User:Caius/Command-Mints

I'm working on some model rules; some more specific rules than the Community Standards. I think we need some more specific rules, which is what these are.

Preamble

1. RationalWiki was founded by a small group of friends, fellow-comrades in the fight for rationalism on Conservapedia. As the site grows, though, we must face the reality that we are now more than that, and users who come newly to this group deserve equal say in our governance. Therefore, the following principles aim to ensure the continued reign of terror the mob, properly guided by a series of rules of thumb concerning the most vital tasks of the wiki.
2. We (the undersigned) reaffirm RationalWiki's vital purpose as stated in the Community Standards; the same Community Standards, rather than superseded, are incorporated by reference into these rules.
3. Where a conflict between the two documents emerges, this document governs.

Specific Incorporation of Standards

The following Community Standards are specifically incorporated as written.

1. Standards of Behavior
2. Standards of Style
3. Site structure and Organization Standards
4. ("Blocking" is modified by these Rules)
5. Extended Information

Wiki-Authority

All users enjoy the ability to upload pictures, edit articles at will, move pages, and also the right to discuss issues on article talk pages.

RationalWiki, like all wikiprojects, delegates special authority to certain editors. These are include sysops (system operators), Bureaucrats, and Oversight users. The criteria for elevation to these posts, and the authority each entails, are listed below.

1. Sysop Elevation: A sysop may block users, and delete/restore pages. Sysops are given authority for a reason: to correct errors on the wiki, and to police and ensure the quality of its articles. Therefore, a new sysop should be elevated only upon majority agreement by the current sysops that one or more new sysop(s) is needed. The stipulated number of vacancies are then filled by nomination by the Mob, and vote: of the nominations, the sysop candidate with the most votes is elevated, a process which continues in order of supporting votes until all vacancies are filled.
2. Bureaucrat Elevation: A bureaucrat may change the user rights of any user, and rename users. Bureaucrats should also be added as needed, need being again judged by a majority of current bureaucrats. A new bureaucrat candidate must already be a sysop, have been a sysop for at least one month, and have been continuously active on the site for at least three months. The current bureaucrats must unanimously agree to the candidate's qualifications.
3. Oversight Elevation: An Oversight user may expunge diffs from the database. The ability to grant Oversight ability vests solely with the site owner; a bureaucrat, therefore, may not elevate herself (or any other user) to an Oversight role, unless the site owner gives permission, or if an emergency demands the same.
4. Mission Requirement: RationalWiki does not demand that users adhere to a particular ideology; therefore a sysop candidate need not agree with the RationalWiki mission to be elevated. However, abuse of sysop powers to disrupt the mission is cause for loss of the same powers. The same rule applies to a bureaucrat. However, an Oversight user must be in line with RationalWiki's mission.

Blocking Users

All RationalWiki users are presumed to be acting in good faith, even "wandals." Thus, the blocking policy is designed to warn users of a violation, give them a chance to correct it, and in general, give the user every benefit of the doubt.

Blocks should occur in units of time commensurate with the Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...), with users progressing in the sequence as offenses accrue. The unit of time used in the block - so long as it is in hours, minutes, or seconds - is up to the discretion of the blocking sysop. Suggested guidelines follow. For example a block ought to use a unit of time of...

• Seconds: to harass in the spirit of fun, or give a "shot across the bow" to an unruly user who breaches politeness in a cursory way.
• Minutes: to allow a user to "cool down" from a debate, turned nasty, or for minor deliberate wandalism.
• Hours: to punish a user for a major wandalism attack, or egregiously impolite behavior.

In general, the unit of time is selected for the offense, not the user: that is, a user who received a 5-hour block for a major offense does not next receive an 8-hour block, regardless of the magnitude of the offense.

Escalating a block beyond a period of hours (< 24) is an extreme measure. Such a block should be dealt out only if a user has received repeated warnings for a similar infraction. For intractable, repeatedly-warned, insultive recidivists, a general consensus of sysops may decide to elevate a user permanently to the "day"-length tier of Fibonacci sequence blocks (where day-length blocks, in order, are doled out for even minor offenses). This is a rare measure that can only be used, if the user is warned directly, on her talk page, of the possibility of the use of this "nuclear option."

An infinite, or multiple-year long block, is to be used only after attempts to warn a user of insultive, abusive behavior fail to correct the same, over a period of at least one month, and then only upon agreement of a majority of users voting over a 24-hour period.