Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Harry Potter Wiki
Line 190: Line 190:
   
 
:::''Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.''
 
:::''Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.''
:::Based on what idea should they be demoted? Why?
+
:::Based on what idea should they be demoted? Why?
 
:::''and there are trust issues with an admin doing all the things by themselves''
 
:::''and there are trust issues with an admin doing all the things by themselves''
:::What trust issues? Admins are supposed to handle the official matters of the wiki. That is their job.
+
:::What trust issues? Admins are supposed to handle the official matters of the wiki. That is their job.
 
:::''So, if an admin grant user rights without the user having gone through RFP process then another admin should remove rights from that particular user and the admin in question should be warned not to grant rights without the RFP process. In fact, it could be counted as the admin abusing his rights and can be a major factor for anyone starting a demotion thread for him.''
 
:::''So, if an admin grant user rights without the user having gone through RFP process then another admin should remove rights from that particular user and the admin in question should be warned not to grant rights without the RFP process. In fact, it could be counted as the admin abusing his rights and can be a major factor for anyone starting a demotion thread for him.''
 
:::The first admin will grant the rights again. This would just pit admins against admins. Your policy focuses on the destruction of the community than it's well being. Besides on what grounds will an admin warn another admin for granting user rights when it is a part of their job to have new users with rights and in cases when needed. Normally going through RFP is the way but why can't special rights not be granted in special situations? Why?
 
:::The first admin will grant the rights again. This would just pit admins against admins. Your policy focuses on the destruction of the community than it's well being. Besides on what grounds will an admin warn another admin for granting user rights when it is a part of their job to have new users with rights and in cases when needed. Normally going through RFP is the way but why can't special rights not be granted in special situations? Why?
   
 
:::''If there is a policy which forbids an admin from granting rights without RFP process to a user then it's considered "breakage of policy" if an admin does so.''
 
:::''If there is a policy which forbids an admin from granting rights without RFP process to a user then it's considered "breakage of policy" if an admin does so.''
:::Again, no policy can forbid a user group who's job is to add more users with special rights as and when needed. So having such a policy makes no sense. Instead, it kinda goes against what FANDOM would suggest. So having such policy would be going against the idea of FANDOM.
+
:::Again, no policy can forbid a user group who's job is to add more users with special rights as and when needed. So having such a policy makes no sense. Instead, it kinda goes against what FANDOM would suggest. So having such policy would be going against the idea of FANDOM.
 
:::''Firstly, why are we assuming that an admin would grant rights purely based on his own views that another admin has to remove their rights and start a war of flame against each other? Admins are trusted users so why can't we expect that they might follow the policy and not grant anyone additional rights purely based on their own beliefs?''
 
:::''Firstly, why are we assuming that an admin would grant rights purely based on his own views that another admin has to remove their rights and start a war of flame against each other? Admins are trusted users so why can't we expect that they might follow the policy and not grant anyone additional rights purely based on their own beliefs?''
 
:::No one is assuming. It is stating facts that admins can grants rights as found necessary. Users will have to go through RFP but in case if the admins or b'crates appoint a user without RFP and with a valid reason why they skipped RFP then it is not wrong and no policy can stop the structure that FANDOM has setup. I am not saying that RFP will be skipped in all cases, but '''if''' it is skipped for valid reason then it won't be wrong.
 
:::No one is assuming. It is stating facts that admins can grants rights as found necessary. Users will have to go through RFP but in case if the admins or b'crates appoint a user without RFP and with a valid reason why they skipped RFP then it is not wrong and no policy can stop the structure that FANDOM has setup. I am not saying that RFP will be skipped in all cases, but '''if''' it is skipped for valid reason then it won't be wrong.
 
:::''Fandom might have given this inbuilt feature to admins to promote users but very clearly users are not happy with this. So, if policies are made then they should treat everyone equally regardless of what Fandom allows.''
 
