The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Closing this RfC now. The outcome of the RfC:
Role statement + rights
There should be separate 'wiki creator' and 'wiki manager' groups.
The wiki creator group will hold 'createwiki' rights.
The wiki manager group will hold 'managewiki' rights.
'managewiki-restricted' will not be given to any of those groups; status quo
Current wiki creators (as of 15:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)) may decide to stay in one or both groups.
There are several ways to become a wiki creator or wiki manager.
System administrators (see Staff, "Operations" or "MediaWiki System Administrator") may give users (which includes other system administrators or themselves as well) these rights without the need for community appointment.
After internal discussion, it has been decided we, system administrators, are not going to grant rights to others in general. The only exception is granting wiki manager rights to wiki creators (as of 15:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)) who would like to be in the wiki managers groups. Per #Sysadmins_avoid_appointment_clause a system administrator may also give themselves wiki creator and/or wiki manager rights. Besides, we are not going to grant rights to other users. Southparkfan (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Besides system administrators, one can also get these rights by community appointment. A user requests one or both groups at Meta:Requests for permissions. A request will stay open for at least three (3) days, after which a steward will weigh up the comments and decide whether to grant the rights or not. There is no minimum support percentage.
System administrators may remove one or both groups shall the user (potentially) cause damage or unreasonable workload for system administrators.
Stewards may remove one or both groups shall the user a) repeatedly violate the Content Policy when creating wikis or otherwise b) misuse their rights.
Users may also have their rights removed if they do not contribute to the global community in any form within the last 3 months. This criterium does not apply to system administrators (as long as they are in their role).
The policies and group permissions will be adjusted as necessary based on this outcome, thus any changes will require a follow-up of this RfC.
I would like to thank you all for commenting on this RfC.
Southparkfan (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Comment: 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).--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 09:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - 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)
Oppose I would much prefer a separation of duties - a new role essentially. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose Plain and simply, no. Wiki creators should not have access to anything sensitive, as they are not a “trusted” position so to speak (like stewards and sysadmins), and therefore if a wiki creator’s account were to be compromised, damage could be done. ManageWiki should never be a global thing IMHO (except for sysadmins during an emergency like TMH). Except under emergency circumstances, Special:ManageWiki on Meta should only manage Meta. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Weak support Weak support.--クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777)( Userpage / Talk page ) 14:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Strong support 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)
Oppose 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. Reception123 (talk) (C) 18:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but some users still don't enjoy doing that kind of stuff and would rather offload the work to someone else. I loved when feature requests when they were in there hay day. Yes, the system is far more efficient and I prefer that but I guess my support for this is just my thirst to help people on Miraheze and the wider community. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 18:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Reception123: A wiki manager has the managewiki (but not managewiki-restricted) permission, and can manage wiki when necessary or requested by the local community; issues like this could happen anytime, and in such times, the right to manage wiki from Meta is very useful, because we can temporarily make the wikis accessible again, until the issue is fixed by a sysadmin (which could take even longer time than this time). In addition, some beginners might not know how to use managewiki and might ask for help (or set incorrect logo/favicon URL), and I'd like to help them.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 18:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Abstain overall since I’m going to comment two different ways. I Support keeping the wiki creator group intact following the scope outlined in proposal 1. However, I Strong oppose the creation of a “wiki manager” group per my comments above. Unless “wiki manager” was to be a group of as high a level and requiring a level of trust as high as stewards and sysadmins, they should not be able to manage the settings/extensions/permissions/whatever of any wiki from Meta. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Oppose 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)
Oppose, 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 09:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I do feel like that this could easily be implanted if a certain someone got the account that would have this right. HawkAussie (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
Oppose This must be given to Miraheze staff or extremely well trusted users. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose 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? MalcolmAces! Aces! 22:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose 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)
Oppose Wiki Creator don't need this because some think need to be done by SysAdmin and can break the wiki if badly used Videojeux4 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose - or, let’s make that completely and vehemently strong oppose. I strongly oppose wiki creators having access to ManageWiki on any wiki except Meta. This is just taking it way too far. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Support - 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)
Strong oppose 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)
Weak oppose 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 09:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC).
Oppose Per 開拓者.--クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777)( Userpage / Talk page ) 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
Support Since we have enough wiki creators (nearly 20 of them), I think we can have a more democratic way of decision.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 09:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Support 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)
Support --クールトレイン７７７ (cooltrain777)( Userpage / Talk page ) 01:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Support Per John's point, however the condition for my support vote is that wiki creators do not have the managewiki and/or managewiki-restricted right. Reception123 (talk) (C) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
A user requests the right at Meta: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).
Strong oppose I think that it should be up to a steward to decide who gets the wiki creator right and I don't believe that we should have community consensus for such rights. Secondly, 80% support is too much of an expectation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I’ll be alone here. I’m opposing for two main reasons. One, I don’t like how this proposal is worded. In my opinion, nobody should be taking a sensitive and serious action like revoking any permissions preemptively. Revoking permissions is something that IMHO should only be done as a reactive action, not a proactive action. I don’t think that any rights should be removed from any user unless they have caused disruption (key being in the past tense) or have otherwise blatantly abused the right (also key being in the past tense). The other reason I am opposing this proposal is that “sysadmin discretion” is too vague and not a valid reason for any sensitive or serious action. A clear-cut, 100% defendable and backed up, and preferably consensus-driven reason should be given for any actions that are at the level of or above revoking permissions. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
Weak support I think that stewards can remove the rights if the user in question has blatantly and repeatedly violated the content policy by creating inappropriate wikis (keywords being blatantly and repeatedly, as well as the word “has” in the past tense). However, like the above proposal, I think that “steward discretion” is too vague of a reason for an action like this. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - 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)
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.
Oppose 50% consensus is not strong enough for the removal of a user's rights. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose 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)
Oppose 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.--開拓者(The Pioneer) (talk/contribs | global🌎) 10:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
Oppose - 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)
Oppose Per above, and my comment on "Community consensus 1". Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Abstain Frankly, I’d prefer to see ~80%+ consensus for any rights are removed from any account (with the exception of insignificant rights like autopatrolled and confirmed). Removing rights is a serious business, and therefore a unanimous or a near unanimous consensus should be reached. However, this RFC is too long already and therefore I’m not going to add this as a separate proposal, and therefore I’d be willing to live with a 70% consensus guideline. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I feel one year is reasonable enough for the removal of rights globally for inactivity. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
What is the point of that long wait? Why keep wiki creators who don't actively create wikis? If someone isn't active for 3 months, why should they still keep this right? Reception123 (talk) (C) 10:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Weak oppose I don’t really like “exceptions” to things like this except under emergency circumstances. However, considering that sysadmins can already delete and rename wikis, I would think that they could also create wikis from the database/server without using Special:CreateWiki. While this obviously should not be done unless absolutely necessary, given the fact that sysadmins would have the ability to create wikis means that they could also function as a wiki creator in order to keep and uphold process. That being said, I would still prefer to see a separate discussion held. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - 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)
Support 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)
Strong oppose If the user is inactive as a sysadmin, they are also inactive as a wiki creator. If they are inactive as a wiki creator, they are also inactive as a sysadmin. Either someone is active or they are not. Additionally, again, I don’t like “exceptions” to things, and this one in particular has the tone of giving sysadmins some “supreme power” so to speak by making them exempt from guidelines that everyone else has to follow, and I absolutely do not want to see that. Amanda Catherine (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)