Forum:Policy Amendment

Overview
Over the past few days it has become evident that our guide lines, and policies could use with some improvement. No user will receive any disciplinary actions for anything which these policies cover -- which was not covered prior to them -- that happened before these policies went into effect.

The existence of this forum is not in any way shape or form intended to prosecute or harass any individual. The intention is to clarify, and refine our existing policy to ensure that no such problems arise again in the future, and to allow Wikia staff to act swiftly if such a problem does occur.

Updates

 * I've fixed some typos and added some minor clarifications to the AEAE amendment. 20:36, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

User Block Policy

 * This policy needs to be more specific about what "admin power abuse" is, and how it should be dealt with, and how long its punishments may last (if not specified by another policy).


 * This is not intended to be voted upon here, but is being mentioned because it does need review in the near future.

Community Membership Policy
Draft for Official Policy:


 * The community, is defined as the users who have contributed at least 100 total edits. Any edits which are to correct grammatical typos, or are destructive to the nature of this wiki will not be counted. An edit which is destructive to this wiki is defined as one which has negative connotations, or an edit which has been reverted in compliance with policy by administrators or users.

All editors are equal Policy
Changes are bold face where content was added or striked out where it was removed.

Draft for Official Policy:


 * All editors are equal no matter what shape or size they come in. They maybe kind or strict, or fat or skinny, but that doesn't mean that they can be subjected to hurtful responses. In other words, please do not try to size up other editors. We are the same and should be treated the same. If you are being mean to someone, just imagine how they must feel being criticized and being made fun of. If you are trying to tell someone how to do something correctly don't just flame a user and call them an idiot. You can give them a constructed response. Just remember this, all editors are equal.


 * Wikis are not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and Bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognized for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments. This does not give them authority over other players in overruling decisions; all major decisions of this kind must be made by the community, and not by an individual. Any admin who attempts to use their status as a reason to win an argument should be reported, and will be suspended for one week. Attempted use of your status to win an argument is defined as saying anything among the lines of "I am a Administrator/Bureaucrat so do this or else" without the support of the policies. Any admins who attempts to stop a valid report, will be suspended for one month, and must submit an apology to the user whom they attempted to silence. Editors should also not claim "(Admin name here) said that we shouldn't do this, so we shouldn't" if there isn't already a clear rule or policy on this. Don't actively ignore it either, though; discuss it. Discussion is a major part of wikis.


 * Remember, everyone on this wiki is equal. Stay cool, don't get frustrated with other users, and be polite. We're all equal, and with equality comes equal importance.

User Promotion Policy
Draft for Official Policy:


 * A RfA/B/R must be submitted, brought to the attention of all admins on the list of active administrators via their talk pages, and it must be approved by a community consensus after a minimum seven day waiting period. Even if the RfA/B/R succeeds Bureaucrats and/or Wiki staff should not change user rights until there is a proven need for these tools. A proven need is defined as a reason which 3/4ths of the commenting community agrees with. This proof, must, under all circumstances, be presented on this wiki, and must be clearly visible, with no exceptions. Any Bureaucrat who fails to follow this policy, or attempts to go around it, will immediately lose their Bureaucrat status indefinitely, and may never reobtain it.

Voting
SUPPORT as author, I would like to ask everyone to please stay civil, and remember that this is only to prevent future problems from arising. 20:19, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support I can say our main goal, cleaning up this wiki, was accomplished. We are out, no hard feelings. Let's wrap this up nice and peacefully. 21:55, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support: Though I might add a "in extraordinary circumstances" clause to the user promotion policy. Triumvirate Department of State   22:27, September 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not really needed, if proof is given and 3/4 of the community members who commented agree with it, and you have the majority of community members who commented in your favor after 7 days all would be good. :) 00:06, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Support: For the general idea of being more specific in all of our policies to prevent such a misunderstanding from occurring. I'm extremely busy at the moment with an event but I'll be making some edits over the coming days to help with the wording, formatting and further clarification, as I did when revamping the block policy some time ago! Any edits I do are welcome to discussion, of course. As usual, thanks all  12:46, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Support: I personally believe that these amendments have the potential to greatly enhance the future of the wikia community. I, however, feel that besides policies, something else that wikia could use is an editing functionality that is perhaps more userfriendly. Currently I and my leaders have been lots of trouble editing our page, and coming back to it and seeing exactly what we had edited. Spacing is a huge thing when it comes to keeping a page well organized and well established, yet wikia coding seems to totally ignore spacing, and once publish has been done, it simply reverts the edit into whatever format it feels is the best, regardless of the editors input.

