Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Protocols for penalizing admins/bc/chat mods/patrollers
This forum is to discuss the procedures involved in reviewing an admin/bc/chat mod/patrollers user rights. This was brought to my attention by User:Agent c as an area that is lacking specifics. Below are regulations taken from both the general user conduct guidelines and the admin rules. Severe violations of the following rules will lead to administrative action.
“==Interacting with other editors==
- Be polite: It's not only important what you say but also how you say it. Be civil when talking to other people and treat them with respect. This site is built on cooperation.
- Assume good faith: Do your best to assume that other editors are trying to help unless you have evidence to the contrary. Accidents happen, and not everybody has a lot of experience with editing a wiki.
- Do not start edit wars: Be ready to discuss your changes with others. If you disagree with another editor, discuss the issue either on user or article talk pages. Repeatedly reverting each other's changes ("edit warring") is bound to escalate the conflict instead of solving it. If you cannot reach a consensus, ask another user to mediate. In general, if someone reverts an edit you made, you should not re-add it without reaching a consensus on the article's talk page.
Talk and forum pages
- Sign comments: You should add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of all of your comments on talk and forum pages, otherwise other people will not know it was you who made the edit. Do not get carried away and do the same thing in articles though, only on talk pages and forums.
- Do not edit other people's comments: Editing or removing other peoples' remarks in the forum, on discussion pages, or their personal user page is considered bad behavior. Post your own thoughts on the talk pages, and leave others to their own.
- Do not misuse talk pages: Talk pages are for the discussion of their respective articles and not for general chatter. Use the forum for the latter.
- Avoid using obtrusive signatures: Custom signatures which are obtrusive, annoying or unnecessarily large should be avoided as they detract from the purpose of talk and forum pages. A signature should not affect surrounding text to a great extent. Only one image is allowed per signature, and it must be no larger than 40 pixels in width and 20 pixels in height. Using the "thumb" or "frame" options is forbidden.
Blog comments
- Don't spam: Comments that are considered spam will be deleted by the staff. Examples of spam include one word posts, meaningless statements such as "Fallout x rocks/sucks" or random, nonsensical comments.
- Don't flame: Comments intended to provoke other users (flamebait) or insulting them outright (flaming) will be deleted by the staff and may be grounds for blocking.
- Don't be rude: Excessive rudeness to other posters (whether they are anonymous or not) is not welcome. Such comments will be deleted and may be grounds for blocking.
- Be readable: If your message can't be understood, it will be considered spam. Leetspeek does constitute unreadability.
User pages
- Do not edit others' user pages: Pages in the "User" namespace are generally considered to be the property of the user they belong to. You can put whatever you like on your user pages (as long as you do not violate common rules of decency or insult other users) and nobody else is allowed to edit without your permission. In turn, you may not edit other users' user pages without their permission either.
- Feel free to leave messages on user talk pages: User talk pages are exempt from the rule above as it is their purpose to be edited by others. The general guidelines for talk pages above apply, with the exemption that you are allowed to clear out your talk page from time to time.
Rules for administrators
- If an administrator is involved in an editing dispute, he or she should not use admin abilities or status to solve it. Ask another user or admin to mediate.
- Administrators are allowed to undo each other's administrative actions. However, it is expected that the one who reverts an action explains the reason for the revert. In addition, if the admin whose action was undone disagrees with the revert, he or she should contact the reverter and discuss instead of simply reverting the revert. If consensus cannot be reached, a third admin should be asked to mediate.”
Proposal
Currently there is no written regulation that determines how an admin/bc/chat mod/patroller is penalized for rule violation. In the past we have used the forums as a basis for a Reconfirmation vote. For blatant rule violations, a bc has removed powers in obvious power abuse cases. The following is a proposed structure for penalizing admins/bc/chat mods/patrollers who violate the rules.
Proposed policy
“
- If an admin/bc/chat mod/patroller (from this point referred to as user 1) has broken any of the user conduct regulations or admin regulations repeatedly then the following applies:
- Any user of the wiki (aside from anons) may create a Reconfirmation vote in the forums under Wiki Discussion. The reconfirmation will be created in a poll format that will run for 14 days. The user who created the reconfirmation poll against user 1 will have to give specific instances and reasons for the poll and why user 1 needs to have their user rights revoked.
- The poll is to determine whether or not user 1 retains his/her admin/bc/chat mod/patroller user rights.
- There will be a section in which user 1 can provide a rebuttal to the reasons for the reconfirmation.
- If user 1 admits wrong doing and accepts the removal of user rights before the poll is concluded, user rights will be removed and the poll will be ended by a bureaucrat.
- In the end of the poll a bureaucrat or wikia staff member (depending on the situation) will remove user rights, not an admin.
- If an admin/bc/chat mod/patroller (from this point referred to as user 1) has broken any of the user conduct regulations or admin regulations in a severe manner and/or has abused his/her user rights then the following applies:
- If the violation is obvious (such as banning all the users of chat or blocking people for fun) then a bureaucrat will remove the users rights for a period of two weeks. After such time the user is placed on a six month probationary period. If the user violates any of the user conduct or admin rules, they will lose their user rights permanently.
- If user 1 feels that their user rights were removed unfairly, they can start an appeal in the forums under the header of "Appeal to user rights removal".
- In the end, the bureaucrat(s) will have final say on the matter and will use the community opinion. (This rule is a safety catch to prevent an abusers friends from voting their rights back)”
Comments
I swear do we need to change everything? Enough is enough, these votes are getting stupid. Can't we just have peace at least for a day without another vote to have to think about? This wiki has ran fine without all these changes we are proposing and let's keep it that way. ToCxHawK 03:28, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
The only minor tweak I would add is that no votes should be placed until the accused has either made a statement, or waived this right, and the vote period starts from this point. Otherwise I can support this wholehartedly Agent c 13:01, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
How about we just shoot every staff member we don't like? 
Tagaziel (call!) 15:11, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
I'm assuming that these rules on civility do not extend to friendly users ripping on each other, I couldn't live in a chat/wiki without friendly shenanigans.The lone wanderer's bad-ass grandma 16:48, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking personally, to me it's only an insult if the "insulter" (for lack of a better term) means their comment as an insult - I wouldnt ban in the first instance if this clearly isn't the case... If its blatant thats another question.
- If the "insulted" took it that way when it's a joke that fell flat then a warning is probably fair; however as you didn't mean it and you know it's upset the other person you're not likely to repeat anyway.
- If things are maybe getting a bit too risqué that a random stranger might take something the wrong way (say if there's a racial way it could be taken) then I'd ask politely that it be dialed back - there were a couple last night that were obvious jokes, and I'm happy to say people complied with my request.
- But as always chat rules are interpreted by the star present so your mileage may vary Agent c 16:55, March 25, 2012 (UTC)