Forum:Resolving issues

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Resolving issues

Hi Folks,

I'm sure many of you have seen this. It is time we all stopped working divisively, and started working inclusively towards consensus.

I'm drawing together the three main issues I think have lead us here. Please feel free to contribute to these in a constructive way. Any personal accusations or finger pointing is unwelcome and inappropriate - and that does include from myself. Please try and keep everything narrow and focused on the issue at hand.

This page is for working towards consensus that ideally everyone can support, but failing that an overwhelming proportion of the wiki user base can accept and agree to.

This is going to work a bit differently to what we've done before. If you're happy with whats written, you can say so, just pop your name in the relevant section.

If you have a minor change, put it in the relevant section - if you want to discuss a minor change (either for or against), please post under it.

If you have a suggestion for something different, pop it in the relevant section. Again the suggestion can be debated and discussed in that section.

Every so often I'll do a merge and try and take everything to come up with some merged position.

Personal comments and the like should be left outside and are not welcome. Agent c (talk) 12:31, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Follower's After Report.

Firstly, if I may quote Follower's After Report on Leon's ban.

For the future, here are several recommendations that I believe should help to avoid another incident such as this:

• Conflicts of interest should be avoided when possible for the sake of posterity. Where possible, neutral admins or moderators should be consulted before action is taken.
• Banning should be used as a last resort, not a first action, except for cases of gross abuse of the established rules.
• Bans through the contributions page do not kick the user from chat when the ban is initiated. As such, they should only be used as a last resort.
• Bans should be immediately upheld and enforced, unless sufficient evidence exists for them to be overturned by another chat moderator/administrator.
• Chat logs should not be copied & pasted to relay information to another user. They should instead be linked directly to avoid confusion.

It is my suggestion that the above either be implemented as a guideline, or a derivative thereof. I think most of us are doing this anyway as a matter of best practice. There could perhaps be more detailed guidance on the 4th point, which I suggest should read

Challenging a Ban

If you feel you, or another have been inappropriately or mistakenly banned, you should contact the originator of the ban to discuss the issue. If you fail to get a response out of them in a reasonable period (60 mins or so if they are clearly online and active, 24hrs if not), you can then ask another member of the chat moderation team to look into your situation. If you think that the ban does not relate to a good faith attempt to enforce the rules, there is no need to wait.

Bans should stand in the meantime unless it is clear and obvious that the tools have been used in a way that isn't a good faith attempt to enforce the rules, or the ban has been issued as a clear and obvious mistake. Examples of these would be a Chat Moderator banning everyone who enters (non good faith attempt to enforce rules), banning the wrong person (Clear and obvious mistake). If any research or log delving is required, then it is not clear and obvious and the ban placer should be contacted to clarify what the statement that resulted in the ban was.

Where there is a mistake made (either in fact, or on the interpretation of policy) it is for the originator to whenever possible remove the ban, and ideally only after its discussed fully with them and this is established in that discussion. If the originator hasn't been in contact with either the investigator or banned person 36hrs from the initial request for review, bans may be removed without this discussion being placed if the investigator is satisfied it was placed in error.

I agree as written

1. Aye. _{Don't give up the ship!} 17:43, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest something different

One of the issues with our legal system in the U.S. is that frequently, we follow the 'guilty until found innocent' doctrine, which is one of the most disgusting ways of thinking imaginable to me. So here is my slight change to help avoid mistaken or flat-out wrong bans:

• If you ban someone, you must provide an explanation on the banned user's talk-page. If you are unable to provide an explanation at the time, you must either hold off on banning until you are able to provide an explanation, or you must ask another rights holder to look into the situation in your stead.
• If an explanation is not given, yet the evidence is clear, then the ban remains legitimized. If an explanation is not given, yet no evidence can be found by investigating parties, then the ban may be reverted by an administrator, until a time comes where both parties involved can discuss the situation. In a case where an agreement cannot be found, a mediator may step in to help diffuse the situation. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:46, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Second. The idea that an innocent person is to be jailed until proven innocent is wrong on every level. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:22, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I should note that when I wrote that section, I believed I covered that possibility. Common practice dictates reasoning must be given to the banned user, and as you said, if the evidence is clear, it will stand on its own. Lack of viewable evidence and no explanation from the banning user to me is sufficient to overturn a ban, which is exactly what Limmie did regarding your ban, Leon, which incidentally was an appropriate action to take (one of the few appropriate actions within that incident, to be frank).  A Follower  Talk  21:52, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

The Status of Multiple Votes

I suggest the following guideline on multiple votes:

Multiple Policy (ie- non binary) votes should be avoided where at all possible in binding votes. They can result with outcomes that do not represent the consensus or majority position by simply splitting opposing voices through different options. They do however have a place within the rules changing process.

