UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/idledemotions
Seems reasonable to me. The office of moderator implies a duty to perform the role. And since the office can be restored... -- 
BubbaT 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Idel deomotions is a great idea as we need to have active moderators on this wiki. I'd like to know how it would work if they return and request their status back. Do they get it back without question or would it need to be approved by a number of current moderators? Pillsy FT 10:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- How would you like it to work Pillsy? What do you think?--Gage 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That was what I was wondering. Surely if they have earned mod status by vote then they should get it back without question, but security wise maybe the current mods should vote on it. --MarieThe Grove 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well in my opinion it should just be the moderators who take the decision on if the modertaor should be allowed to return. Maybe using the same system (in theory) as the promotions wheras the moderators should vote as to whether they feel the moderator can have thier power back. You need at least six mods to vote and a margin of 2/3 to regain their power. I know there are at least 6 active mods so I feel that should work. Maybe also have the vote last for a week or two so the moderator doesn't get their power back instantly, gives a fair voting time and the only way this could be changed is if all moderators have voted. Not a perfect idea but its something how I'd like to see. Pillsy FT 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I like that alot.--Gage 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't. It's too prone to abuse, and what happens if/when we fall below the required six moderators? Again, this is another case where Wikipedia's policy should probably be assimilated. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you happen to have a link to that Xoid? I've looked at the wikipedia mediation section and I can't seem to find it. Pillsy FT 10:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't. It's too prone to abuse, and what happens if/when we fall below the required six moderators? Again, this is another case where Wikipedia's policy should probably be assimilated. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I like that alot.--Gage 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well in my opinion it should just be the moderators who take the decision on if the modertaor should be allowed to return. Maybe using the same system (in theory) as the promotions wheras the moderators should vote as to whether they feel the moderator can have thier power back. You need at least six mods to vote and a margin of 2/3 to regain their power. I know there are at least 6 active mods so I feel that should work. Maybe also have the vote last for a week or two so the moderator doesn't get their power back instantly, gives a fair voting time and the only way this could be changed is if all moderators have voted. Not a perfect idea but its something how I'd like to see. Pillsy FT 19:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sound maintenance idea. Pillsy's right though, what does this mean for "returning" mods? His point implies that there is a optimum number of moderators (too few, nothing gets done and too many mods are too many cooks on one pot). Maybe it's a N00b question, but is there a moderator:user ratio?--The Envoy 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, there isn't.--Gage 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's 0.0017.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is the current ratio, but I don't think there is any number we should be shooting for.--Gage 19:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Me not liek it. Me bashes gage head with axe. Zug zug! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- *rolls eyes* Why am I not surprised? If you're not going to do anything here, then you should be voluntarily relinquishing your status as moderator. One of the first rules of basic systems administration is to not have unnecessary permissions floating around. Accounts on the internet get hacked all the time. Even if said hacker cannot take over your UDWiki account, how safe is your email account? There are well documented flaws in numerous popular email services — with a modicum of effort someone could find yours, hack it, send a password reminder from the UDWiki, and Bob's your uncle; admin privileges. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would really like to see this policy dictate that a mandatory notice, which explains that the moderator has been demoded for inactivity and how to get their moderation powers restored, is to be placed on the moderators talk page after demodding. - Dark PhantomTalk 10:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'm surprised we don't do this already.--J Muller 01:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Likewise. I would however request that it be added to this policy that such (mostly) temporary bans would be announced to the public when executed, alongside a listing of their last known edit. The MediaWiki has a page for this, apparently. --MorthBabid 05:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of us dont check in "officially" very much anymore. I havent made an edit in more than three months (Excepting the most enjoyable smacking of Ron, Bo, and Pyre in the promotions section earlier today). Doesnt mean we dont come on. Doesnt mean we even bother to log in (You can survey without doing it, y'know). Personally i havent used my mod abilities in <enter readers deity/alien overlord of choice> knows how long. I am, however, in an eternal state of "on call", which basically means that if comeone catches me on IRC and alerts me to the fact that fecal matter and the fan are in close proximity to one another, i can help smash it flat.
Besides, such a dramariffic happening that Gage is talking about would most likely be the result of someone having a direct and recent greivance with the community, not an inactive moderator who is quite distanced from participating in the said community, bonds of trust are not lightly broken, at least not by people who are actually qualified to be in the position. This is a stupid policy. Back in the old days when people were made mods based on merit and qualified through consistent interest in maintaining the wiki and conducting themselves in a composed and mature manner rather than as part of a popularity contest (Which is todays wiki, a really stupid system, as while an idiot could be popular, giving him the nuclear missile launch codes is probably not the brightest idea [At least until the bombs land]).
