UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Misconduct Changes: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There is no major problem. Get rid of Grims little "misconduct tracker" templates, and just weigh up each case as it appears. It's entirely appropriate for sysops to "bend the rules" within the guidelines, and such actions can be ruled '''not misconduct''' due to point two in [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#General_Conduct|the general conduct section of the guidelines]] which says that "''should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored''". Such cases should be ruled upon on a case by case basis, and seldom is anything more than a "dressing down" needed. If actions by a sysop disturb other, regular users ability to edit the wiki, without them going through the proper channels, then it is appropriate that they are ruled against on A/M, and if they make a habit of hampering other users use of the wiki by such actions, then it should be expected that the rulings against them increase in severity also <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:38 15 October 2008 (BST)</small> | There is no major problem. Get rid of Grims little "misconduct tracker" templates, and just weigh up each case as it appears. It's entirely appropriate for sysops to "bend the rules" within the guidelines, and such actions can be ruled '''not misconduct''' due to point two in [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#General_Conduct|the general conduct section of the guidelines]] which says that "''should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored''". Such cases should be ruled upon on a case by case basis, and seldom is anything more than a "dressing down" needed. If actions by a sysop disturb other, regular users ability to edit the wiki, without them going through the proper channels, then it is appropriate that they are ruled against on A/M, and if they make a habit of hampering other users use of the wiki by such actions, then it should be expected that the rulings against them increase in severity also <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 15:38 15 October 2008 (BST)</small> | ||
:well, you are the sysop with access to the misconduct archives... you can remove these trackers... it would be a start already. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 15:54, 15 October 2008 (BST) | :well, you are the sysop with access to the misconduct archives... you can remove these trackers... it would be a start already. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 15:54, 15 October 2008 (BST) | ||
Aaaargh! This is mental. Okay: | |||
*"Users can be brought to A/VB for creating several cases of misconduct which were eventually ruled as not misconduct or frivolous." No way. That means that users can be prosecuted for bringing sysops to misconduct. That's just ''wrong''. Users should not fear to report sysops for a perceived misconduct. Epic fail. | |||
*The entire community input section is badly thought-out. Any 10 users can try to oust an unpopular sysop, but only once every 60 days. WTF? So, the sysop can be hounded out of office for a first offence (and let's say they're not voted out), they are then free to act like a giant tit without any comeback for the next 60 days? More epic fail. | |||
*All the options. These are already open to any misconduct case. The sysop team discusses what they think the punishment should be ''already''. Trying to sort it into 5 easy definitions is too restrictive of what may occur on a case by case basis. (Although boxy's recurring ''just let them off with a soft warning'' does rankle next to the official warnings doled out to regular users.) More epic fail. | |||
Sorry to be so negative, but isn't this just a reactionary policy based on recent events? --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 17:59, 15 October 2008 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 16:59, 15 October 2008
There is no major problem. Get rid of Grims little "misconduct tracker" templates, and just weigh up each case as it appears. It's entirely appropriate for sysops to "bend the rules" within the guidelines, and such actions can be ruled not misconduct due to point two in the general conduct section of the guidelines which says that "should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored". Such cases should be ruled upon on a case by case basis, and seldom is anything more than a "dressing down" needed. If actions by a sysop disturb other, regular users ability to edit the wiki, without them going through the proper channels, then it is appropriate that they are ruled against on A/M, and if they make a habit of hampering other users use of the wiki by such actions, then it should be expected that the rulings against them increase in severity also -- boxy talk • teh rulz 15:38 15 October 2008 (BST)
- well, you are the sysop with access to the misconduct archives... you can remove these trackers... it would be a start already. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 15:54, 15 October 2008 (BST)
Aaaargh! This is mental. Okay:
- "Users can be brought to A/VB for creating several cases of misconduct which were eventually ruled as not misconduct or frivolous." No way. That means that users can be prosecuted for bringing sysops to misconduct. That's just wrong. Users should not fear to report sysops for a perceived misconduct. Epic fail.
- The entire community input section is badly thought-out. Any 10 users can try to oust an unpopular sysop, but only once every 60 days. WTF? So, the sysop can be hounded out of office for a first offence (and let's say they're not voted out), they are then free to act like a giant tit without any comeback for the next 60 days? More epic fail.
- All the options. These are already open to any misconduct case. The sysop team discusses what they think the punishment should be already. Trying to sort it into 5 easy definitions is too restrictive of what may occur on a case by case basis. (Although boxy's recurring just let them off with a soft warning does rankle next to the official warnings doled out to regular users.) More epic fail.
Sorry to be so negative, but isn't this just a reactionary policy based on recent events? --Funt Solo QT 
17:59, 15 October 2008 (BST)
