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
By user rights tools, we mean everything from your ability to edit the wiki and participate in decision making, the additional user rights tools and decision making authority that the community can bestow on specific users, and access to other features like maintaining our social media presences or access to other sites.

All User right tools are a privilege.

Additional 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. Although users are generally free to do anything not prohibited, these tools should only be used as the community expects.

Access to post on our social media tools is on an as needed basis, and is held in trust for the community. If you are granted this you should also treat it respect and reemember you're not posting just your view, your posting on behalf of the community,

If a user no longer has a demonstrable need for additional 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 and prestige can also be tools themselves and can be misused by those with them. 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. Where there is not a specific policy, individual discretion should be used as to seek consensus or act. 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.

User Rights Roles and Requirements
User Rights on Nukapedia are given on two basis that must be demonstrated:


 * The need for the tools
 * The ability to use the rights

User rights on Nukapedia do not place a user "above" another user. All users are equal. User rights are collections of tools and whilst those tools may also include a level of prestige, they do not create a heirachy. We do not do minimum edits, or minimum participation times, its all about competency and confidence.

Tools in the Wiki Space, Discord Space, and Discussion space are awarded seperately. You are welcome to apply for rights in more than one space, however you should consider whether or not you have the time and interest commitment available to be effective in multiple roles.

Toolsets may be given on a permanent basis as noted below in the toolset. However, except for Wiki Scribe roles may also be given temporarily by the appropriate administrators or Bureaucrats. on an as-needed basis for as long as is needed.

All roles are held in trust by the community, and are subject to removal if that trust is broken. If roles are given temporarily, the sponsoring rights holder is responsible for the actions of the person the sponsor; repeatedly sponsoring those who misuse their abilities may see your authority to do so revoked by the relevant Bureaucrat.

Scribes
Scribes are similar to Content Moderators, Patrollers, and Rollback users on other wikis. They are our more experienced editors and have certain tools unlocked to do this more effecitvely. They can move/rename, protect/unrpotect pages, and rollback large groups of edits. They also have access to the patrol log to help us ensure all edits are reviewed.

In general, you are expected to have a reasonable level of wiki editing skill, reasonable level of English skills, and understanding of Nukapedia's policies. However, these requirements may be waived where appropriate (for example, for users who focus on working solely with images or who work on interwiki links). As you may be required to roll back or undo edits, you're also expected to keep a cool head.

There is no need to run in an election to become a scribe, as they hold no discrete policing powers. You can approach a Wiki Administrator or the Wiki Bureaucrat and ask them to recognise you as a scribe. If you do not have a significant editing history on Nukapedia, you may be asked how else you can demonstrate these skills (eg- on other wikis). In addition, a Bureaucrat or Wiki Administrator may approach you and ask you if you would like to accept these additional tools.

Wiki Administrator
Wiki Administrators are similar to Administrators in other Fandom communities and wikis. Unlike other Fandom communities, their authority is limited to the wiki space only unless they simultaneously hold another toolset that covers the other area.

Much of the Wiki Administrator role is similar to what Wiki Scribes do, so we expect you to do all of that, but do it to a higher level of polish. We also excpect you to be able to do more technical things. You should be able to at least edit our more complex templates, and create (at least) simple ones of your own. Ideally you should have (or be willing to learn) a basic understanding advanced web/wiki technologies such as Css, Lua, Javascript and Mediawiki extensions (these are not strictly neccessary).

As you will be likely using the discipline tools with other users (including some who you may consider your friends) you will need to be able to manage your biases to apply the rules in a fair an equitable way. Nobody is unbiased, but you need to be either willing to work through your biases, or if you cannot pass a situation on to someone who can. You will need to be able to remain calm under pressure, and be able to recognise when its best to let someone vent, when applying the tools is necessary.

Although you will have access to use these on Discussions, you are required to refrain from doing so unless a discussions administrator is unavailable (and the action refered to a discussions administrator to review when available).

We recommend you complete the Fandom A+ Administration certification either before your request, or as soon as is practical afterwards. (Nb - To be launched)

Wiki Bureaucrat
There is only one Wiki Bureaucrat at a time. The Wiki Bureaucrat is responsible for ensuring the Wiki Administration team runs smoothly, as such they must have held this or a similar role before.

