Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Moving Patroller to Content Moderator

To make it easier for our patrollers to handle day to day patrolling (especially with issues like Vandalism and CC articles), I would like to propose the movement of our current patrollors to the Content Moderator user group. This change will give Patrollers two additional capabilities:

  1. The power to protect articles
  2. The power to delete articles
  3. The power to rename/delete images (apologies, I forgot this when I brought it to the table)

They will still be limited as to blocking users and will not be able to edit mediawiki pages, so it has a nice balance between editor and Admin.

At present, as a trial, I would like to test this functionality out with Great Mara and FWDekker, two long standing patrollers, who we should have no reason to not trust with these tools. Myself and at least one other Admin/Bureaucrat would make a general observation of the protect and deletion logs, to see what impact/benefit it is to us. From here we can return in two weeks to review and confirm if this is a direction we want to take and if so, what extra conditions/requirements we wish to consider. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:09, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

Yes I think this would be a great assist to actually making Patroller have some functionality. As of now, it's essentially just a title. One of the things you need to do most when patrolling edits is protecting pages from vandalism. As for the part about deleting them? I dunno if that's absolutely needed, but the page protection I definitely think is needed. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 21:20, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

No Objection here. Agent c (talk) 21:21, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Yes Saka Sucks but this is cool User: Pedro Washington

I'd be glad to take part in this trial! Vandalism usually consists of a single edit, but it happens occassionally that a troll goes further than that. I think that these additional rights will increase our (as a community) response time to these events, without giving us more power than necessary for fighting trolls. - FDekker talk 21:30, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Yes Great idea. It would save time in always having to contact an admin if a page like "DEALING WITH THE ALIENS" popped up (which they have in the past, though not of that title), meaning it could be dealt with immediately, rather than later, when the admin finds the message on their talk page.Leea (talk) 21:35, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Yes Being able to protect pages would be a great help for stopping edit wars, which is something I and other patrollers encounter often. Though I don't think we need to be able to delete pages as I very rarely see troll pages pop up. Renaming file names should be useful for people who use the images as well. 123123abcabc (talk) 22:33, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. The power to lock articles? Fine. The power to delete articles? Kind of big for such a position, especially considering it's the only position that doesn't require a vote. And we've had some... questionable patrollers in the past I'm not sure I would trust with that ability. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:49, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

This is why I said we would need to potentially review requirements. Our current patrollers I'm comfortable with. New people I'd be cautious about giving on 100 edits without the backing of community. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:00, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

As someone who has uploaded over 700 files to the wiki, I have on several occasions uploaded an image that I have wished to rename. Having to contact an administrator every time has been very boring and a waste of time. The ability to delete articles will also come in handy, on more than one occasion have I had to wait for administrators to delete articles created by vandals. Protecting articles would also be nice, this would mean that I could stop edit wars. Suffice to say, I am for this DisgustingWastelander (talk) 21:57, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not objecting, but I do have concerns given how large of a number of patrollers we tend to have at any one time. The delete function can cause a lot of havoc very quickly, and I'd rather not have to clean up a mess should someone get that right and abuse it. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:03, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

In our current Roster, is there anyone you would have concerns with bleep? This is why I want to trial, just to see how it affects patrollers and the extra work on sysops it may create. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:06, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually thinking beyond just our current roster. Given patroller is the only special rights position not awarded via community vote, I don't think I'm comfortable giving them permanent rights to deletion and locking pages. With had situations in the past where moderators and even admins have abused such things, and I'm very wary of giving users who have basically had no vetting that right. With that said, IF we were to move only the current stock of patrollers to this position and/or have temp runs with newer patrollers once we get to a place where we know them well enough to trust them with something like this, I would be more in favor of such a measure. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:12, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
I agree, as I sad to Pally above, we need to reconsider criteria for Content Moderator given a move. 100 edits and we give power to complete significant, restricted changes to the wiki doesn't sit well with me. It may well be, we move our current stock of actives to Content Moderator, hold the current patroller role over for inactives, who would had to prove ability to move upwards (many of these have been gone a long while so I would want to see trust earned for more power than they left with) and frequent interwiki users (Smalley, 1857a, Beard, KPThug etc) so we can still give that symbol of trust to newer users as a sign of potential. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:20, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
I would definitely be in favor of that course of action. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:33, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

What if we did it as a "3 month good behaviour (and constant activity) as Patroller gets you the extra rights" thing? Agent c (talk) 22:45, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the discretion to extend the wait period to bureaucrats to make the final judgement? I can see the pros and cons to that. This is an admin-lite role so people might want more input. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:51, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
Renaming and deleting files is something that would be quite useful to some of our biggest uploaders. Requirements could be moved to: 500-1000 edits, a formal request from the patroller, and the endorsement of a bureaucrat. I'm in favor of this trial. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 23:42, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, that's kind of how the unofficial process already works - I had to do all the above listed things (500 edits, formal request, getting endorsed by JSP) to become a patroller. Nevertheless, I think it would be useful if the official guidelines were updated to match this. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 15:06, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

