User talk:Matthewfarenheit/Sandbox/Guidelines

Main

Talk

Archive

Contributions

Suggestions

Sandbox

Signature

Other

Navigation (other)

Changes made

• Added differentiation between Moderators and Sysops.
• Added restrictions about how a Moderator should behave: this may be extended.
• Restricted almost any action that requires "judgement" and "interpretation" to Moderators, limiting Sysops to a maintenance position.
• Changed mentions of "Moderators" troughout the guidelines according to the new inputs.
• Changed several instances of M/VB in order to fit the new Moderator position.
• Made Moderators able to rule over the old "bring it to arbitration- Mod 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)" cases: if there were bad faith edits, the warnings shall be administered in M/VB at the moment, not by an Arbitrator 2 weeks later (in the best pronostic).
• Striked some comments as per STER request. The strike itself is meant to cover the fact that those sentences should be changed or erased, but I'm not decided yet. Both parts were taken off as they were not a vital part of the text itself.
• Bolded the most significant changes to the guidelines, not including the Bans sections. The bold isn't mean to represent anything, and will be taken off when the policy is brought to community discussion. Bold text looks ugly.
• Changed some of the Moderator's guidelines on general behaviour in order to adress several user's concerns.

Keep in mind that these are only the changes on the Guidelines. The policy as a whole is meant to change some other things making them accord with the new Sysop class: text on Moderational pages like M/M, were only Moderators are meant to rule, a new Promotions page and things like that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I like it, can't think of anything major to add. Don't know if it would pass, but I would vote yes. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's cool to hear that after the work I have been trough! Anyways, if you feel that there's something minor that bothers you, like how a sentence is worded or something, don't hesitate in telling me as I'm more worried with these things than anything else. Nothing is minor enough, even less when it's about the major policy text on this wiki ^_^. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 23:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do like it, though the phrases "small changes can be done in order to keep the guidelines updated as long as the spirit of the policy remains intact" and "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" worry me a little. The trouble is that this certainly has no chance of passing if the current discussion prop for mod/sysop differentiation can't get through, which from the discussion on it going on right now is by no means certain. I'd suggest waiting for that to at least go into voting, if not come out, and see how it goes first--if it gets shot down, so naturally will this. Also, I have to say I'd never guess you're a non-native speaker. You seem plenty eloquent to me.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 00:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, let me adress your concerns in order:

• Where it says "small changes can be done in order to keep the guidelines updated as long as the spirit of the policy remains intact", it was a concept first introduced by User:Odd Starter (how funny, I couldn't remember his name for a minute) when he first made the guidelines. It was there in order to express that he in no way made some "complete" guidelines, and he made just a skeleton to be used as a first draft. When Xoid brought the new guidelines in wich he, BobHammero and me had worked to policy discussion, I noted that he included that sentence again and told him that it would be more convenient to have it off, but for some reason he tought that it was more in line with "the spirit of a wiki" to leave a express intention of "work in progress" on them. In resume, I'll be glad to change the statement or eliminate it, just tell me what do you think it's more appropiate.
• Where it says "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", it was a request specifically made by Bob and Xoid, when the changes on the guidelines were aimed at stopping the constant Misconduct cases that were being brought and "giving power to the Moderators" in general, thing that, I'm afraid, the policy was a success at. It is meant to say that the rules are no meant to be the exact words that describe them, but the spirit that those words mean to describe, and as such if a rule says "do 1 and 2", it doesn't mean that "if you do 2 two seconds before than 1 it's Misconduct". Can be eliminated too.
• About waiting for Jon's policy to pass: Well, I'm divided there... I mean, by no means I'm a backstabber that likes to steal someone else's ideas and present them as his own or do I want to make a enemy of anyone, and for that reason the first guy I consulted was, in fact, Jon Pyre. He had a good idea, I had a good project in mind, and his idea opened a new path for my project, so it was cool. But if you want me to be deadly serious, I'll tell you that Jon's policy needs substance, it doesn't state any policy at all, nor does it include the change on the guidelines that would be needed when changing what a Sysop and a Mod will be: It says what would be changed, not how. Now, that is no problem at all, I'm actually waiting for Jon's input here: If he still likes the idea, he can even use this text as part of his own policy, either a new one or the one already in place, but if the current policy that he has on Policy Discussion passes as it is now, I don't really know what the real change will come to be.

