Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
Encyclopedia SpongeBobia
15,595
pages
in: Archived proposals

ESB:Convention/Fundamental issues - Frequency of administrator reviews (round 2)/voting

< ESB:Convention‎ | Fundamental issues - Frequency of administrator reviews (round 2)
View source

Wiki
Convention Archive
The following convention discussion has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: February 4, 2018


Result: Not passed.


Instructions

This page is the voting stage of this discussion: "Fundamental issues - Frequency of administrator reviews (round 2)."

With all concerns from the concern stage of this discussion having been resolved and taken into account, the proposal located in the "Proposal" section above has been created and moved to voting. To join the voting, you simply use buttons located in the "Voting" section of this page and fill the resulting page.

Have a happy voting!

Proposal

The result of the last discussion in regards to frequency of administrative reviews (now referred to as "quarterly user rights reviews"), there was split opinions. 8 were in favor of holding such reviews twice per year, while 9 were satisfied with holding them four times per year. In this proposal, three times per year may be a suitable compromise. Thus, I am proposing such changes to the provisional bylaws. November is already a part of the existing rule, and July is a good time to have it, as it is during the summer and not very far from August, which is a current month for reviews. Accordingly, changing February to March should be no problem either.

Article X: Demotions

  • A. General
  • 1. All promoted users may keep their position as long as they want, with the exceptions outlined in this section.
  • B. Retirement and resignation
  • 1. Any user who wishes to no longer hold a promoted position and thus retires or resigns can demote themselves. They may notify a bureaucrat to have their powers removed as well.
  • 2. If a bureaucrat resigns or retires and fails to remove their powers, FANDOM Staff will be contacted to demote them.
  • C. Termination
  • 1. A user may be terminated for various reasons, including, but not limited to: inactivity, violating the rules, abuse of rights, and/or disruptive behavior.
  • 2. The process for termination is different depending on the user's position in the wiki.
  • a. Termination of a rollback must be done so by a majority vote of all administrators.
  • b. Termination of a chat moderator, discussion moderator, or an assistant must be done so by a majority vote of all bureaucrats. The rest of the administration (sysop only) may overrule the decision by a majority vote.
  • c. Termination of an administrator or bureaucrat must be done so through the user rights review process.
  • D. QuarterlyTri-Annual User Rights Reviews
  • 1. Every three (3) four (4) months, all bureaucrats, administrators, assistants, discussion moderators, and chat moderators will be put through a review process so the community can assess their status to ensure the most qualified people remain in their positions.
  • 2. AdministrationThese reviews will occur four timesthree times per year, beginning on the following dates: February 10March 10, July 10, May 10, August 10, and November 10.
  • 3. If a user was promoted within one (1) week prior to the creation of the review, they will be exempt from the review.
  • 4. The community shall vote on whether each promoted user should remain in their position or be demoted.
  • 5. Each review period will last two (2) weeks. After two weeks, those users with a majority of all participants and participating administrators (more than 50%) supporting the removal of their position (excluding neutrals) will be subject to demotion.
  • 6. Bureaucrats will discuss in private to determine the final verdict.
  • E. Emergency User Rights Review
  • 1. General
  • a. An Emergency User Rights Review may occur between the quarterly user rights reviews if a promoted user is abusing their powers and needs to be demoted.
  • b. In such a case, a promoted user may be suspended, pending review, in accordance with this section.
  • i. In the event that a promoted user is not following the rules and/or are abusing their powers, a bureaucrat must inform them of their wrongdoing, in case of any misinterpretations.
  • ii. If the promoted user does not stand down or admit to wrongdoing and thus the bureaucrat fails to resolve the issue, they may demote the promoted user for a suspension of one (1) week.
  • iii. After the suspension (clause b, above), the said bureaucrat must then create an Emergency User Rights Review discussion.
  • iv. Any administrator who is demoted after their adminship is terminated, obtains "former administrator" status.
  • c. Creating a User Rights Review discussion by any non-administrator to have another user demoted from any position is prohibited and will result in the deletion of that discussion.
  • 2. Process
  • a. If a user feels that an administrator should be demoted, they must contact an administrator to make a request.
  • b. The administrators will discuss whether or not the promoted user in question should have a review discussion to let the community decide if that user should be demoted.
  • c. A majority of administrators must support a review discussion in order for it to be created in the first place. If it is determined that a majority of administrators do not support such a discussion taking place, the request is dropped.
  • d. Once a majority of administrators support the creation of a review discussion, they must notify the administrator in question to give them the following choices:
  • i. Resign from the position. The administrators can then decide if that user should remain as an assistant or not if the user in question chooses to resign.
  • ii. Write up a paragraph defending their keeping the position so that it can be presented before the demotion discussion begins. Once their defense has been submitted, the review discussion can be started immediately.
  • iii. If the user does neither of these, the review discussion will be posted three (3) days after the user in question is notified.
  • e. Once the review discussion is posted, it will be in the following format.
  • i. The administrators will list all the administrators who supported the creation of the discussion to show validation of the discussion.
  • ii. Each user will have the opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, summing up on what should be done, whether it is a complete demotion, demotion to another position, suspension, block, and/or combination.
  • iii. After seven (7) days of discussion, the first stage will close. All listed options will be put up for a vote.
  • f. In order to terminate or suspend a bureaucrat or administrator, a majority of participating administrators (50% or more) and 70% of all participants must support the termination or suspension in order for it to be valid, not counting neutrals. The discussion must last no less than seven (7) days. The promoted user in question does not have a vote or is counted in the percentage for the decision but may make comments.
  • g. If the termination is successful, the terminated user cannot be repromoted unless they go through a successful request process.
  • h. If the termination is unsuccessful, another demotion discussion cannot take place until one (1) month after the close of the preceding demotion discussion.
  • F. Exceptions
  • 1. When a promoted user becomes inactive, they shall be warned. If they do not edit within three (3) days after the warning, they will be demoted immediately at the discretion of a bureaucrat, unless otherwise stated.
  • 2. If a promoted user goes on an extended vacation or leave of absence with intentions of returning, they may declare "wikibreak" status. See the article on definitions for wikibreak policies.

This voting stage ends Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 5:52 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 22:51, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Voting

Choose your input: Support • Neutral • Oppose • Comment

  • Support Support - 3 reviews per year seems reasonable than 4 reviews per year.
    Golfpecks2 (Contact • Contrib) 22:57, January 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support -  Figmeister (W•C•E)  22:59, January 24, 2018 (UTC) 
  • Support Support - Extending the time between each review times is a smart idea, and decreasing the amonut of administrator reviews also releases a bit of stress for them.  EmpressYzma (M•C•E) 
  • Support Support - Hopefully, the majority of Northern Hemisphrerites don't get affected by school exams, which this change will hopefully fix. Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 23:44, January 24, 2018 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 23:45, January 24, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Weak Support - Per the reasons that EmpressYzma brought up. Four reviews a year sounds rather stressful, which can make the users being reviewed rather nervous which can increase their chances of messing up while the reviews are still going. I can understand why the frequency is there, but on the other hand, it can have negative effects on the users that are being reviewed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:18, January 26, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - Four reviews a year is better.  RedBomb1 (M•C•E) M001 - The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (0161) 02:56, January 28, 2018 (UTC) 
  • Support Support - --Spongebob456 talk 14:36, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Support - I agree this could protect not only users themselves but the admins too. A couple years ago I had to get admin kicked off of the goanimate v2 wikia since he wouldn’t stop cussing rudely when he was angry and acted like he had too much power. Jackiej23456
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement