User:Agent c/WorkingTitle

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 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:

• 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.

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.

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.

What does this actually mean?

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 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.
• Prior Work on this wiki - Returning users can have their previous abilities recognised of course.

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.

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.

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.