Conservapedia talk:Sysop complaint documentation

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tricky - with the internal mail system being down, users would have to contact a sysop in public, which would only result in scattered discussions (as the people who know they're likely to be the target of a complaint will jump into the sections) and potential retaliation.

Maybe a sysop who wants to listen should leave a mail address in public? Not his main one, mind you (spambots would have a field day), but a single-purpose one that can be set to filter out anything but certain mails: For example, set a filter to automatically delete all mails unless they have "[CP]" in the subject line and then post something like "You can reach me at [new mail address], but be sure to include [CP] in the subject line" on his user page. --Sid 3050 13:24, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

PS: This would also solve the issue we once briefly talked about on the Community Portal. You know, the "How to challenge a ban now that the mail system is gone" discussion. --Sid 3050 13:26, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

This system is not really designed to handle editor complaints against sysops, it's more to document potentially errant misapplication or CP policies by CP sysops, among CP sysops. There's an effort to avoid personality disputes and counter-claims. Once sysops have been instructed privately and publicly about potential misuse of sysop tools, and a sysop persists in their own interpretation of policy, other sysops can begin documenting the potential violations. Editors are free to help, but the evidence they bring to the initiating sysops talk page should generally be neutral, i.e. without a conflict of interest. IOW, the potentially damaging evidence carries more weight if they present an abusive personal remark against a third party rather than toward themselves as a complainant.
This proposal isn't perfect, and experience will help refine problems, but it is a start in the direction of Sysops demanding better conduct from each other. Then a sysops conduct can be measured against standing policy. Let's hope nobody sees the necessity to originate a first case. Rob Smith 13:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Ah, I see now; I misread the respective part at the top. Somewhat unfortunate to introduce such a limit in my eyes, but I guess there's a plan behind this. --Sid 3050 13:51, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
Right. The key here is, a fellow sysop who initiates a complaint must document violations of Conservapedia Commandments and Guidelines. Upon review, if the alleged violations are frivolous, the initiating sysop themself may have made an extremely damning case of their own trolling practices, i.e. wasting other sysops time. Rob Smith 14:09, 30 July 2011 (EDT)


  • Inappropriate deletion. [1]