Their duties includes scrutinisation of rights requests and policy votes. They also are responsible for resolving disputes between users and settling disputes over misuse of wiki powers. If an immediate answer is needed to decide an interpretation of a wiki policy that cannot be resolved through the consensus process, a Bureaucrat can make an interim decision whilst the normal policy change process is followed to clarify the rule permanently.

Where neccessary, the Wiki Bureaucrat should also be willing to step in to assist other Bureaucrats if they are unable to discharge their duties (eg to a conflict of interest, or because they are not available).

In extreme cases, the Wiki Bureaucrat, as part of a Bureaucrat consensus, can veto a policy or a rights request. The justification for this (and any dissenting opinions amongst the Bureaucrats) should be published when this occurs.

Although everyone on the wiki is equal its common for the Bureaucrat to be seen as a leader; However they are a most a first among equals. A Bureaucrat must always remember that their authority - both real and percieved - is held in trust for the community, for the good of the community, and not their own interest or pereferences. They may sometimes have to negociate with an external group (eg Fandom, a Developer, etc) for some result; a Bureaucrat may do so, but any binding result need to be endorsed by the community.

Discord Administrator
Discord Administrators are similar to Chat/Discord Moderators in other communities. Their authority is limited to Discord space only unless they simultaneously hold another toolset that covers the other area.

As you will be likely using the discipline tools with other users (including some who you may consider your friends) you will need to be able to manage your biases to apply the rules in a fair an equitable way. Nobody is unbiased, but you need to be either willing to work through your biases, or if you cannot pass a situation on to someone who can. You will need to be able to remain calm under pressure, and be able to recognise when its best to let someone vent, when applying the tools is neccessary.

Discord Administrators will also need to, or be willing to learn, how to operate Nukapedia's bots, at least as far as moderation tools are concerned. They can if required, create new temporary general-access rooms to deal with specific issues.

Discord Bureaucrat
There is only one Discord Bureaucrat at a time. The Discord Bureaucrat is responsible for ensuring the Discord Administration team runs smoothly, as such they must have held this or a similar role before.

Their duties includes scrutinisation of rights requests and policy votes. They also are responsible for resolving disputes between users and settling disputes over misuse of wiki powers. If an immediate answer is needed to decide an interpretation of a wiki policy that cannot be resolved through the consensus process, a Bureaucrat can make an interim decision whilst the normal policy change process is followed to clarify the rule permanently.

Where neccessary, the Discord Bureaucrat should also be willing to step in to assist other Bureaucrats if they are unable to discharge their duties (eg to a conflict of interest, or because they are not available).

In extreme cases, the Discord Bureaucrat, as part of a Bureaucrat consensus, can veto a policy or a rights request. The justification for this (and any dissenting opinions amongst the Bureaucrats) should be published when this occurs.

Although everyone on the wiki is equal its common for the Bureaucrat to be seen as a leader; However they are a most a first among equals. A Bureaucrat must always remember that their authority - both real and percieved - is held in trust for the community, for the good of the community, and not their own interest or pereferences. They may sometimes have to negociate with an external group (eg Discord, a Developer, etc) for some result; a Bureaucrat may do so, but any binding result need to be endorsed by the community.

Discussions Administrator
Discussions Administrators are similar to Administrators in other Fandom communities and wikis. Unlike other Fandom communities, their authority is limited to the Discord space only unless they simultaneously hold another toolset that covers the other area.

As you will be likely using the discipline tools with other users (including some who you may consider your friends) you will need to be able to manage your biases to apply the rules in a fair an equitable way. Nobody is unbiased, but you need to be either willing to work through your biases, or if you cannot pass a situation on to someone who can. You will need to be able to remain calm under pressure, and be able to recognise when its best to let someone vent, when applying the tools is necessary.

Although you will have access to use these in the Wikispace, you are required to refrain from doing so unless a wiki administrator is unavailable (and the action refered to a wiki administrator to review when available).

Discussions Bureaucrat
Discord Administrators are similar to Chat/Discord Moderators in other communities. Their authority is limited to Discord space only unless they simultaneously hold another toolset that covers the other area.

