Requests for Comment/Changes to wiki creators (2)

Taking into account concerns and suggestions expressed in the previous wiki creators RfC I've decided to propose a new RfC to take into account that feedback. While initially somewhat opposed to the idea of direct revocation, given recent events I've changed my mind and think that Stewards have trouble determining when a situation is 'bad enough' to revoke a wiki creator so it's best to give it more legitimacy by a community vote. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Appointment
To be appointed Wiki Creator, a request needs to be made at Requests for permissions. The community can discuss (support/oppose/abstain/comment) the request. The request will be considered successful if:
 * at least 5 users share their view
 * there is a support ratio of at least 80%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started

Support

 * 1)  In order to have a revocation system we also need an appointment system. The requirements are in line with other roles. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  1.1 passes. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 11:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Community revocation is very much needed and an 80% support ratio to match all other groups is best.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Consistency is needed, especially for a right that has rights that can affect the wiki farm (in both stability and reputation). --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Imamy (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)  BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)   --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 8)  This proposal brings appointment criteria in line with similar roles (see Interwiki Administrators).  An easy support to standardize appointment criteria. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  80% is too high of a ratio for a group with such a limited scope and whose only purpose is to create wikis. Since wiki creators have less permissions and responsibilities than Stewards or Global Sysops, it makes sense to have a lower support ratio, since there is less risk involved; 70% should be enough. Tali64³ (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning but the lower number of participants required does reflect that. In this RfC the community agreed that it's better to have the same support ratio required for all groups rather than have scattered support ratios which are confusing. I don't think it'd be a good idea to reverse that and start having different ratios again. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Global interwiki administrator has an 80% support ratio, as does Global rollbacker which are arguably even less powerful or important than wiki creator. We shouldn't treat wiki creator as a lesser role when it's a very important role. Having a unified support ratio and standard across all 'global' (wiki creator is certainly a global role in a sense) would be best and would make more sense instead of differing ratios because of perceived lack of importance or powerfulness. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  It is evident that - at least until this point - I am alone in continuing to argue for maintaining the current system and have not changed my mind. The implication is that the current system needs changing because of a failure in one circumstance. I will comment on that when opposing the other proposal but what is relevant in respect of this one is that I believe the current system works well and would not see an overwhelming benefit to bring in the minimum participation and ratios requirement into the wiki creator system. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * --I agree with Dee on this point, that there is no need to change if the current set up works. But if we do set out to make a change, then I would like the changes to reflect a standard similar to what is already applied to the other roles.  Otherwise, there really is no need for change.  I would support either no change or to adopt the 80 percent.
 * --I won't oppose because there is no way to know whether moving towards the 80 percent would be better or not until it is done. As I understand it, this is a move towards giving our total community a greater say in how our needs are best met.  Rather than waiting for a volunteer to request to be a Wiki Creator, an existing community would know that to best meet their needs, that one of their one members should step up to the plate and volunteer to meet those needs and apply for Wiki Creator.  They will back their nominee, and once voted in, this new Wiki Creator may choose to continue in this capacity for all, or just let it go when they feel it is time to go.
 * --For the moment, I feel that most Users don't participate because they don't know how or where to begin. So in a sense, the current system may work better for those who are bold enough or bored enough to make the request on their own behalf, to act independently from their communities.  However, with the 80 percent system in place, there is more likely that Users will learn from experience to go on to mentor and encourage others within their own communities to participate.
 * --Imamy (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the support ratio being too high. I could weakly support a 50-60% ratio, but only if there's no minimum number of participants and/or we introduce a temporary wiki creator role idea I originally had whereby where there's not consensus to promote, or responses are not quite there, wiki creators could request direct appointment from Stewards once every two (2) years for a period not exceed thirty (30) days, after which they must seek election from the community. This would allow wiki creators to establish a verifiable track record. Dmehus (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1: Lower appointment ratio
To be appointed a wiki creator, a 70% support ratio is required instead of 80%.

