UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Demotion Referendum

Overly broad threshold

"users should be allowed to start a referendum against a user they think might abuse . . . their moderator status . . . " Nope. You need something more than that to start a referendum to demod a trusted servant of the community. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 23:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Like what? If he indeed was trusted by the community, they'll vote to keep him. -Certified=Insane^☭ 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. And they'll have to do so three or four times a day. Per moderator. Because you know some asshat is gonna bring these all day and all of the night, world without end, amen, if the standard is as low as you propose. All I'm saying is that you need some level of actual abuse, not a vague suspicion that "s/he might abuse", not an unsupported allegation that "I think s/he might abuse". Actual abuse. Any lesser standard invites griefing to the Nth degree. (Now, if you ask me what I think that threshold should be, I'll tell you it involves findings on M/M.) -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 03:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't to get rid of someone that has been caught doing something that's explicitly forbidden on some policy pages, it's to get at those who walk the fine line, such as people breaking the rules with everyone knowing it, but without proof, or simply drama-creating asshats. As suggested below, I'll make it so only sysops can submit it. Would that be better? -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysop=moderator. And I still believe the threshold you have proposed is too low. Witness what's going on on M/M right now. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know sysops=moderators (though if sometimes use the term moderator to talk about both sysops and bureaus, and sysops implying their higher "ranking" bureaus). And what about the General? 99% of the wiki could be convinced he did it, and if we followed the policies, he'd just keep on doing it without beeing hampered (that is, if he's doing it). And if only sysop and bureaus can do it, It wouldn't happen all the time (after all, people would get annoyed with those who abuse... they could end up beeing on trial). There's a limited ammount of them to propose it and to be judged anyways. -Certified=Insane^☭ 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

...

Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean that they don't have good judgment- they wouldn't have gotten the position in the first place. If they really have a problem with the moderators, the sysops will demote them. --Joe O'Wood 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sysops aren't allowed to demote people, as far as my experience tells me and what I have read in the policies. And people can change, this is what the policy is about, that and people turning out to be different they they let others believed, or simply got corrupted by the power. And "don't like" won't get anyone demoted unless it's from a majority, in which case doing nothing usually contributes to more drama. As said, a majority has to agree that a certain person is unfit as a sysop, it can't be done "on a whim" and for "trivial reasons". -Certified=Insane^☭ 01:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Every user can start this?

Giving every user the power to start up a referendum might open the door to spam referendums against people you just don't like. Perhaps the power to start this would be restricted to sysops?--J Muller 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this would be acceptable, as if there's a good ammount of people that no longer trust one of the mods and want him out, for certain one of the sysops will share that feeling, I'll put that in the revision. -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Limit

This should have a limit on it. Say a vote that lasts for one week and only occurs at most once every two months. That would prevent a vote occuring all of the time for all of the sysops. - Dark Phantom^Talk 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Any Different Than M/M?

You've got a solid statement of what you want to do, but to me it seems that your HOW of executing this plan smacks of exactly what our current moderation misconduct system does. But maybe I don't fully understand? Can you explain it in more detail here, perhaps? --MorthBabid 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things, if I can jump in. First M/M provides no set punishments for misconduct, although the "eye for an eye" precedent has been adhered to in the past, and no mechanism for demotion from moderator status. There is a demotions page now, but that is designed for a moderator to request his/her own demotion. Second, this policy as it currently reads is designed to provide a referendum process by which users (non-mods, non-bureaucrats, although presumably mods and bureaucrats could file petitions too) can demand that a moderator be demoted, without resort to M/M at all. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 05:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is simply for mods that the community wants out but haven't (or atleast not proven to have) broken any clear and explicit rules. -Certified=Insane^☭ 23:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, wait. Any "clear and explicit rules"? What would be the requirements or restrictions to use this system then, if any? --MorthBabid 02:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requirements and restrictions? Once I put a reviewed version up, it'll be so that only mods can sumit this, and only one per X (undetermined) weeks each. It's to compensate for everything that has yet to be written... Basicly it's a measure against those that walk the fine line between legal and not, and those that piss off the community, as they are the only ones people would vote in favour of demotion. -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

" . . . they are the only ones people would vote in favour of demotion." Certified, I think you might really believe this. You're wrong. I know at least one mod who is under constant fire here because of his life in-game, and the crap from in-game follows him here all the time. A policy like this will have him in the dock daily. And he's a good mod. This is why your proposal will not work until you put in a threshold higher than the ridiculously-ambiguous "Wow, I think this mod might break a rule someday, so let's put him on trial."

