Forum:Reconfirmation Process

There's been some disatisfaction expressed in Hawk's poll about the reconfirmation process as it stands, and ignoring the actual merits of the case for a moment, I'm inclined to agree. This comment and page isn't to pass judgement on either side in that other discussion - its a comment on the process not the personalities or evidence presented so far, not is it just from that discussion, as it also extends from dissatisfaction in other similar votes.

I feel the problems with the process are as follows:
1) Votes are being placed before any investigation takes place, and without all of the evidence.
2) When they are started, they are one sided, with no statements in defence
3) They are perhaps being used when a lesser punnishment is perhaps more appropriate

To me, the the following are the key principles that any process must have in this regard.

• Justice should be available - that means if there are grounds to question the conduct of a user with special rights, anyone should be able to open the process.
• Justice should be fair - we can't stop people coming into a vote with preconceived ideas, and we can't make people read what the other side has to say; but we can ensure that it is at least there for consideration.
• Justice should consider all of the facts - this means we need to make sure we have them at hand.
• Justice should be proportionate to the crime - We don't hang Jaywalkers, and we dont fine murderers.

As Such, I'd like to propose the following process to be followed before any vote page is called:

• In the event of a dispute, or dissatisfaction with a ranked users' actions, a neutral admin or bureaucrat should be contacted to see if there is a prima facie case to investigate. If they're not satisfied that there is something to investigate, a second can be contacted, however if the second concurs the issue should be dropped.
• The Investigating admin is expected to gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible - Chat/page logs, statements from both parties, witnesses, etc.
• The admin should come to a conclusion as to if there has been a breach of rules or guidelines, and impose a reasonable proportional punishment; depending on the severity and contributing factors this may be a suspension of rights, site suspension, etc.
• The investigating admin can in extreme cases recommend a reconfirmation vote; a reconfirmation vote may also be appropriate for multiple breaches if they have occurred in a short time.
• Any decision (verdict or sentence) can be reviewed by another admin once at the request of either party.

I invite any comments or alternative suggestions.
Agent c 19:48, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with you Chad, but I feel this common sense. In the rules doesn't it even say that when two admins dispute we have a mediator? I just don't understand why this is now a problem. Problem needs to be solved among the original party, not brought before the whole community.-- 19:52, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it does, and its sad it doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Agent c 19:54, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] It is pretty simple really, there is no need for any additional rules of this kind (something else that is currently irking me, having to discuss every single thing that happens, down to the smallest detail, then make a rule for it). Those that break the rules should be punished as already set out in the guidelines. Rank/position/title, however you want to think of the added user rights, are not exempt from this process. The policies and guidelines are already in place, if only people would read them and follow them. 20:39, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a delineation between conduct that should merit regular site discipline, e.g. minor infractions like insults, edit wars, and the like, just as any regular user is subject to, and conduct that merits examining whether extra rights should be suspended or revoked. In the first case, we have copious rules and processes in place already to deal with minor infractions. If an admin or mod is found to be in violation of one of those, they should receive the appropriate discipline for that infraction, depending on the severity and the number of previous instances. If a ban, chat or otherwise, is appropriate for the misconduct, any extra rights should also be temporarily suspended for the same duration. It makes no sense for an admin who is banned for 3 days for an insult to retain the rights that would allow them to unban thenselves.

Situations calling an admin or mod's extra rights into question should be limited to acts of gross misconduct, or a display of gross or continual negligence of duties. Misconduct that falls into one of those categories should then follow the already established guidelines for regular discipline. Warning -->3 day suspension -->1 week suspension -->1 month suspension --> permanent removal of extra rights. Just as policy states for regular user misconduct, discretion can be applied in the case of extraordinary bad acts. Either way, the admin/mod then has the opportunity to improve their performance at each step of the process. Extra rights should only be taken away when the bad actor has proven their inability or lack of desire to improve their performance.

I was aware of the impending recent situation and had two conversations prior to the request. In each conversation, I placed my views as:

1. If the bad conduct in question was covered under normal site policies, i.e. and insult, and was not related to negligence of duties, I suggested normal discipline was merited if the offense was deemed severe enough.

2. If the bad conduct in question was gross negligence of duties, accompanied with proof of allegations, then I would support an action to remove/suspend rights.

I feel whatever process is in place for suspension/removal of extra rights should follow the guidelines I've detailed above. Extra rights should only be in question when it's the performance of the duties associated with those rights that merits action, excepted only in cases of gross misconduct. I would support an addition to the administrative policies for admins/mods where it to follow the guidelines above. The Gunny 20:42, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with the removal of rights for the duration of the ban. That to me is making the assumption of future bad faith on there part. If said user was to use those right to circumvent the ban, then they should be treated the same as any other user who is circumventing a ban i.e. increasing the ban length, then removing the ability to circumventing the ban. In the case of a user that would be perma-blocking the alt account, in the admin it would be removing their rights. 20:56, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

I can see the logic in that and can agree with it. Clause struck. The Gunny 21:16, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Gunny, you've hit the nail on the head. Unless a user with additional rights abuses said rights, they should be treated as any other rule breaker. I don't see removing rights as a reasonable punishment when everyone else just gets a three day ban.
Revoking rights must be used as a last resort situation. If Admin A insults Admin B, that doesn't mean Admin A is unfit to fulfil his or her duties as an administrator; it just means that they broke a rule and will face the appropriate punishment as listed in the guidelines.
Agent C, thank you for bringing this issue to light. With the sudden influx of users calling for admins/mods to have their power revoked and threatening to remove additional rights if they don't behave, something really had to be done. 22:30, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Gunny I have to say that I agree with your policies, I also believe that the reconfirmation process should be reserved for the utmost serious situations, such as in the case of severe misuse of additional powers, for example:

1. Use and or creation of multiple accounts. 2. Deliberately using admin abilities to punish anonymous, or regular members, for reasons based on personal discretion alone.

These 2 reasons are the only ones that I can see a reconfirmation request needed for, as they transcend the traditional guidelines of the wiki.

As an important side note to help put things in perspective for those who have of late been using the reconfirmation request frequently, in my time as an admin for the past 2 years we had never had a reconfirmation request, all problems were handled by judgement from Ausir, or one of the other Bureaucrats. Granted the administration of the wiki has changed since then, This should not change the fact that drama should not be acceptable, no one likes it, and it only serves to disrupt and impede the maintenance and improvement of the wiki as a whole. It's important to remember that we are here to help convey our knowledge, and the existing knowledge already on the wiki, about the Fallout series, and it's accompanying content from all mediums, to the average person. This internal bickering over minor personal issues is not constructive in any way and we need to get past it. ---bleep196- 14:12, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

I definitely second Gunny's concept (or third, or however many have seconded it since). Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

So if I may summarise, are we in broad agreement of the following?

