ESB:Convention/Policy reviews - Demotion policy/voting

	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: December 18, 2017 Result: Passed.

Instructions

This page is the voting stage of this discussion: "Policy reviews - Demotion policy."

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

I am proposing the following changes to the Demotion policy, and to include all as part of the ESB:Provisional Bylaws as "Article X: Demotions." The order of articles in the bylaws can be modified later.

Note: The frequency of user rights reviews will be discussed separately. Right now, nothing is being changed except with regards to format of the policy and the naming.

• A. General

• 1. All promoted users may keep their position as long as they want, with the exceptions outlined in this section.
• 2. Non-administrators who feel that a promoted user should be demoted for any reason can user the report user form and/or notify a bureaucrat, who can bring it up with other bureaucrats for a less public discussion. (this redundant, it is found elsewhere in the demotion policy, as well as the communication policy regarding the report user page.)

• 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 a User Rights Review discussion. the user rights review process.
• d. For rollback, chat moderators, discussion moderators, and assistants, a User Rights Review discussion can be created, but is optional. (this is redundant to the items below)

• E. AdministrationD. Quarterly User Rights rReviews (note: moved from section E to section D)

• 1. Every three (3) 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. Administration reviews will occur four times per year:, beginning on the following dates: February 10, May 10, August 10, and November 10.

• a. February 10
• b. May 10
• c. August 10
• d. November 10

• 3. During each review, all bureaucrats, administrators, assistants, discussion moderators, and chat moderators will be included in the discussion. The community will decide whether they should remain in their position or be demoted. (redundant with E1a)
• 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.

• D.E. Emergency User Rights Review

• 1. General

• a. A User Rights Review is a discussion for the community to review a promoted user's status, and whether or not that user should be blocked, suspended, demoted, etc.
• 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. (this was moved from below)
• 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. (this was moved from below)
• iii. After the suspension (clause b, above), the said bureaucrat must then create an Emergency User Rights Review discussion. (this was moved from below except "an Emergency" was added)
• iv. Any administrator who is demoted after their adminship is terminated, obtains "former administrator" status. (this was moved from below)

• b. 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 for any reason, whether it is lack of activity, violation of policies, or behavior, they must contact an bureaucrat administrator to make a request. (simplifying this)
• b. The administrators will discuss whether or not the administrator 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 (more than 50%) must support a review discussion in order for it to be created in the first place. If it is determined that a majority of bureaucrats administrators do not support such a discussion taking place, the request is dropped.
• d. Once a majority of administrators (more than 50%) 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. Suspension (entire section moved to E1b)

• 1. 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.
• 2. 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.
• 3. After the suspension (clause b, above), the said bureaucrat must then create a User Rights Review discussion.
• 4. Any administrator who is demoted after their adminship is terminated, obtains "former administrator" status.

• G.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 Monday, December 18, 2017 at 12:12 a.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 05:11, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Choose your input: Support • Neutral • Oppose • Comment

• Support - — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 05:14, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Administration reviews should occur no more than 3 times per year (or every 4 months).  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  05:21, December 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• That is for a separate discussion. Right now, I am just proposing changes to the policy. This is not set in stone, just requires more discussion. I just reformatted it. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 05:27, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

• I have changed my vote.  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  07:32, December 13, 2017 (UTC) 

• Support - Chickenkrispies^{W C E}     05:22, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - - Infinite adminstrative rights is paving a path for corrupt mods and unfair bans. User:EmpressYzma

• What do you mean? We have user rights reviews. This is just working to streamline the process. What changes here do you oppose? — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 14:00, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - We have user rights reviews but these are quite lengthy. It can take some time to get someone demoted using user rights reviews. And per Nicko. Also, this part of the process section:h. If the termination is unsuccessful, another demotion discussion cannot take place until one (1) month after the close of the preceding demotion discussion. One month after the demotion discussion? What if the user abused their rights before a month has passed? Another discussion can't be made? (Contact • Contrib) 00:37, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good point. In the second round of discussions, I will put up a proposal to modify that. The entire demotion policy is so complicated, so the approach is to clean it up in steps. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 18:06, December 13, 2017 (UTC)

• Support -  Nickmick ^{(M•C•E•B)}   

• Support -  Figmeister ^(W•C•E)  21:13, December 12, 2017 (UTC) 

• Support - •кσσℓкιттү <мεssαgε ωαℓℓ> (=^ ◡ ^=)• 21:27, December 12, 2017 (UTC)

• Support -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  07:32, December 13, 2017 (UTC) 

• Support - (Contact • Contrib) 00:44, December 14, 2017 (UTC)