UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Moderators and Sysops

Discussion

I think outlining everyone's responsibilities and letting people choose what they want to do will improve things. --Jon Pyre 05:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki sysops are not forum mods. They should only here for maintenance tasks. Don't try to make them have to be nice. They are normal users with a few extra responsibilities, that is all.--Gage 06:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If moderators are going to be kept on a leash, then so should you. Putting up an artificial boundary that prevents moderators from responding is utterly asinine. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If someone can troll me, and I can't respond, how the hell is that fair?--Gage 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

An eye for an eye is never the best solution gage. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort. I just don't want to have to be friendly to someone who makes my life hell.--Gage 06:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't prevent a mod from giving their opinion. They just have to respond politely and generally take the high road. The same way you wouldn't want a trial judge to call the defendant a douchebag in court. As the judges of the wiki moderators should also be civil and do their best to avoid charges of bias. If someone insults a moderator this is how they should handle it.

Jerk User: Shut up you piece of ****

Moderator: I don't think that kind of remark helps our discussion.

Jerk User: But it helps me point out you're a piece of ****

Moderator: We'll agree to disagree. Anyone else want to take it from here?

And if you want to cuss right back instead of trying to avoid a fight, well, that's why you'd get to choose between being a mod or a sysop, with no difference in editing powers. Sysops wouldn't have to be nice and could respond however they please. The only thing a mod can do that a sysop can't is handle arbitration cases, and if you're staying a sysop in order to fight freely you're better off not acting as judge to avoid any accusation of bias. --Jon Pyre 06:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you say that mods are 'advised' to be polite, even with vandals, not 'forbidden' to cuss, then i think that this could lead to something acceptable. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know what I was thinking when I said I'd be open to this... Just because you don't have to be nice doesn't mean you'll automatically be biased. Sysops have always had to be unbiased, and for you to suggest that we're incapable of that... it's bile. Utter bile. Cyberbob  Talk  06:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And Hagnat? Us sysops have always been "advised" to be polite, so there would really be zero difference between a moderator and what we have now. Cyberbob  Talk  07:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For the love of Christ, learn to properly position your comments. That means if you are replying to Gage, you put your comment under Gage's.

Here's a few handy tips: bias ≠ swearing. Bias ≠ irritation. Bias ≠ venting. Regardless, bias is unavoidable. Instead of that unobtainable goal we should be aiming for objectivity. To remove the problem of bias moderators should recuse themselves from cases where they have a vested interest — just like with the judicial system. I can hate you all I want, but that fact simply cannot interfere with my judgement in cases in which you are not involved.

Another thing: if you don't like a certain arbitrator, don't pick 'em. It's incredibly simple. Your problem is that certain moderators give certain idiots a broadside. If you want that restricted then you had damn well better be held to the same level of accountability — your example is pure asininity in and of itself. I'm not going to fairyfloss my commentary if someone else isn't being forced to either. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Moderators are still people you know ? I didnt become a borg once i got my mod powers, so i am free to hate and praise whatever i want, whenever i want. While, yes, we could work out in a split between sysops and mods, i dont think restricting what a mod can and cannot do is the best way to do it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't restrict what they can do. Just how they'd say it. Dislike someone's page? A regular user or sysop could say "That's an ugly page, moron". A moderator would say "I don't like the way that looks." Of course that doesn't mean the sysop has to be mean. Just the moderator has agreed to never be mean, while every other user has the right to respond as their mood dictates. And I don't think any of the current mods are biased in handling arbitration. But having those in charge of arbitration be polite in all their doings can certainly help avoid any appearance of bias. If you may have to arbitrate a case with a person someday insulting them now can lead to the appearance of impropriety later on. --Jon Pyre 07:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me one case of a sysop arbitrating abusively. Hell, show me one case of anyone arbitrating abusively. Cyberbob  Talk  07:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I said I don't think they are. But imagine if you went to court and the judge turned out to be someone you got in a fistfight with ten years ago. It might not affect their decision but any verdict against you would feel tainted. I don't think requring mature behavior from those designated to resolve conflicts is an unrealistic step. A large part of our justice system is not only giving the right verdict but demonstrating that justice was absolute. --Jon Pyre 07:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Already countered in my reply to you above. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't prevent moderators from fully participating in discussions and critcizing things they dislike. It just requires them to avoid non-constructive arguments and pointless bickering that could call their objectivity into question. I by no means am throwing the work of our mods into doubt. They do hard work and keep this site running, and the arbitration system works well. But it's a work in progress. Maturity is not a bad trait to have. Asking maturity of those who must make mature decisions is just common sense. --Jon Pyre 07:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maturity is never a bad trait; it is a bad trait to mandate though. Sysops are regular users that can do special shit because they are trusted to do it well. They. Are. Not. Your. Mother.--Gage 07:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply, if someone is going to resolve an argument it should be someone that hasn't personally insulted either of the people involved. It's a good idea to have a few people on hand that could handle any case. --Jon Pyre 07:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm... there are? Check the arbitration page. There are some 30 odd people there. If someone has problems with all 30 people on that list they need to get the fuck off the wiki.--Gage 07:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Having non-mod arbitrators and keeping a large pool is a good idea so I should drop that part of the idea. But I think seperating sysops and moderators would be helpful. At the very least it'd be accurate. --Jon Pyre 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How would that be helpful? It would be more work than neccisary. What you'd find is that some of the most helpful Sysops are somewhat jackasses. Just look at Gage and Xoid (No offense guys). They're probably two of the most helpful people on this wiki, but man can they be abbrasive. If you require maturity of anyone, ESPECIALLY on the Intrawebz, your going to get shot down. This policy, is a FAIL. --CaptainM 07:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