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Tali64³ (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) . Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 11:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)   --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Per my reply to Tali above. Different ratios for different groups are confusing and the justification (and difference) is minimal. Wiki creator might be a single task position but that doesn't mean it should be easier to get it if there are concerns and users who oppose. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  There is no reason to keep treating this group as a "protected" group. All other groups are subject to an 80% support ratio, even Global interwiki administrator which is arguably even less powerful and powerful than wiki creator. If all is well in a request then the requester shouldn't have to be hoping for a lower support ratio than 80%. If they have less than that then clearly there are issues which should impede a request until solved.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, there should be a 70% support ratio for all lower-level groups (wiki creator, global rollbacker, etc.), since there are less advanced permissions involved, which means a lesser risk of things going horribly wrong. Groups with more advanced permissions (Global Sysops, Stewards, etc.) should remain at 80%, as it's very easy to mess things up if used incorrectly. Tali64³ (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They all represent Miraheze so no, the level of trust in them must be high. There's zero reason why they should be unable to fulfil an 80% support ratio when they represent us globally to users as 'staff' members before the eyes of many. Misconduct on their part reflects badly on all of us and accordingly, the trust in them to be competent, have judgement, and to not mess up, must be high as no one wants to be cleaning up their messes. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the support ratio required for a successful request reflects the level of trust put in that role, then Stewards and Global Sysops should arguably have an even higher support ratio than 80%(90% and 85%, respectively). While trust is an important factor in determining the necessary support ratio, it's not the only factor. Things like the responsibilities that come with the role, the ease of reverting any change made by someone in that role if it turns out to be incorrect, etc. also count. Any invalid wikis created by wiki creators can easily be closed/deleted by Stewards, and wiki creators can be removed if they repeatedly create such wikis. There is a medium amount of trust in the role and mistakes can be reverted somewhat easily, so the support ratio should be around 70%. Stewards, on the other hand, have a very high level of trust, and anything that Stewards mess up can stick for months or even years. Therefore, I agree with the 80% support ratio. Having 80% for all roles is too strict and will inhibit users who want to help, but are put off by the high support ratio required. Tali64³ (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The support ratio for both roles is 80% and not higher because it is recognized that there is an inherently implicit inability by any candidate to please all sides, along with the coupling with an extraordinarily high numerical requirement of voters for the former (and partially also for the latter) role. Stewards can't monitor Meta 24/7 and check one by one multiple wiki requests to see whether or not a wiki creator has done well. Many wikis have slipped through unnoticed for months at a time until random users report these to us. Unless a wiki creator very badly messes up and a Steward sees it, Stewards let wikis be as it is convention to not delete wikis outright (of course, provided that the wiki isn't violating policy) even if their approval is rather iffy. I don't see why wiki creator should be treated to any less scrutiny than other roles. My request for wiki creator passed unanimously and if any candidate with competency and judgement ever applies, I'm sure they'll also pass unanimously. We need not to cater and pander to those who can barely muster up these requirements. If they can't be trusted by the wide association of users on Meta then it may be for a reason. Now, it should be up to the closing Steward whether or not certain votes should count when their rationale is evidently weak. For example, on RfCs and such, we typically weigh votes that just say "per above" or just use a voting template as less than one that clearly argues their point. Discretion in requests overall should be afforded to the closer and that I would also support.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * because I'm for:
 * -- having an 80 percent standard ratio for consistency
 * the scope may be limited, however the role is still meaningful and valuable and necessary.
 * 1)  Per above, in that it is good to have a standard bar of 80% as opposed to different ratios for different positions. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Even if I see the logic behind it I do not think there is much benefit in having -10% of a ratio required in the event that Proposal 1 is adopted. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  Per above, the rationale here is standardizing appointment criteria across roles.  This proposal negates that effort, which I cannot support... --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  Per above, the rationale here is standardizing appointment criteria across roles.  This proposal negates that effort, which I cannot support... --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2: Eligibility Criteria
The following eligibility criteria is added to requests for appointment to the Wiki Creator role and documented on the Wiki creators page.

Eligibility criteria and requesting Wiki Creators are voted by users. However, the following conditions must be met in order for the user to be eligible to be voted. If these conditions are not met, the user may not be a candidate for Wiki Creator and any votes will not matter. A candidate must:

* Have at least 200 total global edits on Miraheze (on more than one wiki) ( These edits may not consist of directly copy/pasting content from other wikis, they must be edits done by the user); * Have had their Miraheze account for at least 2 months; and, * Be involved in some way in community matters (in discussions on the Community noticeboard, etc.)

Rationale: There is currently no minimum criteria to pursue the role, which is a deviation from most other elected volunteer roles. Minimum criteria is largely borrowed from Interwiki Administrator role, though edit count requirements have been reduced to a level more in keeping with the need for a history of actions to review. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Good idea and it'll prevent NOTNOW requests. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  If a user lacks these requirements then chances are, they aren't very well acquainted with our policy and procedure and should take time to get to know them and for us to get to know them in order to discern their judgement and competency.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 00:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  Such expectations are normal.  In any election, candidates have to meet a certain criteria before their name goes on a ballot.  This is no different.  --Imamy (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Revocation

 * The community can initiate a vote of no confidence or a request of removal at any time. In order for it to pass it needs:
 * at least 5 users to share their view
 * a support ratio of at least 50%
 * a period of one week has passed since it started
 * at least one of the criteria in Wiki creators to be fulfilled

The vote of no confidence is in addition to the possibility for Stewards to revoke Wiki Creators.

