Forum:Content moderators

Last month, Wikia implemented changes to some user rights groups. These changes include adding additional rights and renaming the Moderator group (which isn't used on The Sims Wiki), and creating a new user rights group called "Content Moderators." Content Moderators can be viewed as occupying a middle ground between rollbacks and administrators; Content Moderators can delete and undelete pages, protect and unprotect pages, suppress redirect on pagemoves, move and reupload files, and use the rollback tool. Notably absent from the Content Moderator's tool chest is the ability to block and unblock users, the ability to edit MediaWiki pages, the power to adjust user rights, and chat moderator rights.

I am starting this discussion to see if The Sims Wiki is interested in utilizing this new user group, either as an additional tier between rollback and sysop, or as a replacement for rollback rights. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 17:41, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
If we were going to utilise the Content Moderator user group on the Sims Wiki, then we would have to contact Wikia Staff to give Bureaucrats the ability to grant and revoke Content Moderator rights. A quick look at this list reveals that Bureaucrats currently don't have the option to grant and revoke Content Moderator rights.

I encountered this same issue on my wiki, because it has a custom user group. The member of Wikia Staff that responded to my support request said that any wikis that have a custom user group, or customised user group rights will have to ask Wikia Staff to manually update the user group rights so that Bureaucrats can grant and revoke Content Moderator rights. So the Sims wiki has this same issue, because of the customised user rights on this wiki, such as the Bureaucrats being able to grant and revoke bot rights.

I've tested the Content Moderator user group, and another difference between Content Moderators and Administrators - which largely goes unnoticed - is that Content Moderators cannot delete user pages. Overall I am supportive of this proposal to allow users to apply for Content Moderator-ship on this wiki. However I don't think we should use it to replace Rollback rights on this wiki, since I think that being able to apply for rollback rights still holds significance here.

If Content Moderator rights were going to replace Rollback rights on this wiki, would this affect any existing users with rollback rights? Would they remain roll-backers, or would they be automatically promoted to Content Moderator? I'm not sure if all rollback users on this wiki could immediately be entrusted with the abilities of a Content Moderator. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:37, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I read on the blog, I have a fair understanding of the user group. To me, it sounds like a stepping stone between becoming an administrator. The two groups are very similar in rights. How about we introduce it as a whole new group, where only rollbacks can apply for the position? That way, administrators and bureaucrats can see if the user has it in them to use the tools? Kind of like a test, really. I'm not really sure on all the details of this idea, but it's a start. ~ Beds  (talk - blog ) 19:08, February 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * Bump — It's pretty apparent that we do not have a community consensus yet. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:01, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think if we choose to implement Content Moderators as a step between Rollback and Administrator rights, then we should loosen the requirements for obtaining rollback rights and generally make it easier for users to obtain them. This is especially the case if we choose to make Content Moderation a prerequisite for administrator rights. My main concern by adding this tier is that we make it a more daunting process to ultimately achieve administrator rights when, in my opinion, administrator rights are already challenging enough to obtain. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 15:54, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand the feeling of it being a daunting process to be on the path to administrator rights, but I will admit that when I went from rollback to administrator that I felt somewhat overwhelmed, as in it was a huge jump. Content Moderators might have a majority of the same rights as administrators, but it doesn't have all. Having that intermediate position might make it so that the jump is less overwhelming. I do agree that we will have to reevaluate the requirements for all three groups, but I honestly don't think that adding a tier would actually be a bad thing. Not many people make it a goal to reach the top tier, but those that do will have the motivation to make it through just one more "loop". -- Icemandeaf (talk) 16:58, February 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Hmm, I think it may be good for users to experience this kind of thing that's in-between rollback-admin, and it may be a good practice. But other than that, I don't know what it's purpose actually is. So my question is: What are the positive aspects of this "new" position, and how could this possibly improve TSW? Sims  Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 18:38, February 25, 2016 (UTC) See my other message.
 * There hasn't been any activity in this forum lately, so I was wondering if we've reached a conclusion yet. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:33, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Bump — This discussion may be semi or fully obsolete due to the presence of this forum. But even without the rollback prerequisite for admin candidates, having the content moderator user group would prove to have some positive aspects, such as serving as an intermediate user group for users wanting to apply for more than just the rollback rights, without necessarily wanting to obtain full administrator rights.


