Anonymous user
Forum:Content moderators: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>C.Syde65 |
imported>K6ka No edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
{{closed|res|2=LostInRiverview has posted the following conclusions:
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''Should CMs be given a special color?'' - There is consensus in favor of providing a special color for content moderators.
As there has not been any significant additions to the discussion (re. the thing about warning templates, the rules have changed in the meantime and all users are free to use the warning templates unless otherwise specified), I'm closing this as favourable. A content moderator project page may be created. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 21:53, January 9, 2018 (UTC)}}
[[w:User blog:DaNASCAT/Introducing New Moderator Opportunities For Community Administration|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.
Line 78 ⟶ 85:
:::::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. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 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! – [[User:Icemandeaf|Icemandeaf]] ([[User talk: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. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 22:46, August 13, 2016 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::}}
Just to sum up where the conversation seems to be right now:
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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)
-- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LiR</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 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 [[Forum:Retiring the Inactive Administrator Policy|inactive administrator policy]] was reppealed, which explains why the non-sysop bureaucrats that once had administrator rights no longer have sysop flags. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 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. ― '''[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]''' ([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]) 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. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 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. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="maroon">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 23:34, October 25, 2016 (UTC)
::::::I think content mod is a great idea, a stepping stone to an admin is a good idea, it should be between Rollback and admin, and yeah. Working 9-5 [[User:TheOneFootTallBrickWall|TheOneFootTallBrickWall]] ([[User talk:TheOneFootTallBrickWall|talk]]) 01:14, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
| |||