:::''Fandom might have given this inbuilt feature to admins to promote users but very clearly users are not happy with this. So, if policies are made then they should treat everyone equally regardless of what Fandom allows.''
What users? Who are these users? I don't have a problem and I am a user. This is just your view so kindly don't frame it as community's request. And again no policy can oppose the structure and ideas of FANDOM. Besides you are representative of two Global rights user groups on FANDOM, I would suggest you select your words carefully. You have in private chats disregarded the company and it was overlooked and forgiven but I don't think a public insult will be overlooked. Just my thought.
+
:::What users? Who are these users? I don't have a problem and I am a user. This is just your view so kindly don't frame it as community's request. And again no policy can oppose the structure and ideas of FANDOM. Besides you are representative of two Global rights user groups on FANDOM, I would suggest you select your words carefully. You have in private chats disregarded the company and it was overlooked and forgiven but I don't think a public insult will be overlooked. Just my thought.
   
 
:::''Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats within the last five years for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.''
 
:::''Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats within the last five years for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.''
:::Why 5 years? And why should the be demoted or why should any policy be applied to their case in this context when their rights were changed '''5 years''' ago?
+
:::Why 5 years? And why should the be demoted or why should any policy be applied to their case in this context when their rights were changed '''5 years''' ago?
 
:::''This might exclude quite a few user from our list but again why should they be scared of being voted out. If they have done a tremendous job on the wiki users will always come forward to vote for them and their user rights will be restored back without damaging the community at all.''
 
:::''This might exclude quite a few user from our list but again why should they be scared of being voted out. If they have done a tremendous job on the wiki users will always come forward to vote for them and their user rights will be restored back without damaging the community at all.''
 
:::I don't think there this is a matter of being scared. But based on what grounds users with rights be demoted? We cannot set a policy just to make sure that current situation violates them. That is pure and crystal clear bad faith act. --<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:bottom;border-radius:50%;overflow:hidden;border:1px solid white">https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/reverb-frost/images/3/3a/Sig40x40.svg/revision/latest?cb=20200717054417</span><span style="border: solid brown; border-radius: 20px; background-color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Reverb frost|<font style="background:white;color:brown;">'''Reverb frost'''</font>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 13:31, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
 
:::I don't think there this is a matter of being scared. But based on what grounds users with rights be demoted? We cannot set a policy just to make sure that current situation violates them. That is pure and crystal clear bad faith act. --<span style="display:inline-block;vertical-align:bottom;border-radius:50%;overflow:hidden;border:1px solid white">https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/reverb-frost/images/3/3a/Sig40x40.svg/revision/latest?cb=20200717054417</span><span style="border: solid brown; border-radius: 20px; background-color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Reverb frost|<font style="background:white;color:brown;">'''Reverb frost'''</font>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 13:31, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:32, 3 August 2020

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > User Rights Policy proposal - Removing Rights


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.

Kates39 has proposed a User Right Policy to detail the process of how User rights are:

Please see also Forum:Voting Policy proposed changes as both these Policies are interwoven and affect one another.

Other considerations such the possible qualifications needed for candidates of varying User rights will be discussed subsequent to the resolution of this User Rights Policy proposal.

I've cleaned up and slightly reorganized the original suggestions but kept who originally made a proposal and when so questions can be directed as needed.

For clarity, the term administrators and Administration includes all users with either administrator or bureaucrat user rights.

The numbered list of notes below is not considered complete or all-inclusive and new items can be added as needed.

This Policy Review process and format is a work in progress so suggestions on possible improvements are welcome! --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:16, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

Removing rights based on abuse

User Rights can be taken away if they are abused. See Wookiepedia's Requests for removal of user rights Policy for reference

Proposal 1 (Author: Kates39)

Wookieepedia's guidelines look good so we could enact our own version, but expand it to include every kind of User Right. Adapted from Wookieepedia (updated on 1 August):

  • There exists substantial proof that an editor who has any kind of User Right (e.g. admin or bureaucrat) has worked deliberately against the site, engaged in behavior that has damaged the image of the community, and/or abused their powers.
  • Links to said proof must be provided. Edits to the wiki, comments in discussions and in IRC chat logs may be used as evidence. A seven day discussion begins.
  • Voting policy should then be followed for any User Right to be removed (i.e. seven votes needed, and a +3 majority).
    • However, only users who have been registered for a month — from the day the nomination is put forth — are counted. (Please note: it will be the one difference to the Voting policy).

