Requests for Comment/Future of Wikicreators

There has been a bit of thought lately (mostly from me) that given the increase responsibility of wikicreators and that it's sort of changed from 100% technical role where trust was necessary to a role now that over time, the level of trust needed has decreased but the responsibilities have increased massively - it's time to redefine both the role and management of wikicreators.

For a bit of history and current knowledge:
 * wikicreators were made back when Special:CreateWiki was made to allow non-sysadmins to make wikis.
 * wikicreators were appointed on the sole discretion of a sysadmin, the community had no say in the appointment or even removal of the right.
 * With the introduction of ManageWiki, wikicreators naturally were given the ability to use the global interface on meta (being able to edit every Miraheze wiki).
 * The natural development of ManageWiki has lead to a lot more abilities being added, naturally giving wikicreators a lot of control of individual communities and the ability to do a form of consensus-management.

This RfC will be split into role statement, rights, appointment, removal, exceptions and then anything else others wish to add/clarify.

Proposal 1

 * Wiki creators are responsible for managing wiki requests and creating wikis.

a) Support

 * 1)  Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Enfaru (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  This should ALWAYS be the role of wiki creators &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per CnocBride.   Malcolm Aces! Aces!  22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  It goes without saying that this is and should remain the core and primary function of wiki creators. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) --クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777) ( Userpage / Talk page ) 05:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

d) Comments

 * 1) If limited to wiki creators, the role should be like this. However, since current wiki creators have the right to manage wiki, I would rather propose to split the user group/rights into two (just like the proposal I posted below).-- 09:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 2

 * Wiki creators are responsible for manage wiki requests, creating wikis and helping communities through the use ManageWiki subject to communities consensus and global/local policies.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  - If a Wikicreator wants to help a community out in a private capacity, I'm all for that, but I don't think they should be intervening. It's like asking a Policeman to do the job of a A&E Nurse, it's simply silly Enfaru (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I would much prefer a separation of duties - a new role essentially. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Wiki creators should only be responsible to create Wikis and nothing else. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  --クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777) ( Userpage / Talk page ) 14:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 3

 * The Wiki creator rights/group will be split into two.
 * Wiki creator - follow the roll of proposal 1.
 * Wiki manager - allowed to manage wikis when requested.
 * Current wiki creators can choose to either work only as a wiki creator, or to work as both of them.
 * For the following requests after the RfC is closed, users should start from being a wiki creator, and then a wiki manager (if they wish).
 * So if you're both a wiki creator and a wiki manager, your role will be the same as proposal 2.

a) Support

 * 1) as the proposer.-- 09:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  This is what I would like. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  12:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Weak support.--クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777) ( Userpage / Talk page ) 14:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  It will be useful, most of the volunteers in Phabricator are also WikiCreators and with the current rights, they can enable or disable extensions or settings.  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  In the current state, I'd oppose this, as "Wiki manager" is not clearly defined, and I also do not understand why a separate role to manage wikis is necessary, considering it can be done by wiki bureaucrats.

Rights

 * This is a section where supporting/opposing individual local rights for the 'wikicreator' group will happen.

createwiki

 * The createwiki right allows users to create wiki using Special:CreateWiki.

a) Support

 * 1)  MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Enfaru (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  There's simply no reason to remove this.   Malcolm Aces! Aces!  22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) It's the original right of the wiki creators. If we don't have it, we will need a different name.-- 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) I think this should stay how it is. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep what makes Miraheze distinct from the other farms. Rajavlitra (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8)  Ibidem Wiki1776 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

managewiki

 * The managewiki right allows users to access Special:ManageWiki and associated special pages, allowing them to change settings on all wikis (including metawiki) that are not deemed dangerous (restricted). This behaviour is similar to having access to Special:ManageWiki on every wiki at the bureaucrat level.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I don't see the need of a managewiki right as stewards and wiki creators have access to Special:ManageWiki, there is no need for a managewiki right. If this is globally, I still don't think other users need to manage other's wikis. Therefore, I oppose this proposal. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By opposing this, you're agreeing to remove wikicreator's access to Special:ManageWiki. John (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's the general idea Enfaru (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think Wikicreators don't need access to Special:ManageWiki. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  Enfaru (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't see why we were even granted these permissions in the first place.   Malcolm Aces! Aces!  22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  , but conditional (Condition: only for the future wiki creators) Since current wiki creators are granted this right and is clearly noted on Wiki creators, I think current wiki creators are all trusted enough to be allowed to manage wikis when requested, and thus should be allowed to have the permission of wiki manager (which I posted above), if they agree.-- 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