• We aren't creating a new rule here, but clairfying existing rules
• Admin disputes should be resolved by a neutral mediator in the first instance where possible
• under normal circumstances, breaches of user conduct should be dealt with the same for admins and non admins
• Reconfirmation requests are only appropriate if: admin powers have been misused (and a lesser punishment by a neutral mediator cannot be agreed, or the issue is too serious) or where there is a pattern of behaviour in breach of the user guidelines (ie multiple prior incidents)
• Admin in this context includes any user with special rights beyond a normal editor.

Agent c 17:45, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think a pattern of behaviour or multiple prior incidents is even necessary. The reason being that if those incidents where bad enough at the time, they should have resulted in a ban at said time. If not, then why should there be an issue later down the line. People who do that strike me as someone grasping at straws to validate an unsubstantial argument. And if they do have a pattern of misconduct that has resulted in a ban, there is an easy record of there conduct showing a pattern, which on the 4th incident they will result in a perma-banned and their rights removed - effectively having the same end result as a reconfirmation. The only time reconfirmation should be used is for the misuse of user rights, not in personal conduct, editing etc. as that is already covered under the general guidelines for all users. Misuse of power is pretty easy to define as well and is already covered in the guidelines and policies of the wiki. 19:59, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

My proposal

If any admin/chat mod/mod etc is found to be acting in a manner which does not befit their title (i.e. random banning, joke banning, insulting etc) the issue should be brought before the BC's. Any punitive action such as a ban for x-amount of time will be determined by the bc and if a bc is at issue the other bc and the admins. Second violation will result in a longer ban and the third will result in a reconfirmation vote and temp right removal if the issue warrants it. If an issue is not brought up and dealt with in a timely manner it should be inadmissible at a later date.

• Violation of policy strike 1 = block time equal to the violation
• Violation of policy strike 2 = longer block time equal to the violation
• Violation of policy strike 3 = reconfirmation vote and temporary rights removal if person in question is still misusing/abusing powers

That is my quick and dirty proposal. Discuss!--Kingclyde 23:38, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting

We came close to a consensus on this but we never ironed everything out. I'd like to move forward and finalize these ideas and prepare the best policy ideas for a vote to make the extra rights users discipline policy official. Please take the time to read over what has already been said. There's some very good ideas up there. Discuss what you think the best of those ideas is and let's get a consensus on what policy to put forward for a vote. The Gunny   20:20, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Chad's proposal almost completely. The only differences I would make would have the proposal looking like this:

• We aren't creating a new rule here, but clarifying upon existing rules and putting an official standard into place.
• Special rights disputes should be resolved by a neutral mediator in the first instance where possible.
• Under normal circumstances, breaches of user conduct should be dealt with the same for admins and non admins. Special rights shouldn't be revoked for minor occurrences, nor should a reconfirmation request be instigated when not needed.
• Reconfirmation requests are only appropriate if an Administrator grossly missuses their special rights. Normal transgressions follow the previous point. Such examples of gross abuse would be, but are not limited to:
  • Banning users for personal reasons.
  • Hiding information such as blog comments, or deleting entire blogs/forums without justification.
  • Using special rights to threaten other users, or to state superiority.
  • Showing a complete lack of knowledge over policies, guidelines, and basic editor treatment.
• If a reconfirmation has been instigated, double jeopardy should be taken into effect. If the reconfirmation has been passed, and the reconfirmed user is later proven to have been innocent of the claims presented, the aftereffects will be overturned, and the one to instigate the reconfirmation may have actions taken against them.
• Conspiracy reconfirmations are a no-no. A trial against a special rights user must be fair, and if evidence is provided that a group of editors are setting up a reconfirmation to go through, the request will be denied and actions may be taken against the instigators.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:40, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I must be off in but a moment, and as such I haven't got any time to summarise my own view, but that isn't of much importance as I basically agree on Leon's view on things. Subscribe to Leon's view? I like it, anyway. 9 out of 10 Alberts. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

To be fair, most of that was Chad's proposal, with only a slight re-write and those last two passages that I added in. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:49, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. Expect a better response, and proposition, from me in an hour or so. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

All users and anons with limited extra rights or even special powers should be held to the same standard if not higher than the general community. Leadership is not a gifted right but most justly a responsibility.

SaintPain→ That was broke afore I got here." 20:57, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

A very solid proposal in principle, I am however unsure about the clause, "If the reconfirmation has been passed, and the reconfirmed user is later proven to have been innocent of the claims presented, the aftereffects will be overturned, and the one to instigate the reconfirmation may have actions taken against them." It seems to me that such an addition is unnecessary as it is rare that someone completely "innocent" of the alleged offences should have their rights removed in a reconfirmation... Keep in mind that "innocent" and "not guilty" are not the same. Also, one would have to prove wrongdoing on part of the original "instigator" in order to justify any disciplinary action taken against him. Overall, there seems to be too many holes in such an addition, but perhaps some slightly better wording should suffice. --Skire (talk) 20:59, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify: If someone creates a reconfirmation request, and it turns out that the evidence is falsified, or that it's later found out to not even be true in the first place, that if the reconfirmation was previously passed, all consequences be overturned with possible ramifications against the instigator. Depends on if their intent was malicious or not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:01, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Aha, with that I can certainly agree with adding something like this in, to ensure the legitimacy of reconfirmations and deter the creation of illegitimate ones. --Skire (talk) 21:03, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a blast from the past, I'd forgotten most of this, but the principles I wrote before seem sound so I wont repeat them as I still agree with me. However there are some further checks and balances I think we need to consider.

I'm not necessarily against the principle of removing an admin who hasn't necessarily abused powers or broken the rules, but no longer has confidence. However, we do have to ensure that this isn't a tool thats abused by someone getting into a petty squabble - perhaps this needs to be a split thing. So I have a few things perhaps to consider here.

I don't agree with Leon's double jeopardy thing, as I think we're looking at this essentially being a public appeal of the original sanction, not a new trial. However where a matter has been settled for some time (several weeks), then this option should not be available

• Showing cause - I think for most cases where reconfirmation is likely to come up, its because of some rule break, or series of rule breaks. Whoever raises a normal reconfirmation is going to have to show this - I don't think this is new, we've done it before, so I dont expect any controversy

• Not just a petty squabble - I think it might be worthwhile looking at a minimum number of users to call a reconfirmation where they aren't happy with the 'crat response - at the moment policy votes require at least 10 votes to make quorum (the rules are a bit grey as to if this standard applies to user rights requests, but I dont think this is an unfair standard). As this means someone calling a vote is going to need 10 voters (and at least 6 of them as yesses), I don't think its unfair to ask anyone who is considering such a move to be able to meet this minimum standard - requiring a minimum number of proposers (at least 6, but I'd suggest maybe more) would remove any question about the democractic legitimacy of the vote.