Removing Rights Proposal 1 Discussion

I think the voting process should be kept the same to what the voting policy says. The voting policy proposal vote should be closing today, and I think it looks like the winning process (based on what's a clear majority now) will work.

I have just one change to suggest - instead of using an edit count for voting eligibility, we use the age of the account (I think one month). I think taking away any User Right should be of the highest concern, and a user needs to be active for a certain level of time to have a chance of gaining an appropriate, personal opinion of an editor. Thoughts? - Kates39 (talk) 12:22, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like the Voting Policy will likely include the 1 month account age provision already; however, I think that it's probably worth restating here in case those changes are not ultimately adopted or in case that requirement changes in the future. Could even see including language here that it be whichever is greater, 1 month or as stated in the Voting Policy, to make sure the requirement here is always as strong or stronger than the general voting policy. A 7 week requirement could also slightly differentiate the need here?
Relatedly, I would suggest that the gravity of removing rights be a bit more highlighted in the policy and the bar for approval be raised accordingly. Wookieepedia requires both a 2/3 supermajority of normal users AND a 2/3 supermajority of administrators voting to successfully remove rights. They put a high bar in their process and I think this makes sense and follows a lot of other parliamentary procedures for more weighty topics. I could see using a 70% super majority here to go along with the Rule of Seven theme, or perhaps a +7 majority, instead of +3, would fit better with our Voting Policy and achieve a similar goal? It should take a greater threshold of approval to Remove Rights than to vote for an Infobox image IMHO. Thoughts along these lines? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:15, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I think it's very important to show the seriousness of taking away rights. I feel a voting user should gain a better understanding of an editor before asking/voting for their rights to be taken. I would even go up to two months for account age. Do you have a preference?
And I think a +7 majority will work better, because it ties in nicely to our Voting Policy. Perhaps we could add that at least two (or higher) of those votes have to be Administrators? I would support a 2/3 supermajority of users and 2/3 of administration too. - Kates39 (talk) 18:04, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Well, my preference, unsurprisingly, would be 7 weeks, as it's just about two months and fits into a large theme. Sorry if that seems silly, but some diagonally-esque quirks just fit the local sensibilities for me - we aren't The Empire after all ;)
I think the +7 majority makes sense and ties in nicely as well. For votes with a small number of participants this would mean there has to be near universal consensus on the matter, but for larger votes it starts to approach more of a simple majority, which I think is fine when many people are involved. With about 20 participants, the ratio would have to be 14 to 7 to succeed and 14/21 is a 2/3 super-majority anyhow so it hits that similar threshold often used elsewhere for a reasonable number of participants.
As for administrators, I'm a bit concerned having their votes count more than others (having just one admin vote Against in Wook's process could override any number of regular users voting), but at the end of the process the outcome needs to be enforceable. Perhaps instead of having a super-majority of admin votes needed, the vote needs prior support from a Bureaucrat that they will implement the result? They don't need to open & moderate the vote, although they can of course, just officially sponsor it so that if a Removal of Rights is voted for there is someone who can then follow up and take action? Does this seems like a reasonable and workable balance? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:36, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
I like the concept of using a few Wizarding World sensibilities, so I will adopt a seven week suggestion too. And I agree with the other two suggestions. It sounds fair, so should I update my proposal to include everything? Do you think anything else could be discussed? - Kates39 (talk) 20:39, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Author: MechQueste)

  • Removal of permissions requires a community discussion via forum. All allegations must be backed up with proof. It should be the last resort discussion. (Mech)

Removing Rights Proposal 2 Discussion

Can you see if your proposal here is likely to be covered by one of the others or provide more details as to how it differs? If a Forum discussion is the last resort, what other steps need to happen first? Who can start the discussion after these previous steps? How long does the discussion last? Is there a vote? Who needs to be involved so any outcome is actionable? Details like these will need to be covered for the proposal to be voted on. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:20, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Author: Newt Strike)

