 |
This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes. |
|---|
Effective as of writing I have taken the initiative to add the following to our user conduct policy
This was also added on the Administration Policy page under grounds for blocking
I wrote and added these as they are needed and they are part of the change that will be implemented here. Also I doubt few would be against them.--Kingclyde (talk) 10:20, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Comments[]
What was your reason to bypass the standard procedure and decree those policy changes? Correct me if i wrong, but i can't see any failed attempts to reach community consensus on this matter. Even more, i can't see any consensus among the admins, which is required for decreeing a policy. --Theodorico (talk) 15:59, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree. There needs to be a general community discussion first and only if there is no consensus could alternative measures possibly take place. --Skire (talk) 19:19, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment but To me B/c fiat changes should be limited to when there is a clear and present crisis. I do not think any of the current issues are at this level. This policy does have the issue in that it isn't address at all what happens next. I think instead we should be saying that any user conflict hat is disrupting the wiki needs to go to a mutually agreeable admin+ for conciliation and/or mediation. Agent c (talk) 19:53, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a good addition to me in light of recent events (as long as not every admin decides he wants to get involved too), but then I think Agent c's has a somewhat better description. That way any disruption (not necessarily with an admin involved) is in the scope. And this addition to the policy may be a bit ahead of things, as Theodorico points out. If you have more plans in changing the policy, think it's better to create a forum thread for that as a whole and not in parts. Jspoel
21:54, September 12, 2012 (UTC) - Really this policy is long over due J. This is a preventative measure that is the help people when "drama" or user conflicts as I call them arise. As the wording says if the conflict is "disrupting the wiki, it must be brought to the attention of an admin or bureaucrat if an admin is involved in the conflict" thus preventing the overblown issues we have had in the past. As for the mediating aspect, whenever you add someone else to the conflict it tends to make things worse. And besides, this is a wiki. Not a therapist's office. As for the clear and present crisis we just had a clear conflict not more than a week ago with the blogs. Here is the problem I see. User A and User B are having a flame war on a blog. People start taking sides then admins get involved in the flame war themselves instead of looking at things from an admin prospective of "Hmm, how do I stop this flame war" and things get out of hand. Then other admins come in and threaten to ban whoever in on the opposite side of the flame war that they are involved in. When you are an admin you are not supposed to get involved in flame wars, you are supposed to stop them. Period. I thought the wording was fine but feel free to reword it if necessary.--Kingclyde (talk) 22:40, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did already say that it looks fine to me, but you can't blame people saying you aren't going by the book. And I remember that incident leading to this; too many people/admins got involved and if we can get it down to just the user/admin or user/user and a mediator admin (so 3 in total) that would be better. And we don't have to add extreme to it in my opinion. The word disruption already indicates it's a sort of 'extreme'. Jspoel 23:16, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
My only beef with this: instead of having to seek out a bureaucrat if an administrator is involved, why can we not seek mediation from another administrator? Other than that, I think it's great. I really don't think it would be necessary to bother the already busy community to amend something so minor. Great job, KC! ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 23:24, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Like I said, unless there is significant opposition, we can go through without a formal vote. And I agree 100% with Toci, since no user is to have more authority over another, at times it will be just as well to find another administrator that both sides in an argument believe to be a fair third-party. The problem with this mediation process is that often times people are too wrapped up in emotions to think clearly, which is acceptable but should really be reduced. I also agree with Jspoel in that many issues (like the blog post debacle) are exacerbated by users outside of the original argument jumping in and throwing their two-cents, but at the same time magnifying the situation. It is quite annoying and should be avoided at all costs, as it also disrupts proper mediation. --Skire (talk) 23:29, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
People want an end to drama, and this is a step forward as far as I'm concerned. A bureaucrat has to take charge and sort this kind of thing out, and Clyde is doing just that. Maybe now people will think twice before sparking conflicts, and if they ever do get out of hand a bureaucrat will be there to nip it in the bud. Good work, Clyde. 
23:35, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
I fully support this addition to the policy. The Gunny 
01:04, September 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto.--
02:10, September 16, 2012 (UTC)
