Approach for Corrective Action, v2
Under U.S. self-management, Waze requests that Champs and US Champs self-manage such things as editor access, privileges, and editing standards. One part of that effort is to take corrective action for editors that are causing problems or issues for the map or the editing community. Taking corrective action protects the map but also protects the morale of the wider editor community. Rogue, aggressive, and discourteous behavior will alienate good editors that will leave the editing community. Therefore it is imperative that we not allow such behavior while at the same time take care not to create an overly oppressive or strict policing environment.
This approach guideline is intended to provide guidance to Champs and US Champs so that such action is applied in a consistent manner that promotes the growth and retention of Waze community editors.
Types of issues that are encountered on map quality range from benign but continuous mistakes, general and unreasonable disregard for the map editing standards, negligent editing motivated by collecting points without regard to map quality, through vandalism of the map. Damage to the Wiki is also an issue and may include not following editing guidelines, making changes without some consensus or outright vandalism . While these behaviors also affect morale of other editors, there are direct negative social behaviors that may occur as well. These include general rude behavior, harassment by constantly changing another editor’s valid work, changing another editors work without prior notice or discussion via PM, etc. Both negative affects to the map and negative effects to the editing community morale should be corrected.
Because this is an issue of human nature, no standardized approach will cover all issues and circumstances. Therefore the Champ and US Champ (further referred to only as “Champ(s)”) community should discuss specifics in the appropriate forum location and consult with Waze staff as needed.
In all cases, contact with the offending editor should be performed with compassion and professionalism. These situations can be frustrating and therefore it is important that the Champs attempt to eliminate emotion and ego in performing corrective action. A positive message of improvement should be made explaining the situation and negative effects the offending editor is causing. At no time should the tone of the Champ be negative, rude, or insulting.
Progression of Making Contact
(0) Select and agree upon a primary point of contact for the interaction with the offending editor. It is important that a mixed message is not given and the offending editor not be allowed to turn one Champ against another or turn Waze against a Champ. Multiple points of contact can be copied on messages to keep everyone informed; however, the discussion should be driven by the primary point of contact. Attempts to contact others should generally be referred back to the primary point of contact unless a Champ is acting unreasonably.
(1) Contact the editor via PM and discuss the issue. Wait a week for the PM to be read. If the PM is read (no longer in your outbox), then only wait 24 hours additional past when you notice the email is read. People may read and then want to compose later or they may have read from a handheld device and wish to reply via a full keyboard/monitor, so don't expect an instant reply upon reading of the message.
(2) Request Yonatan send a note to the offending editor requesting they contact the point of contact. Wait a few days to a week for a reply. The response time allowed is a case-by-case issue. For instance, If the offending editor is purposefully avoidant, just way a few days. If they have been fairly responsive or don't seem to request email/PM often, then wait a week.
(3) Request Yonatan suspend editing privileges for the offending editor. Wait for a response.
Progression of Corrective Action
(1) Once response is received, the nature of the response could indicate an approach that is taken. A conciliatory tone from the offending effort would be viewed as positive. A negative response may result in request to Waze for suspension of account or termination of the editing or account, which is up to Waze. This should be discussed in the appropriate forum so some consensus is reached between Champs and Waze.
(2) If the editor does not respond, the editing privileges will remain suspended and the account may be terminated by Waze as they see fit.
(3) If contact is made and the offending editor is cooperative, negotiate with the editor to improve their approach.
(4) If the issue is minor and corrected, the Champ can request that editing privileges be reinstated. It is suggested that the primary point of contact check in at least once more at a later date with the offending editor.
(5) If the issue is significant, it is suggested that the offending editor be assigned a mentor, the original primary point of contact or another Champ that may be familiar with their home region. "Significance is a case -by-case decision that may include activities like damaging editing, harassment of others, poor conduct, and being contrary or unresponsive to attempts to resolve the issue. It is suggested that if the offending editor is a level-5, that their CM status be suspended and they be provided with an AM role that the mentor can oversee. If the offending editor is an AM, then it is suggested their area may be reduced in size or situated to a different location that may present less risk to the map. Once improvement is made, privileges can be increased slightly or completely based upon the improvement observed.
Modifying Approach – Severity of Issue
(1) Certain behavior of offending editors may be sufficiently severe that Waze chooses to terminate the account or take some other action. Generally Champs would only request action up through suspension of editing privilege for the map and the Wiki.
(2) Actions that present an immanent threat, such as map vandalism, may require immediate action that does not involve waiting for responses to PMs. Immediate suspension of editing privileges may be warranted. Champs will coordinate with Waze.
(3) Actions of harassment, threats, or aggressive behavior may require more immediate action. Because this situation may involve misunderstandings or disjoint points of view, some type of negotiation or contact should be made to understand the true nature of the issue.
(4) Issues of conflict between editors have been noted in the past. Editors may change another editor’s work without courtesy of PMs, may take unwanted action in territory viewed as “home-turf,” or any number of other social interaction conflicts. In such situations, a mediator Champ might be assigned to help work out differences between the editors or determine if one of the editors is really an offending editor that needs corrective action.