managewiki-restricted

 * The managewiki-restricted rights extends the right above allowing the user to edit all settings including ones deemed by sysadmins to be either dangerous or requiring extra work. This is the level above local wiki bureaucrats and requires a level of trust to have.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I don’t see a need for wiki creators to have this right MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  I concur with  MacFan4000 Enfaru (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  This must be given to Miraheze staff or extremely well trusted users. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)   Absolutely not. There is a enormous amount of damage that could be done with these - Miraheze staff should be the only ones who have these permissions. What if a wikicreator's account was hacked and they abused the tools?   Malcolm Aces! Aces!  22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 6)  Managewiki-restricted should only be for very trusted users, and I don't see any advantage of wikicreators having them. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) We currently don't have this right (according to this), and I guess it should be limited to Stewards and Sysadmins, or users as trusted as them.-- 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 8)  This is a terrible idea. Wiki creators certainly don't need to edit all the settings. It is dangerous. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretion of sysadmins

 * This is the current status quo, and if all proposals fail this will be the outcome regardless of this sections approval.

Sysadmins will have the sole discretion to give wikicreator to any user they deem fit enough or trusted to carry out the role. Stewards will grant the rights as requested by a sysadmin.

a) Support

 * 1)  - Honest I see no real need for a change I think Wikicreators should remain at the sole discretion of the SysAdmin. But if they want to nominate trusted people on their behalf to deal with an increased work load, I'd support that as well Enfaru (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  There's no real reason to change this.   Malcolm Aces! Aces!  22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  The status quo is fine as it is. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) I don't really comment on RfCs unless I have strong views, and this is one of these case. I am strongly of the opinion that Miraheze is, by design, a community ran project and a community ran effort. I don't like the idea that we are unnecessarily holding back access that realistically only affects the community. I see no reason why these rights can't be launched into community purview and let the community decide how their whole network of wikis and smaller community both grow and come into existence. There is no valid reason whatsoever for sysadmins to have sole control of the wikicreator right. All we do by holding this back is giving us the chance to make choices we don't really want to make, and one where I always grant because I don't feel like that I, as a sysadmin, should have this choice to make. John (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also to clarify further practise, sysadmins stamp. Stewards solely are responsible for granting - so this is just changing who gets the say rather than a whole process. Putting it in line too as stewards aren't meant to answer to sysadmins but the community with changes and so. John (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I think it used to be useful in the past, but since we have almost 20 of them, it's a better idea to have a community discussion before granting the permission.-- 09:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 1

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will last a minimum of 7 days. The closing steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (no minimum support percentage, comments count not votes).

Proposal 2

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will last a minimum of 7 days. The close steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (ideally there should be around 70% support).

Proposal 3

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will last a minimum of 7 days. The close steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (ideally there should be around 80% support).

Proposal 4

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will a minimum of 3 days. The closing steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (no minimum support percentage, comments count not votes).

a) Support

 * 1) as my community choice. Small number of days and with no requirements either way, we can balance community involvement against community view. John (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 00:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Since we have enough wiki creators (nearly 20 of them), I think we can have a more democratic way of decision.-- 09:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) my opinion is that the Community should decide who can have the permission of WikiCreator and not just one person.  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 5

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will last a minimum of 3 days. The close steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (ideally there should be around 70% support).

Proposal 6

 * A user requests the right at Requests for permissions. A request will last a minimum of 3 days. The close steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not (ideally there should be around 80% support).

Removal

 * The sysadmin, steward + community clause can all pass and form three ways to be removed outside of inactivity.