And thanks for the comment about my English! it's sure comforting to know that I'm getting better: I checked my old work at the older guidelines with Bob and Xoid and I really had some issues with English in the past... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so much to bloody read! I'm sorry, can't be arsed ATM. I'm with 'STER on it, wait'n'see what happens in the moderator/sysops debate and vote. I'm still not sure that making another class of admin is the way to go anyway. Just a thought, for future reference, somehow making any changes made stand out (by highlighting, bolding or italicising) would be a great help to those reading and summing up the merits of your changes -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a minute and it will be all bold. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's done: Have in mind that the whole "Warning and Banning of Users" section has been reworked, so you'll have to read it all even tough is not bolded. Also, there has been a good deal of change of placement of other articles of the policy, and I bolded only the most important. Finally, there has been too a change of every mention of "Moderators" for the title that corresponds (mostly "Sysops"), and it would be silly to bold all these too. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate the distinction between moderators and sysops with a passion. This is really very stupid. You have set this system up to where is favors niceness and not competence. I think we all know they don't go hand in hand.--Gage 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, of course. I don't want to favor niceness over competence: I want to favor niceness when it comes alongside competence: a Moderator will be a Sysop that goes trough a second Promotion bid that evalues his behaviour over his contributions, contributions that were the main point on his previous bid thus "competence" is already covered. If you bother to read the whole text you'll find that Sysops remain with almost every power that they had before the inclusion of the new class, with the only (and I say only because it is) exception that they may not rule were a good ammount of judgement and interpretation is needed.

So, why that exception? That exception was made with an important purpose: current Sysops lack credibility, and it's a serious issue. If some Sysops like Darth and STER can choose to sacrifice their own freedom in order to attain more power and credibility, I'll (try to) make it official, and make the system have an advantage over this. It's a proven fact: I, for example, accept better the ruling of someone that has not gone trough the drama and flaming that users like you willingly go: Darth's rulings and opinion, Daranz's rulings and opinion, Kevan's rulings and opinion, Thari's rulings and opinion... they always are less contested because they're not involved in any mayor conflict, and they don't seem to take parties as we don't really know if they belong to anything on this Earth. They really represent unbiased parties. They achieve respect by behaving themselves. And that shows: when they state their opinion it always seems more unbiased, has more sense, it's more logical.

Now, I bite my lip and tell myself "why didn't I just flame Gage as I planned to?". Maybe because I want to follow the good example myself... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 08:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What you have asked for in this policy is not a sacrifice of freedom, you have asked for a sacrifice in humanity. The ability to express yourself or even have an opinion is tantamount to misconduct under your proposed policy. I cannot even claim that 3 Page is a vandal under your proposed changes. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah. Humanity this, freedom that. Stop exaggerating. Now you can. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty good. --Jon Pyre 07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good enough to be included as the law behind your policy, or maybe not? I really don't know what course of action to follow. Tell me if you think that this belongs to your policy or not Jon. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 08:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion part II (the reckoning)

I've been thinking about it over the last day or so, and thinking what these policies would mean to some of the sysops interactions if they were already in place, and I just think this will add another level of drama to the whole show, where sysops would make a decision, and there'd be a big "that's a judgment call" whinge, meaning that now a moderator has to be dragged in to make a decision, or complaints about moderators questioning other users honesty seen as "express an overall opinion" of said user (wah!). I'd rather the transition to a more restrained approach to the admin positions (whatever they be called) be slow and clearly community driven (via electing who you want) rather than mandating how they should act. Sometimes people are idiots, and telling them so every now and then shouldn't mean you're up on misconduct, or demoted... but if you do it too often, then perhaps you should have to pay for it at the polls? Perhaps looking at putting sysops/beaurocrats up for regular re-election/nomination is in order, rather than trying to change them via legislation? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 07:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll talk about the first part later, because you make a point and I would like to adress it instead of directly dropping the whoile project, but now I'm about to go to bed. But what I do want to talk now is this: Boxy, weren't you here when that kind of policy (regular re-election of sysops) was brough to discussion? I think it was brought two times at least, and the two times it has been downed by 88's. And I can understand why, because to constantly bring Sysops to "popularity polls" doesn't seem as a good choice at all: even if some of the worst asshat Sysops got kicked that way, it just will make other Sysops eager to attract attention in order to "fare well in the next poll". That's exactly what I don't want to happen: Sysops looking for even more stardom than they already look for. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I must have missed those policy discussions (I had a few months off the wiki there a while ago). It wouldn't really be a poll anyway, it'd be the same as any psyop nomination, people giving opinion, and Kevan/Beuarocrats weighing up pro's and con's. I just find it weird that once you get the job, you're a psyops 'for life' (as long as you don't screw up in the extreme) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, can anyone else spot the (totally unintentional) Freudian slip ;) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	PSYOPS! OH NOES!!1!
	Duck and cover, duck and cover! Tin-foil hats may work too!