Support

 * 1)  Per the forward, I have changed my mind on this and believe that the system is more effective if the community can directly vote. There's also the revocation criteria in place to ensure that wiki creators aren't removed arbitrarily. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) . Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 11:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  No objections.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Imamy (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  Of course. BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 6)   --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  while I still feel this ratio/minimum is a bit low for a community-facing role, it's still better to have a community option instead of solely relying on the limited bandwidth/time of our stewards to build a case and action a removal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per my support of proposal 2.1. -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting that Proposal 2.1 is a supplement to this proposal and cannot pass if this one doesn't. Tali64³ (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  As mentioned above and also in the previous RfC on this matter I stand by my opposition to direct revocation. The concerns which are mentioned and which prompt this RfC relate to the case of one wiki creator. I would argue that the issue is not wrong with the system but the way in which it is implemented and the role Stewards play. The question of "representative democracy" vs "direct democracy" has been argued before on Miraheze and it is likely that the model here is a hybrid. That being said if Stewards do not believe they should remove wiki creators for violating the rules without an explicit community vote then it might be worth reviewing their role altogether. I stand by my opposition and believe the issue is with implementation and not with the rules themselves. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * --Even though one's role may be revoked, one may reapply for the role.
 * --As an example, poll watchers and poll workers as well as other roles, work together to keep integrity throughout the whole voting process. There will always be checks and balances that are not readily apparent.  So in this sense, this is not a hybrid.  The community may vote on the issue at hand, but before the issue was put on the ballot, there was a process that put the issue on the ballot.  Then after the vote, if any violations are discovered, that discovery could be a basis to reverse or cancel a vote.
 * --It's less about questioning the nature of person who steps into the role but more about making sure that the one put in charge understands the responsibilities that come with the role. One of the things that I like about a limited scope is that that is the only job the Wiki Creator has.  Everything else has to be learned as well such as learning to listen to the various communities, knowing how to navigate through the chain of command, understanding the laws that impact on Miraheze.
 * --Imamy (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 2.1: Revocation

 * The vote of no confidence [as described in Proposal 2] is the only method of revocation and Stewards may only revoke Wiki Creators in an emergency.

Note: Opposing this proposal means that Stewards can still revoke Wiki Creators independently of a vote of no confidence

Support

 * 1) . Stewards should only revoke in emergencies, and the community should discuss on the rest. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 11:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why you think so? Repeating what the proposal provides isn't a very helpful argument/justification. --Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe that stewards should only intervene when there is an "emergency" case or for a successful vote of no confidence. Stewards should not have discretion to remove rights, especially given the underlying reason why this RfC was re-proposed, if a steward does not like a user, they could call violation of VCP (or any policy) and remove the rights without an eyebrow raised. --  Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  I think it's important for Stewards to retain discretion and be able to revoke users if they're violating the rules set out, especially for a group with a single specific task. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 11:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  Wiki creators are at the forefront of Miraheze. Them choosing whether or not to approve a wiki can have very, very drastic consequences on our future. As such, it is best to have Stewards be able to revoke the permission in case they are evidently doing a terrible job and creating wikis in violation of policy along with the other things defined in current policy.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 12:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be considered an emergency? -- Bukkit  [ cetacean needed ] 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  I prefer that Stewards keep the right to revoke at their discretion.  I'm sure that if there is any mistake, the revocation can be overturned.  One of the issues that I don't have much confidence in, is to wait for a community to finish the vote.  If there's a problem, I'd like to see some immediacy.  Especially since we have a few Wiki Creators, there is no reason to feel revocation is a dire situation that must be avoided.  Mistakes happen all the time, but permitting too much time to pass before revocation in case of doubt is more than likely to multiply the wrong kind of mistakes.  I trust the judgement of a Steward more so than a random User within the Community.
 * 2)  The temporary aspect of other emergency clauses (for example, Global Sysop) make sense as those are groups with a wider community legitimacy and wider powers. In the case of wiki creators there is no need to have such bureaucracy and have a temporary system. In the worst case if the community really does disagree with the Stewards decision it can reinstate the wiki creator. I believe emergency removal clauses should be reserved to groups with more responsibilities. --DeeM28 (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  this is unnecessary - if a steward demotes in bad-faith, that's a bigger problem and should be addressed by the community. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Different minimum requirement

 * '5 users' is replaced with '7 users' for both revocation and appointment

Support

 * 1)  It's a bit of an arbitrary number given that the number of users participating generally exceeds both 5 and 7 but sure, why not? BrandonWM (talk • contributions • global • rights) 05:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)   --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . Not many people comment on these requests, so let's not make it too high. Globe - (Talk • Contributions • CA) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) .  It's a minimum bar for request activity in order to close the request, not a ceiling for success.  While I'd like to see it higher for removal I wouldn't want to raise the appointment number as well, and there's consensus they should be the same.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1)     For the moment, the minimum number feels arbitrary
 * -- I like the number 5 more so than 7 simply because 5 is easier to remember than 7. However,
 * -- percentage wise i feel that decisions made by a larger group will be more satisfying than decisions made by a smaller group.
 * -- Globe makes a good point that not many do not vote
 * -- Raising the minimum may make revocation and appointment more difficult but still more satisfying
 * -- I would much rather focus on promoting awareness that an issue is active and requires participation and votes.
 * Therefore, I have no objections if the minimum Users is raised or lowered.
 * --Imamy (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)