>_> Cyberbob  Talk  07:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

True. Mods around here are not known for their... non-asshat-ness?--J Muller 08:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet they are quite helpful. Ewwww, I sound like a kissass... --CaptainM 08:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha ha. Excellent idea.. definately helps with specific mods who can't help but resort to troll voting. But I have no idea whatsoever who that could be, okay.. it's not Gage.. someone worse. MrAushvitz 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maturity would not be required of anybody since becoming a mod would be optional for any Sysop (and I've already expressed that the arbitration related part of this policy will be taken out). Just that if the need for mediation arose and it hadn't gotten quite bad enough to require full blown arbitration it would be useful having some people with stopping arbitration from being necessary as their job. On the street if a cop sees two people fighting he doesn't shrug it off and say "Let the courts decide". He/She'll step in and say "Hey guys, break it up. Keep the hands down." and maybe avoid the need for a judge in the first place. --Jon Pyre 19:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, he just beats the shit outta the guys until they stop fighting.--Gage 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Or he whips out his revolver, fires a warning shot or two into the air, and asks them if they feel lucky.--J Muller 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad cops aren't allowed to fire their gun for no good reason.--Gage 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to reference a Clint Eastwood movie, actually.--J Muller 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Aushvitz? I'm not a mod... Yet... --CaptainM 05:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it the problem is there's no moral authority. As currently evolved a mod is an ordinary wiki user with some editing and rule enforcement priviledges and responsibilities. Since the moderator isn't required to be neutral or at least diplomatic, and they're viewed as equals they can't really make more nuanced decisions in situations where the rules aren't clear. For instance if someone vandalizes a page by replacing it with a crude picture there's no question. The person ruined a page, and its the mod's role to ban that user and revert the page. But what if it was something technically within the rules. Let's say I started preceding every comment on the wiki with five lines of really awful crappy zombie movie poetry. The teeth gnawed upon the boughs, the guns held high so zombies could die, undead are bad they make me sad,etc. A moderator could ask me "Please don't put five lines of poetry in front of every comment. It isn't relevant and forces me to move things to archives a lot quicker." In other forums I attend the mods have unspecified powers and generally act as shepherd to the community. They can make a decision on their own authority and tell the person to stop. But here in our wiki of equals a mod could tell me to stop and I could reply "Screw you! I'm not breaking any rules and I like to write on the wiki in character! My next ten poems will have you getting eaten by zombies!" --Jon Pyre 10:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here that needs fixing. I've been here a few months now, so I've seen and taken part in some llama drama, and I've seen how the mods (as a whole) operate. It all seems quite fair, really. In any case where a regular user doesn't think they're being treated fairly, they can request (and will get) a second opinion. Sometimes mods are abrasive, but then, can you really blame them (given the obtuse behaviour of so many users)? They're not getting paid for this shit, you know. There are even structures in place for you to report moderator misconduct or to have any disagreement arbitrated by a third party. Most forums don't have those. You remember the Jedaz debacle, right? There's not really a clearer case of how the moderators here can and will be held accountable for their actions by the will of the community, if it is necessary. The moral authority you mention is the community as a whole. What is the point of adding more layers of beurocracy? Who's it for? What's it going to achieve? (Unless...this is all some huge conspiracy.) --Funt Solo 11:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the "Jedaz debacle" a clear case on "how the moderators here can and will be held accountable for their actions by the will of the community"? If you look at the aftermath, it was Jedaz who was on the right, and the only "revenge" he got was a unmeaningful autoban by Xoid that didn't change his behaviour and position an inch. He even felt that being in a Mod team that was hostile against him was wrong and requested his own demotion. If a community fed with missinformation about an user on "how evil his actions are" and "how rightifully did Mods act", a poll like Poll/Unban Jedaz is to be expected, with troll votes on one side and trace dogs maniatically searching for socks as trophies in the other, and that's how gullible the "community" can be taken, not mentioning that the community as a whole didn't vote on that, as I can see only familiar names of those that have a good deal of participation and not the usual "unknow suburb's news updater" on that poll at all. You have to take in account that this is a really forgiving Wiki where a blanker can get a single warning instead of a ban as long as he did contribute before, and the user that got instantly permabanned in the grounds of "suspicion" was an user with no past history of vandalism. It's just for me but it was en extremely great punishment for an extremely ambiguos offense? And take in account how the "instant permaban" used on this case was new thing for this wiki that at the time was not covered by the guidelines at all, and used solely against extreme cases like PQNs and 3pwv. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the unfair banning was reversed. That was my point. Anyway, it's a side issue. What is the point of this policy? That's the key question. --Funt Solo 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Are you people kidding me? Someone, please tell me that I am NOT looking at a Wiki page where the Moderators are arguing over whether or not they should have to act like sane, mature professionals. How exactly do you people expect the rest of the community out here to take you seriously if you think you have the right to act like precocious teenagers? Dear Lord in Heaven, to think that I've been wasting my time on a Wiki that is run by a bunch of children... MolotovH 01:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in some cases the moderators are precocious teenagers - so how do you expect them to act? --Funt Solo 08:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (As for sane, mature professionals, I think you'll find that most people get paid to act that way - and even then, the amount of adults who don't is quite a lot. Do you live on some other planet, MototovH?) --Funt Solo 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you don't exactly get sane, mature professionals here. They usually get people to take them seriously via the constant threat of bannination hanging over everyone's heads.--J Muller 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite unlike most governments (like the US and UK, for example), who use reasoned argument to get their points of view acro - oh, wait - no, they don't - they use the threat of force. --Funt Solo 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but soldiers and police, as well as judges and so on, are given standards of conduct. To look at an extreme hypothetical, let's say one moderator started using racial slurs against a user they didn't like. Really awful stuff. What rule would prevent them from doing so? What rule would allow their removal? --Jon Pyre 19:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, this policy would do just that! Excellent! Let us move immediately to a vote! --Funt Solo 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A different idea