As you will be likely using the discipline tools with other users (including some who you may consider your friends) you will need to be able to manage your biases to apply the rules in a fair an equitable way. Nobody is unbiased, but you need to be either willing to work through your biases, or if you cannot pass a situation on to someone who can. You will need to be able to remain calm under pressure, and be able to recognise when its best to let someone vent, when applying the tools is neccessary.

Discord Administrators will also need to, or be willing to learn, how to operate Nukapedia's bots, at least as far as moderation tools are concerned. They can if required, create new temporary general-access rooms to deal with specific issues.

Discussions Bureaucrat
There is only one Discussions Bureaucrat at a time. The Discussions Bureaucrat is responsible for ensuring the Discussions Administration team runs smoothly, as such they must have held this or a similar role before.

Their duties includes scrutinisation of rights requests and policy votes. They also are responsible for resolving disputes between users and settling disputes over misuse of wiki powers. If an immediate answer is needed to decide an interpretation of a wiki policy that cannot be resolved through the consensus process, a Bureaucrat can make an interim decision whilst the normal policy change process is followed to clarify the rule permanently.

Where neccessary, the Discussions Bureaucrat should also be willing to step in to assist other Bureaucrats if they are unable to discharge their duties (eg to a conflict of interest, or because they are not available).

In extreme cases, the Discussions Bureaucrat, as part of a Bureaucrat consensus, can veto a policy or a rights request. The justification for this (and any dissenting opinions amongst the Bureaucrats) should be published when this occurs.

Although everyone on the wiki is equal its common for the Bureaucrat to be seen as a leader; However they are a most a first among equals. A Bureaucrat must always remember that their authority - both real and percieved - is held in trust for the community, for the good of the community, and not their own interest or pereferences. They may sometimes have to negociate with an external group (eg Fandom, a Developer, etc) for some result; a Bureaucrat may do so, but any binding result need to be endorsed by the community. --> =One Bite at a time=

Hello Everyone,

This proposal is the first in a series of major rule reforms I am proposing. This adds a new layer to our ruleset which helps us understand what our rule are intended to do, and how theey should be read.

This is also the one where I propose we change how we think about user rights, and demolish the old fortress.

Introducing: Principles
"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."

- Proposed text

Principles are intended to be, as Tag might put it, the "Deep magic" of the wiki. They're the rules for our rules if you like. If a rule can be read in a way that is inconsistent with our principles, we look for another way to read it that is consistent with our principles. If there is no way to read it consistent with our principles, then as a community we need to change the rule (and change it urgently).

Sometimes, there's a gaap in our rules where we don't have an explicit rule. The principles provide us with guidance on how to deal with that gap until we can make a rule.

Today, I'll be introducing one of the principles I'd like to propose: "All users are equal, even those with extra tools".

Proposed Principle Text: 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
By user rights tools, we mean everything from your ability to edit the wiki and participate in decision making, the additional user rights tools and decision making authority that the community can bestow on specific users, and access to other features like maintaining our social media presences or access to other sites.

All User right tools are a privilege.

Additional 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. Although users are generally free to do anything not prohibited, these tools should only be used as the community expects.

Access to post on our social media tools is on an as needed basis, and is held in trust for the community. If you are granted this you should also treat it respect and reemember you're not posting just your view, your posting on behalf of the community,

If a user no longer has a demonstrable need for additional 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 and prestige can also be tools themselves and can be misused by those with them. Bureaucrats and other rights holders hold their authority in trust for the community, not over the community, and are accountable to the community.

Why do we need this?
I''n the past, Nukapedia Nukapedia has defaulted into an autocratic system with prominent people in "higher" ranks holding sway over lower ranks, supported by a system that encourages moving up the greasy pole... Effectively user rights tool groups became to some an extension of the achievement system, which in turn encourages people to run for rights who are either unsuited, or have no real use for the tools (merely after the prestige for its own sake) whilst locking out those who do have a use for the tools because those with the tools are trying to protect that fortress.

This "exclusivity" then feeds into those "higher" people feeling more important in policy and leading them to exercise authority or a level of control they simply do not have, nor were meant to have.

Whilst its impossible to legislate for or against morality, it is within our power to put in place structures, policies and principles that either support, or block such behavior going forward.