 * I know this discussion has been dead for nearly 5 months, but the social side of the community has been very lax over the past few months and even our more recent forums like the Removing rollback requirement for admin candidates discussion and the Clarifying fanon ownership discussion haven't been running nearly as smoothly as they would have done, had they taken place when the public interest of the community was still at large. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 09:19, August 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a good way to make users prepared to learn the skills of admin ship and it can make people who deserve the position given the ability to show how good they are in terms of using there skills to the wikis benefit. -Forward Syde linked me this discussion- Darytyg123123 (talk) 11:31, August 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – Combined with removing rollback as a requirement for higher level rights, it might possibly open admin requests up a little. If nothing else, it could provide a way for trusted editors to be able to do more routine content-management tasks, whether or not they want full admin rights. Dharden (talk) 15:32, August 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * I was asked to change my vote numerous times, but I want to stick to neutral. I think this position might be a good first step towards the admin position, but who's going to apply for it? I don't know, but in my personal opinion am I not convinced that this could possibly improve the community. This is because of the current community that we have, and (I'm not saying (user)names) with some of the users I've seen am I not really convinced that any of them will and/or should participate. Most users don't participate in any of the community discussions, they don't really improve anything outside of fanon and in short, I don't think they're really here for the community, only for you-know-what... If this wasn't the case at all, I would've supported. Sims  Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 09:01, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

While we are all entitled to our own reasons for giving support, neutral, or oppositions in discussions to reach a community consensus, I must say that our present day community is perfectly good at filtering out good candidates, from candidates that aren't suitable for the position they are applying for. Most of the users that aren't dedicated to the community side of the wiki don't participate in those sorts of discussions, unless multiple users have already given support, or no users have opposed the request.

I've seen it before in past nominations where the users that weren't very dedicated to the community side of the wiki would either not see the nomination, or they would hold back until some of the more dedicated users weighed in on the discussion, and if most of them gave support, then some of the users that were less dedicated would give support. And I've also noticed that in nominations where most of the more dedicated users had opposed the nomination, a lot of the less dedicated users would refrain from participating in the discussion altogether.

We have had some past users - that were later revealed to be unsuitable for the rights they were applying for - that passed their nominations on the wiki, and this time when I say past users, I mean those from years back. Those users passed their nominations partly because back then user nominations weren't very formal, with each nomination taking place on the same page, unlike today where each administrator or bureaucrat nomination gets their own nomination and discussion page. In the early nominations there wasn't really much discussion, it was just a "support", "neutral", or "oppose" based on trust, and nothing more.

In some of the very first administrator requests that took place on the wiki, a user basically explained their strengths, and occasionally weaknesses, and why they thought they would benefit from the position, and then their rights requests would be accepted or declined based on trust, and if they weren't trusted with the responsibilities of an administrator, they were often granted rollback privileges instead, unless the candidate was clearly ineligible to obtain any position on the wiki. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 10:08, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * It was mainly the possible nepotism in the voting that I was a bit scared of, but C.Syde makes perfect sense. Unlike some wikis, on this wiki, supports and opposes are not rounded up just by tallying them, but also by the strength of the argument each user has given. I've seen some users that applied for adminship, and there were more support votes than oppose votes. But the request was declined. Why? Because of the people that opposed the vote having stronger arguments. The people that supported mainly said He/she deserves it while not giving a clear explanation. The people that opposed clearly stated why they don't support. So the conclusion was that there were more reasons to decline the request than to accept.


 * C.Syde convinced me that the voting system is fair and is not based around the numbers of supports and opposes given. So I changed my vote to Weak Support. Sims  Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 10:23, August 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to note that, while the voting system may seem fair in theory, in practice it is, like any other system, subject to exploitation. The system we use is based off the !voting system used on Wikipedia, yet many RFAs fail on Wikipedia if enough people pile-on with technically valid, but still stupid, reasons. It's been an ongoing problem on Wikipedia for years, and it's only been recently that some attempt has been made to correct it (Though the majority of the community is still stubborn enough to reject it, hence why I generally have little faith in adult editors there). Perhaps I shall draft a proposal here to change the RFA process a bit in order to prevent that from happening. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 11:28, August 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't placed in a vote yet because I really don't know exactly how I feel about it. On the one hand, it feels like it's another loop to jump through for users. Since there haven't been very many requests for even starting the path to adminship, it would seem that making more tiers would make it less desirable. However, on the other hand it feels like less of a leap to adminship. I guess I would be more supportive if it seemed like there were a lot more users who could and do apply. Maybe it could be the fact that we need to look for users and encourage them because that is frankly how I got involved. I never would have even thought of becoming a rollback if it weren't for other users mentioning it to me. So while I'm not exactly against this, I can't say that I give full support. So I guess Weak Support is my vote at this time. – Icemandeaf (talk) 13:46, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * We got many supports with good arguments, I think/hope we're close to a consensus. Sims  Plumbob.png  Player  (talk) (mistakes) 19:49, August 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is a general consensus here. I'll put in a Special:Contact to Staff to get the user group activated, and follow-up here for more discussion. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 12:38, August 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, in the time since this discussion has started, bureaucrats on this wiki have now been given the power to promote content moderators (as well as discussions moderators, which would be useless since we don't use Message Walls or Wikia forums). So, no Staff contact is necessary. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 13:00, August 12, 2016 (UTC)

