UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Arbitration Reform

Discussion

Do you think that our current mods will permit bullying to be treated as vandalism? First, most of them activelly bully or bullied someone, and second they hold a policy of "whoever cries first is the loser", that I can see as derivated from forum's enviroments. I won't discuss the fact that ANY bullying IS a bad faith edit (because they are: learn to discuss things instead of adding "idiot" or "tool" to the end of a weak counterargument guys!), but if our supposed "Moderators" constantly use it, I don't see any way were it will be taken as policy, neither enforced. And there's still the issue that you have to make a policy that doesn't sounds ambiguos and looks rather charming to the general community. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

first of all, i still am a mod, remember ? i would rather see bullying being addresed in vandal banning and misconduct, since in these places justice is faster than arbys, and with a lot less drama... this line of thought was what caused jjames wikigate though >_>

BUT... there wont be another wikigate on that matter if we have the rules right... reform arby and add a few set of rules against bullying in misconbitration and vandalizer... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat, I know you're still a Mod. But don't you get bullied and altogether ignored by the other Mods, with counted exceptions? I'll be really glad to see you being taken as seriously as, let's say, Gage, but even if you manage to make a good faith ruling on an hipotetical "bullying case" on M/VB, if it goes against the personal interest of other mods YOU WILL BE OVERRULED. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that edit conflicts should be handled through arbitration wherever possible, I don't think you need to disallow interpersonal conflicts from being taken there to do it. As bullying is such a subjective matter, it needs the more open, common sense driven, nature of arbitration to handle it, rather than the black and white, rule are rules vandal banning process, IMO. It just takes a bit of consistency from the mods, in pointing people in the right direction, get some of the edit conflict battles out of M/VB and back where they belong rather than vandal banning people for differences of opinion, and dismiss some of the more frivolous M/A cases. Perhaps we need a clause allowing someone to decide what is frivolous... -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 04:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand if it's over a stupid reason, but bullying should be taken care of through the Arby page, so that we get two PoVs. Also, bullying isn't vandalism, so in Vandal Banning it would go unpunished.--Joe O'Wood TALKCONTRIBSUD 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've directed many a case of bullying/harassment on M/VB to Arby's. Cyberbob  Talk  16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As you should. There's a place for it, and that place is here.--J Muller 03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Wow, never mind. I don't know why I didn't catch the joke until today, but it just hit me. Ignore my stupidity. Or don't, I don't care.--J Muller 01:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with banning "bullying" is that it starts to mess with people's free speech. Now this is a private wiki and the 1st Amendment need not apply, but the rules need to be EXCEEDINGLY well defined. For instance let's say you write a page and I dislike it. If "bullying" is disallowed what can I say? I obviously can say "I dislike that page". I should also be able to say "I don't think much of [author name]'s ideas." Can I say "That page is stupid"? Or "That page is f***ing idiotic?" Or "[The author] is stupid?" Or "[The author] is f***ing retarded. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want to enforce courtesy or not. It might be a mixed blessing. Ideally peer opinion should prevent the worst of it. Someone who says "You're retarded" sounds more childish and should get less respect than someone who says "I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one". However what we should do is ban some of the stronger language. Maybe we shouldn't prevent people from calling each other idiots but we can sure stop them from dropping the f-bomb on a wiki for a game a lot of kids probably play. Of course there is a difference between bullying someone by insulting them and harassing them. The way I'd define it is:

INSULT

PersonA: Look at my page.

Person B: That's horrible, you're a moron.

HARASSMENT (if this happens more than once or twice)

PersonC: What do you think of my page?

PersonB: It isn't great but at least you're not a moron like Person A.

PersonD: How's my suggestion?

PersonA: I like it PersonD.

PersonB: What would you know PersonA. Eat *** and die.

etc.