We also sometimes see "There's too many admins/moderators" as a grounds not to give someone rights. By focusing the reasoning in on "are you competent" and "What are you going to do with the rights" then as long as the prospect can point to something they want to do, then this excuse should never be persuasive as a reason to vote no.''

What polices would be impacted and need change?
As part of this the following policies and guidelines would be impacted:
 * User Conduct guidelines
 * Discord
 * Discussions forums guidelines.
 * User Rights Requests

User Conduct guidelines Changes
For the most part, this policy already supports this principle - we would read things like "be polite" and "Use Edit Summaries" and "Feel Free to leave messages on talk pages" in line with the principle. I would suggest maybe some explicit bullet points on Inter-user conduct on challenging situations about dismissing others and encouraging talk.

Discord
Again, there may need to have some explicit additions to support the non dismissal parts of this proposal.

The Hall of Debate pass at the moment would not be compliant with this principle, as it suggests that participation is up to staff. This could be amended by adding a clarifying phrase stating that a hall of debate pass is not a "gift" of a rights holder, it is instead available as a matter of right; alternatively the channel could become unprotected.

Rule 9 has a potential impact as it could be use to use the rules to dismiss someone, however it already includes a safeguard directing moderators not to use this rule in discussions they are involved with (whenever this is possible) nor should it be used to "sheild" someone from an argument they are losing and wish to escape.

Discussions Forums
As per Discord, as the rules are esentially identical.

User Rights Requests
''Ok, this is the big one. The user rights requests policy, the ranks, the designation of "staff", all of this is inconsistent with the principes and would have to go.''

I am proposing a slimmed down replacement of tool groups. You may run for as many, or as few of these tool groups as you like. I would however suggest that the more you try to do, the less you may end up doing.

"*Wiki Power User for regular, experienced, wiki users. This would replace both "Patroler" and "Content Moderator" including rollback, patrolling, moves and protect pages.
 * Wiki Administrator for blocks/bans on wiki and access to administrator only pages (eg CSS). This replaces both Technical Moderator, and Administrator (as far as their wiki activities are conerned).  A Wiki Administrtor does not gain automatic authority in Discussions or Discord.
 * Discord Administrator for blocks/bans and other administrative actions on Discord, the counterpart to Wiki Administrator
 * Discussons Administrator for blocks/bans and other administrative actions on Discussion, the counterpart to Wiki Administrator and Discord Administrator"

''This pulls down the rights as a heirachy, or a game board where you progress through the ranks. (I wanted to call Power User Scribe, but I've been advised against "cutsey" names''

Existing rights tools holders in the groups that cross lines could choose which sets of tools they wish to retain (eg - a current Administrator could retain any mix/match of the administrator roles). Ecks, as Technical Moderator could choose to go to Full Admin, or Power User. I would encouage everyone to think about what rights they really need though, these are tools like picks and shovels, they're not pokemon - there's no need to collect them all just the ones you need.

This would be joined by a series of three Bureaucrats. One each for Discord, Discussions, and the Wiki. J would be grandfathered into the Wiki Bureuacrat role, with the other roles initially vacant. The Bureaucrat for that section would be the point of contact for those "weird" situations that don't seem to fit in the rules, or where there's a dispute over how to interpret a rule, as well as implementing the other functions that policy gives to a "bureaucrat".

Pulling down the heirachy however doesn't pull down the fortress. I propose that from now on for tools requests we move to a basis where instead of abitrary numbers, we instead do so on a basis of:


 * The need for the tools
 * The ability to use the rights

These two criteria would apply to both temporary and permanent rights grants.

''There are no arbitrary numbers (except potentially for power user) for months or edit counts or post counts. This is potentially contorversial, for us at least. But consider that on the Fandom network there are tons of editors with Admin and Moderator experience, why should we force them to jump through arbitrary hoops that don't really do anything? A requirement for thousands of typo fixes, or chat messages, tells you nothing of their ability to interact with other users, or their technical abilities; but their actions on other wikis do.''

''There are no endorsement requirements in this proposal - the idea is to remove rules that seem to support any sense of patronship. Although you can certainly support users you think have potential by supporting them loudly, or helping them learn to use the tools through temporary rights grants, there are alternatives that do not require you to have such a sponsor''.

