User:Nubis/Nubis World Order

Nubis World Order

The following reforms are presented in a line item veto format. If you have comments please leave them below just noting the section you are referring to.

Cut the red tape:

Lets face it. Every action on this wiki is recorded under the page's history and the user's contributions. A majority of the Admin pages should be for the regular user to bring things to the attention of sysops. (e.g. page moves, deletion requests, protections)

1. Sysops can delete on sight Crit 1s that meet the following criteria:

   1.No content or edits for over a month

   Sysops can leave notes on the author's talk page explaining that the page is in danger of being a Crit 1 deletion. If there is no reply or change the sysop can delete it.

   2.Author blanking with no other contributions can be an instant Crit 1 deletion without notice.

   Not everyone knows that clearing content doesn't make the page go away. A note can be left to inform them that in the future they can just post the page.

Play Nice!

1. Sysops aren't moderators in the sense that they don't have to remain neutral on all matters, but they shouldn't pick on regular users. By this I mean arguing with "trolls" on any admin page, "following" users from talk page to talk page to continue arguments.

Misconduct

1. Cases will have 3 dispositions: Misconduct, Not Misconduct, and Unsubstantiated. A misconduct vote means the voting sysop deems the action an abuse of authority given to a trusted user. A Not Misconduct vote means the voting sysop condones the action and sees it as within the realm of a trusted user. Unsubstantiated votes mean the voting sysop does not see a sysop power involved in the case or the links provided do not supply enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion

   After 3 Misconduct cases (declared Misconduct) the sysop is then reviewed. His/Her contributions over the time of the 3 cases are looked at. How many sysop functions has the sysop performed? Contributions to A/VB, SD, Move, Protect, Suggestion cycling, scheduled deletions, etc. are evaluated. Has the sysop been performing the tasks required of a sysop? Has the sysop initiated any other projects outside of the basic "janitorial" functions? Has the sysop made contributions along the lines of a regular user? If the sysops actions have been satisfactory - the record is marked REVIEWED - SATISFACTORY (dated) and the misconduct cases prior to that review are not "considered" against the sysop in future cases.

   Having just a running tally of cases and dispositions against sysops doesn't help determine the quality of the sysop. Since in the records a case for banning a user has the same "weight" as just deleting a image that was in use. Now, both may be seen as abuses of authority, however, due to the confines of red tape an action taken in good faith may result in a misconduct vote. This arbitrary system does not help. It annoys the sysops trying to perform their duties fearing retribution for every action and gives the users no real understanding of how the sysop actually uses their power.

   For example, Op has 3 Misconduct cases involving things from banning/warning unjustly, deleting/locking pages still in use, and moving pages arbitrarily. After the 3rd case is deemed Misconduct the sysop's record is checked. During that time the sysop has cycled suggestions, cleaned uncategorized pages, voted on A/VB, and shown efforts to help new users by "one on one" comments on talk pages regarding wiki standards. The sysop team feels the benefical actions outweigh the negative actions and deem the sysop Satisfactory. Record will show X date REVIEWED SATISIFACTORY. It will not remove a Misconduct case (like vandal de-escalation), however, it will show that the sysop has put in an honest effort for the community.

   Should the review be UNSATISFACTORY, the sysop will be put up for a vote to retain sysop status.

Inactive Sysops

1. Currently the system says that to remain in power you need to make edits every 4 months. These are just edits and not required to be sysop functions. This is a poor way to retain active sysops. Sysops that do not perform sysop actions (not just edits) during a 4 month period should be warned and then returned to normal user status with no penalty. When they return to an active status performing "janitorial" duties (page categorization, suggestion cycling, posting move/SD requests, etc.) for a month will return them to sysop status. Since they did nothing to be demoted there shouldn't be a vote, but since they weren't acting as a sysop they don't need the powers. This way any user that is demoted can easily restore their powers, yet if they wish to remain as a normal user they can.

   NEW CONTENT However, should the sysop receive 5 AGAINST votes from regular users (method to be explained lower) the reinstatement will be reviewed and possibly voted on again by the community as if a new promotion bid was taking place.

   Reinstatement will be a header on the Demotions page. If users post on the Talk page of the Demotions page that they are against the reinstatement and the required 5 votes are posted then it will be given to the Crats to review and decide if a new vote is called for. If the Crats decide a vote is needed then this is the only time that public opinion can determine promotion. If the Crats themselves do not feel they have enough information to make a decision and need to get the opinion of the users it will be the will of the users that is followed. It should be rare that the Crats call for a vote, however, if they do the "popular" opinion should be heeded. A minimum 20 votes are needed with a majority of 12 (or more) to determine outcome. Abstain votes will not count toward the 20 needed votes. Negative outcome of a reinstatement vote does not disqualify a user from putting in for promotion again.

