PostI'm putting this forward as a response to low community participation on the wiki, and specifically in regards to rights requests.
In a nutshell, what I'm proposing is that we (at least temporarily, until/unless community activity picks up again) relax the procedures for how we select rollbackers and moderators.
Under the current system:
- Rollback requests require two-admin/bureaucrat approval and a 72-hour waiting period before they can be approved. If there is dissent to promotion by an admin/b'crat, or any community dissent, it triggers a discussion with a minimum period of five days.
- Content moderator requests always require a discussion and consensus with a minimum period of five days.
What I'm proposing:
- Rollback requests would be open to be approved/rejected immediately by an impartial bureaucrat. If a bureaucrat rejects an application, they must give a reason why. Rejected applicants would have no minimum wait time to submit new applications unless the admin team concurs on implementing a cooling-off, though this would be on a case-by-case basis only.
- Content moderator requests would be processed more like rollback requests are handled now. Mod applicants would need two members of the admin team to support it, and then a 5-day waiting period for community input. If there is no community objection, the user would be promoted. If there is dissent from any member of the admin team or the community, a discussion would take place. If two or more members of the admin team agree that the candidate is not ready/qualified, the application would be rejected. There would be no minimum wait time for re-application, but again, a cooling-off could be put in by the admin team on a case-by-case basis.
Rationale:
The procedures for appointing new rollbackers predate the creation of the content mod position. In the past, rollback was a prerequisite for applying for admin rights, so it was seen as beneficial to gatekeep the position somewhat, as well as simply to ensure that no obviously bad actors seek the position. But because rollback was a stepping stone to admin rights, the community would obviously have a vested interest in having the ability to weigh in on selection for that position.
Content moderator has essentially taken the place of rollback in terms of being the stepping stone to full admin. I think that it de-emphasizes the importance of rollback and makes it less a position to occupy, and more just about the specific tool it grants access to. Because of this, I feel that there is less of a need for full community input into the selection of rollbackers, and that bureaucrats can be trusted to make that selection with their own judgment.
As for the changes to content mod selection, this is more a reaction to the anemic participation in content mod discussions than anything else. Changing the content mod process to allow but not strictly require community input would allow the admin team to promote users that are obviously qualified even if there is no community engagement in the selection. But the procedure would allow community input if there was a desire to do so, so it does not take the power away from regular users to weigh in on content mod selection.
This post is mirrored on the Discord server's "wiki-forum" as allowed by the wiki's policy on Discord discussions. If approved by the community here and/or there, I will work to implement it into RfR and RfCM procedures.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Please let me know. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 19:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Relay from Discord conversation[]
The following entries are relayed from the mirrored conversation on the Discord server. Please do not add directly to this section.
From K6ka (originally posted at 22:18 15 June 2023 [UTC]):
- "I'm supportive of the changes to Rollback being permanent. Reason being is that, as you mentioned, with content moderator the role of rollback has diminished in importance. On the English Wikipedia it already isn't that big of a deal: it can be granted at any admin's discretion (no bureaucrat required, even). One bureaucrat's judgement on whether a user will misuse rollback should be sound.
- "For content moderator, I'm more hesitant on the proposed changes, as content moderators do have the ability to cause damage to the wiki, namely that they can delete pages (and view undeleted pages). I think it's a bad idea to allow people to view deleted pages without at least a community discussion establishing consensus (especially since there is sensitive content there that is deleted for a reason). Also, I think the discussion period should last 7 days, not 5. Reason being is that going for a full week makes it more likely that someone will have time to review the application. If I work 5 days a week, and all 5 of those days fall during the discussion period, I may not have time to even look at an application. Going for the full 7 days increases the likelihood that at least one day will fall on someone's day off. There is rarely an application that would ever need to be expedited to anything less than a week."
From LostInRiverview in response (originally posted at 01:07 16 June 2023 [UTC]):
- "On the topic of discussion length, I have no issues with a seven-day minimum rather than a five-day minimum period. On the topic of consensus for promotion, I have a slightly different but not altogether different view.
- "I think we have to get down to what is meant when we say "consensus," and it comes down to whether silence can be taken to imply consensus. Your issue with the proposal, if I'm understanding it correctly (and please tell me if I'm off-base here) is that you want to see "explicit" consensus - actual !votes by actual people showing support - before handing down these kinds of rights; it's not enough just to not have anyone object to the promotion. What the proposal is attempting to do, in essence, is to get to where we don't need explicit consensus, but to where we can proceed on "implied" consensus through the use of an open period where anyone can object to the promotion to trigger a full discussion. My intent isn't to bypass the community or take any ability away to weigh in or to stop promotions if they have issues with the candidate. That's why if *any user* objects to the promotion during the waiting period, it'd immediately trigger a full discussion which would be bound by the normal rules of consensus.
- "The intent of what I'm proposing is to streamline the process in cases where explicit consensus doesn't develop due to lack of participation and not due to opposition. If you look at the most recent completed RfM, there were only two participants in the discussion and only one person who gave actual support to the candidate. There was no opposition, so in the end it was deemed as meeting consensus, but it's a murky area at best whether one !vote constitutes robust explicit consensus for the promotion. The reason for the proposal I put forward is to allow the promotion of individuals that aren't opposed by anyone, even if there's a lack of participants who are outright supportive just due to lack of engagement in the process. The very last thing I'd want to do is create a situation where unfit individuals can be promoted (which is why there's a waiting period and one-user opposition built in in the first place), but I also don't want us to run into issues - as we nearly already have - where qualified candidates are turned down through sheer lack of involvement on the part of the community.
- "As an aside, and not necessarily as a direct response to k6ka; I also realize now that I didn't elaborate on what I meant by 'temporary' i.e. what did I mean? How long is "temporary?" My thinking is that we would adopt these new rules on an indefinite basis, but with the understanding that if/when community participation and activity picks up again, that they would be re-evaluated and subjected to scrutiny and consensus at that time. So, in essence, the rule changes would be present until the community wished for them not to be, but with the intent that they only remain in force until there's enough activity present to get away from the problems I've outlined above."
In light of the abuse of content moderator by KirbyPowerpuff1, I am opposed to relaxing the content moderator application process. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Closure[]
In light of recent events, and given the fact that only one other user actually participated in the discussion of this at all, I am withdrawing this proposal in its entirety. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 13:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)