Personally, i think it was Gage who dun it, and this is just the next step in his diabolical plan to remove the olde mods and thus eliminate the only people who can stop him from plunging the wiki into eternal darkness. Basically, if you want to point fingers at people, point fingers at the actives instead of trying to blame those of us who just dont feel like talking, and probably dont give two shits about whats going on, so long as whats going on isnt of the shit meets fan variety.
In any case, given this, I have now made a note to make an edit every 2 months and 27 days. Bwahahaha! I win! Gage cannot defeat me! Heh, i dont even need to say anything! I could just make a null edit to my userpage, thus maintaining the air of mystery! This is what i love about laws that are followed to the letter. LOOPHOLES! LOOPHOLES! EVERYWHERE LOOPHOLES! And they are impossible to close, though i invite you to try. Have fun. --Grim s-Mod U! 15:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hurray for grim! Exposed another conspiracy in the wiki :D --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is about idle demotions. Such wording would change the fundamental direction of the thing from demoting inactive people to demoting people who dont meet a quota of mod actions, which leads to mod abuse as people have to use their abilities in order to keep them, and thus lose them because the uses are stupid. Anyway, the best moderators are those that dont need to use their abilities. --Grim s-Mod U! 04:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken, but I would say that currently the moderators need to use their powers and those that do not want to use them do not deserve to have them or should at least offer to relinquish them. What is the point of being a mod when you don't do any mod like things? The desire to be a mod and undertake the duties that being a mod requires, if someone no longer has the desire to do so or no longer has the time then why keep the power? Pillsy FT 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I'm admittedly ignorant of the real or potential damage that could come from a security breach like the checkuser leak Gage cites as justification for this policy, Grim s makes a compelling case that this will amount to nothing but a purge of mods who conduct themselves more passively than the manner Gage, Pillsy, and Xoid seem to insist mods carry themselves. Pillsy's above argument reads to me like this: if you're licensed to carry a firearm and given arrest powers, you well better be regularly firing off rounds and slapping on cuffs or you're just not doing your job. Mods of Grim's mode may have a higher tolerance level than this school of thought, using their powers only when they see it as necessary, or perhaps dedicate themselves to a particular "range" of the wiki and having laid down hard law earlier, now see that range running like a tight ship by its participants. I'm not well versed in Grim's record, but from what I've read herein, he seems to be more along the lines of the mod whose style I respect (though he may be irked that I also associate that style with Burgundy). "Proper" mod activity as implied in this policy seems to suggest that mods need be busybodies searching out "problems" to "fix." That last line is nastier in phrasing than I mean, so apologies to those I may've offended, but it's the succinct way of putting forth what I see as the split in this debate.--The Envoy 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The cop analogy doesn't follow. Comparing a wiki mod to a cop is lunacy. I expect a mod to delete a bad page every once in a while or ban a vandal. It isn't that hard.--Gage 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Gage, one could also claim a rhetorical strategy wherein criticism is often dismissed as lunacy amounts to a sort of insular lunacy itself. The limited cop analogy does work, and you calling it lunacy isn't going to prevent other reasonable people from seeing that. For one, I never said mods were a complete equivalent to cops. However, you got to admit that a moderator's duties due amount to "policing" the wiki. The power to delete and ban are analogous to arrest powers and lethal force in a virtual commons. Now consider your humble claim that you expect mods to delete a bad page every once in a while or ban a vandal. Aside from the tells belied in your tendency to speak of your desires rather than what you think the community needs, the debate still comes down to how regular "every once in a while" should be codified, or if it should be codified at all. Again, Grim thinks, as I do, that mods should only really need to exercise their powers once in a great while (when the shit hits the proverbial fan). You and others take a more pro-active approach which has been characterized as a bit more zealous than necessary. Perhaps it's wise to keep on those whom you consider to be dead weight as an insurance against a cabal who mistake their constabulary powers to police as architectural authority. Oh, and as far as the language of this policy proposal as currently worded, aside from needing to specify reinstatement specifically, "incredulous" is not being used properly, unless you mean your claim of the checkuser log being leaked is itself something for your readers to be suspicious over or the story itself is somehow imbued with the ability to be skeptical toward something. Punch your weight and just say it's "incredible" or "unbelievable" or that you're incredulous (not incredible, I give your truth claims credence) ;) .--The Envoy 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your theory (that mods should only step in once in a while) would be well and fine if we didn't have persistent vandal problem and n00bs who won't listen to anything besides a 2x4 upside the head. Believe it or not, this wiki is not a nice place most of the time. People are idiots. They make pages that need to be deleted. Someone has to delete them. Mods are needed to do this. You want a mod who rarely steps in? Talk to Thari, because he is the closest thing to what you want. He is always here, but he only steps in if he has to. Grim, is not here. He wasn't here for 3 months. I think there is a huge security hole in having this large number of user permissions floating around. Do you know that I have access to your IP? Did you know that mods made a year ago, but that haven't been here since have you IP? You don't find that disturbing? I do. What do you think the wording on this policy should be? Give me an idea, and we will go from there, since you are obviously an intelligent individual.