Forum:Content moderators

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Content moderators | Post

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 | 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 | 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 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 | 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 | 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 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 | 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 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 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 | 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 | contribs) 04:28, August 13, 2016 (UTC)