• No case to show - if a third party admin believes that cause has not been shown, they should have the opportunity to see if other admins and burecrats agree, and if a plurality of the responders agree, the vote could be shot down for no cause - this ends any question of a petty dispute being involved.

• Confidence votes without misoconduct - if we're going to build a process to support this, I think it would have to be with a much much higher standard - a larger number of proposers, etc. However admins should be leaders of the community, not act in spite of it.

So I'd suggest the following process... the "investigation" part of the previous one remains, I'm just building on the what if the public isnt happy section

Alleged Administrator Misconduct.

1. In the event of a dispute, or dissatisfaction with a ranked users' actions, a neutral admin or bureaucrat should be contacted to see if there is a prima facie case to investigate. If they're not satisfied that there is something to investigate, a second can be contacted, however if the second concurs the issue should be dropped.
2. The Investigating admin is expected to gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible - Chat/page logs, statements from both parties, witnesses, etc.
3. The admin should come to a conclusion as to if there has been a breach of rules or guidelines, and impose a reasonable proportional punishment; depending on the severity and contributing factors this may be a suspension of rights, site suspension, etc.
4. The investigating admin can in extreme cases recommend a reconfirmation vote; a reconfirmation vote may also be appropriate for multiple breaches if they have occurred in a short time.
5. Any decision (verdict or sentence) can be reviewed by another admin once at the request of either party.
6. If there are a number of users who remain unhappy, they can seek to call a reconfirmation.
7. At least X (6? 10?) users must support the call for a misconduct reconfirmation, all must be willing to to vote to remove rights.
8. The reconfirmation needs to be placed in the usual voting forum. It must outline the alleged transgressions or abuses of the administrator. Once all proposers have added their signature, the page is to be locked for as long as is required for the subject to write a defence. A week would be the usual permitted time unless there are reasons to extend this (Absence, illness, etc)
9. If an administrator or bureaucrat who has not yet been involved feels that there is no case to answer, they may poll the remaining members of the administration team. They should state their intention to poll on the request, and have 1 week to discuss this with their fellow administrators. If at least 66% of the responding administrators agree that there is no case to answer, the vote is cancelled.

Confidence Requests

1. This would be used where an administrator isnt neccessarily breaking the rules, but no longer has the general support of the community
2. A very high number of users (20?) would be required to call a confidence vote, all must be willing to vote to remove rights.
3. A confidence vote can be called where a misconduct vote has been cancelled - but bear in mind the minimum proposer level for this vote.
4. The subject again has time to respond before voting starts (again around a week unless there is a reason to extend).

I know I'm probably being too wordy and overlegislating a bit, but I think it covers as many bases as I can reasonably think of. Agent c (talk) 21:08, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

One thing; what happens if here is an admin (or anyone with user rights) that goes to other Wikia sites (or any site at all) trolls or vandalizes? Perhaps that user should have a reconfirmation request, as, in my opinion, does not display good example for others. Energy X 21:06, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Good point, considering someone vandalised the Vault last week. To me the only question we should be asking was "Is this done in our name". If any user is claiming to represent Nukapedia (ranked or not) and acts in an inappropriate way, to me that is as if they had done the act here. This doesn't necessarily mean trolling and vandalising, but their entire conduct. If they do not act on behalf of us (and there is no suggestion of it), then its not of our concern unless our resources (chatroom, etc) were used in the process (eg, to coordinate or recruit others). Agent c (talk) 21:09, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I like essentially everything that you've said, Chad. I would definitely support your modified proposal. Even if it was wordy. ;D ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:13, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Agent c on how to treat incidents on other sites. Also, I'm a bit wary about these motions of no confidence. I don't think they're needed. Setting the minimum level of users supporting it too high makes one unlikely to happen, not to mention the questionable quality of using such a measurement to determine whether a motion of no confidence is warranted or not... All in all, it's my belief that we should stick only to setting up rules on the reconfirmation process (i.e. the "trial" process for users with extra user rights that have abused or otherwise misused their powers or have committed an offence(s)). --Skire (talk) 21:15, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Skire here. In the event that someone is reconfirmed, and that instigator of the reconfirmation was doing so in good faith, there is simply no grounds to discipline the instigator if evidence supplied was either wrong, misinterpreted or not officially against a policy. Unless that information was falsified (which would be grounds for discipline under the user conduct guidelines) then it would be simply giving back rights and forgetting the incident, not giving back rights then punishing an innocent user who had reconfirmed the special rights user with good intentions.

Furthermore, I believe adding in a clause about "conspiracy reconfirmations" would be a rash action which could jeopardise any future reconfirmations from the onset. Due to how reconfirmations take place, the initial point of contact between the reconfirmed at the vote is when a reconfirmation takes place, because of this it would mean (under a no conspiracy reconfirmations rule) the the reconfirmation could be removed because there is no clear definition of what is and what is not a conspiracy, nor would this be easily proven or disproven to be a conspiracy without derailing a reconfirmation and allowing the special rights user to still pose a threat to the community if they do so. I would also point out that at no point is a conspiracy necessarily bad by definition, and in this community it would be impractical to have a reconfirmation which does not have the majority support of the community, so for a conspiracy reconfirmation to work it would mean that a vocal majority of the community is already in favour of removing their rights; just a glorified vote of no confidence, in reality.

I would suggest that Gunny's simpler approach seems to suffice here:

Section one is clear on the purpose of discipline foremost, where a special rights user is not given special treatment in offences which do not correspond with said rights, and section two covers for when offences to correlate with rights and having rights poses a threat to the community. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 21:16, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. In the case of reconfirmation, simple might not be the best course of action. Gunny's proposal is a good one, though, and has given me a lot of room for thought. However, I do have to disagree with Skire on the no confidence point. If 20 or more users honestly believe a special rights user to no longer have the capacity to handle said rights, then I would imagine that would warrant a removal. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:18, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

As for any concerns over my proposal - consider my proposal null. I prefer Chad's over mine, and the conspiracy point I made needs to be refined before ever being truly considered. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:21, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I can see problems arising with no confidence motion coming in conflict with the inactivity policy that we have on this site... Also, the term about being unable to handle the rights any more, or not having the general support of the community, is too broad. In reconfirmations we are looking for an offence or transgression of some sort, but for these motions of no confidence it's simply how people feel... I'm not sure if this is the right way to go as I do believe that reconfirmations, in conjunction with our inactivity policy, should sufficiently cover all scenarios regarding the removal of extra user rights. --Skire (talk) 21:26, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Understandable fears, and ones I can relate with. But I would hope that a no-confident vote would have genuine reasons behind them before ever being considered. I certainly wouldn't support a no confidence vote simply because a bunch of editors don't personally like the special rights user targeted. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:27, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