  • A user who has been on the wiki for at least two or more years with more than 5000 edits and/or Discussions posts can start a forum thread for the demotion of any user with additional rights if they feel someone has abused rights.
  • Any prior discussion with the user whose demotion is being planned upon by someone should be done on their talk page or on private chats where they can try to resolve the matter before putting up a demotion thread.
  • If preferred the user can choose to inform an admin about the demotion thread(in case demotion is for Content or Dmod or Chat mods). A bureacrat can be informed should the demotion is for an admin.
  • The actual Discussions would take place as soon as the demotion thread is up where the accusing user can provide proofs for the demotion of the user as how they abused their rights.
  • The Discussions would continue for 7 days. After that, a bureacrat or admin(depending upon who abused rights) should start the vote which must again last for 7 days.
  • If majority agrees for demotion then user rights will be removed.


Removing Rights Proposal 3 Discussion

As for this proposal, any user from the Discussion board who has 5000+ posts can start a forum regarding demotion of a Rollback, Chat mod, Content mod, Admin or anyone if they feel that the user with special rights has violated their user rights? No discussion with the user or admins, straight up a forum for demotion? And the user starting the forum should have their first contribution on the wiki at least 2 years old. These are very specific conditions in my opinion, and while we are asked to assume good faith on FANDOM, it feels like this proposal wasn't made like that. How would the processing go? How would any of it work out? --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   18:09, July 27, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the user need not discuss the demotion process if they are opening a forum thread for demotion of an admin. But if they are opening a thread for demotion of users with content mod or Dmod rights,etc then they can inform an admin about this(but this should not be a requirement). Rest of the discussion can take place on the forum thread alongwith the voting process opened for demotion of the user. If, following the voting policy majority want the rights of the user to be removed then their rights must be removed. Votings will start only if the user complaining has a valid proof of the user abusing rights.

Also, the reason the complaining user should be atleast 2 years old is cuz this would ensure that the user is trusted by the community as a whole. The user should be a regularly posting user as well.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 06:50, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Why should there be no discussion prior to starting a demotion forum? You keep mentioning "personal grudge" that an admin can hold against a user and play the system to deny them user rights, what happens in the case if the tables are flipped? What if a user has a grudge from an admin or any user with rights and they just right up start a vote for demotion? You should understand that the primary idea should be to resolve any conflict than take actions. So why should the user(s) not discuss the matter with the User with special rights in concern or other admin(s) and instead based on their "feeling" just start a vote for demotion? Who would hold the vote for demotion here? You say According to voting policy... quite a few of your proposals contradict, the recently in clear majority policies of the said Voting policy. How could your proposal be half in alignment with it and half contradicting it and still be an effective proposal?
I also noticed that in your proposal you keep mentioning 2 years to be very important criteria. I couldn't help but notice that your account is just 2 years old. Is there some sort of connection? Just to point out, having an old account does not make the user "trusted". It is their contributions that do and it is their contributions that matter. Per a Hindi-Sanskrit shloka - It is your karma(actions) that matter and not the time you spend doing it. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   10:06, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

A user can start up a demotion thread for an admin or anyone only if they feel they have abused rights. With no proof, any user won't be able to demote anyone even if they start a demotion thread just based on grudges. The vote obviously will be mediated by the highest rank called Bureaucrats For removal of Bureaucrats, obviously the staff intervention is needed.

Also, I'm not saying that the complaining user can't discuss their issues with users with which they are having problems with. They can but it should not be a requirement. If issues are resolved between users via discord or any other platforms and the user can explain as how they not abused their rights then there is no need to start a demotion thread in the first place. But public Discussion can take place only on the forum thread. And voting can be initiated by Bureaucrat.