Further discussion
Having reached a consensus on the use of content moderators on The Sims Wiki, I feel we should discuss how we wish to handle these rights. There are a couple points that I think are worth considering (please note this list is not exhaustive... there are other issues that I might've missed)


 * 1) Should current rollbackers be automatically promoted to content moderators?
 * 2) Should requests for content moderator rights be based on the current RfR process, RfA process, some combination of the two, or a different procedure entirely?
 * 3) Should rollback rights be a prerequisite for applying for CM rights?
 * 4) Should CM rights be a prerequisite for applying for administrator rights?
 * 5) Should CMs be given a "special color" like administrators or bureaucrats?

--  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 13:00, August 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * For point 3, I say no, since that would only maintain the "rollbacker bottleneck" noted here. For point 1, I'd favor an opt-out process, and limit it to those that are currently active or semi-active; post that the new level has been added, and note that existing rollbackers will be promoted after (DATE) unless they decline. That allows time for the change to register, but gets it into play without having to wait for people to realize that they can ask for it. For point 2, start with the current RfR process, and maybe add some of the RfA process, since Content Moderators can do a fair amount of what admins do. For points 4 and 5, yes. Dharden (talk) 14:44, August 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to the first issue, I don't think current roll-backers should automatically be promoted to content moderators. I'm not opposed to the idea. I just don't see why that would be necessary. If we are going to promote current roll-backers to content moderator, I think we should only make it so that the roll-backers that have been the most active be automatically promoted to content moderator, but they should be informed about this change, so that they can accept or decline the offer in advance before it happens.


 * In response to the second issue, I think that requests for content moderator rights should be based on the current RfA process, but not have so many requirements. I don't think that having rollback rights should be necessary to have as a prerequisite. And I think that if one of the two user-groups should be used as a prerequisite for admin-ship then it should be content moderators, since it makes the transition from rollback to admin less daunting for those that are suitable to obtain admin rights.


 * I consider content moderators to be a user-group that requires more prerequisites than chat moderators and roll-backers, because of their abilities to edit protected pages, delete article pages, and move pages and images without leaving behind re-directs. Because they don't have much of the other admin tools, and because they don't have chat moderator rights, I don't think it's necessary for content moderator-ship to be as serious a business as admin-ship.


 * In response to the last issue, I don't think it's necessary for content moderators to be given a special colour. Again, I'm not opposed to such a suggestion, but like my response to the first issue, I just don't see why it would be necessary for content moderators to have their own special colour.


 * As a side note, I don't think the fact that discussion moderator rights are now available on all wikis is entirely useless. As of January of this year, they now have chat moderator rights, the abilities to delete comments on blog articles, and edit and delete comments. So while that doesn't count for much, I fail to see how that's entirely useless. But that's just me! :) ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 00:20, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to put much thought to this thread. For the first bullet point though, I definitely disagree with automatically promoting rollbackers to content moderators. It's, again, a big jump, and someone I trust with the rollback tool may not be someone I'd trust with the ability to delete a page. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 02:33, August 13, 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea of automatic promotion to CM is meant to minimize the occurrence of otherwise-qualified individuals being forced to jump through a second set of hoops. In theory, any current rollbackers could presently request administratorship. If we implement a rule requiring admin candidates to hold CM rights, and then don't grant current rollbackers CM rights, or at least a streamlined process to receive those rights, then we're moving the goalposts backwards and making it more challenging to ultimately get at admin rights, if that is indeed what these rollbackers intend to do. At the same time, I do understand the hesitation to grant user rights automatically, especially since many of our rollbackers have been inactive for quite some time. Therefore, I think it would be best to reach some sort of compromise, either where we grant current active rollbackers the right to apply for RfA without holding CM rights beforehand, or else streamline the process for current rollbackers to apply for CM rights without having to go through a full drawn-out discussion. Additionally, I see a benefit in making the process streamlined for current rollbackers; making the promotions process easy for them might encourage them to request those rights, whereas they might've been hesitant to make the leap up to administratorship.


