Forum:Administration conduct policy

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

This forum is to ratify the administration conduct policy that we've reached a fair consensus on in Forum:Reconfirmation_Process. If you have not read that, you may wish to before you vote to understand the process by which this policy came to its present form.

There were a few clauses of the proposed policy that we did not come to a reasonable consensus on. I have modified them to attempt a compromise position between the prevalent positions:

1. I have added wording to specify that an extension can be granted for the accused to respond past the recommended 3 day period on user-rights removal requests, if required.
2. I have added wording to require a minimum of 3 petitioners to bring a vote of confidence. This is a compromise between those that supported none, and those that wanted 5 or more.
3. I have left untouched the clause requiring a board of 3 appointed admins to investigate claims of abuse. I could find no reasonable compromise between that position and those desiring an open forum for all admins. This does not preclude a forum being used as the investigative tool. It also does not preclude other admins/users from participating in said forum. It only requires the board of three to make final the recommendation of action.
4. I have also struck one portion of a clause that I placed that, on reflection, made no sense, that being the right of the accused to request a vote of confidence. They will still retain the right to request a user-rights removal request.

We have worked had to make this a functional policy that meets the support of as much of the community as participated. Let's get this thing ratified and move on to more exciting endeavors.

Proposed policy wording

Administration conduct policy

Extra-rights holders that violate normal user conduct policies are subject to the established progressive discipline for user conduct violations already in place. Extra-rights holders that abuse those extra rights are subject to progressive discipline following the established norms:

• 1st offense: 1 week removal of rights
• 2nd offense: 1 month removal of rights
• 3rd offense: permanent removal of rights

Extra-rights abuse shall be defined as misuse of:

• Site-block or chat-ban tools.
• Page protection or page deletion tools.
• Mediawiki or site features access.
• Any other misuse of tools or position that negatively reflect on Nukapedia's reputation or standing.

In case of gross abuse of rights, discretion allows for bypassing established progressive discipline up to and including a user-rights removal request.

In the event of a dispute over misuse of rights, a bureaucrat shall appoint a board of three neutral administrators to determine if there is initial cause to investigate. The Investigating parties are expected to gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible. If it is found that there has been a misuse of rights, they will recommend action based on established guidelines. Either party may appeal the board's finding . In the event of an appeal, all sitting bureaucrats will determine final disposition of the complaint. The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request at any time during this process.

Votes of confidence may be called in a forum by the community at any time. Votes of confidence are non-binding and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines. A minimum of 3 petitioners must bring forth the vote of confidence. Like any User-rights request, BCs will adjudicate the results of votes of confidence.

In the event a user-rights removal request is found warranted by the rights abuse process, a forum shall be called. User-rights removal requests are binding and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines.

All user-rights removal requests must present evidence of abuse of rights. Votes of confidence must provide rationale behind the lack of confidence. The accused will be afforded the opportunity to rebut in a timely fashion before the voting period commences. A period of 3 days minimum is recommended for the accused to rebut charges, and an extension may be granted by a Bureaucrat if warranted. The accused may waive this right at any time.

Vote

Poll finished on 2:46 am July 17, 2013 (UTC). A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken. You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section: Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal. Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal. Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain. Please do not edit other user's votes.

Do you support the proposed policy as written?

Yes votes

1. Richie9999 (talk) 02:49, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
2. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:56, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
3. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 02:58, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
4. I am very satisfied with the most recent additions/compromises, and so I give this my fullest support. --Skire (talk) 03:12, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
5. I feel that everything was discussed enough that this is what is needed. ^{"Anything, for the family"} 03:16, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
6. The proposed policies have my full support. I'm extremely happy and proud of the amount of effort and time that was put into this new policy - even if I didn't directly participate myself. This topic is something that should be tied up well and it looks like it will be by the inclusion of this policy. --The Old World Relics ^{(talk/blog/contributions)} 03:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. Sure, I support these policies. Energy X 18:23, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
8. on the understanding that "Any other misuse of tools or position that negatively reflect on Nukapedia's reputation or standing" is not limited to on site activity - If one was, for example, speaking as an administrator on another site in an inappropriate manner, I would expect this to apply. Agent c (talk) 18:40, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
9. Very nice, if I may say so myself. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
10. Well worded and thoroughly discussed. Let's make this policy people. ---bleep196- (talk) 17:00, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
11. While there are sections of this I'd prefer different, I'll concede to the process we used to make this as much of a community consensus as possible and support the end product of that process. The Gunny   19:27, July 14, 2013 (UTC)"
12. Seems about right to me. I expect it will need a little shaving off the edges in the future but for now it will do. Jspoel 21:21, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