The 2 year time period is not something I worry about. The time frame can be anything-4 year or 5 year or just anything but it should be long enough that we know the user is not an obvious troll or spammer. When a person regularly contributes to a site for quite a long term- it shows their dedication and hard work for that site and that is enough to consider them as trusted. If a user has questionable actions then he would have quite a long block history and that would be enough for users to not consider their demotion thread. Who would support a user with questionable blocks on their account (if the block reasons are severe)? I hope it's clear that while your karmas matter for such sensitive issues, a good time frame matters as well.

Also, not sure why are you connecting my account age with the 2 year frame here? FYI, I'm completing my three years on fandom this October so your connection is wrong plus do you think I'm gonna straight up start a demotion thread for someone if this policy gets passed? Don't be scared, I'm not creating policies for my own favor but for the community as a whole. Thanks.

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 10:43, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that trying to resolve any issues or misunderstandings before calling for a demotion would be preferable and a useful addition to the policy, if the goal is in fact to find resolution to the issues and not just reasons to remove people's rights. After someone starts such a discussion, how long should it last in the forum? What happens if a majority of people disagree with the suggestion? If ultimately a vote and Bureaucrat are required then your proposal needs to state that directly. Just the text in the proposals can be voted on so any ideas or explanations that are part of the discussion area need to be included in the proposal itself for consideration. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:33, August 2, 2020 (UTC)

My Final wording of the proposal:

• A user who has been on the wiki for at least two or more years with more than 5000 edits and/or Discussions posts can start a forum thread for the demotion of any user with additional rights if they feel someone has abused rights.

• Any prior discussion with the user whose demotion is being planned upon by someone should be done on their talk page or on private chats where they can try to resolve the matter before putting up a demotion thread.

• If preferred the user can choose to inform an admin about the demotion thread(in case demotion is for Content or Dmod or Chat mods). A bureacrat can be informed should the demotion is for an admin.

• The actual Discussions would take place as soon as the demotion thread is up where the accusing user can provide proofs for the demotion of the user as how they abused their rights.

• The Discussions would continue for 7 days. After that, a bureacrat or admin(depending upon who abused rights) should start the vote which must again last for 7 days.

• If majority agrees for demotion then user rights will be removed.


 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 03:41, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

