User:Agent c/WorkingTitle

=Rule Reform=

On Nukapedia, we have three types of 3 types of statements you'll find in our "rules"


 * Policies - These are the "Musts" and "Must nots". Breaking these can lead to warnings, blocks, an action being undone, and other serious administrative actions. They cover the more serious parts of user conduct, as well as our decision making processes.
 * Guidelines - These are the "Oughts" and "Ought nots". Controvening these will typically lead to an action being undone and coaching given; although peristent breaches of these can potentially lead to administrative action.
 * Principles - Principles help us undertand our policies and guidelines, and when they fall short help fill in the gaps in helping decide what to do or how to handle a situation.

Principles
All visitors and contributors to the wiki are important to the community and should be treated with respect, dignity and be welcomed. As a collaborative volunteer project and community healthy collaboration is a must. To this end the following principles should be followed as a general code of conduct for collaboration.


 * Be Bold, but also be polite.
 * All users are equal, even those with extra tools.
 * All decisions are based on consensus
 * All decisions are open to challenge.
 * The spirit, not the word of the rule should be followed
 * If there is any doubt, assume good faith

Be bold, but also be respectful
If you find something that can be improved, improve it and encourage others to do the same. With a handful of exceptions (notably our policy pages, user blogs, and user pages) nobody has "dibs" on a page, and nobody has to approve your edits before you make them - this includes on our template and module pages and their documentation. However if you do know that someone is going to do something imminently you should not swoop in and "steal" the edit without consulting with them.

Similarly, if someone is doing something they should not, speak up, even if they have special user rights. Using special user rights to "win" a debate is against our principles, as is targeting or punishing someone for having a contrarian view. You can do this on user talk pages, in our forum, or in our discord's "Editorial ballpit" channel.

However, you should do so in a respectful way. Saying the right thing, but in the wrong way is a surefire method to alienate the other side and prevent a consnensus being built - and consensus is key to a lot of our processes In short, Speak to others as you would wish to be spoken to.

Encourage others to explain their positions and their concerns in their own words, don't presume you know their position or ask them to choose between options you've selected (it is okay to summarise someone's position to clarify it). Always try to respond to the best possible version of what the other person is saying, and overlook small issues. Bear in mind however, this is a Fallout wiki, so cussing and swears are part of the landscape, but even curse language can be deployed in a polite and respectful way.

The spirit, not the word of the rule should be followed
Rules are written to either ensure or prevent an act from occurring, be it to allow for consistency in articles, or to encourage positive behaviours. What they are not there for is to allow users to bludgeon their stance into other users, or intimidate other users into a certain standpoint; the spirit of the rule is the intent.

A rule that states "please speak English" for example is there to reflect conversation should be in English, however it should not be taken as "speak English at all times, or suffer the consequences". Other languages certainly do add flavour and variety to conversation and expands our minds culturally.

The same also applies to sanctions. The rule may say this offense is this result, but in many cases, the rule doesn't fit the offence and in some cases the offence doesn't quite fit the rule. The rule should be used as a guide and the decision made must be one that the issuer can confidently present and justify.

How do we determine the spirit of the rule?
The words of the rule: We do not disregard the words of the rule, nor do we twist them to say things that clearly they do not.

The context that the rule: Ask why was it introduced? What problem was the rule intended to solve? What do their discussions show?

All users are equal
In short, everyone from a new user to a bureaucrat are equal in the decisions around content and policy. No one voice is more important than another and no voice should be dismissed. Someone disagreeing with another user, but explaining why they disagree is not dismissal, it is a differing point of view which can be built upon. Dismissal can be identified as: Those who are dismissing others views should be challenged on their behaviour and in extreme or persistent cases conduct/rights abuse policies should be considered.
 * Telling a user they are wrong, but not explaining why.
 * Opening a discussion or vote with "views of this nature will be discredited. This silences users before they can speak.
 * Ignoring a user who is challenging your opinions or actions.
 * Telling a user their opinion doesn't matter, for any reason.
 * Using user rights to stop a user from engaging in discussion where their opinion differs.
 * Asking another rights holder to use their tools to silence someone they disagree with.

There should be acknowledgement that someone needs to make a final decision somewhere and generally this lies with the bureaucrat(s) and administrators as their rights grant them tools to block, unblock and grant rights to users, however where tools are not required to make a final decision, anyone is free to do so as long as it respects the wishes of the community. For social/user interaction issues this will be by the moderators and administrators as appropriate.

The intent of this is to ensure everyone has a voice to collaborate and to also break down barriers between those with rights and/or experience and those without. No-one owns a wiki nor has more right to it than anyone else.

User rights tools
User right tools are a privilege

User rights are a necessity for some, be it to lock pages, access technical spaces or moderate. They are earned on merit, the (potential) ability to use them, a need to have them and the trust of the community to use them as agreed by the community. If you are granted tools treat them with the utmost respect, their use should be limited to as absolutely needed.

