Board Thread:Site Problems and Appearance/@comment-8161155-20160703100729

I think we ought to enact some actual rules defining exactly what "corrupt" is and what we can do about it. This guessing game is not working, as everytime someone wants a vote, they get it, and then we split over the same issue we've been splitting over three times already.

I've made some sample rules here. Read them and tell me if you agree.

First, let's try and define "abuse of power"

An abuse of power is: After all, we elected them to be reasonable and know when to use their executive powers.
 * An admin neglecting to hear an overwhelming voice in the community.
 * This is not an admin doing something without holding a vote. This is an admin refusing to undo an action after the community holds a vote (which follows the rules of voting, being a week long, etc.) requesting that action. Note that the vote must indicate a general consensus for an admin to be obliged to do something. If the vote is tipped by only a couple of users, the admin still holds the right to upheld its previous decision as it sees fit.
 * An admin always has the right to hold full power over votes in minor decisions such as renames, image changes and page creations and deletions.

Now, on voting for big things like admins, demotions and big wiki changes (such as locking of pages, etc.)


 * A vote must indicate a general consensus. I would say at least two thirds of the votes be in favor for the action to be taken. Also, enough users must participate. I would say not a specific number, but enough prominent users to represent the wikia. A vote with three users voting is not valid.
 * The vote must be at least a week long.
 * Only users with 100 edits or more may vote.
 * When presenting reasons for demotion, a specific reason must be given, with appropriate links to the incident. "Abuse of power" is not specific.
 * If a motion does not pass, we must wait a certain amount of time (I'm thinking six months?) before we attempt the motion again with the same evidence. So, if someone tries to demote an admin because the admin is locking pages without the community vote and the community votes no on demotion, another vote cannot be held even if the admin continues to lock pages. However, if the admin starts banning random users without cause, we can hold another vote with this as evidence.

Please reply with some suggestions to these rules, other rules we should have that I might have missed, or whether you think we should have these at all. This isn't a voting thread; if this gets enough support, we may make one with revised rules. 