User:Reception123/Wiki governance, voting and local elections RfC

'''This is a DRAFT. Please DO NOT vote. Feel free to make minor modifications or add new proposals but please don't radically change existing proposals without discussing with me first'''

It should be well known that Miraheze functions based on consensus and that if a majority of users want something to be implemented and provide good arguments, it will be. After various experiences with some wikis but also in relation to global matters, it has become clear to me that some additional rules and guidelines are needed to ensure that wiki governance and local elections are fairly conducted.

For local elections, this will be achieved by largely codifying (and therefore gaining community approval for) the already existing Local elections guidelines/recommendations which have generally been well received. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Co-sponsored by:

Wiki governance

Proposal 1: Wiki governance

 * Wikis are governed (or managed) by bureaucrats, administrators or any other designated group with similar functions. Wikis on Miraheze generally function by the principle of community consensus. Miraheze holds the attitude that wikis are not owned by any user, but by their community.

Bureaucrats and administrators are accountable to their community and may not take actions which are inconsistent with the community's will (for example, they must abide by written policies voted by the community). No user with advanced rights should consider themselves the sole arbiter in all things or the 'leader' of the wiki.

If bureaucrats or sysops do not respect the will of the community, Stewards may intervene and give effect to the community's wishes. Please see Stewards for more details.

Proposal 2: Personal wikis

 * In the following situations, the principle of community consensus is not applicable and the user who requested the wiki is solely responsible for governing their wiki:
 * private personal wikis wholly or substantially about the user who filed the original request
 * public personal e-portfolio
 * curriculum vitae (résumé)
 * blog
 * other narrowly-construed wikis with a similar purpose

Proposal 3.1: Weighing of outside votes

 * A vote by a user who is clearly not genuinely connected to the wiki's community is to be weighed less than other votes.

This does not apply to votes regarding global policies or global permission requests on Meta.

Rationale: If this were not the case, a large group of users from one wiki could create accounts on another and arbitrarily demote an existing bureaucrat or enact other changes even though they have nothing to do with the wiki.

Proposal 3.2: Tight knight communities

 * If a wiki focuses on a niche topic, has a small number of active users and can be characterized as a 'tight-knit community', votes by users part of the group will be weighed more than others.

Rationale: This is similar to 3.1 but only would also cover cases when there's a small community but then new users join (and contribute enough to not be caught by 3.1) and attempt to change the wiki's direction. In such cases, it would be fair to allow the original community to govern themselves.

Proposal 3.3: Canvassing or solicitation of votes

 * Privately asking multiple users to support a permissions request is not allowed. [1]
 * Asking a large number of users who are not affiliated or genuinely connected to the wiki's community to vote in any request is not allowed.
 * Promising an advantage or preferential treatment in exchange for a support vote is not allowed.

[1] Generally asking users to vote in a neutral manner is not covered, but should ideally be done publicly (i.e. not via private message)

Proposal 4: Policies
All wikis are governed by Global policies and any local policies or practices that violate global policies are not allowed. This includes local policies that adopt lower standards than ones contained in global policies

This policy imposes certain minimum standards but wikis are encouraged to develop their own policies and may provide higher standards than those contained in this policy.

Rationale: This doesn't change the status quo it just codifies it.

Comments (4)
Local elections

Proposal 5: Definition and scope
A local election is a process on a wiki where a user self-nominates or is nominated to hold specific permissions, such as administrator and/or bureaucrat. They are governed by local policies (if they exist) and typically overseen by local bureaucrats. If neither applies, a Steward may be brought in to oversee the election and assess its results based on global policies, conventions, best practices and case-by-case discretion.

Wikis are recommended to develop their own election process and related policies, and have them ratified by the community by way of vote.

Restricted local groups such as CheckUser, local Interwiki administrators and Oversight require filling specific requirements set globally, outlined on their respective pages.

This policy only applies to the election of users in specific roles (i.e. it does not apply to voting on policies).

