Forum:Discussion - Motions of (no) Confidence

First off, I want to stress that this topic is not for the discussion of any particular ongoing motion of confidence or no confidence that is either going on now, or may appear in the near future. This thread is on idea of them at all and to discuss if and when these should be called, and what restrictions should be placed on these. Keep any comments to any particular Confidence vote to the relevant thread.

I'm concerned that now the door has been opened to these votes that they may be abused in the future, with small disputes that may or may not involve the vault spilling over into a vendetta motivated vote of confidence. Whilst I think removing admins who consistently abuse their powers is something that is desirable I believe there need to safeguards to ensure that these votes in turn are not abused.

I know the removal of admin privileges has been a controversial issue on some Wikias (particularly following the new skin)

There is no vote here, just looking to take the temperature of the community. What requirements, if any, do you believe should be in place for these votes?

Just some possible questions/ideas to get you started:
 * Should they perhaps be automatically called with any temp-ban a admin receives (like a navy captain gets a court martial when their ship is sunk)?
 * Should these votes be reviewed by a disinterested admin (or perhaps a tribunal of admins) before the community gets to vote?
 * Should the community get to vote at all? Should this just be done by Admins?
 * Should the community have the ability to call these at will? If so, how many community members should be required to agree before a vote is called?

Agent c 00:47, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Its a very extreme and unusual situation to have a vote like this at all, and if one is really required, I'm sure Ausir will make sure things are handled in the appropriate way. BILLYOCEAN 00:51, June 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agent C is correct in bringing this up, regardless of the outcome of what is happening presently. A precedents has been set in a manner of speaking and needs to be discussed if any action or outlines need to be put in place. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png

Personally, I would like to see a well-defined ruleset for both users and admins. For example, when I was temporarily banned by Tagaziel, I really did try to find some kind of ruleset as to assert whether or not I had broken any - I simply wasn't sure. This creates a climate where users don't know what admins are allowed to do or not to do, let alone what rules they are expected to follow. But more importantly, it leaves admins themselves uncertain as to how to best enforce a given situation. What is the punishment for abusing your stature of adminhood? What even constitutes abuse?

The going system is basically a popularity contest; You see it even now, as people basically say "I have had no problems with him, so I'm going to vote to keep him as Admin". If someone breaks the rules, they should be punished. At the very least, a vote should be held not as to whether or not to assert if someone should be kept as an Admin, but whether or not a rule has been broken. The first is a popularity contest where you weigh the merits of a person to determine their net "worth", which is by itself at best a farce and at worst, degrading to the person(s) concerned. The second is simply a trial by jury - a concept I am generally opposed to in and of itself, but would be far more appropriate in this context (i.e. the Wikia project).

If any form of arbitrationary system should be maintained, it should most definitely not be only amongst Admins, since often, cliques have a tendency to form. It is only natural that friends with shared interests gravitate towards similar projects, or that people working on shared projects eventually becomes friends. Furthermore, I oppose a system of Administrationary "Seconders", firstly because it ties into the issue of "clique"-ness mentioned earlier, where admins may simply not want to second a motion by a member or another admin; Secondly because it could result in situations where you basically pit one small group of influential admins against another "party" of Admins; Thirdly because in essence, a new "lowly" member that may not have done something wrong, but yet subjected to the whimsical anger of any one particular Admin, may simply not have garnered the support or the connections to effectively enforce a situation of Vote of no Confidence.

And yes, I do like to make words up. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann 16:10, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Luckmann, have you seen these? http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/The_Vault:Administration_policy and http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/The_Vault:User_conduct_guideline BILLYOCEAN 20:12, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed through them and found them woefully inadequate as a ruleset. At best, it's a set of loose guidelines. There's nothing wrong with loose guidelines, but they tend to veer heavily on the "loose". Also, there are exactly two rules, both pertaining to administrators, both having nothing to do with abuse of any kind, only editing disputes. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann 11:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the best way is for bureaucrats to start votes of no confidence after a request from the community and reviewing the situation. Porter and Ausir are reliable, neutral people and they showed time and time again that they act in an unbiased, balanced manner, so they can be trusted with such responsibility. I also believe that the current set of rules and guidelines is adequate. They are based on common sense and are easy to understand and follow, however, since most users aren't familiar with them nor even know they exist, inventing a large Vault Codex will not increase awareness, quite to the contrary. Last, Wikia is not a public service, it is a private enterprise, so it has absolutely no obligation to be perfectly fair and just. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 15:12, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument that something, be it a forum or a wiki or a site, has no obligation to be fair or just is a common one. While this is entirely true in a legal sense, it's not necessarily so in a moral sense. In my opinion, everything has a moral obligation to at least attempt to be perfectly fair and just. It's untenable to argue such in a judicial sense, of course - but no one would do so to begin with. You also argue that the going guidelines are based on common sense, but as we have seen, the common adage that "common sense is not so common" rings fairly true. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann 17:26, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of users on the Vault have no problem understanding these rules or following them, which means that common sense is, in fact, quite common among the people using this wiki. Those who cannot understand or follow them are in a miniscule minority and usually end up banned. Furthermore, morality is subjective. No universal morality or moral obligations exist, and those that claimed they do, ended up murdering millions (eg. Nazis, Soviets, Red Khmers etc.). http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 17:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice potshot and attempt to derail there, especially since none of those believes/believed in objective morals. I also didn't argue that anyone would have problems understanding rules, but rather my point was that "common sense" means radically different things to different people. If your interpretation of "common sense" was the same as everyone elses, not only would all moral or legal discourse be incredibly droll, but we also wouldn't be having discussions like this to begin with. I maintain that the rules as is are ill defined and open to abuse, whether a system of motions of no confidence are in place or not. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann 01:52, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tagaziel. Having a recall process that can be initiated by anyone is just asking to be abuse. Going through Ausir or Porter, the abuse can be eliminated; and all one needs to do is to post a message on the talk page of one or the other, and let them decide if the admin's behavior warrants a recall vote, or even an immediate demotion. -- 15:39, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets stay on track here, this topic is about "Motions of (no) Confidence" and not the rule set for admins. The discussion about the rules by which admins follow is a different topic that should be discussed separately. So lets keep this discussion about the issue raised and not use it as a soap box for other issues. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 18:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing against them. The only time they'll succeed is if an admin is genuinely deserving of it. Someone with a vendetta's only going to get two or three no votes while every other Vault resident throws up a yes. I&#39;m the best at space!

Should we start an adminship reconfirmation every time an admin is blocked? Maybe, perhaps we really should. Should admins review the motion before community starts voting? Maybe, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Should only admins vote? Absolutely not! Admin powers are given after an open pool. Everyone can vote for or against. So everyone has his/her right to vote when someones admin status is been reviewed. veryblackraven Talk 14:19, June 9, 2011 (UTC)