 * I should add, I don't think that anyone who is not responsible enough to know when to delete or not delete a page would have ever been given rollback rights in the first place. Rollback and delete tools both have a potential for abuse, which is why rights requests safeguards are put in place at all, but if a user is shown to be capable handing rollback, I don't see why a few additional tools increase the risk of abuse. If I ever had any doubt about a user's capabilities to handle a few basic tools, I certainly would've spoken out in opposition to awarding even rollback permissions. --  LiR talk • blog  •  contribs 04:07, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't have any problems with allowing our current active roll-backers to be automatically promoted to content moderator, since only a handful of our roll-backers have been active lately anyway. This is a trust issue, and I do trust our current active roll-backers to be able to handle the tools of content moderator-ship without misusing them or abusing them. If they do abuse or misuse their tools repeatedly, which I doubt will be the case, we can always demote them later, even if it does require a bit of consensus to get them demoted.


 * Initially I was hesitant to support the idea of automatically promoting our current active roll-backers to content moderator, but I think in fairness, they should be promoted to content moderator to retain the ability to apply for admin-ship, and not have to jump so far to make it there. I know that what I'm about to mention isn't quite the same, but before we just had full fledged administrators, we had fanon administrators as well, and from what I've read upon, fanon administrators were just administrators that were restricted to administrating the fanon namespace.


 * I kinda see Content Moderators like that, except that instead of having the permissions to administrate the main namespace like fanon administrators, do despite fanon administrators not having the authority to do it, Content Moderators don't have the permissions that allow them to do half of the things that administrators can do, like blocking and unblocking users, or editing the user interface. There are also several other privileges that are extended to administrators that are not extended to content moderators. Privileges that I would have frowned upon, if content moderators had them and we decided to automatically promote our active roll-backers to content moderator. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:28, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * Automatically promoted to content moderators? Hmm... I don't think they should be grandfathered in, but they should be given the a way of easily being promoted. I'm not sure how exactly. Maybe an opt-in option? I know some have mentioned an opt-out approach. I'm not saying for or against either one, but if we say that active users can opt-out being promoted until a curtain date, that would mean that an active user who for what ever reason doesn't reply would automatically be promoted. Whereas with an opt-in approach, a user would have to express the desire to be promoted to CM. Hmm... Just brainstorming, but there should be something less of a blanket than automatic promotion.
 * Rollback rights be a prerequisite? No. Don't need another loop to jump. If we really needed to filter users who wanted to get more user rights, then I would be for it. As the case is now, we are basically lacking users from looking for user rights. In fact, I don't really see that many new users joining as it is, which leads to few to replace those who leave.
 * CM rights be a prerequisite for applying for administrator rights? Maybe? While I am not for making the path more complicated and long, CM seems to be a good stepping stone for admin.
 * A "special color"? Sure. Why not? I have wondered why it isn't that way with rollbackers as well, but that's a whole different matter. The only reason I find it useful is that I don't always remember who is what (as in what user rights they have). But I can see the reason for not having it because then it sort of leads people to assume that CM are more important than other users or at least are the users to ask if you need or notice something, and a rollbacker wouldn't be much help to a regular user. However, a CM might be because they have some abilities like deleting pages. I guess I'm on the wall about this one too. Ha! – Icemandeaf (talk) 15:40, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * I think having an opt-in option would be better than having an opt-out option. Because I'm sure that not all of our current roll-backers would be terribly keen on being given content moderator rights automatically after a certain date. Just because our current roll-backers don't opt-out doesn't necessarily mean that they'd be keen on being automatically promoted. Even when some users like myself have difficulty in believing this, you get some users that are neither keen to be automatically promoted, nor keen in explicitly stating whether or not they would be interested in being automatically promoted. So I think that to be promoted to content moderator, a roll-backer would have to explicitly declare their interest in being promoted, and to retain their ability to apply for admin-ship. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 22:46, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Just to sum up where the conversation seems to be right now:


 * 1) Should current rollbackers be automatically promoted? - It looks as though there is a general agreement against automatic promotion, but support for some framework for current rollbackers to more easily transition to content mod, either through an opt-in process or a simplified application.
 * 2) What process should requests for content mod rights follow? - It seems as though there is support for a system based on the RfA process, though with expectations tailored towards the "entry level" nature of the position when compared to administrator promotions.
 * 3) Should rollback rights be a prerequisite for applying for CM rights? - There is consensus in opposition to having rollback be a prerequisite for content moderator rights.
 * 4) Should CM rights be a prerequisite for applying for administrator rights? - I hesitate to call it a consensus, but there generally seems to be support for having content mod as a prerequisite for administrator.
 * 5) Should CMs be given a special color? - There is consensus in favor of providing a special color for content moderators.

