UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/asshatery

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

1.0

This Policy would allow the Moderators to Ban individuals who were consistently and blatantly offensive. There are instances of individuals that only contribution to the Wiki is Drama and conflict, and there needs to be some policy that allows the Mods to address the issue. This is not meant to be an alternative to arbitration, but rather a last resort for when an individual either refuses to abide by arbitration or refuses attempts to end any issues that may exist between one or more users.

Implementation: Should a user create an issue, the Moderators would first deal with any Vandalism that has resulted from the problem. If there is no Vandalism, the Mod would refer the parties to arbitration. If Arbitration was unable to solve the issue, the user blatantly disregards the arbitration ruling, or simply maintains an attitude of conflict, the moderator would warn the user(s) twice before implementing a ban along the same scale as the escalating vandalism bans.

Bans would be reversible by appeal, and any moderator found guilty of abuse of this policy would be subject to immediate misconduct proceedings.

Well?

This is not for the casual user conflict, or even users that thrive in drama situations, but for those who make no significant contributions other than to piss people off. Conndrakamod T CFT 06:29, 15 October 2006 (BST)

HAHA

Banning being an asshat? Let's just ban everyone on the wiki then, because we are all asshats. I think we should start with Xoid, Cyberbob, and me.--Gage 06:31, 15 October 2006 (BST)

Oh, like I said it's not for pains in the ass like us you, but users who take it too far. The discussion is to help determine how far is too far...Conndrakamod T CFT 06:37, 15 October 2006 (BST)
I just don't see it being necessary. We usually just find something to ban them for if they become too much of an asshole.--Gage 06:41, 15 October 2006 (BST)
I will then become the RULER OF THE WIKI!!!! (But I don't think this is the best idea...) --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 01:54, 16 October 2006 (BST)

I would love this policy implemented simply because of Terminator 484.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:13, 15 October 2006 (BST)

You know, if we keep thinking up policies like this, eventually we will recreate the inquisition. In my opinion, this policy is completely unnecessary. The vandalism and NPOV policies already define "how far is too far". This only adds a subjective layer that is easily abused. I don't see any way you can possibly make this work as an objective policy. Its just a loaded gun that cliques of users will pick up and use against others when they don't like what the other users are saying. Maybe what we need is a "users should have a thicker skin" policy instead. Bubba 17:24, 15 October 2006 (BST)

Normally I would agree with you, however recently I have had to deal with a user who has been "saying" things that would constitute a felony if said to me in person. Unfortunately the current policies do not allow for users to be banned for such things as Death threats, Threats of Terrorism, or genuine attempts to defame. Conndrakamod T CFT 17:29, 15 October 2006 (BST)
Note that the policy only applies to people who are both asshats and unproductive. As long as you are a productive asshat, you're immune. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:33, 15 October 2006 (BST)
Xoid took the words out of my mouth with that last comment. The question really becomes "How destructive are they REALLY?" and "Are they threatening the WIKI, or just annoying myself?". Our current methods of banning are acceptable. Simply bring the person up for a voting method. If the mass agrees that yes, they are a threat, they are banned. If they don't? Deal with it. It may not be a PERFECT system? But its better than a "bans for all" policy. --MorthBabid 20:06, 15 October 2006 (BST)
I think it's more of a matter of if they are disruptive than productive. People can greatly help one page, while totally screwing up 5 others. Before bans though, the user should be restricted from editing the pages for which he was loathed. -Certified=Insane☭ 03:09, 16 October 2006 (BST)

Sugestion

What if I simply change the wording to say Moderators may ban users for violation of the Server TOS and/or Registars TOS on the same escalating scale and in addition to the Vandalism scale. (i.e. if someone gets a 24 hour ban for vandalism and then violates the TOS they would automatically receive the 48 hour ban.) Conndrakamod T CFT 22:00, 16 October 2006 (BST)

That could have legs. Of course, we'd have to provide some pretty prominent links to the TOS in question, so there couldn't be any mistaking it. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 01:09, 25 October 2006 (BST)

Problem

The Policy said:
the Mod would refer the parties to arbitration. If Arbitration was unable to solve the issue, the user blatantly disregards the arbitration ruling, or simply maintains an attitude of conflict, the moderator would warn the user(s) twice before implementing a ban along the same scale as the escalating vandalism bans.