--Gage 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what, I'll take a stab at what I think an "idle" policy should look like that addresses your security concerns (which, really, shouldn't be limited to just the idles) while trying to protect "respected legacy" mods at the same time. However, if I don't get it up within the next 24 hrs, it's going to have to wait till next weekend. Probably not a big deal, since I don't really see this moving to voting with a reasonable chance of passage anytime soon. That said, it sounds like the easiest thing to do may be to make "idleness" a potential misconduct charge, and make this something that falls under the moderator misconduct policy. At the very least, moderators under that regime wouldn't be dismissed as summarily as the proposal outlines.--The Envoy 06:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary Gage, i have been here during those three months. I just did not feel the need to make an edit to prove I was watching. I maintain that if there are going to be problems with moderator abilities being abused, they will be abused by the active moderators, not the inactive ones, as there really is no motive for inactive moderators to attack a community in which they have no interest, while active ones can have any number of such problems, ranging from dissillusionment with the community, or feeling unappreciated. An idle moderator has absolutely none of these motivations, especially for something as malicious as the acts you are blaming on them. Also, abilities should be used as they are needed, not as someone else wants them to be used. --Grim s-Mod U! 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your theory (that mods should only step in once in a while) would be well and fine if we didn't have persistent vandal problem and n00bs who won't listen to anything besides a 2x4 upside the head. Believe it or not, this wiki is not a nice place most of the time. People are idiots. They make pages that need to be deleted. Someone has to delete them. Mods are needed to do this. You want a mod who rarely steps in? Talk to Thari, because he is the closest thing to what you want. He is always here, but he only steps in if he has to. Grim, is not here. He wasn't here for 3 months. I think there is a huge security hole in having this large number of user permissions floating around. Do you know that I have access to your IP? Did you know that mods made a year ago, but that haven't been here since have you IP? You don't find that disturbing? I do. What do you think the wording on this policy should be? Give me an idea, and we will go from there, since you are obviously an intelligent individual.--Gage 02:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Gage, one could also claim a rhetorical strategy wherein criticism is often dismissed as lunacy amounts to a sort of insular lunacy itself. The limited cop analogy does work, and you calling it lunacy isn't going to prevent other reasonable people from seeing that. For one, I never said mods were a complete equivalent to cops. However, you got to admit that a moderator's duties due amount to "policing" the wiki. The power to delete and ban are analogous to arrest powers and lethal force in a virtual commons. Now consider your humble claim that you expect mods to delete a bad page every once in a while or ban a vandal. Aside from the tells belied in your tendency to speak of your desires rather than what you think the community needs, the debate still comes down to how regular "every once in a while" should be codified, or if it should be codified at all. Again, Grim thinks, as I do, that mods should only really need to exercise their powers once in a great while (when the shit hits the proverbial fan). You and others take a more pro-active approach which has been characterized as a bit more zealous than necessary. Perhaps it's wise to keep on those whom you consider to be dead weight as an insurance against a cabal who mistake their constabulary powers to police as architectural authority. Oh, and as far as the language of this policy proposal as currently worded, aside from needing to specify reinstatement specifically, "incredulous" is not being used properly, unless you mean your claim of the checkuser log being leaked is itself something for your readers to be suspicious over or the story itself is somehow imbued with the ability to be skeptical toward something. Punch your weight and just say it's "incredible" or "unbelievable" or that you're incredulous (not incredible, I give your truth claims credence) ;) .--The Envoy 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The cop analogy doesn't follow. Comparing a wiki mod to a cop is lunacy. I expect a mod to delete a bad page every once in a while or ban a vandal. It isn't that hard.--Gage 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I'm admittedly ignorant of the real or potential damage that could come from a security breach like the checkuser leak Gage cites as justification for this policy, Grim s makes a compelling case that this will amount to nothing but a purge of mods who conduct themselves more passively than the manner Gage, Pillsy, and Xoid seem to insist mods carry themselves. Pillsy's above argument reads to me like this: if you're licensed to carry a firearm and given arrest powers, you well better be regularly firing off rounds and slapping on cuffs or you're just not doing your job. Mods of Grim's mode may have a higher tolerance level than this school of thought, using their powers only when they see it as necessary, or perhaps dedicate themselves to a particular "range" of the wiki and having laid down hard law earlier, now see that range running like a tight ship by its participants. I'm not well versed in Grim's record, but from what I've read herein, he seems to be more along the lines of the mod whose style I respect (though he may be irked that I also associate that style with Burgundy). "Proper" mod activity as implied in this policy seems to suggest that mods need be busybodies searching out "problems" to "fix." That last line is nastier in phrasing than I mean, so apologies to those I may've offended, but it's the succinct way of putting forth what I see as the split in this debate.