Proposal 6: Elections on wikis with inactive bureaucrats
The following conditions apply to such elections (private wikis are dealt with separately):
 * If a wiki's bureaucrats have been absent for some time and there is nobody to assess local decisions, provide direction, use ManageWiki or enforce global policies (such as the Content Policy and the Code of Conduct and no policies are developed locally to cover this scenario, the community must set up a local election. The following sections assume there is no local governance to supervise and that the election will be 'called' by a Steward.
 * The nominee should be an existing contributor, locally active or at least have an edit history, even if it is built after the election starts.
 * The nominee should have a clear and specific idea of what they wish to do with the rights. A general or vague will to 'improve the wiki' will not suffice.
 * If present, the existing community should be supportive. [IF PROPOSAL 3.1 passes: In accordance with the weighing of outside votes rule, votes by users who are not genuinely connected to the wiki's community will be weighed less]. Third parties (such as an existing linked discord server) may also be considered, but on-wiki accounts with edit history will be given more weight
 * The proceedings should be as transparent as possible - further details are in the process section.

Proposal 7: Appointment on wikis with no community
If there is no existing community or an extremely small one, a user may be temporarily appointed by a Steward to a position provided that they demonstrate a need and clearly indicate their intentions. An 'appointment' is not to be equivalent to an 'election'.

Proposal 8: Election process
Elections should take place on a very prominent page. This could be the wiki's community portal, a designated place, or if nothing like this exists, on the talk page of the main page or a page specifically made for the job. It cannot be 'hidden' on an obscure or unknown page. If this criteria is not met, an election may be deemed to be invalid.

The nominee should at the minimum present themselves, what rights they want and their intentions. There should be at least a discussion section below that where people can ask questions and leave their input. The conventional model consists of sections for support, oppose, neutral and comments.

The community should be informed of the process (for example, with a sitenotice or a message on the Main Page). A Steward may be contacted if no one has access to the above.

Active contributors and existing bureaucrats active on the wiki must made aware of the election, if there are any.

Proposal 9: Election duration and closure

 * All local elections involving advanced permissions (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) must stay open for at least 5 days (but 7 days is recommended).

In case there is no local bureaucrat to effectuate the election, the result should be taken back to the Stewards' noticeboard - in the original section if it's been brought up before, or a new one if it has not.

Proposal 10: Private and personal wikis
Only users who can have view permissions on a private wiki may run for a position on that wiki. External users who cannot view the wiki cannot run for any position within the wiki.

No users may run for a positions on wikis [that are listed in Proposal 2].

If a wikis focuses on a niche topic, can be characterized as a 'tight-knit community', and has a small number of active users only a user who is part of the group of users may be nominated for a position. It should be clarified that users may become part of the group at any time; it is not limited to users who were originally part of it.

Proposal 11: Minor local rights
On wikis with inactive bureaucrats, Stewards may grant small local rights to users upon request and proper need without a local election. This includes and is not limited to: Autopatrolled, Confirmed, and Rollbacker. They can be requested on Stewards' noticeboard while stating the reason for why the rights are needed.

Proposal 12.1: Removing bureaucrats
Miraheze wikis are configured by default to only permit Stewards to remove bureaucrats. The same rules as described above apply for removal of bureaucrats.

In order for a bureaucrat to be removed at least 50% of users must support the removal and a valid reason must exist for the removal (for example, a bureaucrat may be removed if they are acting against the community's interests).

Removing a bureaucrat without community consensus or very compelling/emergency reasons is highly frowned upon. If this happens, Stewards may intervene if necessary.

Proposal 12.2: Removing major contributor

 * If a user has contributed to the vast majority of content on a wiki, they may only be removed as administrator or bureaucrat if 80% or more users support it and there is a very good reason for doing so. A major contributor may not be removed from advanced permissions simply because they have different views or ideas about the wiki's direction than other users.

Proposal 13: Wikis with conflicting groups/management
In a situation where there are two equally represented conflicting groups with different visions or ideas for the wiki who are unable to reach an agreement among themselves, they may contact Stewards who will mediate.

In extreme circumstances where there is clearly no prospect of agreement or reconciliation between the two groups, Stewards may, in accordance with the Content Policy, allow for a fork of the to be created and the two groups to separate. Otherwise, the wiki should be closed.