Admin Page Conduct

1. Hopefully there is something on here that everyone feels strongly about and is willing to fight for. Then again there are people that just enjoy stirring up trouble. The issue of "shitting up" admin pages is a serious one. While every user should have the right to voice their opinion and defend a position it does run the risk of making an important case TL;DR. Using the talk page (where applicable) would be extremely helpful in keeping down the clutter. Keeping or continuing off topic conversations on user pages or the talk page would be lovely.

   It should come down to if the sysops Play Nice and the regular users either refrain from responding to any "trolling" comment or do so only on the talk page the main body of the Admin page will stay clear and functional. I seriously think it comes down to whether or not the resident trolls guarding whatever aspect is in use respect the sysops that are attending. If the sysop team makes an honest effort to get along then the trolls will have nothing to argue with.

Vandal Reporting

1. This should truly be a last resort. In the case of an active vandal (blanking, replacing entire pages or sections, spambots, etc.) it should be brought to the attention of the sysops immediately. However, in minor cases, a note should be left on the talk page before reporting it. Links to the vandalism and the efforts to clear this up should be presented. In this way, if the users showed an effort to correct the vandal's actions then the sysop team should be free to deal with them more harshly. If the vandalism is a result of not knowing wiki etiquette or just "newbie" mistakes this normally will clear it up without intervention. Should the vandalism be something like X editing the group page of Y instead of Y leaving the note on the talk page Y could ask a sysop member to do it (to carry more authority). This may seem like an extra step (asking a sysop to leave the note) but consider that posting it on A/VB normally requires at least 2 sysops to rule on the case. This seems like a decent alternative.

Harassment Policy

1. This is not a civility policy. Civility policies state you shouldn't use bad words or be "aggressive" in your comments. I don't think there is a need for that as sometimes a proper amount of aggression is needed to show the gravity of an opinion or situation. This policy deals with users tormenting others.

   While trying to quantify what will make a user feel threatened or harassed would be impossible there are a few acts that can easily be agreed upon. There will be parts of this policy that will be "vague" and open to interpretation, however, since the "punishment" for harassment is not to be part of the normal vandal banning it shouldn't be an issue.

   Acts that are harassment

   Posting any personal information on a user - from real name (if the user does not provide it on this wiki) to IP addresses will be considered harassment and the information instantly deleted by a sysop with a VB warning. This is the only exception in the harassment clause that will garner VB escalations. There is no reason to post any of that information. Users are also encouraged not to post their own information for personal safety issues anyway.

   Making multiple (2 or more) mocking images. Examples are insulting "macros" involving the user's name or image. This will only count as harassment if these images are posted on a main space page. Mocking a user or group on user space (not the subjects space) is judged on a case by case basis as some rivalry is to be expected in this type of game.

   EXAMPLE: Group A led by User X makes images of the leader of Group B led by User Y and posts it on Group B's page (talk page or other). That could be harassment. If these same images are posted only on Group A's page it is not.

   Filing multiple (2 or more) VB cases against a user - The main focus is on "petty" cases that could have been addressed with a note on the talk page this does not mean actual acts of vandalism (blanking a page, deleting other user's comments off a main space page, replacing or editing posts, etc. If these reports are part of an ongoing edit war both parties will be considered the aggressors and escalated. If the edits in question can reasonably be attributed to the user being new and the filer did not leave a note on the talk page first that would be harassment. The Welcome Newbie does not count as a note on the talk page. The specific issue must be addressed.

   If User X filed a report against User Y and it can be shown that User B did the same action within the time frame yet wasn't reported by User X that could be considered harassment of User Y.

   Low content posts on an Admin page. If the comment does not reasonably add to the discussion in any way it can be considered harassment of the sysops. This is often referred to as "shitting up" the page. All comments on an admin page should directly pertain to the discussion at hand. Uninvolved users have the right to express their opinions, however, sarcastic retorts and insults have no place on Admin pages from either side.

....More to Come....

Comments

It's nice to see that most of the things you are proposing are exactly the things i practiced when i was a sysop. And you were with grim's against me. You have changed that much since my demotion ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 14:41, 13 October 2008 (BST)

My real problem with you was on A/VB. I felt that you (and Karek) got sucked into the whole just ban the goons mentality. While I admit they can be overwhelming they did have their own code and always defended their own (which is where the problem came in). I also didn't think that striking votes because they weren't full time users was wrong, but that's another issue.

You can't just ban irritating users. You have to figure out why they are irritating and work on that. I always agreed with the basics of "Fuck the Rules but be worthy of the trust you have" though.

But to be honest, I have learned that the policies on here aren't very favorable to pro-active sysops. When I actually started to care about this place and want things fixed I learned that our hands are tied.

But I will never admit that images = pages :). And don't call it a demotion. Call it a vacation. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:46, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I also didn't think that striking votes because they weren't full time users was wrong, but that's another issue. Wow - typo - I meant that striking their vote because they weren't full time users was wrong. I had a double negative going on in there. Yipes.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)