Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > User Rights Policy - draft


Overview

Prompted by a request from WikiManager TimeShade, this discussion is part of the Harry Potter Wiki's Policy Review and will help shape how the community governs itself in the years to come.

Based on the votes held for Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Gaining Rights, Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Maintaining Rights, and Forum:User Rights Policy proposal - Removing Rights, an initial draft of a complete User Rights Policy has been created. In order to unify the sections, some rewording may be needed.

Please review this draft for completeness and clarity and make suggestions for improvements in the Draft Discussion section. While minor changes can be made to facilitate those goals, no change to the substance of the policy can made. Once the draft has been reviewed and any improvements to the wording completed, a site-wide Announcement will be made and a vote completed for its adoption or rejection.



User Rights Policy - draft

Granting Rights

Administrators can grant additional User Rights in special situations without a community vote if:

  • They recognise a need for them.
  • They are impressed with a user's positive and productive contributions.
  • They believe this user with some extra tools will greatly improve the Harry Potter Wiki.

The Administrator should clearly specify the reasons for skipping the Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for permissions (RFP) procedure.

If another Administrator clearly objects within 1 month of the rights being granted, both of the Administrators will discuss it for up to seven days and try to find a solution. If they can't, they will seek counsel or mediation from a third Administrator and discuss again for up to seven days. An agreement could lead to either the user retaining their new rights or a community vote being held at RFP. The user retains their rights until a solution has been decided.

If at least two Administrators object to the granting of rights then the user will, while retaining their rights, go through the customary RFP process.


Request for permissions (RFP) process

Users can request additional User Rights at Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for permissions and can post a notification of their nomination on Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention to ensure Administration is aware of the request. The user can also request on any Harry Potter Wiki:Administrators' Talk page for them to be the Organising Administrator (OA) of their nomination. The Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy applies.

  • If the user is ineligible, based on community-established Policies and requirements, Administrators can dismiss the nomination.
  • If there is no discussion for 7 days, defined as comments from any user other than the one making the nomination, the request will be considered denied by the community.
  • Users are welcome to encourage other users to review a nomination and participate in the process, but should not canvass or request votes For or Against a nominee.

The OA can open a vote after up to 7 days of discussion.

  • The vote will remain open at least 7 days.
  • The OA and the nominated user cannot participate in the vote.
  • If 2 or more Administrators have denied conducting a vote based on an objection to the user, then the request will be considered denied. If the denial is for other reasons, then the conducting of the vote will not be considered denied but simply passed on by the Administrator.
  • Any vote from a user who did not participate in the discussion must include a comment explaining their vote in order for it to be counted.
  • Users ineligible to vote are able to comment during the discussion, but should not attempt to overly influence or dominate the conversation. If the OA feels a user who is not eligible to vote is trying to disrupt or direct the outcome, the OA can ask them to refrain from further commentary and take disciplinary action if they do not.
  • As per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, a vote's duration can be extended by 7 days should more time be needed to handle ongoing and unresolved discussions. Should the issues not be resolved at the end of this extended time, the OA can close the vote without any change to the nominated user's rights.
  • All User Rights nominations must go through the RFP process except Discussions Moderators who have a separate, community-voted-for method of nomination.

As per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy the OA will tally and archive the vote with the outcome. 

  • Any denied nomination will be eligible for re-nomination after 1 month with 1 month being based on the date; 12 Feb - 12 March is 1 month as is 12 July - 12 August.