Yes I think this is a great idea. I would love to be able to protect pages when necessary. God knows how many warnings I've given and seen given over edit warring. I also agree with many of the senior staff's misgivings in some of these areas, and I happen to feel the same way myself on certain issues. Myself, I would like to see the ability to block vandals added to the list. I'm not talking about a 3 day, one week, or even a complete ban. I would just like to see a simple 12 hour or 1 day know...a limited ability to take some of the load off the admins and bureaucrats. If the issue continues, then they get involved. Anyway, regardless of the block thing, here is what I propose for the current situation:

  • Do your pilot test
  • Change Patroller to Content Moderator
  • Admins and bureaucrats only will meet and discuss the finer points
  • Assign new rights to every patroller that senior staff have discussed and approved of in the aforementioned meeting
  • Anyone not assigned rights goes back to editor status, but can apply for Content Moderator
  • From that point on, hold the Content Moderator position to the same requirements as the other positions. (i.e. an app request and formal vote) StormRider71 (talk) 01:03, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
A vandal can be stopped with page protection at least, if its an insistent bugger who really wants to have fun with one page until an admin swoops in. For the number of vandal attacks we get in a day, just losing the reverts will take weight off us.
Your proposal itself I can see working, but I would be the first to strike off point 5 for two reasons: One its like doing a mass reconfirmation without the reconfirmation, these people earned the rights they have and the respect the earned to gain them should be reflected. Two Great Mara has already said he doesn't want to be a Content Moderator, so it would be unduly harsh (plus create more work for those who use the patrol button) to remove the patroller right from him. As the change will impact 10 active patrollers plus 12 inactives (although I wouldn't count Digital Utopia as completely inactive, I speak to him regarding wiki stuff most days) I can see the need for Senior staff to discuss the finer points, but we should still bring the final draft to the table for community consensus before pushing it through. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 01:28, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Yes I would like to see how the test phase works out, but I don't think there will be any issues. Although I agree with StormRider on most of his points aside from revoking rights from current Patrollers, I don't think that would be fair to the people who aren't approved. Having the ability to block vandals would be a bigger help for sure, then again every admin I've asked to ban a vandal has acted quickly. Rebel427 ~ I'll be your huckleberry 03:10, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving them the ability to protect pages, but I'm not sure about the other options you propose. The ability to delete pages is one of the most powerful and impactful admin tools and I'm not too much fond of the idea of giving it to people that haven't been elected by the community. 1 bcrat misjudgment and we can have someone deleting half of the wiki for the lolz. It can all be reverted etc, yes, but it also takes its time to detect and act. And if you have a million people visiting your wiki per day, it means several thousands didn't find what they were looking for. - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 08:13, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It definately would be disrespectful to take away what has been earned. My apologies for not clarifying a bit more, but what I meant was the inactives. You already said you were pretty comfortable with everyone who is currently an active patroller. As far as Mara not really wanting to be a Content Moderator goes, I see it as not much different than being a patroller, just with a couple of extra tools at hand. If he (or anyone else) doesn't want to use them, then don't use them. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, but it looks to me like it's that simple. StormRider71 (talk) 12:52, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Note that this comment comes without any prior viewing of other comments on this thread.
I am alright with these changes, but if we grant these powers (specifically the page deletion tool), we need to revamp the way patrollers are elected. While obviously if a bureaucrat gives the user their blessing, that is already a lot of stock in the user's abilities and trustworthiness, a community vote would be more appropriate, or at the very least the thoughts of multiple bureaucrats instead of just one. Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 19:00, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

Granting the power to create page breaks on overly long forum comment sections for ease of editing[edit source]

Something I always try to do when a new rule is proposed is ask these questions:
  1. Is there a clear and present problem we are trying to solve with this new rule?
  2. Does this new rule actually solve the root of the problem, or does it address only the symptomatic issues radiating from the real problem?
  3. If a clear and present problem not identified in #1 above, does this new rule fundamentally improve our functionality by a significant margin?

So, is there a clear and present problem? I simply don't see a fundamental problem where we don't have enough admins around to protect delete pages. First, for deletions, there is no real issue at all. Anyone can slap a delete template on a page and it will get deleted soon enough. It is not a huge problem for a stray page to remain on the wiki for a few hours, which is the longest I can imagine one staying. As for protections, there may be times when a speedy protection will stop an edit war, but typically the edit wars are between a patroller and a misguided user. In this case, if you're in an edit war, you are not supposed to use your tools to stop it. Another rights user should make that call. There are only rare times when page protection is really needed to stop a vandal where an admin can't be found. If it's not vandalism, there is no inherent problem with a questionable edit remaining for a short time until it can be sorted. So what is the real problem here? If this is really an issue, it seems the problem is not that the partollers don't have the rights to perform their function, it seems there's not enough admins around to support them. So should we really be asking if we have enough admin coverage if pages don't get protected quickly enough?