• Multiple Votes are ideal to be used prior to the binding vote to determine what the basis of the new policy should be. The votes can be looked at to see where the general support levels lie and create a middle, consensus ground that can then be voted on in a yes/no vote. As the goal here is to find the true consensus position, this does not have to be the most popularly selected option if there are multiple similar options that can be combined to find a middle ground.
• There may be times where a multiple vote is unavoidable (e.g. - name and logo polls). In these cases the poll should either be run through a preferential/transferable vote method or with a binary accept/reject poll following it.

I agree as written

1. Aye. _{Don't give up the ship!} 17:47, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a minor change

I think we need to focus on whether or not we should be finalizing votes with the use of absolute majority, or simple majority. We cannot always be finding middle-grounds, as that opens up risk for argumentum ad temperantiam. And adding fallacies into our voting process is not the best route, I believe. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:53, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Second. It needs to be clearly defined, and initiating a points system as Jasper suggested, or offering a more open voting method will likely just cause confusion among average voters. It has to be absolute or first-past-the-post.  A Follower  Talk  21:59, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest something different

I think we shouldn't be avoiding multiple choice polls but instead just handle them differently. Instead of "Question? Option A, Option B, Option C" we should have "Question? Option A yes/no, Option B yes/no, Option C yes/no" and people vote "yes" on every one they support, not just the one they support the most. Alternatively we would rank our options in order of preference:

(the following is as I suggested it on the endorsements referendum forum)
"We could use a system, such as 1st choice = 3points, 2nd choice = 2 points and 3rd choice = 1 point, to calculate which option is prefered, for example i I ordered my votes A, C, B then A would get 3 points, C would get 2 and B would get 1, if chad then ordered his C, B, A then C would get 3 points, B would get 2 points and A would get 1 point, added to mine A = 4, c =5 B=3 which would mean C would be the ones we pass"

Both these options allow us to give multiple choices but find the one which is the most popular, if not the most popular as a first choice at least it would be the least unpopular choice, which would make sure we have a fair compromise. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:29, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I will have to fester on this for a while, but as it is right now, that makes a whole lot of sense. Consider this comment an act of support. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:34, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Special status of Bureaucrat in votes

I hope the following will find consensus acceptance:

Inclusive in the role of Bureaucrat are every other special rights, and non special rights position. They are administrators, patrollers, chat moderators, as well as general users.

However, to reflect their special status as poll scrutinisers and the final decision maker in many cases, Bureaucrats should avoid being the "judge in their own case". This specifically means Bureaucrats should not act as a bureaucrat on votes that they have called, or for candidates that they have directly endorsed.

Suggest a minor change

• Lachlan's chat moderator request proved that an endorsement is not a yes vote. Even on all of the other chat moderator requests we've had, the endorser still separately voted yes instead of bureaucrats counting the endorsement as a vote. I'll quote Danny (Skire) here: "For any applicant that stands a chance, an endorsement is not a difficult thing to obtain." To use Danny's words, an endorsement is a way for the endorser to say, "this person stands a chance, so I'll give him that chance." The change: I don't think the restriction on bureaucrat endorsement is needed. Other than that, all ahead full with what's written. _{Don't give up the ship!} 17:57, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest something different

I believe this needs a different discussion entirely. Ever since our autocracy ended, we have followed the doctrine that our special rights users are not above any other user, which suggests we are more as janitors than anything else - which makes sense. But in reality, most users here see the special rights positions as ladder rungs, in which to increase their wiki influence. What really needs to be discussed is just how much power each position holds, and what the community feels comfortable with. A few good examples: Is the community comfortable with chat-moderators getting their friends to run for a similar position? How about administrators having the ability to delete blog/fora comments, and delete entire pages? Or even if they are comfortable with the thought that no matter what they say, the bureaucrats can overturn their consensus.

We have not really spoken about the power levels of each rights position since the split, and it is easy to see that the wiki does not work the same anymore as when Ausir/Porter/Goth were in charge, making decisions without community input - and that worked, at the time. Maybe it is time to re-establish what leadership means on this wiki. Because we are still following a pre-split mindset regarding leadership, and that simply is not the way our wiki works anymore. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:03, June 15, 2014 (UTC)