Blog:Qualitipedia staff expectations and changes

I apologize for the blog being slightly messy; it will be cleaned up, but I wanted to get my thoughts out in the meantime before they're refined and become more official.

Expectations
These are things I hope to be seeing now from anyone who is an admin and/or bureaucrat. To an extent I've already enforced them when issues came to me; they will be enforced more going forward. This is all purely in my role as a bureaucrat, in case people are wondering if this is connected to my stewardship.
 * Blocks as last resort; unless we're looking at spam, vandalism, extreme disruption or long term abuse in clear definition, a warning should always be given first and clearly prominent on the talk page, then used as a reference to block with continued misbehavior. Users should be able to appeal to their talk pages when further action is taken, again except for the first conditions.
 * Likewise any sanction should be made clear and avoid insulting, demeaning or otherwise 'fueling' the sanctioned user. Being professional is ideal. If you feel you cannot do that, have someone else issue the warning/block. Again, warn for anything that is minor in nature; blocks based on immediate drama should be very short and only used as time to clean up the given section (comments, talk, page) before they're lifted and an in-line warning is issued not to continue.
 * Suspected sockpuppetry frankly should not be prominently displayed off the bat. Multiple staffers should take a look and see if the case is credible before putting it towards the user, unless it is extremely and immediately obvious. Avoid paranoia and instead assess the situation more completely before acting. Better to make sure before ending up with a spectacle that requires special bureaucrat intervention to fix. Speaking of which, if it is indeed sockpuppetry, it's best to also get a bureaucrat and ideally multiple involved to be sure.
 * Specifically do not block first time offenses for adding categories to blogs (give guidance on what is best, ie, categories that should be used on blogs if any) or for undoing an admin's edit (if it was in error, enter discussion immediately and take further action if they don't listen). These examples are very heavy handed and likely to be overturned on appeal if the appellant has a compelling argument. Check with someone else if unsure.
 * When deleting pages, check the history to see if moving to a sandbox would be appropriate. Laziness is grounds for another admin or a bureaucrat to come in, restore the page, and move it to a suitable place. In other words, missing this step can easily cause more work in due process. If the page is completely out of scope, has barely anything to salvage or is genuinely problematic (vandalism, extreme content), by all means wipe it out. If a clear 'first editor' to move to sandbox for cannot be found, deletion is appropriate as well - users can request to restore and move it later.
 * In general, take a step back and review a given situation. See if good faith can be applied, and then do so. If it is more complicated, get another opinion or at least take more time to consider. Be wiser, in other words. Hasty action has been the source of many, many issues on QP.

These are the general points that come to mind as issues.

For users
Admins are expected to handle themselves well, but if users do not follow these things, issues will happen and the admin will not necessarily be at fault. Users should follow these things for best results, as well as best chances at favorable appeal if an admin takes action on them.
 * Clear edit summaries: explain what you did and why, to reduce chances for admin reversion/action.
 * Escalate calmly: do not make a dramatic mess, be uncivil to the blocking/warning admin, or spread the issue to multiple places at once. Discuss with the admin in question if they leave a formal message. Avoid doing the same things that caused issue initially, or request a review if you think the initial request was not reasonable (namely, from a more senior admin if applicable or from a bureaucrat, first in the warning message on your talk page either way).
 * Remain civil: admins can remove comments, edits and talk page messages if they go too far to incivility. Address the argument, not so much the person; keep your points as clean as possible; if an admin is being unreasonable and other admins have not stepped in, message someone such as me to take a look. Again, all to reduce disruption and fix things cleanly.

Changes
These are current plans to know at the moment.
 * Ultimately, Cancelled Movies Wiki is largely dead, does not contribute to QP's structure at all, has been ignored by every staffer including me and is a draw from other wikis that do the same or more but better. Thus I no longer recognize it as a QP member wiki. I am not closing it and anyone who wishes to do things there are free to.
 * We're still in a transition period, so I don't intend to go all out on admins who are a bit behind the curve with above expectation. If I could summarize all this in a sentence, it is: 'be reasonable and ask if you're not sure'.
 * I welcome the input of any member, admin and certainly fellow bureaucrat in this process. I've largely gone about changes on my own for lack of engagement and I would rather see that change, getting admins involved even for criticism where they disagree or think what I am asking or doing is not reasonable.
 * The big things, in three parts: a) I plan to make the  role useful as a low level position for people to help keep things sane on QP for local wikis, but it is not ready to be used; b) certain users/admins will become admins across QP to support larger changes and respond where they're needed; and c) admins who don't wish to be this involved or aren't necessarily suited for it, can and will remain admins where they are as long as they have some activity on wikis where they hold rights, follow conduct expectations and don't negatively affect the wikis they're on.

For the moment I am taking on responsibility for overseeing all staffing matters including 'network admins', the distinction of 'local admin' and the development of 'moderator'. I apologize for the messiness of this blog; it is transparency until something more clear is constructed, as well as something to keep the ball moving. It will likely be updated for clarity, which is why I don't plan to advertise it too far immediately.

In the meantime anyone interested in being more involved in this process especially for the development of QP staffing, is free to volunteer and I'll give them a honest chance based on their current contributions.