This may sound like a crazy idea, addressing the blank variable on #6, but I think it may be a fair, viable solution. It wouldn't be that hard to coordinate, as there aren't reconfirmations that often. What if the reconfirmation consisted of the users that voted on the reconfrimee's special rights request? For example, Leon, Chad, Danny, Jspoel, and Richie voted on my admin request. I passed, and I'm now up for reconfirmation following some misconduct. Since this is a reconfirmation, it seems fair to me that everyone that voted on my request reweigh in, to see if what I've done was bad enough to change their thoughts.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving

I see a lot of bureaucratic problems arising. What happens if the majority of voters have become inactive? Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

I guess the best and only answer I can give would be, if at least 66% of the original voters aren't available, fill them in with members affected by/or who witnessed the misconduct. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 22:29, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think the standard policy vote rules cover this, though. At least 10 voters must be present, and have voted. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

This is essentially giving the original voters' special privileges. And ultimately, why? Are admins only accountable to the users who voted positively on their requests? That doesn't make sense to me, admins represent everyone in the wiki, and as such everyone else have equal say if said admin deserves to represent them.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 00:57, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

While I don't have many already-formed views on this, I'm inclined to see reconfirmations on the same line as how most western nations view impeachment of presidents. The most common rule is that when a president willfully violates a law, they're released from office. This may seem like unfair and heavy handed, but I subscribe to the notion that special right users should be held to a far more strict standard than the regular ones, because we're expected to already be intimate with the rules, which by default diminishes the applicability of the good faith ignorance defense. Responsibility is the necessary counterpart to privilege after all. Also, and most importantly, simply because we are representatives. When we do wrong, it tarnishes the reputation of the whole wiki.

Another way of thinking could be something as KC outlined in his #3 point during the original round, basically that the special rights should only be put in jeopardy when the user abused said rights. I'm less inclined to support that view, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose it either.

What I do am against is overelaborating the bureaucracy, making rules Byzantine only limits its actual use, and even more so its use for its intended purpose.

Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:20, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, if a user feels they have lost faith in someone with additional rights, they can call a recom. You don't just have to abuse the rights for this to be true, if they clearly have stopped caring about their position or refuse/openly avoid enforcing the rules 100% then they're not doing the job they were elected for. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 02:02, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean by that, but if we put that in to policy we'll just have reconfirmations left and right, as there won't be a concrete line (Such as policy) to cross. Minor slip ups and the occasional unprofessionalism shouldn't be grounds for removal, we've all had our bad days here.--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 02:13, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

a single slip up isn't what earns a total loss of faith in an admin or mod. It's a consistent lack of respect for the rules, fellow mods/admins and for the system of this wiki. If it's clear that a user with additional rights cares more about the little star next to their name when they enter chart than they do about what it represents then they don't deserve the rights that come worn it. If you don't respect the badge, you don't make a good deputy. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 02:30, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Jasp completely. Sums up my sentiments on this shindig precisely. 14:56, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of good points here, and we've had a fairly good discussion about how we view reconfirmation as a whole. One of the big things I see is that some of us want to use reconfirmation as a vote of no confidence. Now here is the thing, right now reconfirmation requests are worded to be used as a vote of no confidence for a user holding special rights who has A) abused their extra rights in some manner or form that violates the wiki's policies or B) No longer has the trust of the community to perform the tasks that they were initially awarded these rights to do.

What we are discussing here is essentially whether or not to keep clause B, which is by all technicalities a vote of No confidence. Now, perhaps we should separate the two as has been outlined. I find myself agreeing heavily with Chad's proposition with how to handle a user with extra rights who has abused them. This leaves an issue though, how do we deal with a user that the community no longer feels is no longer up to the task? This is where things get tricky, because unlike the abuse clause, the No confidence clause is heavily dependent upon the subjective feelings of the community.

For example, latley several users in the chat have expressed their unhappiness with several of the admins, and have been calling for their reconfirmations. The admins have committed no abuses, they have not broken any discernible rules, the users calling fro the reconfirmation simply don't agree with their discretion, and while that is fine and sparks debates like the one we are having here, it is far from a viable reason to call for a reconfirmation. Jasper made a good point, what if we have a user who refuses to enforce the rules, or frankly avoids them all together? That falls under gross negligence and, is by all standards, a failure to act and preserve the safety and integrity of the wiki. That by all means is worthy of a reconfirmation in my opinion, but this would require evidence of negligence. All in all, I like some of the things being discussed here, our policies on reconfirmation are fairly vague at the moment, and some of the clarifications made here would make things run a lot smoother. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:09, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Great input so far

What I plan on doing is reading through all of this and looking at each point in the ideas and separating them for discussion so we can gain some consensus on some of these points. Keep the ideas/discussion going. When things slow down a bit, I'll distill all this down to it's bare essential components for more directed discussion so we can move this forward. The Gunny   21:33, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

This has been a pretty productive discussion so far - then and now. Looking forward to what we can all come up with. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 21:34, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Proposition of Reconfirmation

Foreword

This proposition works from the assumption that a reconfirmation is equal to a policy vote, and as such both variants of reconfirmation require a minimum of 10 voters to be considered legitimate, and at least a single neutral administrator has recommended it as the correct course of action. This is my summary of the many opinions in the forum.

Administrator dispute

In the occasion of an administrator, moderator or chatmoderator dispute, a neutral administrator is to be called in, according to the already existing rules. Nothing needs to be added here, really - the administrator policy touches upon this. If, however, a plurality of neutral administrators involved sees it a prudent course of action, a reconfirmation initiated.

Prerequisites of a reconfirmation

• Gross misuse of powers or disability to perform responsibilities, as judged by one or more neutral administrator(s).
  • ^{Banning users for personal reasons.}
  • ^{Hiding information such as blog comments, or deleting entire blogs/forums without justification.}
  • ^{Using special rights to threaten other users, or to state superiority.}
  • ^{Showing a complete lack of knowledge over policies, guidelines, and basic editor treatment.}
  • ^{General poor representation of the wiki, and lack of respect for the responsibilities of admin or (chat)moderatorship.}
• Vote of no confidence.
  • ^{The vote of no confidence is for when the community has lost confidence in an administrator, for clearly outlined reasons. E.g. lack of responsibility or activity.}

Process of a reconfirmation

The reconfirmation forum needs to be placed in the usual voting fora. It must outline the alleged transgressions or abuses of the administrator, moderator or chatmoderator, and the page is initially to be locked for as long as is required for the defendant to write a defence. A week would be the usual permitted time unless there are reasons to extend this (absence, illness, etc). Each reconfirmation is a unique occurrence, and handles the actions - or inaction - of a single administrator or (chat)moderator.