I never did give my own answers to the questions I outlined.

1) I disagree with automatic promotion, though I would like to see some framework to enable rollbackers to apply for content mod without having to go through a full RfA-like process. The process I'd envision for current rollbackers is basically an application - the rollbacker posts a request, and users/admins have a certain amount of time to weigh in and, if they so choose, oppose the request. If there is no opposition within the set time limit, the rollbacker will be promoted without the need for a full drawn-out request. If there is opposition, it can then progress to a full discussion following whatever framework we lay down.

2) I believe we should follow the same process as currently laid down for RfAs - 5 day minimum discussion, consensus necessary for a promotion, etc. - but steer away from the same requirements in order to be considered a good candidate. We should focus on this being a position to entice current rollbackers since that seems to be the target audience anyways at this point. As such, we don't need to require the same depth and breadth of activity and experience that we expect from admin candidates.

3) No

4) Yes

5) I have no strong feelings one way or the other. However, if we do adopt a special color for CMs, I believe we should give them the current color assigned to admins, and have admins and bureacurats share the same color instead of having separate colors for admins and b'crats (as this reinforces the idea that bureaucrats and admins are different when, in most cases that are relevant to the average user, they're the same thing)

--  LiR talk · blog  ·  contribs 02:56, August 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * That certainly would work for me. I'll be clear that I'm only weakly supportive of the idea of administrators and bureaucrats sharing the same colour, but then I guess it doesn't really matter if they do share the same colour, since all active bureaucrats are administrators anyway.


 * The usernames of inactive bureaucrats that either didn't have sysop flags to start with, or lost their sysop flags due to inactivity are not currently denoted in dark green. This creates the impression that a bureaucrat would need to be active and flagged as a sysop to have their usernames denoted in dark green.


 * But then the only non-sysop bureaucrats on this wiki are the ones that were inactive since before the inactive administrator policy was reppealed, which explains why the non-sysop bureaucrats that once had administrator rights no longer have sysop flags. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:05, August 25, 2016 (UTC)


 * Also something else that came into mind. With the warning template, roll-backers are restricted to issuing level 1 and level 2 warnings only. But administrators are permitted to issue level 3 warnings as well. Being a content moderator would technically mean that a user would be allowed to issue level 1 and level 2 warnings, as content moderators implicitly have rollback rights already. But should content moderators be allowed to issue level 3 warnings? For my personal thoughts on this, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although an administrator should be notified about the user and their edits, so that they can quickly respond to the user and their actions if necessary.


 * However I'm not sure about how other users feel about this, since content moderators don't have the ability to block users, and looking at it from a certain perspective, issuing a level 3 warning should be limited to those with the ability to block users, because of the context associated with the level 3 warnings. But then if I was sure how other users would feel about this, I wouldn't have brought the warning template situation up. ―  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:54, August 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Such a discussion would probably go at Forum:Changing the warning template, but I am inclined to ditch the whole fiasco of only administrators being allowed to issue high-level warnings. Wikipedia doesn't forbid anyone from using the higher-level warnings, so it makes no sense that we somehow need to be different. If you use it correctly, then the point comes across to the user that they're about to be blocked; if you don't, the person who issued the warning is at fault. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 12:32, August 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Bump — Anymore thoughts on this, or have we reached a consensus yet? I'm surprised at how long this has taken for us to reach a consensus, and even now, it's unclear whether the consensus is strong enough for these proposals to take effect. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 11:40, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Bump — You know sometimes I have days where I feel that I should just draw a conclusion myself. But doing so would leave me with a guilty feeling, as I just can't trust myself to do that, and then have others say to me that I shouldn't do it. And in any case, I don't really want to draw the consensus since I haven't actually taken that sort of action before, and I don't feel that this is the sort of situation where I want to turn my pattern of not being the one to draw the conclusion around. ― C.Syde  ( talk  |  contribs ) 23:34, October 25, 2016 (UTC)