And to my mind, it really doesn't matter that "a good mod" will survive every vote. "A good mod" should never be in that position, and your proposal has no safeguard whatsoever to make sure that doesn't happen. Every mod pisses somebody off sometime; the only mods who don't are the ones who aren't here anymore. How many times do you think the asshats can force recall votes before even a saint of a mod walks away in disgust? Worse, how many times do you think the asshats can force recall votes until even a good mod retaliates, maybe even unconsciously?

Bottom line: A moderator who does not break the rules, who does not receive misconduct sanctions, should never be the subject of a vote to remove, no matter how obnoxious some other user may think they are. Until you fix that threshold, your policy is fatally flawed. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 21:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well, this is why this is still in discussion. What are your suggestions? -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You've already heard them, from me and from others. Read all the posts above re: threshold showing of misconduct, commencememt of actions, short time for voting, and a period of immunity for a mod who survives a recall vote. But you know, when I think about it, I think the power to commence an action like this should be restricted to bureaucrats--and then why do we need this referendum process? A bureaucrat could just take the action if he believes it should be taken. Consensus of the community enters into it when we express our opinion on promotions. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can he really? I don't think bureaucrats can do that... I'll think on those points tommorow, and bring up a revision... -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They can, but they do need to go through M/M first. Serious things, or multiple offences, may be punished with demotion. Look, misconduct punishments are always going to be subjective things, OK? The system we have works, and I don't believe it needs codifying. That leaves no leeway in judgements. Look at what happened to the Vandal Banning system. Cyberbob  Talk  07:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The system is good, it works, but I'm sure it could be better. All I want is to prevent another Amazing incident. -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A noble effort; But are you attacking the CAUSE of this problem, or just the symptoms? I really doubt a policy can solve something that boils down to poor interpersonal relationship skills and lack of unbiased non-agressive communication. --MorthBabid 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2.0

Won't work. We only have 3 Bureaucrats, only one of which is active. I don't think we need xoid to have any more sway than he already does here.--Gage 18:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah crap, haven't though of that... -.- Meh... this is obviously not going in voting any time soon... maybe I'll get another idea later, or someone will suggest something... I don't suppose replacing "bureaucrat" by moderator make it much better (would eliminate that problem while creating another I suppose...) -Certified=Insane^☭ 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The good news is that it looks like our new rehashed moderator guidlines are going to go into effect soon, which would pretty much give you a springboard to work from without the need for a new policy. Unless you think of an addition that can be made to it later, that is! --MorthBabid 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't like Xoid, he wouldn't be in his position if he didn't have administrative abilities, which he hasn't demonstrated a lack of. However, putting more power into his hands is perhaps not the best thing for his ego. And Xoid with a larger ego than normal would be truly Lovecraftian.--J Muller 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with online communities is that it can be difficult to obtain a reasonable quorum to actually be representative of the population. Perhaps something different from the first and second versions is needed. I suggest that maybe the users should set up a third-party petition calling for the demod of a sysop. Once the petition has enough signatures, it is forwarded to all Bureaucrats, ie Xoid. The bureaucrat shall have no power to deny the petition (to qualm your fears that this would put too much power in Xoid's hands) and must establish an official two-week referendum in which voters will decide the sysop's fate. If no bureaucrat is available to establish the referendum within five days of recieving the petition, then the author of the petition should have the power to do so. Obviously, Kevan can intervene at any time. This system would ensure that we do not get too many referendums, but, if such a sysops is truly a "bad mod," there will be an alternative way to remove him from power. (By the way, upon establishing the referendum, the petition page would be filed for deletion and the sysops would be temporarily stripped of moderation powers. Also, a user can present a valid petition once every so time period.) So what do you think? Good idea or am I insane for even thinking this? --Wikidead 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I may as well remove this policy, it's going nowhere. Too tired to dig up all the links, and I most likely don't have the time... So anyone that feels like nuking this policy suggestion can do so from orbit. Twice. -Certified=Insane^☭ 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I like wikidead's idea. Make it require a new page for a petition against them and need signatures from at least 25 wiki users. When you reach 25 you can open up a request for demod, posting the link to your petition. Users then vote, requiring 2/3rds in favor of taking away status. --Jon Pyre