User:TheGunny2.0/Sandbox

Statement of the Problem
The site "Nukapedia" currently exists in a state of relatively high disfunction centered around a high level of toxicity between individual users, discontent between users and administration, as well as conflict within the administration itself.

Background
Nukapedia (the The Vault) was founded as a wiki. At first, the focus was almost solely on the contributions of users to content in the wiki mainspace, with little to no social interaction beyond article and user talk page discussions related to improvement of articles or the administration of the site in regards to the presentations and preservations of those articles. Slowly, over time, more social interaction aspects were added, such as forums for general game discussion topics, user blogs, chat, the discussions module and finally a discord server. As each more socially focused feature was introduced, the administration was required to expand to preform one of their basic functions: maintain compliance with established site policies. Even though the new functions we also used to help facilitate contributions to the main article space, as each function was introduced the focus of these features became more and more on social interaction of a more general nature rather than wiki centric. At each iteration, the site became less wiki and more social hub, with the need to introduce new policies administration roles to cover each aspect of the new social features. The administrative burden correspondingly grew, as well as the size of the administrative team, at the same time as the user base grew using those new features.

Where in the beginning, almost all active users contributed in some form or the other to the main article space, new classes of users came to be that focused solely on the new features. Many users only commented on blogs, talked in chat, posted in discussions or chatted in discord without contributing to the article space. This much larger pool of users did generate a number of users that then became interested in the article space and contributed in other areas of the wiki, and in general, added to the growing community of users overall. Some of those became interested in joining in the moderation of the areas of the wiki they were active in, be that chat, discussion or discord. As a result, and because of the need, the administration team grew. What used to be the need to have a relatively small number of administrators who were handed tools on an as needed basis became a much larger team, or teams, with specialized needs and tools. This expansion of users and administrators resulted in the need for additional policies that moved from mainly focused on guidelines for editing to ensure consistency within articles to conduct policies that were then tailored to the different aspects of the site, i.e. conduct policies for editors, chat, discussions and discord. As the number of administrators grew, the policies governing them also grew, from outlining specific requirements for rights, creating new classes of rights holders, to activity requirements to keep those rights.

As is common in any organization, as the number of people involved rose, differences in personality, styles and goals also rose. While a smaller group of users found it easier to find consensus on issues, the larger, more numerous groups that developed around different elements of the site created situations where competing or differing opinions, solutions and courses of action made it much more difficult to find consensus simply by talking issues out. It became the norm for rights to be granted by formal request, as opposed to being granted by consensus as needed. It became the norm for almost all issues, especially policy issues, to be determined by a formal discussion and vote process in the same way. Where it was less difficult to decide a course of action in the past, it became a more burdensome process whereby whole elements of the site began to feel underrepresented. Factions within elements began to grow widening the gap between groups of users with like-minded ideas and goals. Rather than edit wars between editors over page content, which could readily be resolved either by application of editing guidelines, new policy or gaining consensus, the site began to see policy wars where users with different ideas and goals worked against each other without clear policies to resolve the conflicts. These conflicts between individual users, groups of users and entire elements of the site were further exacerbated by the split in 2011, the addition of chat, the addition of the discussions module, the discussion over site hosting and the resulting discord server that was stood up in the midst of that and the merging of the site back with The Vault.

The growth of the site through all this created a cycle of inter-user and inter-element conflict that ebbs and flows. Differing groups and individuals created cliques that evolved into sometimes opposing ideals, goals and agendas. These cliques came into conflict with other cliques, creating a lot of ill will and questionable conduct at times. Cults of personality, voting cabals, backroom dealings, wholesale collusion became more and more prevalent. Not all of the ideas, goals and agendas were malicious, while some were. Some were simply groups or individuals expressing a difference of opinions that were met by resistance from those who differed. The most malicious actually took bad actions with the intent to harm others, their reputations or standing, even to the extent of harming them in real life.

Throughout these cycles of user conflict, the site or sometimes individual elements within the administration or the site as a whole attempted to remedy these issues. This most often was presented as changes in policy, or individuals making the attempt to act unilaterally or in groups to effect the changes they perceived were needed. Often times, the changes sought ended up adding to the core problems. Policy changes could not alone effect what was a fundamental structure problem, manifested as a problem with individual users or groups of users struggling with the structure that was dysfunctional.

