like an idiot for a certain period of time. It always helps to act smart too. Then you will get the community's respect and have a say in these matters.--Gage 02:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyberbob: Oh, right, because obviously I'm creating drama just by disagreeing with you. Gage: See my above comments about your secret club.--J Muller 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we're getting a little derailed here. Rather than trying to make this a debate about whether democracy is good or not or whatever the hell a respected member of this community is, why don't you put your idea down in concrete policy terms, since you've basically filled the page and I'm still in the dark as to the specifics of your desired alterations. Then maybe we can proceed productively from there. -- ∀lan Watson ^T·RPM 05:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. To sum up, in the case that a user is nominated, by a mod for permabanning, or banning for any length of time exceeding a month, the user will be temporarily suspended, and a vote will take place, with everyone getting the opportunity to vote. If a 2/3 majority of people vote for his/her/its permabanning, the user is then permabanned. That's my suggestion in a nutshell.--J Muller 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And we're saying we don't like your idea, so there's no point pushing it. You've been told it won't be used, so drop it and save everyone a headache. Cyberbob  Talk  05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My beef isn't with you for disagreeing--that would make me just like Xoid *shudder*. Disagree all you want, I won't pursue you and try to change your mind, but feel free to read and respond when I post my opinion on stuff. My current "discussion", that barely remains civil, is with Xoid for dismissing anything I say as illogical and nonsense, because obviously if his values are different than someone else's (see my statements on "core values" above) than the other person is a n00b and nobody should listen to anything he says.--J Muller 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else, then. Cyberbob  Talk  05:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. It would be pretty much contrary to my idea to continue to promote it after widespread disapproval--which is there hidden in between Xoid's declarations. If Xoid or anyone else wants to continue the discussion about democracy and respected members of the community, they can do it on my talk page instead of cluttering up this space.--J Muller 06:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets not forget; This can be changed and added to. I don't doubt that ONE DAY, we may find a better system than the M/M to do what J Muller is suggesting. And perhaps it'll become an elected policy and be implimented, But to try and do that HERE? Thats biting off too much. Hopefully the conversations on J's talk could lead to a future policy; But even so, this works great as a bare-bones guideline. --MorthBabid 18:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cycle of Warnings and Bannings

As presented this section gives a terrific advantage to active editors who may have been caught up in a couple of bad faith edits in their career. Kudos to those who contributed to the creation of the entire document. You have done the community a great service. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 03:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what my friend above wants to change, and I think that the metod described is the best one to determine if an user is worth of forgiveness or not. Anyways, I looked into the text and found some mistakes on my own: the wording is obsolete because changes were made to the policy, more precissely the adding of a 5^th instance. The first paragraph should say something like:

In all but the fourth of the above instances, and the fifth should the moderator believe that the case doesn't amerit the permaban accordingly to the policy infringed, he/she should impose an infinite ban without a warning. In the case of the fourth and fifth instances (the last one if the moderator rules that a permaban does not apply), the moderator is expected to warn/ban the user according to the following process:

Also, I noted that there's a big inconsistence in the mention of moderators troughout the whole policy: sometimes the word "moderator" is capitalized and sometimes not. It's a small issue, but it wuold be cool to standarize the whole text. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was being terse Matt. I only meant to show support and thank you for the great document! I think the sentence is fine as it is. In the fifth instance the external policy being referred to might have very different rules so I see no need to imply anything further. When this gets accepted it will make things more pleasant. Thanks again! --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 07:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm the one that apologizes, because I completely misunderstood what you meant! Anyways, the change I proposed could need a change too, but not to add any change pretty much implies that a 5^th instance violation grants a permaban, when most of the times it shouldn't. 3^rd opinion anyone? Also, changed a word on my changes above to correct my crappy english skills, It's bad form but I think no one will mind. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed changes need a bit of fixing, I get the intent but as is they leave the process wide open to abuse. (I'm willing to elaborate why, if necessary, but not right now… it's 2:11AM.) –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 15:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing a 'See Also' section added to this portion in particular, providing proper links to the appropriate areas where people can examine what they can do to contest/debate specific problems? There seems to be a bit of confusion on this matter across the Wiki, and a Moderator Guideline strikes me as something a casual user may look across if trying to properly deal with a possible unintentional infraction. Or would that be far beyond the scope of this work? --MorthBabid 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, you added that active link on line 16 that pretty much does that. My bad! --MorthBabid 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Version written at five in the morning:

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 last one if the moderator rules that a permaban does not apply), the moderator is expected to warn/ban the user according to the following process:

I have not since re-read it, even as I CnP it here today. Criticism welcome. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 17:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It has a nice wording, and not a single obvious flaw that I can see. It goes to the text if you ask me. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Made a slight tweak to make it more presentable, English wise. Placing on the policy page now. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 11:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right: my version of english is very limited, and that's reflected in the narrow selection of words that I end up using on my texts. But your english isn't flawless either =). Maybe (probably) I'm just impatient, but isn't this ready for voting on already? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my English is not flawless, but that edit was more telling of the sheer number of times I revised it than anything else. When you go over something that many times you begin to see what you 'translate' it as, instead of what's actually there, leading to fractured sentence structure. And yes, I'm impatient too. We started this ages ago, and there are a dozen or more incidents where if it was in place a vandal would have gotten punished, or an innocent person would've gone free. A lot more of the latter come to mind than the former, and that is most definitely not a good thing. All in all, I'm ready for it to go to voting; only trial by fire is going to reveal any errors we've overlooked this many times. I'll put it up now. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Xoid: I'm at a stage where just seeing the main body of this policy can get me on bed for weeks. And, not trying to be annoying but just pointing out the irony, the thing that you said is definitely a good thing, and maybe what you wanted to say was "there are a dozen or more incidents where if it was in place a vandal would have gone free, or an innocent person would've gotten punished". --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no. You're on crack. I said that it's not a good thing that innocent people get punished and that vandals go free because this policy was not in place at the time. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 06:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ah, no. You're on crack." - That is the single best retort I've seen so far on the wiki. Can I quote you on my user page? Please?--J Muller 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

J, most of your ramblings are quotable, so I wouldn't start down that road. Cyberbob  Talk  04:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)