Since this doesn't necessarily fall under vandalism we should allow it to be handled in Arbitration. But that brings us to another problem: Moderators. Now I always assumed that Moderator meant one who moderates. A person willing to stay cool and neutral in disputes and attempt to resolve arguments rather than start or continue them. That isn't to stay that moderators shouldn't argue in favor of their opinions, but they should conduct themselves in a reasonably courteous manner. However I many moderators don't view themselves in that light. They're not here to handle the people but to handle the edits. Gage for instance, prefers the term Sysop than moderator. Nothing wrong with that. Some people want to help the wiki without changing their persona and they should be allowed to. So instead we should divorce the two not necessarily complimentary parts of the jobs. Designate some users Moderators, and give them in addition to editing priviledge the strict responsibility of conflict resolution and civility in all their doings. Anyone who doesn't want that can simply just be a Sysop and handle edits and vandalism. When arbitration arises select one random moderator, and then let each of the arguing parties pick one moderator of their choice. Have those three vote to resolves the issue. This should resolve issues of bias.--Jon Pyre 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Who will select the 'random' mod?--J Muller 01:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How about set up a rotation? Give each mod interested in arbitration a number and just work up through them. If #3 just presided on a case as the "Chief" Arbitrator then it's #4's turn. --Jon Pyre 07:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Works.--J Muller 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My Take

I think this is, in all honesty, retarded. The user who wrote this policy up is a well-known advocate for free speech, so it is somewhat surprising to me that he would come up with something like this. It also strikes me as slightly amusing that in his justifying comments, he directs most of the "fault" for the policy at the sysops, mods, whatever. No matter what your preferred term is, the official wiki term is sysop - which is somewhat different from a moderator. I believe that certain users are attempting to enforce their idea of sysop politeness (possibly in retribution for past contact with unpolite sysops) - and by making "bullying" (the use of that particular word infers that the "offender" is coming from a higher position - again coming back to sysops) vandalism, I firmly believe that the writer of this policy is either attempting to have those sysops he doesn't like banned - an offence he has himself accused many of. Sysops are human. We simply cannot (and shouldn't have to) hold in our emotions just because we might hurt someone's precious feelings. Cyberbob  Talk  08:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

why dont you tell everybody that i want to see you and general banned ? there, i said it... happy ? but that's not the whole truth... i would love to see you two burning in order to remove such ammount of stupidity from the human race gene pool. You could even say i am running an agenda or something, that would be ok. It's been a long time that you have been harrasing me and several other people in this wiki, to the point that several good users have left the wiki, some of them after being banned as vandals, and i have learnt to hate you too. :)

but no... this arbitration reform was not meant to try and demote/ban you two. This policy is meant to end stupid things like general vs. term, or scinfaxi vs. jjames.. to move bullying from mods to misconduct is a way to give place to these special cases to be threated accordingly, since, even though we are only 'sysops' in here, the general community sees us as moderators, and take our actions as an example on how they should behave and what they can and cannot do. Even though we had tried to change this general idea of sysops == mods, we have failed on it, and will always do. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought Matt wrote this. Whoops. Nevertheless - those people who got banned? They were vandals. I didn't make them commit vandalism; they did it of their own accord. Not my fault I pick people who happen to also be vandals to dislike. Cyberbob  Talk  11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

They used to be good users, before you started to harrass them and their friends... gold blade was annoying, but he wasnt a vandal until you started to ban him and his friends. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll reiterate - I did not force them to ly rvandalise. Plus - I was in no way the only person involved in handling their cases. Why don't you go pick on one of those people, rather than concentrating on me? Cyberbob  Talk  22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also - Hagnat? If the general community sees us as moderators (which they don't - that's what you and your rebel mates want us to think), they're dead wrong. Cyberbob  Talk  11:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Spy's right. You shouldn't have to be a moderator as per the dictionary term in order to handle technical issues and vandalism on the wiki. But I think we should have actual moderators. Why not have two different types of enforcers of the peace, Sysops and Mods? --Jon Pyre 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I've become dulled to the asshattery perpetrated by the mods here by this point. And to think, when I got here, I thought that 'sysop' was the same thing. But anyway, that's a good idea you've got there. This isn't the place for a full discussion of it, obviously, but the idea has much promise.--J Muller 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to it, either. If nothing else, it would help ease tensions between sysops and regular users. I, for one, am fairly tired of people trying to hold me to ideals I shouldn't have to be following in the first place. Cyberbob  Talk  23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If the community is wrong, why do give them reasons to think that way ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One word - convenience. Cyberbob  Talk  22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If Matt saw Gage and Cyberbob as authoritative; then why did he question that authority? Hell, he ordered them to do something. Hagnat? You've done nothing but prove Cyberbob's point. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He's given one example (of many) of a mod making it quite plain that the plebs views don't matter, that they are the ones in authority. I don't understand the distinction that the mods here try to make (when it suits them), that they are sysops, not moderators. On one hand they try to make out that they are (paraphrase) 'just another user, only with functional powers', yet on the other hand they go around putting other users efforts to sort out a mess on the wiki down because their mod bid failed, because they're not a psyops. That's the point... Matt knows who's in authority, everyone here bloody well knows alright, this 'we're only psyops' just doesn't cut it, at least with some mods -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 03:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt spoke down to both Gage and Cyberbob. He cannot have expected them to take that lying down. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, he's abrasive, he deserves a bit of flak. I'm not disputing that. But what bob said is another thing. You can't say 'psyops are regular users' on one hand, and then when someone pisses you off make out that regular user's opinions are somehow inferior because they're not psyops. It undermines the claim he makes above, that the community isn't lead to believe that they're anything more than regular users -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me one person who hasn't said something they didn't mean when they were pissed off, and I'll call you a liar. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right again, but I don't think it affects my point -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 04:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpreting what someone said because you skimmed over it is the fault of the reader, not the writer. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, you've just gone from saying that he didn't mean it, to saying that I misinterpreted it now. That's enough for me -- boxy ^{T L ZS PA DA} 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Dales el brazo y tomarán el codo". A close interpretation in English where meaning is not lost would be "Give them your hand and they'll grab your arm". --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