Maintaining Rights

In the hopes that a user with extra rights (User) makes use of them regularly, there is a minimal amount of activity required to maintain possession of any extra rights. However, Users are allowed periods of inactivity which fall into two categories:

  1. Notified Leave: If a User provides a notice they are taking a break from contributing for any reason, they may be inactive for up to 4 months and 1 week (17 weeks) without any consequence. Once a User returns, they accrue back 1 month of Notified Leave for every month they are at least minimally active as defined below.
  2. Unexplained Leave: If a User is inactive without any prior explanation, they may lose their rights after 7 months and 1 week (29 weeks) of inactivity. Notices will will be given on a regular basis during this time:
After 4 months absence: Attempts to communicate will be made.
After 5 months absence: Additional attempts to communicate will be made.
After 6 months absence: A warning will be posted that the removal of extra rights will occur after 7 months.
After 7 months & 1 week absence: Bureaucrat will be notified to remove the User's extra rights.
  • Once spent, Unexplained Leave only resets to a full 7 months of possible leave after 12 months total of minimal activity is completed, although this can be broken up by Notified Leave as defined above.
  • The longest possible period of inactivity is 11 months & 2 weeks - 4 months & 1 week of Notified Leave and 7 Months & 1 week of Unexplained Leave.

Minimal Activity: Users with extra rights need to make 119 (7 x 17) total contributions over a 29 week period (7 months & 1 week) excepting prior explanation of inactivity.

Additionally, Users must use their extra rights, or perform other actions related to their role, 29 times in the 29 week period, excepting prior explanation of inactivity. These actions include any contribution clearly related to performing their role such as:

  • Discussion Moderators: Moderator Actions logged in Insights including assigning a Category or locking/deleting a post, making any Ministry of ModerationDepartment of Mysteries posts, making any post in the "Mods & Admins" category, and answering any Guidelines-related or other user-help questions.
  • Content Moderators: Actions in the File, Template, and Category namespaces, as well as related article updates.
  • Administrators: Same actions as Discussion and Content Mods, plus Requests for administrator attention, votes held, rights granted, user blocks, edits to Harry Potter Wiki namespace, changes to site javascript and CSS, answering user questions, and other general user help.
  • Bureaucrats: Same as Administrator actions, plus extra rights granted, behind-the-scenes technical changes to the site, and coordinating with FANDOM Staff on projects.

Any User with extra rights that does not reach the Minimal Activity requirements would be notified that a portion of their allotted Unexplained Leave has been used for that time period.


Removal of Rights

The extreme measure of removing User Rights can be undertaken when:

  • There exists substantial proof that a user with any kind of additional User Right has worked deliberately against the site, engaged in behaviour that has damaged the image of the community, and/or abused their powers.
  • Links to said proof are provided in a Forum where a discussion will be held for up to seven days. Edits to the wiki, posts in Discussions, and comments in IRC, Chat, or public Discord logs may be used as evidence.
  • A Bureaucrat is sought and agrees to support implementing the possible successful vote for a removal of rights.
    • The discussion can be extended by the officiating Bureaucrat or Admin if there are serious concerns that need additional time to be understood.

A vote will be officially opened by an Administrator.

  • Only users who have been registered for seven weeks from the day the nomination is put forth will be eligible to vote.
  • The vote needs to be open for at least seven days, have at least seven votes, and have at least a +7 majority to be enforceable.
  • The vote can be extended if needed per the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy.

The vote will then be closed, tallied, archived, and implemented as needed by the acting Administrator.

  • The Forum discussion will be recorded on a Requests for Removal of Rights page that includes a link to the discussion and a summary of what was decided by the community and why.


