Forum:Implementing content mods on TSW

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Implementing content mods on TSW | Post

A forum thread that was recently closed showed community support for implementing the Content Moderator user rights group on The Sims Wiki, but left open a few questions regarding how this should be done. I would like to revive the discussion, and bring about some other issues that come to mind after the end of the previous discussion. Namely, I would like us to talk about and resolve, if possible:

1. The procedures for handling applications/nominations for Content Mod rights
   • The previous discussion showed support for a discussion-based system similar to RFAs, but with reduced requirements, or with some elements of the RFR process built-in to make it easier for people to obtain mod rights.
2. Special rules for content moderators regarding pages/templates/features that are currently "admin only"
   • For example, should ConMods be allowed to edit marked "Admin Only" templates and pages, respond to requests on the Admin Noticeboard, etc?
3. Should content moderatorship be a prerequisite for administratorship?
   • This was discussed previously but there was no clear consensus one way or the other.

If you can think of anything else that is relevant to the discussion, please bring it up as well. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 08:14, January 12, 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Personally I feel that Content Moderator rights should be a prerequisite for administrator rights, though I'm a bit concerned that that may overshadow the rollback user-group. Although the rollback tool is quite powerful on it's own, the fact that content moderators have the rollback tool as well may cause fewer users to want to request rollback rights.

I think Content Moderators should be able to edit protected pages such as high traffic pages and templates. For admin only templates, I'm still not sure where I stand with content moderators being permitted to edit those. I guess whatever the majority thinks is fine with me.

Another thing I should bring up is the admin portal talk page. Since I know some users may think that the discussions that take place on the talk page should be limited to admins only, while other users may think that since content moderators can edit protected pages, they should be permitted to talk part in the discussions that take place on the admin portal talk page.

Personally I don't have a problem with content moderators being able to edit it, though I wouldn't be too surprised if other users had a different perspective on it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:47, January 18, 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support using an RFA-like system of evaluating candidates. Since content moderators can delete (and most importantly, undelete pages), it is very important that content moderators receive at least some level of scrutiny and examination before getting the position. Deleting the wrong page is serious, but undeleting the wrong page is even more problematic, especially since we have deleted content that should not be undeleted or even shared publicly anywhere (This is one of the reasons why the Wikimedia Foundation is very uncomfortable with allowing non-RFA candidates to view the contents of deleted revisions). As such, content moderators should go through an RFA-like process so the community can evaluate them. I have proposed elsewhere that RFA should last for one week instead of five days so that the community can have more time to respond to a nomination. I would suggest a 7-day minimum candidacy period to give all community members an opportunity to comment on content moderator candidates.

Content moderators are an interesting position—they have some, but not all, of the admin tools. That being said, they should feel absolutely free to respond to deletion/undeletion and page protection/unprotection requests on the administrators' noticeboard; assuming that content moderators are supposed to help lessen administrator workloads, it makes little sense that they shouldn't be allowed to handle such threads. For requests to block/unblock users, they're like any other non-admin, since content moderators are unable to revoke or restore editing access to a user anyways; they may provide arguments and present evidence, but can't actually act on such requests. I'm fine with them being able to edit fully protected pages, provided they know what they're doing (This goes to existing admins too... *ahem*!).

The Admin Portal Talk Page is another matter. Perhaps we need to discuss the purposes of the admin portal talk page and ask ourselves why it has to be fully protected. A lot of the discussions on that page right now revolve around blocks. As it currently stands, I would suggest that content moderators not comment on such discussions, considering that other users who do not have access to the block button can't do so anyways. However, if the discussion is about deleting/undeleting, or editing protected/unprotected pages, or anything else, really, they're free to join. (I'm not sure if content moderators are able to edit whitelisted MediaWiki system messages pages... can someone confirm? If yes, they're welcome to help out with updating MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation every time a new EP comes out.)

I am as of current undecided on the third point LiR mentioned. I think in a large majority of cases, many current prospective admin candidates probably only really need (or will use) the content moderator tools, so we could possibly direct more admin candidates there. Administrators (and by extension bureaucrats) could then be more focused towards internal wiki affairs, such as user management (including resolving serious user disputes), and thus be more of a reserved role with higher standards. Given how content creation and user management are two different things (Indeed, handling content disputes and user disputes are often two different things), I'm hesitant on making content mod a prerequisite for adminship. In my opinion, if a user who was very proficient with content creation ran for adminship, I would probably suggest that they run for content mod instead. However, if a user who shows a level-head in resolving user conduct disputes and was active in more internal wiki affairs tried running for content moderator, depending on how comfortable I am with trusting the user with the tools I may suggest that they run for RFA instead, since content mod tools would probably be of limited use to them.

—k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:32, January 22, 2018 (UTC)

Responding to k6ka's comments...

I feel like increasing the discussion period from 5 to 7 days is a minor enough change that it could just be implemented, especially since the previous discussion seemed to show support for that idea.

As far as I can tell, Content Moderators cannot edit any MediaWiki pages, including the Wiki-navigation page. However, we could perhaps cheat this a little, as we did with the "Community Notifications/Community Corner" system - simply have MediaWiki:Wiki-navigation display a template and set the template as fully protected. I don't know if this would work in practice, but it's a thought.

Regarding admin vs mod, if I understand you correctly, you're essentially saying that, while hierarchically admins are "above" content mods, we should set up content moderatorship such that it appeals to the "technical" editors rather than the "community leader" types?

--LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 03:14, January 26, 2018 (UTC)

Kinda. I realize that there are two kinds of editors: 1) Those that work hard on content creation; and 2) Those that are very prolific with working in the community. Those who focus on content creation may not have much of a use for the block button, so there's no need to grant them that. Content mods are pretty much what it says on the tin: people that help moderate wiki content. For those who primarily work in the field of content creation, content mod has everything that they need, with none of the extras. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:51, January 27, 2018 (UTC)