After the defendant's defence has been added, the forum is unlocked and all comers can vote after engrossing themselves in the information provided.

Summary

I was hoping this would meet as many opposing views as possible. For the anti-bureaucracy phalanx amongst us, I've tried to make the policy as flexible and all-encompassing as possible without making the policy itself extensive. For the more policy-friendly, this policy should still cover all lanes properly, at least under the assumption that it is treated as a policy vote on the 10-votes-minimum aspect of it. I guess that's all, any thoughts are welcome. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Formal Policy proposal

Taking everything into account from this forum I forward the following draft proposal. I've divided each talking point into its own section to enable consensus on individual points more expediently. I further propose that the terms "Extra-rights holder" and "User-rights removal request" replace existing various terms. In the case of "reconfirmation", that term is disingenuous at best. No one pens one with the intent to reconfirm another's rights, but to remove them. I see these simply as a unique form of user-rights request, not unlike any other, but aimed at removal of rights, not assignment of them.

Proposed policy

Article I: Applicability

Clause 1: Normal user conduct violations

Extra-rights holders that violate normal user conduct policies are subject to the established progressive discipline for user rights ^{mistake corrected} conduct policies already in place.

Comments/support

•  The Gunny   18:25, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Special rights holders are leaders in the community and need to set a good example. If they are persistently not setting a good example through the normal rules, there needs to be some mechanism to remove the expression of trust shown in those rights. Agent c (talk) 23:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• That mechanism is in place in the vote of confidence that can be called at any time. The Gunny   18:48, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Sounds fine to me, dunno why you gotta use those fancy words though. Richie9999 (talk) 18:43, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• For clarification, what this clause is saying is that ordinary infractions made by ERHs would incur on the removal of said rights as established on the clause below? Is this one dependent on that one then? Does it involve a regular ban from editing/chatting or is it restricted merely to the loss rights for the duration of the sanction? Are chat offenses dealt with separately from site ones?
  Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 19:22, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• It's exclusive of anything pertaining to extra rights abuse. This would be violations of any of the existing user conduct guidelines, like insults, spamming, trolling etc. These two clauses act together to define extra rights abuses solely as that - abuses of extra rights. All other misconduct is already covered in our user conduct policies. Just because a user has extra rights does not mean they are exempt from normal user conduct policies. User rights violations - user rights discipline. Extra rights violations - extra rights discipline (this new policy). The Gunny   19:31, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I see, then this clause says the exact opposite of what I interpreted it to mean. I guess what triped me up was the "user rights policies" part "progressive discipline for user rights policies in situ". I guess it refers to regular bans as a user right policy (as in the right to edit, etc), but as it is it looks like it is referring to to the policy regarding the handling of extra user rights. I suggest rewriting that part for clarity.

On another note, this means that if say an admin posts a link to pornography in chat then he will solely be banned from chat and nothing else will happen. He'll also still retain his administrative rights for the duration of the ban, giving him the power to lift his own ban anytime -- but doing so would constitute a new (and more serious) infraction of misuse of extra rights. Am I correct in this assumption?
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:14, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Limmie. My mistake. The wording should have been user conduct policy. And yes, unblocking yourself is abuse of admin powers. There's some real good points on that up in the first discussion. The Gunny   22:13, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Yes Limmie, as that would constitute for power abuse, in the way of circumventing a ban. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Makes a lot of sense to me. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:04, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• 17:35, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• It seems to me that this is just one of those matters that has to be tackled individually, and without rules set it place to muck up the disciplinary process. Like standard users, special rights users are held to the same principles, and must be punished accordingly should those principles go ignored. However, with prolonged abuse, or with, say, exceptional circumstances, even normal desecrations may need to be handled under harsher terms for those with special rights. Specific rules are not needed here. Joint discretion between the Administration team and the community is. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:15, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 2: Abuse of extra rights

Extra-rights holders that abuse those rights are subject to progressive discipline following the established norms:

• 1st offense: 3 day removal of rights
• 2nd 1st offense: 1 week removal of rights
• 3rd 2nd offense: 1 month removal of rights
• 4th 3rd offense: permanent removal of rights

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:25, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this one as well. Richie9999 (talk) 18:43, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Possibly even stricter, but yes, I agree. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

I'm open to adjusting the actual schedule of sanctions. Give me your ideas. 3 strikes and you're out? The Gunny   22:15, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Cutting the first one? One week, one month, then you're out? ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

• Requires less chances to offend before I'd agree to this. For a standard breach of rules I'm fine with the blocking guidelines already in place, but for special rights it makes that individual a greater threat to the wiki if they are given more chances. Two or Three strikes would be much more suitable. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I support the new stricter guidelines. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 23:02, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Now this is much more palatable. I'd prefer an stricter regime (so count this vote as an automatic support of anything tougher), but this is enough to win my support.
  Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:58, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• 1 week for the first time is fine. --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:06, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Energy X 00:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• CSCR
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC) Users with added rights can should be held to a higher standard.
• First offense should demand a probationary period without their privileges imo until they can prove themselves worthy of deserving them again. 19:39, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 00:34, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
• I see no reason to oppose this. Those of us with special rights need to be held to a strict code; else we set a bad example for both our community, and our future Administration. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:19, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 3: Definition of rights abuse

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.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:25, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• on the understanding that "Any other misuse of tools or position that negatively reflect on Nukapedia's reputation or standing." would cover off site behaviour when acting on Nukapedia business, or if speaking in our name. Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Not quite clear on what is defined as an abuse of page deletion tools, but everything else seems fine to me. Richie9999 (talk) 18:44, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Page deletion can be used to silence folks on blog comments. Each is considered a "page". The Gunny   18:49, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • And that's not even considering the random deletion of articles, which I'd say also constitutes as power abuse. ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I share Chad's view on this. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:08, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Pretty much how it stands. Energy X 00:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• The last stance has me a bit perturbed. 19:36, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Eden. Until the vagueness in that last stance has been polished and refined a bit, or outright removed, I won't be able to say whether I vote positively or negatively on this clause. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:22, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 4: Gross abuse of rights

