Publish:administrator guidelines

From Consumerium development wiki R&D Wiki
Revision as of 22:57, 10 March 2005 by (talk) (example)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Publish:policy is defined as a set of administrator guidelines for Publish Wiki. These are called the Publish:administrator guidelines.

A Publish:administrator is in a special position of trust and can be removed for either sysopism or trollism - overtrust or undertrust in the command hierarchy of the organization itself. No faction can feel itself systematically disadvantaged by their decisions, and no clique can feel confident that they are able to publish anything they want, even if they are in the majority.

Good examplex of guidelines possibly worth emulating:

the following is in tikiwiki form under CC-by-nc-sa - please adapt

!!General hands-off policy

It is not the role of the administrators to adjudicate debate between members, and especially not between ((elected officer))s of the GPC. In general the administrators take a passive role and respond to complaints and do not act preemptively. See ((wiki best practices)) for more detail on the rationale behind these guidelines.

There is no guarantee in the ((Terms of Use)) that anything beyond author ((attribution)) will necessarily remain on any page. The ((Living Platform)) is a working tool and its primary value is to create the ((Platform 2005)).

Anything which is not a ((protected page)) can and should be edited by any user.

!!Page editing limits

Users may ((edit page))s that contain wrong or offensive statements to correct them or modify the language to a ((neutral point of view)). They should avoid modifying language to make it more offensive without also making it more qualified and exact. There are exceptions:

  • when re/moving a lot of text, consider making another page, e.g. ((Economics)) has been summarized to ((Economic Philosophy))
  • users should not in general remove links to relevant internal articles, nor relevant ((external link))s - though a ((refer link)) should be created to keep external links out of the main text
  • a singly authored ((position paper)) which includes the authors name in the title can be ((revert))ed back, by that author, to any version they want

Users have no right to complain about this kind of edit, and administrators have no right to intervene. In the ((user:)) space, the users' judgment overrules that of administrators unless the page actually violates the law - including ((libel)) law.

!Ad hominem

((Politics as usual)) is a rough game, and it's the game we're playing here. Increasingly, ((Wikipedia)) and other wiki based sources will play a role in political debate and discourse. We are preparing users for that, and so we do not benefit in the long run by letting thin-skinned people rule our debate.

That said:

Any ((ad hominem)) debate is destructive to ((Living Platform))'s goals. If someone's behavior is mentioned or debated it must be in the context of a more general principle. Accordingly if there is no link to some page that is a more general summary of the phenomena described, the comment can and should be removed without notice, and reverted. Links to a ((bio page)) do not count. Accordingly the following text can be rapidly removed:

  • "((Craig Hubley)) is a mean nasty herder of a whole legion of foul trolls."

While this:

  • "((Craig Hubley)) is a mean nasty herder of a whole legion of foul ((trolls))."

would have to remain in some form as it does in fact link to ((trolls)), which describes a phenomena of which the person named may be a good example. And may even be proud of it! However the comment could be modified to one that omits judgmental adjectives and is therefore more from ((neutral point of view)):

  • "((Craig Hubley)) herds a large number of ((trolls)) into this wiki."

Or, alternatively, which can ((attribute)) the claim to a third party:

  • "((Jim Wales)) says ((Craig Hubley)) herds a large number of ((trolls))."

The latter is to be preferred as it can be neutrally verified.

!!Edits about people

Such edits should be altered if they derogate others without being in any way a direct contribution to an ongoing debate among more than one person or ((faction)). ((Living Platform is not a blog)) and does not need a lot of comment about people unless it relates to ((GPC Governance)) or to the ((platform)). Administrators who find comments about people difficult to justify should ((escalate)) as follows, but only to ((de-escalate conflict)) with other users or potential users. They should avoid acting too quickly and in general act only in response to a specific complaint from a user or potential user.

  • first notice - polite reminder, ask for attribution, edit if it isn't provided within 48 hours; only edit immediately if ((libel)) is potentially involved or a ((copyvio)) is proven
  • second notice - if no attribution is provided or edit to acceptable terms made, ask contributor to read these guidelines, and ((how to wiki well)); edit to acceptable terms within 24 hours, and ask the user to edit these __guidelines__ if they object to any of them; if they don't, they are agreeing to live by them
  • third notice - notify ((researcher))s, delete derogatory comment without asking for attribution or qualification again, continue deleting them with less and less consideration for the ((POV)) of the offender
  • persistent ((libel)) or bad edits that grossly outnumber ((good edit))s may lead to an eventual ((user ban)) by staff - if a GPC member, the user may then appeal to the ((Ombuds Committee)) of the ((GPC)) which is the only recourse

The injection of any ((spam)) is an exception: ((block IP)) immediately!


Different rules apply to those who ((add comment))s because they are not so easily traced back to the originator, and that is a deliberate LP policy - we do not engage in ((wiki witchhunt))s and encourage ((anonymous comment)), including that from opponents of the GPC which challenge our assumptions, and especially for people who do not share our perspective. ((Nonviolence)) requires meeting people in debates before you confront them in the street. That said, some comments seem to ((troll)) without a lot of potential to advance debate, and others simply state incorrect facts or unverifiable claims.

If the user who posted a comment has identified themselves and makes an offensive comment, the first notice can be a polite reminder, followed by an edit of any derogatory remark. THIS MUST BE DONE BY ADMINISTRATORS SINCE THE USER CANNOT EDIT THEIR OWN COMMENT.

When doing so it is critical to follow strict ((quote)) conventions so that it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHERE AN ADMINISTRATOR HAS MODIFIED A TEXT. It is totally unethical to edit comments, EVEN ANONYMOUS ONES, without making it absolutely clear what was provided by the original poster and what was removed or summarized by the administrator.

A second or repeat violation of the ((Terms of Use)) justifies that we notify user or user(s) that may be responsible and rollback - sending the text of the comment to any ((email address)) associated with the user's account, or posting it to their ((user:)) page for them to ((rephrase)) or ((refactor)).

Multiple offenses (greater than five) that seem to deliberately challenge the terms of use policy must be dealt with by staff not by administrators. Again the exception is ((spam)) - against which ((block IP))s immediately.