No votes

1. As I said in the discussion, appointing an "investigation board" is utterly pointless and unnecessarily bureaucratic, specially when there are simpler and more straightforward options available.
   Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
2. I'm unable to support this when there is, even now, dispute over the validity of "neutral administrators". To reiterate what Limmie has said, there are simpler alternatives available; a blind circumstance vote at prima facie (presenting solely evidence to the vote, prepensely done so to remove names and thus bias), from the on hand administrators or bureaucrats, would both help to keep some neutrality and bring the investigation to a proper conclusion based on majority interpretation and not a over-engineered, and dubious, committee report. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt}
3. Along the same lines as the other two, which have summed up my thoughts nicely. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 19:32, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral votes

1. 02:56, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
2. OnionRings (talk) 03:08, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
3. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 20:10, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Just to throw it out there for the record, I'm still a bit wary of this proclamation, simply because of its vagueness: "Any other misuse of tools or position that negatively reflect on Nukapedia's reputation or standing." ^{Some Assembly Required!} 02:56, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I was sure you would make this comment. I'm glad you did. I tried to think of a better definition. This is a "catch all" clause. Its very purpose is to allow us the freedom to act when something happens that is not expressly written as forbidden, but is clearly abuse of powers. We will have to take a very hard look at any claims made under this clause. We'll have to put our faith in you guys, the admins, to recommend action, and us, the BCs to adjudicate it. The Gunny   03:06, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Then you have my support. In retrospect, I think all I was looking for was to have that actually said instead of just being implied. However, we should address this again sometime in the future. As I mentioned on the previous forum, we might have the memo and understand what's going on. But vagueness in our policies and guidelines isn't good for business when passed down to a newer ignorant generation. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 03:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's on the record now. we can point back to this if needed. I wrote the policy and that is my intent for the clause. The Gunny   03:12, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

As Leon mentions, the last proclamation is very vague which has always been a problem with the rules. I can not in good conscience vote on this without better clarification.<br\> OnionRings (talk) 03:11, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I am leery of the effectiveness of 3 neutral administrators as investigators. I feel like it limits the process and may have some unintended consequences... Neutral investigators should be chosen for their lack of bias, not solely based on their position. In my opinion, this should be amended to 3 neutral users or 3 neutral extra-rights users, with the selection of said users remaining in the hands of the bureaucrats. As such, I cannot throw my full support to this policy as it currently stands. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 20:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Good logic. Anyone that has a proven record of being neutral and fair would be fine for the job, really. Definitely doesn't just have to be Administrators. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Whether any user is "neutral or fair" can be too arbitrary. Administrators in general have been voted into their position partly to make decisions that will have an impact on the site. They, by possessing sysop rights in itself, have the trust of the community. --Skire (talk) 20:34, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a good example: Even before Chad was made into an Administrator, he was still confided in by the Bureaucrats regarding important decisions. He was a well known and trusted user for mediating purposes. In the case of editors outside of the special rights groups, there will be those exceptional cases that we learn to trust in. I'd be perfectly fine with proven community members acting as mediators/judges. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:37, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't argue against that example, but my question would be who decides whether a community member has "proved himself" or is to be considered trustworthy? It is much easier to take one group of users who are definitely trusted. It's more objective. --Skire (talk) 20:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it would be a mutual matter. A general understanding within the community that a certain person is to be trusted to that degree. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:45, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be something similar to a mediation panel or something similar that should be set to deal with these matters if you guys really want to get specific. Finding a "neutral or fair" community member that has proved him or herself mutually in the heat of the moment won't be easy. While the three chosen would be great, one of the parties involved would find a fault and possibly delay the resolution indefinitely.I understand we have proven community members that are not admins, but if we have them do the job of an admin (mediate problems fairly) why have admins at all? That just shows that admins are unable to perform their part when it comes to mediation. Between 8 admins and 3 bc's there will be 3 unbiased people. As for the mediation panel idea. If a member is involved in the issue, they resign themselves from the panel and someone else replaces them. Simple. In my opinion this current idea is bloated and bureaucratic.--Kingclyde (talk) 05:13, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Like other users have mentioned, I consider this proposal as a whole up to satisfiable standards to pass into official policy. I feel the discussion we've had on this was one of the most productive of all time and the result is considerably good. However, this is not to say that I don't believe there may be parts of the proposed policy that will need some refinement, which we can always consider in the future. --Skire (talk) 18:35, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Results

The community has spoken and this policy has passed. It will be added as soon as possible.--Kingclyde (talk) 05:10, July 17, 2013 (UTC)