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

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:24, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• This covers the only concerns I had with clause 2, and sounds good to me. Richie9999 (talk) 18:45, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• So long as we are clear on what is and what is not gross abuse of rights, it's fine by me. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Gross abuse of rights is like porn. You know it when you see it. If you say "Holy shit, I can't believe xxxx did that!", that's gross abuse. The Gunny   22:43, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:08, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Energy X 00:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Don't have an immediate example and it will probably only happen on a rare occasion, but I can imagine a case of gross abuse that would warrant bypassing the standard progressive discipline. Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• When deemed necessary by the community. 19:35, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What exactly constitutes a "gross" abuse of rights that warrants a rights removal request instead of an abuse of rights that would be handled following guidelines set in clause 2? --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Let's take the page deletion rights. Admin A uses his page deletion rights to delete a blog comment because the commenter's views conflict with his and he does this to "win" an argument. Admin B uses his page deletion rights to delete all of the templates that the wiki work off of. One is clearly gross abuse. The Gunny   22:43, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. I think in most cases this would be quite apparent anyway. My concern was mainly about where to draw the line between gross and "normal" abuse. Your example was a very clear and straightforward scenario, but I don't imagine that they'll all be so straightforward. At any rate, I do not believe this will really be a problem, so consider me in support of this. --Skire (talk) 00:30, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
• Pretty straight-forward, and I trust in the Bureaucratic and community discretion that will be involved in such cases. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:30, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Article II: Investigation of rights abuse process

Clause 1: Remediation

In the event of a dispute over misuse of rights, a neutral admin or bureaucrat shall be consulted appoint a board of three neutral administrators to see^grammar determine prima facie^readability if there is initial cause to investigate. If no cause is determined a second admin may be consulted. A second admin not finding cause results in no action on the complaint.^{moved to appeals clause}

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:24, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I like this and I feel it is important to have mediation, but come on. Again with the fancy words? Richie9999 (talk) 18:46, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I suppose the intent of this clause is to make sure that the issue isn't dragged around much, and that the complainer doesn't go around "admin shopping" for support, but I disagree that this is a valid concern to being with. It also causes a new batch of problems on its own. E.g. if the two neutral admins initially consulted happen to be the only ones who believe no valid cause exist, while every single one of the other admins do, then the matter would have do be dropped, despite it obviously not being a proper solution. An extreme and unlikely case, but it's just to highlight the various issues that could arise due to this restriction.
  Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:01, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions how we can do this better. Is Al's suggestion of 3 admins for review better? The Gunny   22:18, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

My issue isn't so much about the number of admins as it is the fact that there's a ceiling in it at all. By making it so that there's only X admins you can consult before the matter is automatically dropped, it creates the problem of who is going to picked up for consultation, by whom, and following which parameters of choice. As Neko pointed, a neutral admin here is merely someone who isn't directly involved, not necessarily someone who has no personal bias for or against either party. I gave this issue some thought, and I believe that the best solution is to simply invert the standpoint. I.e. instead of establishing a maximum number of admins to be consulted before the matter is dropped, to set a minimum number of admins to be convinced before the matter is furthered. That solves the issues I've outlined above and also makes the appeal clause below redundant in one go. Until at least X admins are convinced of good cause, the process will go no further, and as long as at least X admins are so, it will proceed.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:48, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I see your point Limmie. How about a "tribunal" of three administrators first being appointed - either by the involved (smoother), or by a bureaucrat which is asked to form the investigation team (clunkier, but with a lesser chance of personal biases). If this is later appealed, a second tribunal of other administrators and bureaucrats is appointed. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

I also see the point. Rights abuse is a serious thing. I'm starting to see the limitations of a single investigator. That may well set us up for admin/admin block wars. Is there any resistance to making the initial investigation board 3 admins, and the appeal the 3 BCs? The Gunny   22:59, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I agree entirely on that, but who would appoint the first board of three, and - in the future case of more than three bureaucrats - who selects the bureaucrats? ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

At the risk of adding too much bureaucracy, a BC could appoint the initial board. Keep in mind rights abuse is a pretty serious breach of user confidence, so maybe instant investigations by a single admin, or the three admin around that day should be avoided. As for the appeal, we already trust the judgement of the BCs to come to consensus on everything else as far as votes go. Would it be outside the realm of good sense that all BCs act as the appeal board, regardless the number? We'd also have to trust their judgement to appoint neutral admins to investigate too. The Gunny   23:22, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Always a board of at least three administrators investigating. We might as well just go with "all bureaucrats" on this rule, though, I agree. But then we have a bureaucrat appoint a board for the situation, then? Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Hm, that's still overcomplicating things and adding unnecessary bureaucracy. Maybe instead setting up a closed poll for admins to vote? Any admin would vote for or against, but minimum of 3 (or what number have you) admins have to vote, or else the poll is invalid. The result is then decided like any other poll.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 00:26, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that streamlines things, really. It involves more people, invariably lengthy discussions (a given here at the bureaucracy wiki), more work in the form of a forum set-up, and a time frame for the vote of a week or so. I don't know, it feels even more complicated and bureaucratic. The first version involves only four individuals - the board and the bureaucrat - and doesn't involve a week of voting. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

My proposal isn't to make things quicker, but more thorough, open and clearer. Given how serious a misuse of rights is, rushing things seems to me imprudent. 7 days is a good length of time to avoid injustices towards either side.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

At this point the appointed board is supposed to gather evidence. How can any poll happen if the evidence is not yet gathered? Someone has to investigate the complaint. One person was deemed not enough. 3 is better. Someone has to determine those 3. They need to be impartial. With those requirements, I see no other good option. The Gunny   00:42, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The poll itself is the investigation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is simply to decide whether or not there was misuse, not to decide whether or not the user is going to lose their rights.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You are correct. At this point it is in the investigative phase, with no action recommended yet. The Gunny  

The way I see it there isn't much 'investigating' to be done in the sense of going around with an overcoat and a fedora, talking to witnesses, dusting for prints and scribbling notes on a pocket notebook. All it takes is for the admins in the committee to look at the situation and ponder whether the action in question was appropriate or not, so I don't see why assigning a specific team to look at it would be necessary. But perhaps "poll" wasn't the best term for what I proposed. What I mean is a forum that any admin can take part of, present evidence, and state and defend their stances. At the end (could be the standard 7 days or less) the final position among the participants would be gathered and the results decided like an ordinary poll. By making it open to any admin we bypass the issues with the selection altogether.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 01:41, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

OK. This is an alternative to what is already proposed. Let's see if there's additional support for this. The Gunny   01:51, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Continuing on that note, is there any concern over my initial proposal of one merely needing to secure the approval of N admins to go forward? I.e., one only needs to convince at least N admins that there's "prima facie reason"? I'm still completely not understanding why do we need to go trough the trouble of assigning taskforces or committees whenever a complain is brought up.
Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:50, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