Current Situation
It is my belief that the essential problems that result in this cycle of user conflict are structural in nature. Yes, there are problems with the policies, and certainly problems with individual users. But problems in policy and with individual users should be easy to remedy. Individual users can be disciplined and policies can be changed. Both have been done frequently. Neither has remedied the problem. The problem is a more systematic problem centered around the structure of the site, and it's subordinate functions. At it's core, the site is a collection of users who create and maintain a wiki, create discussions related to the core subject of the wiki and interact socially in discord with others, whether on wiki related issues or more generally in a more loose social structure. Each of these elements has a core group of users, with crossover, that require differing tools to administrate. One can identify a number of concerns from these elements, some shared, some not:


 * 1) Some users feel a lack of representation in the administration of the site.
 * 2) Some users feel distrust of the motivations and/or actions of site administration.
 * 3) Some users feel distrust of the motivations and/or actions of other users.
 * 4) Some users feel there are unresolved interpersonal conflicts that have a detrimental effect on the site/users.
 * 5) Some users feel that interpersonal conflicts that bleed from offsite have a detrimental effect on the site/users.
 * 6) Some users feel that there are groups, cliques, cabals etc. with nefarious ideals, goals and/or agendas.
 * 7) Some users feel personally targeted by these various groups.
 * 8) Some users have experienced attempts to defame or harm them, online and in their personal offline lives.
 * 9) Some users feel a reluctance to contribute or engage socially from fear of being targeted.
 * 10) Some users feel a high level of frustration at the high level of toxicity and either have or are considering leaving.
 * 11) Some users actively pursue ideas, goals and agendas with the intent to harass, harm, defame or drive other users away.
 * 12) Some users actively pursue ideas, goals and agendas with the intent to cause harm the site itself, either for their own gain, or simply to cause mayhem.

Any solution to the structural problems must attempt to address all of these issues. While there are a number of remedies that could be taken on some of the above problems on a individual basis, e.g. a user that threatens another in discord may be banned, there are more systematic problems outlined above that have no easy remedy in policy alone. Policy only works when it is clearly understood and fairly and consistently administered. It is often the case where policy is not clearly understood, whether it is fair or not is subjective and there are limited mechanisms to ensure it is administered consistently. But no matter how well policy is written or administered, it can not always effectively limit the negative experiences user have. Policy can not engender trust in others. Policy can not stop bad actors from causing harm to others. Policy can not resolve personal conflicts. Something more fundamental than changes in policy must occur to address the issues users feel are problematic.

Proposed Solutions
It is proposed to fundamentally reorder the structure of Nukapedia to more adequately align that structure with the actual nature of what the current site is. Each element of the site, the wiki, the discussions module, and the discord server, should be allowed to operate within their own sphere, as each has it's own culture, environment, needs and population, while operating under the umbrella of an overall structure of basic tenets for the site as a whole. A structure like this should enable users to more feel ownership of the respective part of the site they frequent. There is a sentiment that wiki-centric admins who do not frequent discussions or discord should not wield authority over users in those elements. That sentiment is correct. Users should feel that the administrators who wield powers over them should be trusted, that they have their best interests in mind and are representative of their needs. A change of this nature can go a long way to mitigating issues #1 and #2.

To effect a change like this, there needs to be a delineation between the tools granted to rights holders and the actual position held by users in a leadership position. Tools should always be granted on an as-needed basis. The idea that the granting of tools gives puts a user in a position of leadership is incorrect. Positions of leadership should also be granted on an as-needed basis, but the requirements of any particular user to need tools and those in a leadership position are fundamentally different. The administrative structure needs to be changed to reflect this reality.

So what does leadership look like? The following is a list of the United States Marine Corps' 11 leadership principles and 14 leadership traits. While made for military leadership, the general idea is the same in any structure where leadership is important. You can simply replace the word "Marine" with the words "employee" or "editor" or "user". They all still apply. It's a long read, but I feel it important to define what leadership looks like if I'm going to suggest a more leadership driven view rather than a rights view. I'll list them, but I'm going to change Marine to "User" so you can see the pertinence of each trait and principle. You can read detailed explanations for each User:TheGunny2.0/Sandbox/Leadership.