To wrap it up, yes, the listed policy changes are great. I, however, personally believe that we need to put more effort into enhancing the editing features of wikia :). Ebram72 (talk) 13:15, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Comment I shall quote the section above. "Even if the RfA/B/R succeeds Bureaucrats and/or Wiki staff should not change user rights until there is a proven need for these tools. (Why? If a community vote has been made, there shouldn't be a need for a second review or second consensus. This is redundancy. The 7 days period is sufficient for any active community member to voice dissenting opinion.)A proven need is defined as a reason which 3/4ths of the commenting community agrees with. (So for an RfA/B/R to pass there needs to be 75% approval? This seems high... A majority is 51% which seems more than enough.) This proof, must, under all circumstances, be presented on this wiki, and must be clearly visible, with no exceptions.(This statement falls under another policy and is redundant.)" I think that simplicity is best. We could do without every sentence included in my paragraph. I would also like to point out that there is no basis for judging activity, so how are we to determine if an admin should be on the admin list as active We need to define activity. For example. Zerouh has not completed an edit to the content of this wiki in nearly 2 calendar years. His only contributions are to change user ranks and to post on talk pages. Is this active? Perhaps we need to specify activity as non-rolledback contribution to the general content of this wiki within the last 30 days? 20:07, September 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not redundant. It is a legitimate case that someone wants to become an admin, the community says okay, but there is not yet a need for that person to have those rights. When the need is proven, then that person can become an admin. (Ideally these would be done at the same time in the RfA/B/R, and this is how it works at the moment, (look at the origonal forum post for changes to that policy) I just defined what a proven need is). The 3/4ths standard is there to ensure that the need is real. Also, it's best to be clear, why leave it down to annother policy -- which could get modified -- when you can explicitly state, and enforce it here so there is no confusion what so ever. It is for all intensive purposes simpler this way. If the admin is on the active list as it states -- not marked as retired --, they would be notified regardless of their recent edits. Maybe annother policy change should be done to work on that problem, but I don't think it's nessary here, if your on the list, you get notified, simple as that. 20:26, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * Allowing the B'Crat to decide if the community vote is needed prior to promoting an editor negates the point of the community voting. If the RfA passes, then the community has deemed there is a need. How is a B'crat supposed to decide there is a "proven need" for the tools? This is not defined by this policy, and allows for arbitrary abuse by someone holding the position to disregard the community consensus by saying "there is no need at this time." 21:01, September 24, 2013 (UTC)
 * "A proven need is defined as a reason which 3/4ths of the commenting community agrees with." l2read my friend :P 00:14, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with these arguments. Without a need for administrators, there is no reason that an RfA should pass in the first place, so having two steps is redundant. Any measure of activity is subjective and should be examined individually, so any markers of activity are generally useless. With any numerical measure of it, there's the danger of having people do either the bare minimum or pointless edits to scrape by (remember badges?). 18:43, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * If the RfA passes that is a proven need. If you are implying that the RfA should only pass with 75% approval, fine. BUt leaving that up to the B'crat is silly, redundant, and allows for potential abuse. I do know how to read. Your English isn't implying what you are trying to say. :P The fix you would like to suggest is a change of the percentage of approval for an RfA to pass, not an addition of policy and secondary measures added to the B'Crat upon passing of an RfA with majority (as it is now). :) 00:19, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally. I don't English good sometimes. I don't think the new policy is a functional change except for having a second step that I think the current RfA process already accounts for. 01:05, September 26, 2013 (UTC)
 * Forum:In_addition_to_policies 18:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at by posting that link. 18:41, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
 * It was added for a reason, and I don't think it should be removed now. 18:54, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Seems good, just remove some of the repetitiveness mentioned above. 19:52, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Would someone like to suggest a reworked User Promotion Policy? 05:20, October 5, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to... and keep the need requirement... 20:36, September 27, 2013 (UTC)