A user who has been on the wiki for at least two or more years with more than 5000 edits and/or Discussions posts can start a forum thread for the demotion of any user with additional rights if they feel someone has abused rights.
Per the newly voted Voting Policy, any user is eligible to take part in a vote as long as they meet all requirements and their first contribution to the wiki is a month old. So I don't see why having a 2 year time period is a need. At all.
the user need not discuss the demotion process if they are opening a forum thread for the demotion of an admin. But if they are opening a thread for the demotion of users with a content mod or Dmod rights, etc then they can inform an admin about this(but this should not be a requirement).
Why no discussions in case of an admin but a discussion in case of other user rights. And why shouldn't discussion prior to a demotion thread not be a requirement? The purpose of these policies is to ensure that the community finds solutions. Solutions come from discussions. So I fail to understand why shouldn't prior discussions not be a requirement and for all user rights?
A user can start up a demotion thread for an admin or anyone only if they feel they have abused rights. With no proof, any user won't be able to demote anyone even if they start a demotion thread just based on grudges.
You say the demotion thread can be started if the user feels rights have been abused but you also say that the thread cannot be started without a proof. Both these points are contradicting. And shouldn't the proof be cross-checked by admins or crats prior to the opening of a demotion thread since they are the ones who will be enforcing the outcomes?
Also, I'm not saying that the complaining user can't discuss their issues with users with which they are having problems with. They can but it should not be a requirement. If issues are resolved between users via discord or any other platforms and the user can explain as how they not abused their rights then there is no need to start a demotion thread in the first place. But public Discussion can take place only on the forum thread. And voting can be initiated by Bureaucrat.
Why use discord? It has been clearly mentioned in the Discord widget forum that any wiki business has to happen on the wiki. But we will see it in the Discord policy. Again why shouldn't discussion and resolution be a requirement?
it shows their dedication and hard work for that site and that is enough to consider them as trusted. If a user has questionable actions then he would have quite a long block history and that would be enough for users to not consider their demotion thread. Who would support a user with questionable blocks on their account (if the block reasons are severe)?
How is time period of account creation showing dedication to a wiki? And why would questionable actions be followed by long block history? There is no connection. Questionable actions mean actions that can be questioned but aren't proved to be wrong. So your terminologies are either wrong or this proposal has no real sense here.
Even in your final words-
A user who has been on the wiki for at least two or more years with more than 5000 edits and/or Discussions posts can start a forum thread for the demotion of any user with additional rights if they feel someone has abused rights.
Again why 2 years? Per the Voting policy, it will be 1 month and no set number of edits or Dboard posts. This part has no standing as it contradicts an existing policy.
Any prior discussion with the user whose demotion is being planned upon by someone should be done on their talk page or on private chats where they can try to resolve the matter before putting up a demotion thread.
"Demotion is being planned" it seems like your terminologies are again wrong or this proposal makes no sense. Why would a demotion thread be planned? A demotion thread is initiated, it is started, it is requested, not planned. A discussion prior to demotion thread being started is a requirement and that is an improvement to your proposal. Still the first point falls off so the entire proposal seems to be a bit weak.
If preferred the user can choose to inform an admin about the demotion thread(in case demotion is for Content or Dmod or Chat mods). A bureacrat can be informed should the demotion is for an admin.
This makes some sense. Although an admin or a B'crate can start a vote as needed. Both have the same requirements. Just that admins can grant certain roles and B'crates certain others but still both are eligible and are "Administrators".
The actual Discussions would take place as soon as the demotion thread is up where the accusing user can provide proofs for the demotion of the user as how they abused their rights.
"Actual discussion? The proof has to be provided prior to the demotion thread is started. Demotion also requires to have an OA per the newly voted Voting Policy. They can be again provided on the demotion forum but they need to be validated by the OA prior to the beginning of the vote or the process as a whole.
The Discussions would continue for 7 days. After that, a bureacrat or admin(depending upon who abused rights) should start the vote which must again last for 7 days.
If majority agrees for demotion then user rights will be removed.
These are in accordance with the voting policy and makes sense. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   13:24, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Demoting all users previously granted rights

Proposal 1 (Author:Newt Strike)

  • Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.

Demoting Proposal 1 Discussion

Per the comment made by Ironyak1 on the Forum:Gaining Rights:I think it is important to note that per their tools, Administrators have the ability to grant User rights, regardless of any policy. So for those who are arguing that Administrators should not grant any rights outside of the RFP & vote process the question becomes what happens if they do? No policy can stop this happening, only provide consequences for if it does. We should not have any problem in striking off this proposal. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   18:09, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

I agree an admin can grant user rights regardless of any policy and that is true for maintaining and removing rights as well. Infact, we don't even need any policy- the admin can do whatever he feels right for the community. But considering we are indeed trying to create policies for better organisation of this site and there are trust issues with an admin doing all the things by themselves, we must note to follow all these created policies. So, if an admin grant user rights without the user having gone through RFP process then another admin should remove rights from that particular user and the admin in question should be warned not to grant rights without the RFP process. In fact, it could be counted as the admin abusing his rights and can be a major factor for anyone starting a demotion thread for him.
Point to note is that we are doing this only because policies are being created here so it must be followed by everyone regardless of their status else it will be considered as "abuse of rights".
 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 06:50, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
I would first and foremost request you to please align the comments made by you. They are not at all organized and confusing to read and reply. I would also like to point out that I have noticed you using male pronouns for admins at times. It is important to note that when referring to a group of users, one should use neutral pronouns they/them.
there are trust issues with an admin doing all the things by themselves- trust issues? Admins are the most trusted users on a wiki. This seems to be a baseless and pointless argument.
How would an admin or B'crate granting user rights, something that is well within their rights, be considered as abusing their rights? And why would one admin, over step the authority of another admin without any discussion or talk, and just undo an admin action? And how could granting user rights be considered a offense so big that it could lead to that admin's demotion? --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   12:54, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
My comments are perfectly aligned. It's just your understanding which fails to decipher them. Also it's better we focus on the policy rather than what pronouns I use for a group of people. It's basic understanding that I'm not referring to just males but a whole group. If there is a policy which forbids an admin from granting rights without RFP process to a user then it's considered "breakage of policy" if an admin does so. In short, an admin breaking policy needs to be warned and even after this if it continues this could be a factor to demote them. If policies are not properly followed then it's the duty of another admin to overstep and undo the actions of the admin in question. Thanks.
 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 13:20, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "No policy can stop this happening, only provide consequences for if it does." doesn't make sense to me as a reason to strike off the proposal. The policies around vandalism, for example, can't physically stop anything from happening, and only provides consequences for if it does, so what exactly is the point that that sentence is trying to make? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:01, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