sigh. What is it with people nowdays? Since we have already deduced from Boxy's commentary that he did, in-fact, understand the intent behind the comment in question it should be obvious that I was talking about people who skimmed over it and took it seriously. Gain some critical thinking skills Matt, they'd do you a world of good. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What does critical thinking have to do with this? Can you stop using terms just because they look pretty or part of your brain just happen to want to use the words? If you're dissapointed with people in general, and me in particular, don't be on such a public place as this one. It's not in my right to tell you what Boxy meant, because i'm not arrogant enough to say that I completely understand anybody, but what I can tell on his reply is that he left the conversation as you changed your statement to an even more favorable one (from "didn't mean it" to "misinterpretate") as soon as you saw him giving you some ground. Then I added the proverb concerning abusing someone's trust. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Critical thinking has to do with actually thinking before you respond. Think about it: if you have taken what I said in anger literally, then you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I did not twist words or meanings here. Read what I have highlighted, particularly what I've underlined. If you cannot deduce that I was not referring to Boxy, then I am not going to bother responding. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being gullible enough to buy your tripe, and I'm not near enough to be adicted to your prescence to actually fulfill each of your wishes in order to keep you in a discussion you obviously don't wish to remain. I'm not a forum asshole, I won't call you "coward" and "my win" if you leave first. I'm nice enough to actually take the time to read your statements repeatedly in order to give you a discussion high enough for your "replying standards". And don't you think that Cyberbob "doesn't mean it" too often? Ah, my apologies. Of course not. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyberbob would say anything to piss you off. He knows the mere mention of your failed bid is enough to make you burn up inside. Yet you wonder why he said it. Idiot. --CaptainM 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant the fact that he repeatedly says and does things that "he doesn't mean", making the argument that he really doesn't mean them shake, if not fall. That above is one example, or lately we have him making an annoyingly long blinking sig just because "he was bored". Said that, it's only left for me to tell you that Cyberbob hardly pissed off me mentioning my mod bid, but stating his mod status as a badge that makes his word and actions have more weight than mine did. Please leave the personal insults aside when talking to me. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a hideous blinking sig, and it's not because I was bored. I wanted to make something that would make people cringe. Sounds about like what your mom was thinking when you were conceived... --CaptainM 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at my arrogant case made on [1] and [2], then your own reply begging for a slack in [3] and at the end my selfish bragging on [4]. When I made that report on User:Zombielord2, first of all it was on the same spirit that the report shown above on the links, and second, it had nothing to do with Cyberbob240, as he wasn't even on the case until later on, and just added himself to belittle me. I really apologize to Gage if I truly gave him the wrong impression of being giving orders or to speak down to him, but it was not my intention. As you see, I'm yet again apologizing for a possible mistake on my part, but you mods try so hard to divert atention from a mistake that my little "aww, nooo, don't butcher that guy's page please, wait a little before that" really got into your feelings. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your report came off as exceedingly arrogant. Cyberbob belittled you because you were being a prick to Gage. You later went to bitch on Cyberbob's talk page about him making a mess. You couldn't even get your facts straight: the sole mod fuckup in this was Gage's; he made the wrong ruling and started making a mess. Cyberbob came to clean up the mess that was left without starting what is commonly known as a wheel war… so you go and rag on him instead of the perpetrator. Face it: you flustered Gage with yet another abysmally worded "request", did a horrible job trying to explain to Gage what was going on, blamed another moderator for (to paraphrase) "making a mess" when it was Gage's mistake, and now you're trying to pretend you're a saint. Excuse me if I don't buy your tripe. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How come that every time I heard something about that report, it's started with more and more dramatic words on how arrogant it was. I'm starting to think that it grows while I'm not looking at it! Whenever I was talking to Gage, I talked with respect, because until then I really believed he was a great Mod. Cyberbob did make a mess by himself because he moved the guy's talk and main page where they wouldn't be found by an inexperienced user, or if redirected, he won't notice that he's editing another user's subpage. The one's that trying to make a saint of someone is you, because he didn't at all "clean up Gage's mess", but he did make the confussion grow even more by taking action without consult. Gage limited himself to edit things back and forth each of the users pages, and I was about to tell him "wait wait WAIT lets see what the users have to say!" but there was no time, as he seems to have gotten that custom of your team of trying to solve problems lightining fast when such a thing is neither needed nor desirable. Xoid, don't try to make everyone eat your BS by making it look like chocolate, because it smells, and smells bad. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked ordering someone you view as an equal to do something could hardly be considered respect. Your complete inability to grasp what a wheel war is and why they are bad is blinding you to the fact that Cyberbob was cleaning up what Gage tried to do. Cyberbob was specifically asked by Gage to finish cleaning up the actions involved with the original ruling — he was not doing it without consultation. Nor was he going to reverse the decision at that time. You do not overrule another mod without talking to them about it first… not without incontrovertible proof that your decision would be correct.