;-) --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had this in mind actually, rather than psychics... seems appropriate -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The sheer numbers of edits a person has is what makes them noticeable. That, and their opinions. I have edits, I have strong opinions; I'll naturally end up in the lime light even though I do not wish it. The same can be said of you. If truth be told, I seek stardom less than you do. Let it be stated, once again, that I did not actively seek out this job. I'm not finding it particularly fulfilling. Regardless, enough about your obvious dig at the moderators, and onto the crux of the issue: if the result of being held periodically accountable means the improvement of staff standards of behaviour, then what exactly is the problem? Isn't that your core concern here? –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you state that I have an "obvious dig" at the moderators (I like to call current "Mods" Sysops so I don't confuse the terms: thanks for making it harder to read) then you have an obvious... something against me: You're going against your personal opinion in order to maker a point. Well, forgetting about the fact that you obviously didn't want constant reviews when they first appeared, or the fact that you don't want them now unless it's to bother me, I'll fake myself to be fooled with your fakes, and answer: The result of being held periodically accountable does not mean the improvement of staff standards of behaviour. Being periodically accountable will:

1. Get rid of inactive Sysops: No inactive Sysop has ever been of any harm to the community, and even some (Daranz) have returned and are a great addition to the staff themselves.
2. Endanger the current neutral Sysops: Sysops that don't take an active part in M/VB and don't take part in your custom of flaming a guy every once in a while don't have that many fans and wanna-be-you's (I don't know if the word "friend" applies when it's a guy that, when stepped on, will automatically change to the other side) as you, Gage, Cyberbob240, Grim s, and other "cool guys club members" have. Their lack of spotlight seeking skills will harm their constant bids, when after the 3rd poll they'll find that no one is still voting for them, and the asshats that got offended because of "this particular deletion that I didn't like" will be the ones holding majority.
3. Give you more unnecessary power: To have every Sysop accounting for his actions before you every while doesn't appeal me very much. I don't trust you, and if with a policy I could write in your mind, I would do it ^_^.

Now, if you can be bothered to make an actual point instead of seeking to turn me mad, please do so. But let me tell you this: this is my personal page, not policy discussion, and I made this draft here in order to have constructive criticism from a limited ammount of people. Of course, I didn't want this to be hidden either from you or Gage: this is a wiki after all. But what I do want is to have normal conversations instead of flames from the guys that find this policy to go against their own agenda. So, keep it low, or leave. If this policy goes to discussion, feel free to cast a vote and spam the discussion page later. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let him speak, ignore him if you'd rather concentrate on others! It would be less disruptive -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bold faced lies, hyperbole, contradictions and assumptions. And yet, you tell me to keep this page free of inconsequential spam. Cute. Your point about me using "moderator" is also a non-issue. Until the official terminology is changed, I'll use what is currently the correct term. You aren't the only person reading this page Matt, I'll not cater my language purely for your reading convenience.

1. You assume too much. In case you fail to see a link between the two, inactive sysops being removed for inactivity and security issues and periodic elections go hand in hand. While I believe that time frames mentioned in earlier policies leave much to be desired, the core idea is workable. I have not contradicted my beliefs merely to 'win an argument'.
   You also state that "Daranz was inactive", which is patently false. He has been far from the most active, but he has been there where and when it counts, doing his job with a minimum of fuss. I respect that, and I imagine most others would too. Remember the election process depends on the attending bureaucrat; they are supposed to take stuff like this into account. Yet again, you make an assumption: that I do not. You are wrong.
   Truly inactive sysops, those who have been gone almost a year are highly unlikely to come back. Sysops who have been inactive for that long aren't likely to even be in someone's watchlist, all-but ensuring the useless of Special:Listusers/sysop.
2. …and? Mods who act like that are more likely to have many enemies than friends. A few vocal supporters can only do so much. Constantly getting people offside tends to add up. It swings both ways; and we know where public opinion lies, do we not? Your point is invalid. Now, if we were to be given a fresh start, I am firmly of the belief that sysops could be a helluva lot friendlier. I know at least one who has mentioned it being a goal of his. Getting bitchy back when there were vandals galore was inevitable, said bitchiness continuing because people continue to hold that over our heads — months after it was over and done with — is an understandable response. Though I somehow doubt that 'the public' will give us their forgiveness; much less you.
3. It is not before me. It is before the people; I am directly accountable to them. If I show favour to any person during their bid (or, if it comes to it, review) then I would be crucified at the stake. You know it. I know it. There is both misconduct, and the final court of appeal: Kevan himself. Your concerns about there being a lack of accountability under such a system are clearly unjustified. If anything there is more accountability under it, under the present system I could theoretically abuse my role and only be removed by Kevan. The proposed reviews at least give the people some power to remove someone they find unfit.

My 'agenda', as you call it, is simple: do my job and ensure that the wiki runs smoothly. If a policy is going to prevent the wiki from running smoothly, then of course I am going to oppose it. Apart from being duty bound to, it is something I would do on principle.

If you cannot handle constructive criticism, then I pity you. If you cannot recognise it, then I pity you more. You got so worked up about a simple question that you quite obviously have not thought out in full. Once again you throw around wild accusations since you let your emotions get the better of you. That is the difference between someone who should not be a moderator and one who should; being able to think clearly regardless of their personal feelings. If you could get past that you would've done fine. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PG-13

The document said:

Moderators must keep their language PG-13.