Ignoring an arbitration ruling is vandalism. Period. I don't see how this is any different than the system we have in place. In fact, I think it would be worse.--Gage 00:01, 18 October 2006 (BST)

Absurd

There are so many levels of ridiculous in this policy. The worst part about this wiki is when one person gets mad at another and then tries to get him banned for all sorts of ridiculous things. This is taking that and effectively legalizing it. What's more, can you guys imagine how much this sort of thing would be abused? Everyone who doesn't like someone else would try to use it and there'd be "ban Amazing" and then "unban Jedaz" votes every week- and you couldn't vote one way or the other on any of them because "X user is a jerk" is a subjective statement, regardless of what you do to it. That doesn't even take into account people who are mean to some and nice to others. If this policy passes, the vb page will get bogged down, the wiki will die, the economy will crash, and I'll start going bald. Ladies and Gentlemen, that can't happen! --Ron Burgundy 06:57, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Spam

Sweet Zombie Jebus - under this policy I would've banned myself last week for being an asshat, but now I think I'm okay - but it would be too late by now. I think arbitration and M/VB exists for real issues. This is just "policy for the sake of policy". --Funt Solo 22:48, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Agreed. This is useless; it claim to clarify Section 5.1 but is too vague. If this policy were to pass, then a new policy would be needed to clarify this. And if that new policy is also vague, then another policy would be required, and so on and so forth. --Wikidead 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

2.0

Better?

I think so? Its a lot more direct, blunt, and to the point. But I'd like to know what others think, since I confess I'm still a wee bit in the dark as to how this was handled in the past? --MorthBabid 22:15, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Comprehensible and objective. My only question had to do with the process of ban appeal. Has that process been defined elsewhere already? If not, don't you need to define the process? Bubba 20:31, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Its the same process that happens via e-mail should a Vandal or someone using a banned IP address can take even now. You can see wht is in the message you get if you try to log in using a banned proxy. Conndrakamod T CFT 22:23, 27 October 2006 (BST)
Works for me then. Bubba 22:32, 27 October 2006 (BST)
Is this via the Moderation/Arbitration area? Perhaps people being banned in ways they feel unfairly just aren't able to find the proper place to appeal? I'm still not quite sure where one would do this. --MorthBabid 06:01, 28 October 2006 (BST)
No its via Direct e-mail to one or more of the Moderators and does not take place on the wiki. Conndrakamod T CFT 08:28, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Couldn't this just be a corollary to the existing Vandal rules? Daniel Hicken 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive

2 weeks, no vote. Archive? Pillsy FT 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not in vote mode... still waiting for more input. I'm waiting for one of the other Mods to second the movement to Vote. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 02:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A lot of them are currently trying to hash out the mod guidelines in the other policy section atm, or so I'm told. --MorthBabid 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this about me too?

Is it because you don't like our fan club? Michael Richards Fan ClubJjames 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope...I agree that the Michael Richards thing was blown out of prportion but I don't think using the issue to stir shit on the wiki does anybody any good either. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
So it's okay for jew haters to destroy a man's career because he called a spade a spade?(In a manner of speaking. The guy was rude.)Jjames 16:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not really relevant to this page. But on a sidenote: See Tact. --MorthBabid 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK

Seems OK, from the description above - very vague though. Although 'asshatery' is a fairly sad term, to be critical - what's wrong with the term 'disruption'? We won't bother arguing this grammatical point.... Crabappleslegalteam 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

The Policy said:
This Policy would allow the Moderators to Ban individuals who were consistently and blatantly offensive. There are instances of individuals that only contribution to the Wiki is Drama and conflict, and there needs to be some policy that allows the Mods to address the issue. This is not meant to be an alternative to arbitration, but rather a last resort for when an individual either refuses to abide by arbitration or refuses attempts to end any issues that may exist between one or more users.

To nitpick a little, I was curious if you could plese define the following words, for clarification of this policy. Please define the following:

  • consistently (in terms of frequency - # of times per week/day/month)
  • blatantly
  • offensive

Additionally, the policy currently seems to concern itself only with "individuals that only contribution to the Wiki is Drama and conflict...". Does this mean that those who also provide valid content are immune to this policy? If not, what ratio of conflict vs. content provides immunity; or is this a metric of vulnerability? --Kiki Lottaboobs 20:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a standard measure of "asshatery." Or, perhaps, just the Wiki-public's will on individuals should be such a measure, instead of actually an exact, possibly arbitrary definition. In other word, mob-rule over mod-rule. --Wikidead 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Legal documents usually have a section that defines all the terms. Looks like you might have to do the same here. --Jon Pyre 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on that..I've been a bit tied up... ok thats a lie, I've been wishing I was tied up but I have been otherwise occupied to really give this much thought. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/asshatery&oldid=516873"