|
Open Proposal
The following is an ongoing proposal. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules. How proposals work
You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion. Neutral votes do not count in determining the outcome percentage. |
|---|
Instructions
This page is the voting stage of this discussion: "Bring back user rights reviews 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
Why is there a 2 in the title? Because there was already another one.
This seriously needs to be brought back. There are several users who are inactive and without these, people with user rights can essentially only edit every 5 months and 30 days without any sort of expulsion.
Also, as apart of this proposal I'm also going to say that the amount of times per year this should be 2 times, not 4 times, as 4 times is a bit too much and could cause stress to some user rights holders, while 2 times seems more plausible.
Here is the policy draft created by The gamer 987654321:
- D. Biannual User Rights Reviews
- 1. Every six (6) months, all bureaucrats, administrators, assistants and discussion 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 twice per year, beginning on the following dates: April 15 and October 15
- 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 Reviews
- 1. General
- a. An Emergency User Rights Review may occur between the biannual 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 invalidation 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 promoted user 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 was an administrator and 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 defence 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 ewreview 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 closure of the preceding demotion discussion.
9/17 (W•C•E) 
21:55, September 26, 2020 (UTC)
Voting will conclude on October 10, 2020 at 04:27AM EDT. 
Stryker305
(Message Wall)
(Contributions)
(Editcount)
Voting
Leaning towards support - I would like to see these again, but given the current situation regarding our crew, I consider it soon. Also, since it was brought up for UOTM, I'm going to bring up why this was removed in the first place https://spongebob.fandom.com/wiki/ESB:Convention/Fundamental_Issues_-_Discontinuing_Mandatory_User_Rights_Reviews/voting. The situation now is too similar to the situation then for this to pass, and I would wait a few months as it'll inevitably return anyway. --Nathan Pirate (talk) 12:27, October 3, 2020 (UTC)Nathan Pirate
Leaning towards support - I would like to see these again, but given the current situation regarding our crew, I consider it soon. Also, since it was brought up for UOTM, I'm going to bring up why this was removed in the first place 
Support - 
- Strong Support - SpongeTron D (W•C•E) I love SB-129
- Support - Jensonk
- Support - Per the Supporters. Kylecocjin (W•C•E)
- Support - I second this. Dededeletethis (W•C•E) 06:48, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - WoofWoofGam3r
- Neutral -
- Support - Per nearly everyone. ItzSpongeBob 1999 M·B·C·E 09:40, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Absolutely. I really do feel as though restoring administration reviews would help a considerable amount in getting rid of the divide between the normal users and the administration, which has become particularly apparent in recent years. Administration reviews being eliminated in the first place was on the provision that user rights reviews would still occur for the odd user when necessary, however this has not happened once in nearly two years. Users who are performing the roles that they volunteered to have on this site to merely an adequate standard have nothing to fear from this, as it is extremely unlikely that they would be voted out anyway, and even if they were, then it likely would have only been as a result of grudge voting, which are discounted, since the ultimate decision rests with the bureaucrats. In summary, it was a very democratic process that the majority of voting users so far clearly want back, and which has obvious benefits, meaning it is only a good thing for it to be restored. --The gamer 987654321 (talk) 10:33, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Anthony2306 (W•C•L•E) 11:58, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like it of the way it it formatted is reversed, so that the section for Biannual URRs is below regular URRs (which are not called Emergency URRs) as I would prefer that. --Nathan Pirate (talk) 12:20, October 3, 2020 (UTC)Nathan Pirate
Comment - I would like it of the way it it formatted is reversed, so that the section for Biannual URRs is below regular URRs (which are not called Emergency URRs) as I would prefer that. --
- Weak Support - ChipFan111 m·b·c·e 13:02, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Very Strong Support - SupraRZmk4 (M·C·E·A·L·B) qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm 13:14, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - I'm supposed to be retired but this proposal is so important that I just had to vote and leave a message. I'll list every user with rights that I believe should be demoted:
Bureaucrats
AMK152: Even though he has been here for over 12 years he has been inactive in recent years and has admitted on his user page that he is busy in real life. People however say that "bureaucrats can't demote other bureaucrats" however Fandom staff like Spongebob456 which can demote him in necessary.
Admins
Really there is noi one is this position I'll like demoted.
====Assistants====l Same thing with the admin section.
Rollbacks
I don't see anyone who should be demoted.
Discussion moderators
A few people that should be demoted here:
Qwertyxp2000 the second: Has been really inactive and hasn't contributed for a while now.
TheNerdyGirl05: I have many reasons here, first of all, she has never used her chat moderator powers as in her contributions she has never made one chat waring and has even once warned herself with the template even if as a joke it is not allowed.
Chat moderators
They'll get demoted anyway so no need for a discussion here. Paccar M·B·C·L·E 14:42, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - I mostly agree with you except for a few things:
Reply - I mostly agree with you except for a few things:1. I don't think AMK should be demoted as of now because it would be best for this wikis if he just became active again. I also think that just being busy is not really a reason to demote, and I can't imagine an ESB wihtout him. If he does end up getting demoted, I hope eventually he'll get repromoted somehow.
2. While I'm generally okay with the administration, I think some might not be eligible for them though I think they're pretty good right now.
3. Yeah, about warning yourself. Well, I saw other moderators do that for light reasons (such as Idroppedmypen) and it didn't seem to impact them much, so I don't think it should go on Nerdy's list of reasons for demotion (though I do think she should not have her rights as she's basically cluttering the list of mods rn)
That's pretty much it. Other than that, fully agree on who should get the boot. --Nathan Pirate (talk) 22:13, October 3, 2020 (UTC)Nathan Pirate
- Reply - Rollbacks and chat moderator rights will not be up for review if this proposal passes. Rollbacks have never been a part of user rights reviews, and chat moderators were intentionally excluded as their role will become redundant at some point soon anyway. --The gamer 987654321 (talk) 18:24, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - GoldenSpongebob (M•C•E) 14:31, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - ChickenkrispiesW C E 14:41, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - 0fflinejoe (W•C•E)
- Support - Still surprised that this actually made it to voting. Louis219 (W•C•E) 16:32, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Jfro8461 (talk) 18:24, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Support - 22:15, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I generally disagree with this proposal. -Arthur Read fan (talk) 22:44, October 3, 2020 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I generally disagree with this proposal. -- Support - It's about time we bring this back, and for great reasons. SuperjaedeeW C E 01:14, October 4, 2020 (UTC)
- Extremely Strong Support - We need this back. CartoonGuy M·C·E October 4, 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I still don't see the point of these. Anyone who falls to inactivity will be removed in six months anyway; having these reviews every six months with the main purpose of removing inactive crew members is kinda redundant. And if any crew member is actually doing something demotion-worthy, a regular URR can be created for them - but that is exceptionally rare. Figmeister (W•C•E) 21:03, October 4, 2020 (UTC)