That proof was lacking so he did the next best thing; hurried up the 'finalising' of the ruling so he could talk to Gage on MSN about why it was a poor decision. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked I especifically said that my intention was not ordering but suggesting, and then you can't say that I belittled the guys while ordering them around because the only post that got a suggestion on how to handle the case was the first one, and again for the deaf team I want to state that IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION TO ORDER. I'll resort to one of your tactics now: Where's the diff link that shows me proof on Gage asking Cyberbob trough MSN or Cyberbob realising it was a por decision? Now I suddenly have to believe that you were having a chat, and if I do then I'll have to have a "plus ultra" of trust in Wiki Mods because I can't imagine how Cyberbob and Gage were NOT chatting while my arby case was ruled upon, but that's another story.

I admit (yet and yet again, I admit and I concede and I apologize) that I didn't know what a Wheel war was until I readed the article that you gently pointed me to, but I fail to see how a guy as inteligent as Cyberbob realized the wrongs on such a ruling and still made edits in Gage's place. Where's his critical thinking?! (Laughs). Then, did he insult me on Gage's place, and how much do mods do things "in place of other mods"? OH MY GOD, are you talking on Cyberbob's place now?! did Gage rule on my case on Cyberbob's behalf?! Come on, prove my case even further, or just try to leave the conversation with the little honor you have left. Again, no difference. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You think that arby's case was rigged? Imbecile. Cyberbob hates Gage with a passion that I used to believe was simply not possible. Gage knows this. If Gage ruled in Cyberbob's favour, it was purely because you had no case. Take a long, hard look at your actions over the course of your stay here and you may realise that fact.

Your carefully crafted catch-22 accusation simply does not cut it, boy. Gage and I are friends. Cyberbob and I are friends. The General and I are friends. Thari and I are friends. All talk to me often; to ask for clarifications on the rules or just to chat. All will testify to this. They talk to each other as well. You yourself know that when Hammero was around that I talked to him on MSN too. You've undoubtedly seen the various posts on my talk page from various people about coming onto MSN/AIM/IRC/Whatever-bloody-method-of-communication I'm not currently on at the time… but choose to believe whatever you want. Your disbelief does not change the facts one iota.