Draft Discussion

I have combined all the sections into one policy and will be marking up some wording changes needed. Please let me know your thoughts on these or others that may be warranted. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:12, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there! The wording looks as concise as it can be imo, though I'm not the best judge since whatever I write would mostly end up longwinded lol.
A relatively unimportant question, much like how "OA" is defined and then the abbreviation is used throughout the post, can "User(s) with additional/extra rights" get one as well? I think "extra" is only used in the Maintaining Rights section when depicting "User(s) with additional rights"; basically the section is all about "User(s) with additional rights", but then for Notified Leave and Unexplained Leave, it's simply "user" ("If a user [...]") when in this case we are still specifically talking about "User(s) with additional rights" and not just any "user," if that makes any sense. I feel like repeating "User(s) with additional rights" is quite taking up space, so wonder if shortening it can be considered.
Also, since there's not that many kinds of User Rights, for the Removal of Rights section, instead of "(e.g. Admin or Bureaucrat,)" might as well list out all of them to avoid unlikely but possible confusion? Or are those two the only ones subjected to the process? Just a thought.
--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:30, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
Might cause another editing conflict, but because I'ma be occupied later (therefore may not be available to reply after getting a response first,) I'd just send out this test. Figured using singular form is easier. Attempt: UwAR.
  • "In the hopes that users with extra rights any User with Additional Rights (UwAR) would make use of them their extra tools regularly, there is a minimal amount of activity is required to maintain possession of those extra additional rights. However, users are any UwAR is allowed periods of inactivity which fall into two categories:"
    • → "In the hopes that any User with Additional Rights (UwAR) would make use of their extra tools regularly, a minimal amount of activity is required to maintain possession of those additional rights. However, any UwAR is allowed periods of inactivity which fall into two categories:"
  • "If a user Any UwAR providesing a notice they are for taking a break from contributing for any reason, they may be inactive for up to 4 months and 1 week (17 weeks) without any consequence. Once a user Upon returnsing, they accrue back 1 month of Notified Leave time for every month they are at least minimally active as defined below."
    • → "Any UwAR providing a notice for taking a break from contributing for any reason, may be inactive for up to 4 months and 1 week (17 weeks) without any consequence. Upon returning, they accrue back 1 month of Notified Leave time for every month they are at least minimally active as defined below."
  • "Users with extra rights Any UwAR need to must make 119 (7 x 17) total contributions over a 29 week period (7 months & 1 week) excepting prior explanation of inactivity."
  • "Additionally, users with extra rights any UwAR must use them their extra tools, or perform other actions related to their role, at least 29 times in the 29 week period (averaged to performing rights-required-contribution once per week), excepting prior explanation of inactivity. These actions include any contribution clearly related to performing their role such as:"
    • → "Additionally, any UwAR must use their extra tools, or perform other actions related to their role, at least 29 times in the 29 week period, excepting prior explanation of inactivity. These actions include any contribution clearly related to performing their role such as:"
Those are just some examples if changing, not all. To me it's getting hard to read the actual modified sentences so I included the clean revisions for some of them.
--Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:24, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
I agree a term would be useful Sammm鯊, although I'm not completely sold on UwAR (but haven't come up with a better one either - trying to make something line up with USER (Users _ Extra Rights...) Let's keep thinking about options and see what others think. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:26, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
And... I think this is where my lack of vocabulary shows lmao. Trying to find synonyms for "equipped with," "obtaining," "acquiring," "possessing," or "given" that starts with an "s" turns out to be quite a task for me lol. "Sustaining" and "supporting" don't feel quite right (not to my understanding but if I'm wrong, then that's great haha,) the closest word I found was "secure" which apparently has the meaning "succeed in obtaining (something), especially with difficulty." but I thought it could create confusion if reading it and associating it with its adjective's meaning (the rights won't be secured if not maintained lol.)
Currently out of ideas. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:23, September 22, 2020 (UTC)


I would like to request the Wiki Manager Timeshade to moderate this discussion.

Also, the community needs one set of rules for all. The section about bureaucrat discretion can simply be removed. We already had a massive community discussion about userrights and that had resulted in the discussion that was really a demotion request. The fact that it is proposed to be enthroned into policy is just a mockery to the community, especially me.

Why do I say it is a mockery to the community? Simply put, that wording is just to legitimize and give a pass to the promotion in 2017. As much of a defence can be presented to not follow a norm, there are 4 examples of following the de facto community process. The two recent admins were presented to the community to vouch and validated. In addition, there was strong condemnation of proper procedure that had been done in the processes for Yecheb and me that hinged on not properly going through the voting process. This is not a one man show. All that reads is “one set of rules for me, another set for everyone else.”