• I'm actually inclined to agree with Limmie here, I believe that three not two admins should be consulted in this instance. 3 is always the magic number for us. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• On the term that the issue is first addressed by a single neutral administrator, and then - if more must be taken into the situation - three administrators. Not two, and not more than three. Ignore that I am dumb Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• Same reasons as Lim. Asking anyone on the staff is not asking for a third-party investigator, it is rather just plucking out someone who does know the person in question and could create a great chance of personal bias. Furthermore, it does not outline who would be suitable for being a neutral Administrator/B'Crat, which just opens up the doors to more personal bias from whomever chooses said neutral Administrator or B'Crat. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Randomly selected member of the administration through a randomiser? xD ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

If we are dealing with abuse of extra-rights, shouldn't the adjudication be by 3 extra-rights users, not just administrators? I can see issues where conflict arises with one of the more notable admins and it may be rather difficult to compile a board of neutral administrators without someone having a conflict of interest. ^{ōrdō āb chao} 17:44, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

• 19:34, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not satisfied with it being restricted to a committee of 3 admins. With respect to rights removal, administrators can hardly be considered a neutral, unbiased third party. However, in terms of accountability and dependability, it is best to proceed this way... --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

If the admins in question can't put aside their biases and do their job, then those admins will be the next bunch going through this process, wouldn't you say? If you feel we have admins that we can't trust, why has that not been called into question already? The Gunny   22:45, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about in general, such a restricted demographic isn't the best. We don't have that many admins, and it is extremely likely that at least one of the ones appointed to the committee would have had some extensive interaction with the accused. Thus, I am not saying that our admins are unable to put aside personal relations and biases, but bias is not always deliberate; the admin(s) may not wilfully allow previous interactions or personal perception of the accused to affect their decisions. --Skire (talk) 00:39, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

After much contemplation, including considering alternatives, I have decided that this is after all the best way to go about the process. Please consider my objections withdrawn. --Skire (talk) 18:58, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

• I'm actually pretty happy about this clause. I had suggested before to have a sort of Judge position that could be filled in by three Administrators, but the idea was shot down pretty quickly as being redundant and unnecessary. This will be a good way, I think, to have outside influence involved instead of merely relying on the Bureaucrats for discussing final results. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:33, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 2: Investigation

The Investigating admin 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 discipline^readability action based on established guidelines.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:24, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Sounds more than reasonable, one would expect this to be a given. Richie9999 (talk) 18:46, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• So, if three administrators have been called in, the plurality has to be in agreement? Have I got this right? Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Yup. The Gunny   22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• --TwoBearsHigh-Fiving 23:12, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Isn't this why we have a bot in our chat? To monitor the situation? In any case, agreed. Energy X 00:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• 19:33, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:39, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 3: Appeal

Either party may appeal the board's finding to another admin or BC. In the event of an appeal, a separate board of 3 admins or all sitting bureaucrats will determine final disposition of the complaint. The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request or vote of confidence at any time during this process.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:24, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Seems good, however perhaps there should be a limit on appeals (only X number of appeals per offense or whatnot). Richie9999 (talk) 18:48, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Richie, there should be either a limit or a set time span on appeals. -bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• On the term that the number of investigator is always uneven. Only a single appeal which calls in two? Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Same as above. Perhaps we strike the appeal section in the above clause, move it here and make the appeal a board of 3? The Gunny   22:19, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I realised that there is a far smoother way to handle it - simply set the appeal ceiling at two. Let's say one admin investigates. If their result is appealed, the next investigates, and recommends the same course of actions as the last one. This makes a second appeal meaningless, as the plurality will still win out in a 2 to 1 fashion. Isn't it elegant? Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

That is how it's worded now. Limmie has brought up a concern above though, about the chances of the two admins asked to intervene being in the minority of all admin opinion. It's a legitimate point. Perhaps all appeals should be boards of 3? The Gunny  

I think that would be prudent, in that case. Sorry for not catching on earlier. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

(←)  I can live with this. Agent c (talk) 22:46, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• 17:39, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • I assume that if a bureaucrat is accused and appeals, that "all sitting bureaucrats" would not include him. Also, what exactly is the last sentence, "The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request or vote of confidence at any time during this process." referring to? Demand a user-rights removal request for whom? --Skire (talk) 00:46, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

That last bit comes from my experience in the military. When the subject of an article 15 non-judicial punishment, one always has the right to request a court-martial. This skips the informal proceeding and goes directly to the formal. So yes, it's the accused asking for their own. The Gunny   03:08, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

• • • Ah, so they can request a direct move towards a rights removal request/motion of no confidence at any time during the entire process, not just the appeals process? --Skire (talk) 17:42, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes. In the military (execpt when embarked on ship, then you're out of luck) this is the case. It is there as an avenue for the accused to ensure a fair hearing. If the accused feels that his immediate commander (the one administering the NJP) won't give him a fair hearing, he has the right to request court-martial to ensure a fair hearing. I kinda threw this in, but it would serve the same purpose here. The Gunny   19:48, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
• ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:39, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Article III: User-rights removal requests and votes of confidence

Clause 1: Votes of confidence

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. Like any User-rights request, BCs will adjudicate the results of votes of confidence.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:23, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• some sort of mechanism to prevent abuse I think is required... a number of proposers, etc. Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I can see chad's point, and it seems quite valid. Richie9999 (talk) 18:49, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• "there needs to be some mechanism to remove the expression of trust shown in those rights". This is that mechanism. The user-rights removal request covers listed rights abuses and is the severity tested model. This allows for cases where no outright abuse is evident, yet confidence is in question. Since the other method forces severity testing, I believe this alternate method should be open, since it's hard to define the severity of loss of confidence. The method to prevent abuse, is that this is non-binding, and requires BC action. This should eliminate abuse. The Gunny   19:03, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Leaving it to the BC's to determine whether or not a Vote of No confidence is needed is the way to go. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I agree on this clause, but only because I'm making the assumption that this is treated as a policy vote, and as such requires 10 active voters to legitimise. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

"and must follow all normal policy vote guidelines". Yup. The Gunny   22:32, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I read this right, but if a vote of confidence passes against the user rights holder, it means there's still removal of rights thread needed, right?