--The Envoy 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to this. I left the game for several months, and fully expected to come back and have to reapply for mod status. I'm not saying I want myself demoted or anything, but for the security holes mentioned and if for nothing else so that Special:Listadmins will actually be a useful list of people who can actually help you, rather than a hit-and-miss that's half idle, this is a good idea.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of basing activity on the number of edits, which could open to the dangers described by Grim above, could demotion be based on activity by visiting? Surely, a mod who hasn't visited for 3 months (or lower; 1 month?) is not doing his job. Not even if his job is of the Grim-kind, where he doesn't actually delete/ban/warn, but merely watches, and is ready to trake action if needed. --BzAli 12:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You know, I've been thinking about it, and I think that "loophole" that Grim mentioned a while ago about being able to keep his position simply by making a small edit to his user page is actually a good reason for this to be passed. It means that only moderators who are truly inactive will ever be demoted. Mods like Grim who like to be more "hands-off" will never have to worry, because as long as they are around to make a tiny edit like that, they will be able to stay mods and continue to do as they always have. It's win-win. --Reaper with no name TJ! 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that could be worked in as part of the plan though couldn't it? All we have to do is come up with a reasonable definition of "active", and go from there right?--Poodle of doom 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how about definen 'active' as 'logging in'. Those who drop out of the community will be those who're not logging in for a prolonged period. Let's say 3 months. Viola, problem solved. - BzAli 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no way of telling who is logged in other than by seeing them make an edit. Cyberbob Talk 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- What I was trying to get at is that they need to be logging on and making significant changes to keep moderatorship. For example, they just can't come in, and make a change to a word or two, or a minor spelling correction. Or in the case mentioned above,.... not just to their user profile. Come on? Anotherwords: Lazyness cannot be the definition of activity. They need to be major corrections, changes, and fixes. --Poodle of doom 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no way of telling who is logged in other than by seeing them make an edit. Cyberbob Talk 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, how about definen 'active' as 'logging in'. Those who drop out of the community will be those who're not logging in for a prolonged period. Let's say 3 months. Viola, problem solved. - BzAli 16:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that could be worked in as part of the plan though couldn't it? All we have to do is come up with a reasonable definition of "active", and go from there right?--Poodle of doom 02:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
MediaWiki Policy
Ok, I've had a hunt for the MediaWiki Policay that Xoid mentioned earlier and I'll be honest it was a real bitch to find. Here is the link, it's not that long but if Gage has a pry and see if it can be changed to suit the UDwiki needs? Pillsy FT 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really like this, though I think the year long expiration has to be sped up for UD. Digression:While it's not directly related to this policy, though it does fit with that other referendum being discussed, that "periodic review" seems something UD should incorporate, thereby getting rid of the antagonism associated with the impeachment style policy being put forth in the referendum. No need for impeachment if there's a built-in community oversight.--The Envoy 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- what? speak english please. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- He's referring to this referendum, which is likely going nowhere. Knock wood. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 20:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- what? speak english please. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Moved from main page
I'm not exactly understanding your checkuser log argument, but it seems to me if we let them request it when they come back, then there really isn't a point to this, I might not be seeing something, so if I'm wrong, point out the error in my ways, and I'll reconsider--General Lee A. Dickhole Malton Rangers 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- They'd be demodded because they're inactive, if someone like say Xoid were to go inactive before this policy becomes implemented then someone could look at his user page (not sure if he's still got it there) and see his email, and through very basic logic figure that's probably the one he used for wiki signup, hack it, and have instant Bureaucrat access, which they could wreak havoc with. If Xoid were to go inactive and be demoted, sure they could hack his account, but to what good would that do them? They wouldn't gain any higher level access. The policy is basically weeding out some security gaps, since some dipshits find it fun to vandalize... --CaptainM 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I get what you mean. Didn't think about it. Sounds like a good idea if its for tighter security--General Lee A. Dickhole Malton Rangers 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Who says becoming a mod is a lifetime promotion? This isn't the Supreme Court necessarily. Every 6 months have 1/2 of the mods put up for renewal. Six months later have the other half put on for renewal. Have users vote Yea or Nay. To stay a mod you'd only need a minimum of 50% of the vote. Any mod worth having around should be able to have at least half the votes in their favor. Moderator Status wouldn't be permanent anymore, but rather a one-year position with indefinite possibility for renewal. And of course if someone should get removed because they haven't logged on in eight months and wants to come back, they can always reapply for mod status and go through normal voting again. edit: Alternatively rather than having many people voted on every six months just have each mod up go through renewal voting on their 1-year anniversary. --Jon Pyre 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
