Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,563
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 5:
Line 5: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Sysop complaint documentation (view source)
Revision as of 17:43, July 29, 2011
, 17:43, July 29, 2011→Contacting
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. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:26, 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. --[[User:Sid 3050|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 damagaing evidence carries more weight if they present an abusive personal remark against a third party rather than toward themselves as a complaintant.
This proposal isn't perfect, and experience will help refine problems, but it is a start in the ditrection 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. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:43, 29 July 2011 (EDT)