The wiki is currently undergoing some major improvements. If you need some information and you don't know where to look, please come to #ecnet
Difference between revisions of "Operator abuse committee"
m (User:Aristeo/Oper Abuse Committee moved to Oper Abuse Committee: Showed it to Heero, I think he's alright with it, and I showed it to ClaireBear, she said she was -- seems official to me!)
Revision as of 04:47, 18 November 2007
The oper abuse committee investigates possible misuse or abuse of network operator authority. The lead network administrator appoints a chairperson for the committee, who acts as its representative and director and can appoint committee members to assist.
The following is a list of the current members of the oper abuse committee in order of seniority. The chairperson is listed on the top of the list in bold.
The following is the charter issued by the general consortium. This charter outlines the rights and responsibilities of the members of the committee, the chairperson of the committee, and the committee as a whole.
A team dedicated to looking at abuse of IRC operator authority. The team chair is appointed and dismissed by the lead network administrator. The chair of this team may appoint whomever is willing to this team. The chair may order investigations into operator power abuse. Once these investigations have been completed, the team votes whether or not the incident should require disciplinary action or if it was not operator abuse or too minor to be concerned with. In this vote majority rules, and the results will usually follow the following scheme, though at the discretion of the chair they may vary. On first offense, warning and censure with a required apology to the user suffice. On the second offense, the team chair will take it up with the admin of the operator in question and ask for a temporary o:line revocation as well as censure. On the third offense there is no option, a two week o:line revocation is mandatory. On the fourth offense it is at the chairs discretion as to what actions should be taken, up to a full o:line revocation. Operators and users should be warned, lying to an abuse team member when being questioned during an investigation is considered perjury, and will result in a 30 day ban or removal of operator privileges. To submit an incident, email firstname.lastname@example.org
The oper abuse committee will accept requests for investigations from anyone, and the chairperson will decide whether the committee has jurisdiction over the case. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that the oper in question is informed about the case against him and who is accusing him, and that both the oper in question and the complainant are informed of whether the case will be heard.
All committee members will hear a case, excluding any recusals or personal leaves. Any committee member who feels they have any conflict of interest or personal involvement in the case must recuse themselves from participating in the investigation and final decision. If the chairperson is unable to investigate a case due to a recusal or personal leave, the powers and responsibilities of the chairperson will be transferred to the most senior eligible committee as the acting chairperson until the end of the case.
Participants in a case with the oper abuse committee, including third parties, may present their initial statements and their evidence to the chairperson or a delegate chosen by the chairperson through e-mail. This person will forward the information to the other committee members as soon as possible. All evidence must be verifiable through redundant logs or trusted sources, and parts of a user's initial statement or items of evidence may be discarded if, in the opinion of the committee, it cannot be verified or trusted.
During the course of an investigation, all statements made to the abuse committee will be made under penalty of perjury under our network charter. Any users caught lying to an abuse committee member under his or her official capacity will be g:lined for a fixed term of 30 days. Before an interview, the abuse committee members should inform the user about this penalty and also inform the user that assisting the investigation is completely optional.
The chairperson will give everyone at least one week to present their statements and initial evidence between the opening of the investigation and the deliberations of the committee.
Once the chairperson determines that the investigation has been completed, she will choose whether it is necessary to have informal discussions with each of the committee members one-by-one or to have a formal meeting with all of the eligible committee members in a private room, choosing the latter if the case may become controversial. The chairperson will send an announcement to all committee members whenever the need for a meeting arises and may choose to do so at any time before the final decision has been announced.
If the chairperson chose to have informal discussions, then she will make the final decision herself based on the input of the committee members, and if she chose to have a formal meeting, then she will help construct a final decision with the other committee members. The final decision will include general and relevant statements on policy called "Principles", findings specific to the investigations of the case called "Findings of fact", and binding decrees on what should be done called "Resolutions".
Once the final decision is written down in draft form, each item will require a simple majority of the participating committee to pass. The resulting vote count will be noted next to the respective item. In the event that no items gain the required support, no decision will be made and no actions will be taken. The chairperson will close the meeting once, in her opinion, the decision has been compiled.