The section about discretion needs to be removed. Thanks. MechQueste 12:47, September 21, 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is about the final drafting of the language for proposals that were voted for and passed by the community in accordance to the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy. To call now for community-backed proposals, such as the Granting of Rights, to be tossed out because you disagree is not how this process works.
If TimeShade would like to participate s/he is of course more than welcome. However, they also don't have the authority to unilaterally "line-item veto" any section from the proposed policy. The community discussed and voted for these proposals so they will be brought forward ultimately for possible ratification. If the community feels that the final Policy is not acceptable they can vote against it. The acceptability of the Policy is decided by the community, not by any single user. --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:20, September 21, 2020 (UTC)
I would like to object to the changing of the wording, esp my own in the Gaining Rights and Removing Rights section. We had discussed wording throughout the discussions, and the community voted for the policies in the way they had been proposed. I don't find it necessary or appropriate to change it so now, and it feels like nitpicking too. We don't need to shorten new words into our own abbreviations. If a policy has been voted in, it has been understood and we don't discuss how to change it right away again and we shouldn't have to vote it in again.
I can understand the odd word like nomination or Administrator, but that was discussed at the time it was first proposed. I see too, that the Gaining Rights section has changed my original UK spelling to the US spelling, and I find that a concerning oversight to how the whole wording and spelling of the policy could be affected. I find it too early yet to call it "community-backed proposals" when we are changing it, and it will voted upon again. I don't support the changes to it. - Kates39 (talk) 10:50, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kates - the content of the proposals aren't being changed, the wording is just being clarified so vague pronouns like "it" being made clear so they can stand on their own without the benefit of all that discussion that we held, sentences use proper parallel structure, and other grammatical fixes. Also wording like "should" doesn't work for a Policy as it needs to state what "will" happen. This sort of "style and arrangement" work is common and necessary so the final draft is consistent with the wording and organization of the rest of the policies, but doesn't happen during proposal discussion so things don't get even more bogged down over proposals that may not even pass a vote.
If they are particulars, like the UK spelling or others that need to be changed, can you please directly identify them? This isn't meant to be the final word, just a draft mark-up of suggestions, intended for discussion.
The proposals were never announced Community-wide and have only been vetted by the small number of people who choose to involve themselves with the proposal process. It would not be fair to the entire community to now foist upon them policies for which they were not told of nor have been given a chance to vote on. The policies' legitimacy only derives from the knowing consent of the full community.
As we went through this with the Forum:Voting Policy - final draft, and there were no objections then, I figured the process was clear and acceptable. However, if you feel that before every proposal vote, the final wording is fully discussed and decided and the entire community is notified and encouraged to participate, that is something that can be considered, but I'm not sure that will be more efficient. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:50, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
I see, and I definitely understand changing certain words. But I do feel it will be better for the authors if they have had a chance to do that. When you see the sudden changes, it's confusing. You wonder what changed, and who and why they decided to do so. The community did understand the policies when they voted for each one, so I don't think it needed to be so heavily done and I feel one or two was an unnecessary change.
I think the community has had loads of time to get to know what has been proposed and voted in. They had loads of chances to vote. We have to draw the line at one point. We have been discussing the User Rights Policy since July. Voting and discussions went on for weeks - one section had two votes, two chances to propose a policy and give feedback. I don't see how it can be foisted upon anyone. We have to concede at one point, that we did everything we could to get everyone's consent and the voting was fair. - Kates39 (talk) 19:35, September 22, 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry for any confusion! As I noted when closing the Gaining Rights votes, the subsections written by various authors would be drafted together and them contacted to help clarify wording and intent. Given many people's time constraints lately, I didn't want to jump on everyone's Talk pages right away, but planned to do so mid-week if needed.
As I said, if you can point out specific changes that may not be needed or should be improved, please point them out any way that is convenient. I tried to stick with "track changes" methods that show what is suggested to be removed or added, but if comparing History versions works better, or something else, that is fine by me - whatever gets it done.
I agree that there is a final point at which everyone is duly notified and has had an opportunity to participate; much of our work with the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy changes was to ensure exactly that (as you well know :) However, those requirements include a Community Announcement and other site-wide measures so everyone is equally aware - these policies affect every user, not just those involved in the policy proposal process. My hope is that we can pin down these final touch-ups and start the voting process for this long-debated and hard-won User Rights Policy by the end of the week. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:01, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