What this seems to be trying to do is make someone who's called a moderator be moderate. Of course as shown above some of the moderators arn't very accepting of that idea. So how about this one? Rather than trying to make sysops moderate, we should change all of the existing and future policies and other material where it refers to a sysop as a moderator so that the term moderator is replaced by sysop. If we called all of the 'moderators' sysops then there wouldn't be any implication that sysops have to be nice, which to me seems to be the real issue at hand here. Well thats my 2 cents, take it or leave it. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Funt Solo 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just post a disclaimer-type thingy where all new people would see it that says something like this:

• WARNING: The mods here are not mods. They are sysops. No one is obligated to act mature here. Welcome to the jungle, watch your back and sleep with one eye open.

--J Muller 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole 'mod' thing was a misnomer. We've never had the power to moderate. The fact that arb. is a requirement to deal with people name-calling each is proof of this. It was a misnomer assigned by the first wiki denizens, most of whom had no idea how the larger wikis worked. This probably wouldn't have mattered if we hadn't of based our policies off said larger wikis. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm for both. We stop calling ourselves mods, and we stick the disclaimer at the top of the moderation page. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for accuracy in reporting. --Jon Pyre 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A dissenting opinion

I have to say I really like this policy. The technical name for the software privileges may be sysop, but I think this wiki desperately needs some people to moderate it--God knows there are too many dumbasses here to do without it--and I don't think the ops here act nearly as reasonably or as calmly as they should to fill that position. Making them act their age and their responsibility is a great idea, and giving up my right to swear reasonably in order to emphasize a point is the only effective way I can see to stop everybody else from swearing unreasonably.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal point of view as well. Thanks for wording it better than I could. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)