My point was that the permission system on FANDOM sites allows for Administrators to grant rights, period. We cannot make a policy that doesn't align with this reality in an impossible attempt to stop it from happening, only provide for community processes after the fact if they don't agree with the particular actions of any user including those with extra rights.
Newt's suggestion that an Administrator can just take away rights from a user that was granted them is not feasible as the first Administrator can always just add them back, and so on, back and forth. Having Administrators wage war with one another over their permissions is not something to be condoned or encouraged.
Of even more concern, this suggestion would strip the rights from dozens of users whose earned them and were granted them in accordance with previous policies and have done nothing wrong with their use of them. Where are the signs of widespread and systematic abuse that might justify such an indiscriminate removal of rights? Why would someone suggest such a hostile action against so many users in this community instead of just focusing on dealing with the one or two users they feel may have abused their rights? How is the Removal of Rights processes used elsewhere and being discussed above this proposal not sufficient to address any concerns? This demotion proposal amounts to changing the rules and using it retroactively to punish many productive users that have done nothing wrong just to get back at a particular user or two. Who would suggest or support such an unconsidered proposal that would so widely damage the community here? --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:02, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, why are we assuming that an admin would grant rights purely based on his own views that another admin has to remove their rights and start a war of flame against each other? Admins are trusted users so why can't we expect that they might follow the policy and not grant anyone additional rights purely based on their own beliefs? If they break a policy then obviously they are not trusted enough for the community and should be warned or demoted for that purpose. Fandom might have given this inbuilt feature to admins to promote users but very clearly users are not happy with this. So, if policies are made then they should treat everyone equally regardless of what Fandom allows. In fact, fandom has given all the rights to promote- demote or maintain user rights to admins so tbh there is no need for any such policy but still we are making it cuz it's necessary at this moment.
As for another concern, I have reworded my proposal to this: Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats within the last five years for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.
This might exclude quite a few user from our list but again why should they be scared of being voted out. If they have done a tremendous job on the wiki users will always come forward to vote for them and their user rights will be restored back without damaging the community at all. Thnx.
 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 04:04, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
This again amounts to the same problem - you want to indiscriminately and retroactively remove rights from users that have done nothing wrong. Why again can't you identify and judge who deserves this treatment?
You'll need to find a bureaucrat that is willing to sort out all the users involved and remove all their rights, and hold all the new votes for this proposal to have any possibility of actually being implemented. When a bureaucrat has agreed to sponsor this proposal and do the work needed if it passes, then it can be further considered. This notion that you can hold a vote and force users to use their permissions does not align with how permissions or people work. No user can be directed to use their permissions, any more than I, or any other user, can tell you what articles to edit or what Discussion posts to reply to. Every user is an actual person who has autonomy and the right to choose how they use the tools allowed them - no one gets to dictate to them what contributions they make. If you think some user deserves to be demoted then focus your efforts on them instead of just attacking everyone who happens to share their circumstances. I have no interest in facilitating the collateral damage you are willing to commit just to achieve your goals. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:31, August 3, 2020 (UTC)
Dear Ironyak1, I have no hidden agendas to achieve a hidden goal unlike others. I'm an open book. I'm not trying to facilitate this policy because I have to get back to one or two user in question but I want an equal treatment of users. But if that doesn't interest you, you can strike off the proposal. I'm with what is good for the wiki and if this sounds damaging to you, I won't further detail this. Cheers!