Being the author of Gaining Rights proposal (RFP completely and non-RFP co-authored with Kates39), i have no objection to the changes made on them thus far. All these updates seem necessary and helpful

While writing the Gaining Rights proposal I was very sure of the words that I was using did not have any loopholes, while I say that, I also very well agree that I like almost everyone here am not an English Language expert. And if we combine the knowledge of language of qll users in this community, we can make sure a very strong policy can be made with little to no loopholes. Anyone is free to come and suggest such updates.

I do agree that having custom made short forms are hard to keep a track of and would be better (should they be created) if not used in the policy and added as a key so that they can be used like we use these abbreviation in conversations: HPW, RFP, RFAA, etc.

That said a ratification vote helps ensure that the policy written by one or two people goes through at least 2 rounds of community consensus and makes it difficult enough to be easily modified but easy enough to have it modified should the community find the need for it. Like a basic parliamentary system according to which 2-3rd majority is needed, in our case equal or more users who participated earlier are needed to bring that change. A clear balance of power.

I would like to also point out that not all policy votes may need ratification vote. Like removal of IRC policy which can be removed through one clear vote. User Rights policy and Voting Policy are some of the major policies of our wiki and they should IMO take good enough time to discuss and carefully assess each and every aspect of it because it is these two policies that will ensure how matters are sorted in future and how the wiki staff/wiki leadership will be appointed and even removed. I am sure future votes may not take as much time. Thanks. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   04:43, September 24, 2020 (UTC)

I've resolved the marked-up changes so as to move towards a final draft. Please review and comment on any last items that may need discussion. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:41, September 27, 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! I changed one spelling from US to UK, but I don't see anything else. I think we can go ahead and start the vote. - Kates39 (talk)

Didn't we just vote on this, like, a month ago? Could someone please clarify for me what exactly has changed since the last time? With the documentation of the entire discussion and process all stacked and clustered on one page here, it's a jumbled mess, and it's difficult to sort out what's what as of right now. Tyrekecorrea 19:11, September 29, 2020 (UTC)

The discussions and votes before were for differing proposals for how Gaining Rights worked, or what requirements there would be for Maintaining Rights. The winning proposal for each User Rights section were combined to make this complete User Rights Policy draft. The vote now is the final one for the community to decide to adopt, or not, this entire set of rules and practices as the official User Rights Policy. Hope this helps! --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:28, September 29, 2020 (UTC)
I'm ok with the proposal. MechQueste 01:44, September 30, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their hard work and patience on helping to bring this substantial set of rules from initial proposals to an official policy! Given the extended effort put into the User Rights Policy, as well as the obvious user interest in new permissions, and the potential value to the site in having some more users with extra rights to help with the approaching UCP upgrade, I will be reopening Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for permissions for those roles covered by the new User Rights Policy and make a couple nominations to help with the work still ahead. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:45, October 5, 2020 (UTC)

Voting for ratification

In order to adopt this draft as a new User Rights Policy, a vote will now take place.

Ironyak1 will administrate this vote. It will remain open for 7 full days and then be closed and tallied. The Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy applies.

User should sign under For or Against the adoption of this policy with four tildes like so: # ~~~~. A comment can also be included with their vote if a user wishes.

PLEASE NOTE: I have removed the running vote counts in the section headers to avoid any confusion. Please simply add your signature to the numbered list in the For or Against section. The votes will be verified by the acting Administrator and tallied at the closing of the vote.

If there are any questions, please post them in the Draft Discussion area above. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:01, September 28, 2020 (UTC)