And about the "requiring an edit" to verify outside communication? That's only a requirement in vandal cases. It's far from strange: if you were to be indicted in a murder case and the prosecution had actual evidence placing you at the scene of the crime you'd need something just a little more substantial than another person's word.

Whatever your intention with your report, you did come off as arrogant and it was perceived that way. Simple fact of life; what you say can and will be misinterpreted from time to time. Especially when the written language is not your strong point.

Where's Cyberbob's critical thinking? Avoiding a wheel war, that's where. By 'wrapping up the case' quickly he could discuss this with Gage faster. Besides, it was more chaotic to leave the mess as it was than to finish the job. So he finished it.

Come back when you actually have a point, and I'll give you a cookie. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did that "imbecile" come from? don't say that I'm starting to piss you off... Anyways, leaving alone the fact that you simply cannot hold your tongue when roused, I was merely making an hyperbole, saying what a parody of me would say should the poor bastard be as paranoic as you think I am. The only thing that I really whine about that case is the ruling at the end, because it covers nothing: I could post on 11 pages "Cyberbob240: Worst mod EVER" and nothing can be done as far the ruling states; to say that you take these edits as "bad faith" on M/VB would be another history. BTW, Cyberbob isn't the worst. About the passion and struggle between Gage and Cyberbob240, cut the crap. I can believe that the Gage before my retirement disliked him, but that they're "worst enemies and rivals sharing responsibilities and politely asking each other for help whenever they need it" only fits a Bram Stoker novel. Or maybe it is that I'm so universally hated that even after a 3 months hiatus my first report already has everyone joining against me.

About how much can your word or my disbelief change the fact, I agree. But don't talk as your word were the absolute truth because if you continue talking so good of your guys they'll be considered for canonization. You don't own any fact neither, and your word as a witness holds as much value to me as the end of my shoelaces when they get broken.

It would be nice for you to stop pointing my faults at written English as the cause of all misunderstandings. I'm sure that if you have them in account so much when making arguments against me you have it in account when the time comes to just read what I write. It's becoming a little annoying, and I won't like to start making a constant argument of "they discriminate me coz my English's no good!".

I fail to understand how completing a work poorly and being in good terms with an user that already hates you "passionately" it's more important than making it right and ensuring not one but two new user's permanence on the wiki. You have to spend a good time ordering your priorities if you think I'm clearly wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, I had to make a trip and I wasn't here for some days, but I see that you don't need of my presence at all to kick my name on the dust. I clap my hands at the ruling that allows Cyberbob240 to say all he said above, even tough he was confused about who wrote this policy. It'll hurt many fans to say that my "agenda" is really public for those that actually read what I write and don't look for words in-between lines, and as a conspiror I'm not as good as Cyberbob, neither will I reach a level of success near enough to the one he had in past ocassions, getting a guy demoted and banned, and even when that got reversed scapegoating his faults on his friend.

Anyways, enough venting. Hagnat. I respect your way of thinking and primordial ideals in general, but I do not agree with your deep idealism as it doesn't help to write strong policies or to reach consensus in the community. That's the reason I'll never write a policy like this. Now, I'll go do my things and later today I'll make an extensive rewrite of Wiki Monitors, just to show how cool I am. And remember Wiki mods: You Fail. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

I'm quite in favor of having some standard of good faith civility on this wiki. I've tried to be as civil as I could, but that seems to have gotten me little but ire from those who have more insults than solid arguments. The offenders aren't just moderators; bullies are everywhere here. I think I remember a cartoon about that once: Normal Person + Anonimity + Public Porum = Total Asshole. If we are going to remove personal arguments from Arbitration, a forum needs to be present to quell the flame wars this culture creates. I'd be in favor of this Policy if it established an alternate way to redress personal grievances with other users. Without an alternative, the trolls here will multiply. --Kiki Lottaboobs 06:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Penny Arcade Greater Internet Fuckward Theory --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I started looking for that one when I read this, but didn't find it.--J Muller 07:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, you found that quick! It's a true observation. --Kiki Lottaboobs 09:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes!

Keep The General and his rediculous arbitration cases out of there. If they were suggestions, they'd be spaminated, I want the same option for M/A ;) -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But there are other cases that should be there that this policy would prohibit.--J Muller 07:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)