 Newt Strike   Talk   Contribs 04:47, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.
Based on what idea should they be demoted? Why?
and there are trust issues with an admin doing all the things by themselves
What trust issues? Admins are supposed to handle the official matters of the wiki. That is their job.
So, if an admin grant user rights without the user having gone through RFP process then another admin should remove rights from that particular user and the admin in question should be warned not to grant rights without the RFP process. In fact, it could be counted as the admin abusing his rights and can be a major factor for anyone starting a demotion thread for him.
The first admin will grant the rights again. This would just pit admins against admins. Your policy focuses on the destruction of the community than it's well being. Besides on what grounds will an admin warn another admin for granting user rights when it is a part of their job to have new users with rights and in cases when needed. Normally going through RFP is the way but why can't special rights not be granted in special situations? Why?
If there is a policy which forbids an admin from granting rights without RFP process to a user then it's considered "breakage of policy" if an admin does so.
Again, no policy can forbid a user group who's job is to add more users with special rights as and when needed. So having such a policy makes no sense. Instead, it kinda goes against what FANDOM would suggest. So having such policy would be going against the idea of FANDOM.
Firstly, why are we assuming that an admin would grant rights purely based on his own views that another admin has to remove their rights and start a war of flame against each other? Admins are trusted users so why can't we expect that they might follow the policy and not grant anyone additional rights purely based on their own beliefs?
No one is assuming. It is stating facts that admins can grants rights as found necessary. Users will have to go through RFP but in case if the admins or b'crates appoint a user without RFP and with a valid reason why they skipped RFP then it is not wrong and no policy can stop the structure that FANDOM has setup. I am not saying that RFP will be skipped in all cases, but if it is skipped for valid reason then it won't be wrong.
Fandom might have given this inbuilt feature to admins to promote users but very clearly users are not happy with this. So, if policies are made then they should treat everyone equally regardless of what Fandom allows.
What users? Who are these users? I don't have a problem and I am a user. This is just your view so kindly don't frame it as community's request. And again no policy can oppose the structure and ideas of FANDOM. Besides you are representative of two Global rights user groups on FANDOM, I would suggest you select your words carefully. You have in private chats disregarded the company and it was overlooked and forgiven but I don't think a public insult will be overlooked. Just my thought.
Any user who has been selected purely based on the views of admins/bureaucrats within the last five years for special rights should be demoted and a new voting post must be started for the community approval.
Why 5 years? And why should the be demoted or why should any policy be applied to their case in this context when their rights were changed 5 years ago?
This might exclude quite a few user from our list but again why should they be scared of being voted out. If they have done a tremendous job on the wiki users will always come forward to vote for them and their user rights will be restored back without damaging the community at all.
I don't think there this is a matter of being scared. But based on what grounds users with rights be demoted? We cannot set a policy just to make sure that current situation violates them. That is pure and crystal clear bad faith act. --latest?cb=20200717054417  Reverb frost   13:31, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

General Discussion

Based on recent discussion, I've reorganized this so that there are clear whole proposals being made for this new policy. I've split one of the questions so it applies to the proposals directly mentioned - please let me know if adjustments are needed. Any new questions for the authors should be posted in the Discussion section for their specific proposal so they can better track questions and provide answers as needed. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:25, August 1, 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions for where a discussion for taking away User Rights should happen. Should a Forum be set up? Or a page like RFP specifically for taking Rights away instead of gaining? I think it should be one of those two, but I don't mind which one. - Kates39 (talk) 12:22, August 1, 2020 (UTC)
I think the Wizengamot Forum makes the most sense both given its historical use for such discussions and court-like theme. However, I could also see the Rights Removal page possibly having a Summary & links to past Requests for Removal of Rights processes and their outcomes, much like having the Administrators and other Wiki Staff pages listing when people got their rights and how. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:43, August 2, 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good! I think having a page to keep track of every Forum for taking away rights would be a good way to archive everything. - Kates39 (talk) 20:42, August 2, 2020 (UTC)