Many people would have different expectations as to what is PG-13, I've seen many children 13 and under say 'fuck' or 'shit' etc. It would probably be best to define that more thoroughly as different countries have different versions of PG-13. I think it would be best to link it to a page called PG-13 rather then making the whole document bulkier. Just some food for thought. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely subjective. It simply cannot be boiled down to "PG-13", it will need to be spelt out. I have yet to see a national guideline from any country that comes close to pleasing anyone. Other concerns I have with this is the limiting aspect on what you can say has to do with restricting people's freedom of expression. You also limit people's choice of wording, but the intent can still be there; I can write a text-wall that, while being void of anything that would violate PG-13 guidelines, would make a sailor retch. This particular facet is either too much or too little, which is why it has been sunk in the past. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 10:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand you guys. When you ask an Argentinian (Thari aside =P) to be polite, he/she will in most ocassions (all for practical purposes, unless it's obvious that you're asking too much... as in a anti-globalization rally ^_^) behave himself/herself. There will not be much argument about "what is the kind of thing I don't have to do?" or "you're limiting my freedom of speech here!". But it's probably because we had a dictatorship, of course. Even tough it ended before Thari (pressumably) or me were born...

Enough. Clear and to the point: I took most of the "Moderational behaviour" points directly out of Jon's policy. By looking at PG-13 on google now, I realize that the term is too subjective and ambiguous in general in order to rule over it's intended purpose, not to speak about policies in general. I didn't even know what the "PG" characters stood for. I'm changing it to some special deffinition about proffanity that I'm sure it's agreeable, or just nothing will do (because you want to swear). Let me finish the changes now... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 11:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

uve thrown around a lot of acusations on this page, none of which are verifiedd by eitherlogic or fact. Yet the moment Xod makes an accusation and backs it up you remove it. Cenosrship? Thiseems in line with your PG-13/anti swearing stance. also, i thought dat removing parts of converation was bad form? atlest, dats what it says on my talk page. Grundo 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How did you find this conversation? You're supposed to be a newbie you know? And the template I left doesn't say anything about removing comments out of nowhere but community pages! suspicious attitude aside, I removed Xoid's comments because they ultimately didn't seek for the embetterment of the text of the policy but starting a discussion with me. It IS bad form to remove comments from your talk page, even when you shouldn't still know about that if you can't even upload an image by yourself, but not vandalism in the way I made it. If you want to start another discussion with me, be warned alt. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

dis is intranet no? i clik link on me pag and it go to yer pag, and i ws readin and i saw box on left dat say contibuions, and i clik and sa dis pag in der and i read den i c one thing der and i refresh pag and its not der. and i don lik u callin me newb, r sayin i hav alt, IDON ZERG! jst more accuzation from u, is dat all u do? Grundo 04:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right Matt. Checkuser reveals nobody else posting from any IP has used. Your accusations are baseless and incorrect. He isn't using a proxy either. You know what people say about assumptions...--Gage 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're violating the UDWiki:Privacy policy. Anyways, if it's not about the policy, try using my talk page. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 08:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to learn to read. I broke no policy by substantiating his claim that he is in no way an alt of any other user on this wiki. I would have to out him as an alt or give you his IP for it to be a violation of the privacy policy. Please, attain english literacy before you dive into an english wiki for god's sake.--Gage 08:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, for the love of all who care about you, Matt (That is, if anyone still exists that cares about you. I don't think there is), drop the conspiracy bullshit. The mods have done nothing wrong. They are not in violation of the privacy policy. Get off your high horse, for the love of god. And maybe take a trip to www.youfail.org while you are at it. --Absolution 08:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Im soooo tempted to remove all the trolling. Grundo, sorry, but I didn't understand a word of what you said. And Gage, did you just told me information that you gathered trough CheckUser on a non vandal? I thought we had a UDWiki:Privacy policy (yeah, that's the correct link, not the one you presented to me). --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave away no "personally identifiable data". Go report me for misconduct if you think you have a case. Quit making snide remarks and put your money where your mouth is.--Gage 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you the same: if you can't ban me, as I'm certain that by my actions you won't ever be able to, then quit the trolling and flame baiting and endure it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Endure what, exactly? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, hello? Anybody home? --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, hello Cybderbob... looking for drama I see. I notice you guys have got over your shyness in the use of Checkuser... good for you >:) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Drama? I was looking for clarification, that's all. Seriously, Boxy. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to go looking for trouble with the way things are at the moment? Wait, don't answer. Or if you do, put it on my talk page. I'm sure Matt wouldn't want us derailing his page. @Matt: what will Gage have to endure? This is an honest question. Seriously.--Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 06:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)