The need for the tools
''I once remember seeing a rights request where the user could not say why they wanted the rights they were requesting, and could not explain what they wanted to do with them. I submit anyone person who cannot explain either of these should not have the tools. If you don't know what you intend to do with them, you clearly don't have a need for them.''

A need can be as simple as noting that in your active times that there are less likely to be a chat moderator active, or it could be as complicated as an ongoing project to build out an entire new section of the wiki. You may have lots of things you might want to do, or you might just want to do one simple change.

Depending on the scale of what you want to do, either a temporary or permanent grant may be appropriate, and we'll have a different process for each of these. Wanting to learn how a tool works is a valid need for temporary grants (we'll come back to why this is important in the next section).

You should only request the level of tools that you need to do the job (ie- if you're looking at moving and curating pages, do you really need admin?)

The Ability to use the tools
''Essentially, you should know how to do whatever it is that you want to do with the tools. Doens't have to be a deep understanding, learning on the job is a big part of why people stick around.''

There are lots of ways to demonstrate to demonstrate an ability to use the tools Some ideas:


 * Plain old user conduct - A lot of a moderator's or admin's work is in de-escallation or consensus building. You don't need a badge to do this, and your conduct alone can show you're suitable for this.
 * Work on another wiki, or similar project - Have you worked on another Fandom wiki, or on Wikipedia? Demonstrate your technical skills there and show us what to look at so we can see you in action.
 * Learn with us - Temporary rights can be granted to do a specific job or task, if this is someting you're looking to do we can help you learn with a temporary grant of rights, as long as you have basic editing skills we can walk you through most things. This also includes On Wiki training and mentorship programmes such as TVA.
 * Prior Work on this wiki - Returning users can have their previous abilities recognised of course.
 * Fandom Programmes such as Admin+ Certification.

There's no need to show the ability to use every tool in the kit, just initially the ones they're planning on using.

Making the request

 * A temporary grant of tools is to be made to an appropriate admin (or Bureaucrat), with the exact reason why the rights are being requested, and the timeframe that the tools will be needed.
 * A Permanent request of tools for roles other than Power User is made to the community, through a vote process. In your request you state your request addressing the two criteria above.
 * A request for Power user is made to an approprite Admin (or Bureaucrat). As long as the editor has been around with a month of solid editing on this or a similar wiki, this should be given unless there is some record demonstrated record of behavioural issues or a lack of understanding of our policies.
 * The vote is successful or unsuccessful on a simple majority. However the Bureaucrats, acting as group may choose to accept or reject a vote's outcome.  Voting users are expected to give a rationale for their vote;  votes that do not give a reason or cite "too many" tools holders as a reason may be disregarded by the Bureaucrats.

Rights holder activity process
I think this one is marginal. There is an argument to Jetison it or that most of it can be retained whilst being consistent with this principl, however if it were to be retained:


 * The Bureaucrat activity section would not be consistent with this principle and should be eliminated, as it treats these users differently
 * The Reappointment section no longer works with a non heirachy structure, and is explicitly replaced above.

However, I'm told that polices like this are frowned on by fandom, and honestly, I can't see much of a purpose to it except to push people out. It also encourages people to make a token edit (like Finn did recently) just to retain rights.

Administration Conduct
Most of this policy is already compliant, however there should be some changes to the board paragraph:

"In the event of a dispute or question over use of administrative tools, a bureaucrat shall appoint a board of three neutral users to investigate. The investigating board should first determine if there is initial cause to determine if there is a problem with the use, and if satisfied of this should gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible on the situation.

They will recommend action based on established guidelines, which could include (but isn't limited to):
 * That no action to be taken
 * To reverse the administrative action
 * That an alternative administrative action be taken
 * A recommendation to discapline the user taking the disputed administrative action.

Either party may appeal the board's finding. In the event of an appeal, all sitting bureaucrats will determine final disposition of the complaint.

Where Misconduct is being considered, the accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request at any time during this process."

This widens the existing board process to cover any administrative action, allowing it to be used as a general appeals process on the merits, and as a ombudsman style review of administrative actions if requested.

It also widens the possible board composition to any person in the community.