The 11 Leadership Principles

 * 1) Be Technically and Tactically Proficient
 * 2) Know yourself and seek self-improvement
 * 3) Know Your Users (Marines) and Look Out for Their Welfare
 * 4) Keep your Users (Marines) Informed
 * 5) Set the Example
 * 6) Ensure the Task is Understood, Supervised, and Accomplished
 * 7) Train Your Users (Marines) as a Team
 * 8) Make Sound and Timely Decisions
 * 9) Develop a Sense of Responsibility in Your Subordinates
 * 10) Seek Responsibility and Take Responsibility for Your Actions
 * 11) Employ Your Users (Unit) in Accordance With their (its) Capabilities

The 14 Leadership Traits

 * 1) Justice
 * 2) Judgment
 * 3) Dependability
 * 4) Initiative
 * 5) Decisiveness
 * 6) Tact
 * 7) Integrity
 * 8) Enthusiasm
 * 9) Bearing
 * 10) Unselfishness
 * 11) Courage
 * 12) Knowledge
 * 13) Loyalty
 * 14) Endurance

It is not my intention to suggest that a military structure be imposed on a gaming website. These leadership principles and traits are much more universal than that, and can work in any environment where good leadership is desired. It is my belief that Nukapedia, more than anything, needs good leadership. Every single reported problem area can be overcome if the site can instill the proper principles and traits of good leadership in both the leadership teams and in the users themselves.

Proposed Changes in Administrative Structure
One way in which a lot of the perceptions of lack of representation and distrust of administrators can be corrected is by getting rid of the current process of users reaching certain arbitrary milestones to become eligible to request extra rights and then holding a popularity vote to grant them. There is no discussion of the users qualities other than if they meet those arbitrary edit or post numbers, which do not demonstrate anything about the user's leadership skills. Not even considering that those edit or post count may quickly become out of line with current normal levels of activity of the site as a whole, all they do is demonstrate activity. They are quantitative, not qualitative. The content of wiki edits may show some need for the extra tools that come with extra rights positions, but that is part of the problem. Extra rights grant certain tools to users. If it were just editing tools, that would be one thing. But some of those tool sets grant the power to ban or block users and delete content. Those powers demand a more thorough examination of an applicant than simple post or edit counts, and should never be granted through a popularity vote that is too easily swayed. An admin request vote that is 11-10 is not a consensus. The idea that tools grant powers need to go away. Site leadership needs to be determined by consensus with the only requirement being if the person being considered has displayed the proper leadership qualities that people can trust, trust them with the power to block and delete.

I've tried to look at many different ways the leadership of Nukapedia could be structured so that is can attain this ideal, without falling into the traps of popular votes determined by different cliques based on their "like" or "dislike" of a candidate and also avoiding granting powers to users who display a use for extra tools, but not the qualities of a good leader. At some point, when it comes to ratifying decisions on site policy, blocking users and deleting content/comments, there has to be a level of trust in those who have those powers. Trust must be placed somewhere, because those duties must be performed. After considering many different models, I believe there is one that does the most to fill the needs of the community and will help to mitigate a number of the perceived failing the current system displays.

It is proposed that each element of Nukapedia, the wiki, discussions and discord, have it's own dedicated support team tailored to, and representative of, those particular users and their needs. Each each support team will be solely responsible for the administration of policy only within their sphere of focus, e.g. the discussions support team shall be fully responsible for administering the discussions forum in compliance with established site policies and ONLY the discussions support team, while having no authorities to administer any part of the site other than discussions.

Each support team will be represented on a council by a single member of that team holding the position of Team Counselor, with the Team Counselor of the other two teams. This council will hold the authorities and task of making consensus on all issues that directly effect at least 2 or more elements of the entire site. All other issues and administrative tasks shall be dealt with by users and the support team of the element effected, e.g. the decision to add a discord channel should only be determined by consensus within discord between the discord users and the discord support team, without any input from the other elements or support teams from discussions or the wiki.

The support team of each element shall have the ability to enact policy and make changes within their own element, after consensus is made with the users of that element.