Forum:CT:Update to review board recruitment and WP:Block

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Update to review board recruitment and WP:Block
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support both proposals. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 09:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Several months ago, it became clear that there is no public policy for removal from review boards. There is an internal process where fellow members of a board vote to remove someone, but no public record of what constitutes grounds for removal.

The biggest gap in policy is what happens if a review board member receives a block. Review board members are representatives of our community: members ask them to assist in writing articles, and are frequently turned to for interpreting policy such as WP:MOS and WP:LG. A member who has been blocked is, by definition, failing the community in some way, and shouldn't represent it.

My proposal is that this is to be added to Wookieepedia:Review board recruitment just above "I want to join a review board!": > 7. not currently be the subject of disciplinary action, including a block. Editors who have previously been blocked may apply (or reapply) once the disciplinary action/block has ended.

My second proposal is that this text is to be added to WP:BLOCK under the "Specific rules" subheading of "Rules and guidelines": > Any authorities and permissions will be revoked at the time of blocking, including review board membership, user rights, social media accesses and discord server privileges

Support proposal 1

  1. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 03:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. As said the proposal, a blocked user shouldn't be looked up to. Actions have consequences. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) RainbowRebellion2 (talk!) 03:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Fan26 (Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 03:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Herasoars (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. Wok142 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 09:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. This was a big miss and needs to be fixed asap. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. OOM 224 11:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 13:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. Rsand 30 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  13. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. —spookywillowwtalk 17:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  16. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  17. Dentface (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 09:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  19. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  20. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  21. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  22. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  23. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 22:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  24. Realised I hadn't voted haha Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 05:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1

Support proposal 2

  1. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. Actions have consequences. No one is immune, including board members. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 03:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) RainbowRebellion2 (talk!) 03:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Fan26 (Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  5. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) 03:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  6. Blocked users should not represent the site or the community. Herasoars (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  7. Wok142 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  8. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 09:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  9. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 09:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  10. Absolutely OOM 224 11:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 13:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  12. Rsand 30 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  13. I think it would be best to give the user in question a chance to appeal, as the blocking policy allows, but yeah, this is the way to go. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  14. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  15. —spookywillowwtalk 17:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  16. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  17. Dentface (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  18. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 12:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  19. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  20. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  21. Miki makes a fair point, but I do agree with Preem that power abuses can be tackles separately as well if they happen to arise. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 22:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  22. Manoof (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 05:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2

  1. There are certainly good intentions behind this proposal, but I can't support it for two reasons.
    First, I feel that this would be against the principle in WP:BLOCK: "Blocks are preventative rather than punitive measures, designed to stop disruption and enforce site policies." Automatic removal of board memberships or user rights would be, in many cases, simply an additional punishment. For example, if an user was blocked for something that had nothing to do with article reviewing, then why would it be necessary to remove them from EduCorps? Let the board decide.
    Second, this proposal is giving administrators additional power and taking it away from the community. As Luca said in the comments, a group of admins could remove another admin without consulting the community at all. I trust the current admins, but what if a future admin decides to abuse this rule? Power corrupts. Certainly, a blocked admin is very likely to be unfit for adminship, but it should be up to community to decide. A blocked board member could be undesirable in the board, but it should be up to the board to decide. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • While I definitely support the proposal, I have a question first. How would it work if the block was overturned per Wookieepedia:Administrative autonomy#Procedures for reversing an administrator's decision? Would the unfairly-blocked user get their roles back immediately, or would they have to re-apply? LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 08:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I suppose that would be common sense. Otherwise it would provide a loophole for any administrator to remove user rights without RFRUR and/or review board memberships without boards' decision. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Yeah logically that would be the case, if it was overturned for legitimate reasons. Should a situation like this come up, we can address it further. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 02:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • IIRC, the block message states to contact the blocking administrator if they wish to contest the block or have questions. How is a blocked user supposed to do that if they cannot access any way to communicate with that admin if they cannot access discord or social media? I'm not opposed to this as a whole, but that small part is conflicting. Perhaps discord access should remain active unless it's a permaban. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 14:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • They could still appeal on IRC or DMs on Discord. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 15:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Hi there! As an administrator on Community Central, I invite you to let users know they are welcome to appeal their blocks there. Not everything needs to stay on Wookieepedia, and Fandom's own Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy does state that users may appeal all bans on neutral ground such as Central. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 02:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
        • Ooh yeah that template should be edited to mention Community Central. Appealing there is kinda standard procedure nowadays anyway. OOM 224 10:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
          • Let me know if this works or should be tweaked. (That's the page that the block message links to.) Imperators II(Talk) 10:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
            • Made an additional tweak for clarity. Also we need to retire IRC since that's no longer under our control. OOM 224 11:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The proposed policy mention user rights. Does this mean that any bureaucrat or administrator would be immediately removed from their position if they're blocked for any reason? In my opinion, such actions should always be decided on WP:RFRUR, excluding indefinite and global blocks. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, if an admin or BC does something that results in a local block, they should indeed be removed from the position. We aren't above the same rules as the rest of the community. After that block the community can certainly revisit whether they want them in power or not, if they wish. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 04:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I think that the removal of an admin or a BC should always be discussed by the community. With these new rules, a group of admins could decide to remove another admin with only admins-consensus without having to confront the community about it. I am not saying that any current admin would do this with malicious intent, but technically nothing could stop them. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 09:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
        • We actually should codify how blocking an admin works. It honestly should come from the BCs, IMO, so only a BC could block an admin. Perhaps in a follow-up proposal to this one. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 11:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
          • Agreed that this should be codified. Since this loophole will likely be fixed in the near future, I can now support the proposal. Thanks. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 12:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)