These tools should be a last, not first resort; only use them when all other avenues have failed.

If a user no longer has a demonstrable need for the tools, they should be removed with goodwill; they can be restored at a later date if needed again as long as the trust of the community is still present. In the short term, unless events have brought doubt into that trust they can be restored without question; long term it would be better to confirm with the community as to if the trust is still present.

If a rights holder has lost the trust of the community to use them appropriately, they should be removed and cannot be reinstated until that trust is restored. The onus is on the community to demonstrate what the user has done to lose trust (where they have misused the tools or privilege, or cast doubt that they will be used correctly). Disliking a user is not a lack of trust in itself, it is a personal matter. That said if the reasons you dislike them are related to their (mis)use of tools then use the reasons for the dislike to demonstrate why the trust has been lost.

It is often forgotten that the privilege of having tools can also be a tool in itself and can be misused by those with it. Bureaucrats and other rights holders hold their authority in trust for the community, not over the community, and are accountable to the community.

All decisions are based on consensus
Consensus is the means of establishing how the wider community feels about complex subjects, be it rules, article layout, lore, etc. Quick consensus can be done with a vote, but ideally should only be for information gathering or where a contentious decision must be answered and discussion cannot resolve it.

Consensus generally starts with a discussion and is built from there, common ground is found in opinions and where there are divides attempts are made to bridge them until there is a significant majority who are satisfied with the idea proposed. Any discussion should be easily accessible to everyone who has a vested interest in the discussion (anywhere it can be seen without having to log in). Anything discussion that does not meet this standard is a "local" consensus and cannot be considered the view of the community as a whole. Local consensus is fine for small details like the placement of an image on a page or if to use a comma or semi-colon, but it should be accepted that any changes in this way that are removed must then be discussed openly.

It should be accepted that not everyone can be pleased and the objective is to find the solution that most, if not all can get on board with. If 15 agree initially with 10 disagreeing those voices should be heard and the solution adapted based on the feedback where appropriate. If after a reasonable time of active discussion and there is no progress or room to adapt, a decision should be made by those outside the discussion (as agreed by the community and if available) as to if the changes are worth accepting if there is a majority agreement, or a wider vote is required. A decision to accept without vote must be fully justified on the merits of the discussion and if there are risks that can be identified. Where someone from outside the discussion is not available best practice would be pass what a clear majority agree on and pass contentious details (or the whole thing) to a vote.

Parroting the view point of another user (e.g. per X) is discouraged as this reflects an agreement with another user which can be interpreted in many ways, for example it could be that they have said exactly what you wanted to say or it could be that you are agreeing because you like that individual. If you agree with another user, explain why. Parroted responses should be asked to expand as to why they agree and if there is no expansion discredited. Consistent parroting of a user or a pattern of behaviour which indicates consistently supporting or rejecting the standpoints or discussions of specific users may be considered an issue where "party lines" are being drawn and those views should be discredited as part of consensus discussion and votes.

The intent of the above is to ensure all users are heard, their views matter and form policy based on the feeling of the community, it is also to prevent "group think" from becoming a power greater than the individual, keeping all users equal.

All decisions are open to challenge
There are times when moving unilaterally (being bold) makes more sense than seeking consensus. Whether this be a change to the layout of certain articles to improve readability or better structure content, blocking a user from the wiki, or if an urgent decision needs to be made. No matter the action, be prepared to justify your actions and if overturned by consensus accept the reversion.

This is not to say that some decisions should not be sustained regardless of the general consensus. For example if a change fixes a problem that rendered a page unreadable in mobile, but isn't liked, a new alternative should be supplied rather than removing the change. This is because the change, although not liked fixes a problem, a problem should not be restored. Another example would be user blocks, overturning a block because the user is popular or knowledgeable creates two tiers of users and inequality so the block should be sustained.

With user blocks it may be preferable to allow Fandom's mechanisms take over and make the decision; they are independent of the community and will review the block against policy. In the most extreme cases they overturn a block and remove the blocking of their rights if they feel said user abuses them.

Assume good faith
Good faith is looking at any action and trying to understand why something was done the way it was. A user breaking a word in two with other good changes? Probably an accident. Raft of changes that are plain destructive (insertion of curse words or garbage text for example)? Almost certainly cannot be given in good faith. When it comes to user behaviour, an occasional slip can be considered a lack of thought, but a pattern of poor behaviour or humor does not give much room for good faith.

Where good faith can be assumed or inappropriate behaviour is minor/not the normal for the user, a discussion should be the first step to understanding why and addressing the issue where practical to do so. Using good faith as a defense toward their actions being called out may well be using a good faith argument in bad faith; if the only defense is that the other person should act in good faith without being able to point out clear examples of potentially acting in bad faith, it may actually be the one arguing lack of good faith who is acting in bad faith.

The intent of good faith is to look at things with the lens of is this an accident or a user having a bad day. It is not an excuse for repeated bad behaviour or a defense for said behaviour being called out.