Forum:Change to rollback rights requests

As a bureaucrat on The Sims Wiki, I and the other bureaucrats are sometimes expected to weigh in on the possibility of promoting new rollbackers through the RFR process. The RfR process gives the bureaucrats a large degree of discretion when deciding whether users are or are not qualified to take on rollback rights. The assent or refusal of a single bureaucrat can decide whether a user will ultimately be promoted. Rollbackers on The Sims Wiki are given access not only to the rollback tool – which is itself a powerful tool for fighting vandalism – but are also the only non-administrators allowed to use the warning template, and are the only users eligible to be nominated for administrator rights. It seems to me that allowing a single bureaucrat to control who is or is not allowed to access these rights and privileges may ultimately be misguided. However, at the same time, I do not feel that RfRs need to become fully drawn-out community discussions, as RfAs and RfBs are. Some kind of balance needs to be struck, I feel.

To this end, I would like to propose some changes to how the RfR process is handled on The Sims Wiki. My proposed changes would implement the requirement of two-administrator concurrence, a minimum waiting period, and an open call for dissent. I will outline each of these points below.

Currently, a single bureaucrat can promote a rollback nominee, without the requirement to consult with other bureaucrats, admins, or community members. Bureaucrats can also deny nominations without seeking input. The argument in favor of this power is that bureaucrats, being long-established and experienced members of the wiki, are the most able to judge which users are or are not ready to and capable of exercising the rights and responsibilities given to rollbackers. I feel that administrative and bureaucratic input is still invaluable in determining whether a nominee/applicant should be promoted, but we should not rely on the analysis of a single person. I would like for us to adopt a standard of two-administrator concurrence.
 * Two-administrator concurrence

After a request is made or a nomination is accepted by the nominee, a member of the administrative team will need to support the application/nomination on the RfR page. Before promotion can continue, a second administrator/bureaucrat must concur with the first administrator on the RfR page as well.

There is no rule in place now preventing a bureaucrat from immediately accepting an RfR nomination once it is placed on the page. This means that a nominee, who may be opposed by some members of the community or even other administrators, can still be promoted before those other users have been given a suitable chance to weigh in. In many instances in the past, users applying for rollback rights have been granted those rights mere minutes or hours after the application is put in, often before others even realize the rights have been requested. As a result, I believe it would be idea to implement a mandatory waiting period following the period of two-administrator concurrence.
 * Waiting period

After the second administrator concurs with the nomination, a 72-hour countdown will begin. The applicant/nominee cannot be promoted before this period has ended.

A consequence of the fact that rollbackers are promoted directly by bureaucrats, is that regular users don't have any actual control over who is or is not promoted. Additionally, even if we enforce a waiting period before promotion, that is no guarantee that a bureaucrat will not simply promote the user regardless of community input. We should strike a balance between holding a full community discussion for nominations that are essentially a solid lock, and those that might warrant further scrutiny. So, to aid in this process, I would like for us to allow dissent to a nomination during the assigned waiting period.
 * Call for dissent

After the beginning of the waiting period, any user may dissent to the nomination, and provide a justification for doing so. If a dissent is recorded, the 72-hour period will end, and the RfR will instead be handled like an RfA. A discussion in favor of or opposed to the nominee will begin, and will last at least five days from the time of the dissent. If no users dissent to the nomination within three days, the nomination will be approved.


 * Additional points
 * What if two administrators agree that a nominee is not suitable? During the two-administrator concurrence stage, two administrators may agree that a user should not be promoted. I feel that it is important to allow administrators and bureaucrats to weigh in on these nominations; as a result, I feel that if two administrators concur on opposition, that the nomination will be closed and the user will not be promoted.
 * What if two administrators disagree? In the case of a disagreement between two administrators, it should proceed directly to an RfA-style discussion as outlined above; since it is evident that at least one user will in the end dissent to the nomination, it is pointless to start a 72-hour period in this case, and it should immediately progress to a discussion.
 * Can bureaucrats still refuse to promote? I would say that the answer in this case would be "no". This rule change would essentially take control of rollback promotions away from the bureaucrats. To that end, if the community supported (or did not dissent to) a nominee, that would have the force of community consensus; bureaucrats are expected to uphold community consensus, and failure to do that could have other consequences. Bear in mind as well that bureaucrats would be allowed to support or oppose and concur with either point during the two-administrator concurrence stage, and would also be allowed to dissent during the waiting period.

This reform is meant to strike a balance between community interests, by giving them the option to dissent, and administrative interests to support a nominee that is qualified or to oppose a nominee that isn't.

I look forward to any questions or discussion. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 18:38, October 15, 2015 (UTC)