Sysadmin discretion

 * Sysadmins, being the solely responsible for the technical and smooth running of Miraheze, may request a steward remove a wikicreator's rights if in their opinion: that user has either caused damaged, has the potential to cause damage, is creating unnecessary workload for sysadmins directly related to their access being granted by wikicreator.

a) Support

 * 1)  Enfaru (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Technical reasons should allow a sysadmin to be able to solely request removal. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 10:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Steward discretion

 * Stewards, being responsible for ensuring community consensus is enforced and the communities views are respected, may remove a wikicreators rights if a user is repeatedly violating policies related to wiki creation (Content Policy) or is using their managewiki rights (if granted above) in contravention to expected standards or local wiki policies.

a) Support

 * 1)  Absolutely. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  As people who represent the community, stewards should also have a say in removing wiki creators. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 10:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1) - What other people think is of no concern. Wikicreators have no impact on their interactions with Miraheze. If there's a public outcry, then the Sysadmin may have to take note to avoid damaging the reputation of Miraheze, but that is all. Enfaru (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki creators are the first people users will interact with and usually the one they’ll ask for help. Wiki creators absolutely have an impact and users may decide not to continuing using Miraheze is the person who gave them a wiki is rude etc. John (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A valid point, but in my view Wikicreators should not be attaching identifiable details, instead they should sign off with "Miraheze Support", which would link back to those that are public facing. Enfaru (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus 1

 * Any member of the community may open a request for the removal of a users rights and if neither of the above two clauses apply, the users rights will be removed if the discussion reaches 50% in favour of removal within a reasonable time period.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  50% consensus is not strong enough for the removal of a user's rights. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I always like the idea of the community being able to vote for most things, I don't see any reason to remove a wikicreator except in case of mishandling the permissions, which would likely be a fast removal by a steward or sysadmin. So, I'm not sure what reasons the community could have to request a removal. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Community consensus can be easily be taken over by LTAs, as everyone has the right to vote. I know that some of the LTAs' aim is to have the higher permission of the target user revoked by causing them to make mistakes/misjudges, and they might try to control the community. Also, I think a sysadmin or a steward can remove the right if they think there were abuse/misuse of the permission.-- 10:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus 2

 * Any member of the community may open a request for the removal of a users rights and if neither of the above two clauses apply, the users rights will be removed if the discussion reaches 70% in favour of removal within a reasonable time period.

a) Support

 * 1)  70% is a reasonable and fair amount of consensus to judge the removal of a user's rights. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  - It really doesn't matter how many users disagree. Ultimately, this is should not be their decision, this shouldn't be a popularity contest. There's no need for it to be a popularity contest either Enfaru (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per above, and my comment on "Community consensus 1". Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per my comment above.-- 10:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity 1

 * A user may have their rights removed if they do not contribute to the global community in any form within the last 3 months.

a) Support

 * 1) it's a role with a high turn around to be honest. The workload is low too. John (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per John, 3 months is a lot of time to be inactive as a wikicreator. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) As it says "in any form," it seems reasonable to me.-- 10:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Ibidem Wiki1776 (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

b) Oppose

 * 1)  I feel one year is reasonable enough for the removal of rights globally for inactivity. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity 2

 * A user may have their rights removed if they do not contribute to the global community in any form within the last 6 months.

b) Oppose

 * 1)  6 months is way too much, a wikicreator must be active, as, as John says, the workload is low. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sysadmins avoid appointment clause

 * Any user who is made a sysadmin by internal procedure, will be able to be given the wikicreator rights regardless of the appointment clause that is passed.

a) Support

 * 1) - Enfaru (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sysadmins should have these tools for technical reasons. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 5)  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sysadmins avoid inactivity clause

 * Any user who is made a sysadmin by internal procedure, will be exempt from meeting the activity requirements passed above.

a) Support

 * 1)  - Yes and no. I think that the senior SysAdmin should be able to judge whether someones account may be at risk of hacking if it hasn't been used in some time, but otherwise I think they should be generally exempt from this nonsense. Enfaru (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2)  Wikis need to be created for technical reasons sometimes, and I see no reason to have to re-request wikicreator if not using it. Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 09:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 4)  Wiki1776 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)