And up till now we've seen removal of rights from patrollers left up to the discretion of bureaucrats. They also give the rights to discretion so I suggest we leave it that way and add it to policy. Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

No. Under the proposal as it stands, after the vote of confidence is concluded, the sitting BCs will take it under advisement like any other user rights request. Since it is not binding, the BCs reserve the right to find either way, as normal, taking the community's views into consideration. As for patrollers, I haven't really touched on them because I'm not sure they can even abuse the rights they have. Spam the patrol log with patrolled edits? Hm. I believe this entire process, requiring votes to remove rights, should only apply to those who required votes to gain them. The Gunny   16:50, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically I would expect patrollers to be bound by it, but the only real "abuse" they can do is in respect to their position - taking actions that are unbecoming of someone in a leadership position - persistent rule breaks, or acting appropraitely on other sites in our name. Agent c (talk) 17:28, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

• 17:39, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Per Agent c, a minimum number of initial supporters should be required in order to put forth a motion of no confidence to be voted on. --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the fact that the results are not binding and must pass BC judgement as well as the requirement that votes must have some rationale stated is no enough to deter frivolous forums? Some type of petition probably won't deter frivolous forums any more would it? It's not that hard to get 3 malcontents to go in on a frivolous forum. The only real alternative is some type of prior approval to show cause, but that's exactly what the user-rights removal request process is. This in only here because folks wanted a method to remove rights where no clear abuse is evident. We can make the definition of abuse much broader to encompass lack of confidence, or we can make the confidence vote have requirements closer to the other process, but in the end doesn't that defeat the purposes of both? The Gunny   22:52, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

My concern, Gunny, is not with the result of frivolous forums (which I have no doubt our bureaucrat team can judge appropriately), but with the very creation of frivolous forums. Right now anyone can, with some reason they cook up, put forth a motion of no confidence. Not needing any evidence or sign of actual abuse (intrinsic of a motion of no confidence) only makes this easier. In my opinion, this is something our wiki could do better without. Also, where does it state that votes must have rationales with them? If anything, a recent vote repealed the only bit in our policy regarding voting rationales... --Skire (talk) 01:14, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

You make the same point as a few above. OK. What would you consider an appropriate amount of users for this petition? Also, the part about rationales is not on individual votes in a forum. It's so that votes of confidence are accompanied by the reasons why the person writing the forum has lost confidence. They must state some reasoning behind their loss of faith, similar to how user-rights removal requests must show actual evidence. Having to detail why you've lost faith is a much higher hurdle than simply saying "I don't like him/her. They suck." The Gunny   19:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

I believe a minimum of 5 would be appropriate. Also, thanks for clarification on the rationale part. I understand that there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent abuse but I would really prefer a minimum number of initiators. --Skire (talk) 01:32, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that if exceptional circumstances arise, that the community can appeal for a reconfirmation based solely on lack of confidence. Do I believe that any Dick and Jane can call up a confidence vote for any rationale that they can drudge up from the recesses of their mind? Ehhh, no. It's just asking for trouble when we allow for frivolous confidence votes. All it takes is one controversial action from someone with special right, and the egos floating about to take offense and stir up chat, and next thing you know we'll have these votes popping up everywhere because we've now sanctioned that. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:46, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 2: User-rights removal requests

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.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:23, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Richie9999 (talk) 18:50, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• ---bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• Energy X 00:03, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• 17:38, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:48, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Clause 3: Evidentiary exposition

All votes of confidence and 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 that evidence in a timely fashion before the voting period commences. A period of 3 days maximum minimum is allowed recommended for the accused to rebut charges. The accused may waive this right at any time.

Support/oppose/clarify

•  The Gunny   18:23, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I think some sort of fairness extension is required if true cause can be shown. Agent c (talk) 18:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Richie9999 (talk) 18:51, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Chad here, we should have a fairness extension, everything in good faith. ---bleep196- (talk) 21:53, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• As others have said, I think it would be fairer with a larger time span- Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

After discussing with Chad, I changed "allowed" to "recommended". Fairness can then be taken into account. Does that suffice? The Gunny   22:22, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• This clause contradicts the purpose of a vote of no confidence. "All votes of confidence [...] must present evidence of abuse of rights", when evidently a vote of no confidence is just that: no confidence from the community; evidence of abusing rights does not have to correlate with a lack of faith in a special rights user's ability. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:29, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Good point. Votes of confidence should still require at least some reasoning for the lack of confidence, yes? How about "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..." is that acceptable? The Gunny   22:39, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

That sounds a lot more suitable, and enforcing a rationale ought to make the votes of confidence made for the hell of it stand out from the ones which are legitimate without having to jeopardise the principle of the vote. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 22:52, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

• Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 23:25, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Jspoel 16:16, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• 17:37, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
• Per Chad et al. (get it, et AL?) --Skire (talk) 20:07, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

The wording was changed to allow for a fairness extension. I went from maximum allowed to minimum recommended. The Gunny   22:54, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

My question would be: who determines how much time should be given? If there is a minimum recommended, what will this time actually be in practice? I would personally prefer something more solidified. --Skire (talk) 01:14, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

• ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:48, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion and consensus

Please discuss the proposed policy points and/or voice your support/opposition of each clause in the appropriate section for each clause. Let's move this toward consensus by approving/eliminating each clause on it's own merits. Please focus on each clause in its above section and refrain from further discussion outside of those clauses. Thanks a bunch to everyone who has contributed so far. Let's get this ironed out and move the policy forward to approval. The Gunny   18:12, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that I'd suggest at this point is to make sure that everything being voted on is as irrefutable and clear as possible before making it into our policies should they be passed through. This is a sensitive subject, and while all of us currently here might understand what's going on right now to the extent that it needs to be understood, future generations may not. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:50, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Final consensus

These are the final clauses on which we don't have a reasonable consensus. I have listed some possible solutions. We can either nail them down here, or we can move this to a vote and have options for the clauses there's no consensus and let the poll decide the final policy. I'm open to both ideas.

Article II: Investigation of rights abuse process

Clause 1: Remediation

Aye:8
Nay:3
Main opposition: Restricting to a board of 3

Solutions

An open board or a minimum board of 3?

Article III: User-rights removal requests and votes of confidence

Clause 1: Votes of confidence

Aye:4
Nay:3
Neutral:2
Main opposition: Minimum # of petitioners

Solutions

Minimum 3? 5?

Clause 3: Evidentiary exposition

Aye:6
Nay:1
Neutral:4
Main opposition: Time to rebut

Solution

Extension granted by BCs? Admin? 1 week instead of 3 days?

Finalized proposal (WIP)

This is a work in progress. I'm putting it here for ease of reading. Subject to change from discussion in the above sections. Please do not edit here.

Extra-rights holders conduct policy

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

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 or vote of confidence 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. 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. The accused may waive this right at any time.

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	Administration conduct policy
Proposal discussion	Reconfirmation process
Proposal vote	Administration conduct policy
Date and result	17 July 2013 · 12-3-3
Related topics	Administration policy · Administrators and moderators