Since the proposed rule does not actually solve the problem of not having enough admins, granting some of the admin powers to patrollers is a bandaid on the real issue. If the page needs protecting or deleting because of vandalism, you need an admin to block the user so they stop vandalizing anyways. This is a clear case of a solution that does not solve the root problem.

Does this new rule fundamentally improve our functionality? No. As outlined above, it only prolongs the need for an admin. How many edit wars have only stopped after a third party admin has stepped in to threaten with or use their block powers? Answer: Most of the ones that don't stop by the proper procedure in an edit war, ie taking it to the talk pages.

I looked at the list of patrollers. Why are we looking at granting only a few of them content moderator rights? Why not all? If one needs it, do not all of them need it? Further proof that this is not the right solution. Then you take into account that the additional tools may require a further vote of confidence by the community to wield them. Don't we already have that in the form of an admin request? How many of the better partollers meet the minimum requirements for admin and are trusted enough to pass a request? Probably most of those that would be trusted as content moderators.

Let's keep this simple folks. If we need more admins, let's get some. Let's not put a whole new process in place to make patrollers, one that is far more onerous and subjective (who decides when a patroller is ready for content moderator?). Since Dekker was proposed to test this new idea, is there anyone here that wouldn't vote yes on an admin request of his, if we decide that we really do need a little more admin coverage? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 21:47, October 8, 2017 (UTC)

-  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 21:47, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
I eventually came to the same conclusion: do we really need it? No. Isn't it easier to just see some patrollers asking for admin rights? Yes. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 22:22, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
Lets see how well I can address the 3 points raised:
  1. My two thoughts were edit warring and deleting CC/Vandalism content. Edit warring has been up slightly, albeit a small increase. Distusting has also raised the point that patrollers, who we trust cannot move image files. You could ask an admin, but wouldn't it be more efficient to allow our patrollers to move these themselves instead of getting in touch with an admin?
  2. It will alleviate the symptoms, not being able to eliminate redirects and move images is an issue, a lot of this work is picked up by Jspoel, broadening the scope will take pressure off. Will it be resolved 100%? I doubt it, but I don't think there is a foolproof solution.
  3. This is why I want to run a trial, with 2 patrollers. See what impact it has and see if we definitely have a justified need. I see potential with this, but we need to test the hypothesis.
I think as well, that if the patroller we had wanted to be admin, many of them would have already. Admin is a front and back end role, the latter being something many are not interested in and such won't run. Users like YoD and Dekker have been patrollors for over a year now, yet have elected, for reasons of their own not to run. If you cannot resolve the issue of candidates willing to run for admin, why not try the angle of a lite version. They stick to working on the wiki, in the same capacity with a few extra tools they can request if they need them.
As far as active admins go, there is myself, plus Richie and Pally who are less visibly active. Energy X has been lurking in the background too and as I'm sure all can appreciate, I split my time over with discussions as well. When you look at the logs, it is the same 6-9 users who keep popping up.
As for only granting a few, this is to test need. If the need is there we would extend to all, with exception of those who decline. I'd also want to consider how we handled inactives too, do we want to give them more power on their return, than what they had before they left?
If we need more admins, where will they come from if people don't want the full responsibility? This is a middle ground that sits well with the patrollers we have, if it takes weight off the active sysops and is successful, why not do it? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 22:47, October 8, 2017 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Saka. The jump from Patroller to Admin seems too great. There are plenty of patrollers here - hopefully myself included - who would certainly like to see Patroller have some true functionality, but without taking on all the big tasks required of an Admin. I personally don't know if I'd want to be an admin myself for that reason. Yet, I think it would be very helpful to have some page moderation rights added. As said, I do think that simply increasing requirements officially for Patroller would be a way to make this work. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 15:10, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

( It's too close to the rights of an admin. If patrollers want these rights, apply for it the same way you do as when applying for admin, same prerequisites. They aren't that high and should be slightly easier to get. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 16:23, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess Admin feels too broad. I'd advocate a different option entirely: rather than changing Patroller to Content-Mod, why not just make Cont.Mod a new rank entirely? I guess my basic issue is that some of our Admins simply are much higher than other Admins would be if Patrollers decided to apply. In my case, for example - I can hardly imagine myself being the same rank as Sakaratte. If a patroller can so easily become Admin, then Sakaratte should be B-Crat. (Although I'd definitely support Sakaratte in that scenario.) |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 12:30, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

Simple solution[edit source]

Lets look at this not as a move, but an additional right instead:

Pros and cons
Pros Cons
  • Gateway role to Admin
  • Greater spread-ability of article based maintenance
  • Allows those who want to focus on article work over backend and user management to just get on with it (image/article renaming, "clean" renaming).
  • Better responsiveness
  • Those who want to do more, but not worry about community management can do.
  • Access to Special:MultipleUpload

  • Potential increased risk of misuse (use of powers to win an argument)
  • Potential increased risk of vandalism
  • Not an immediate solution to "lack of Admin" issues
  • Slight increase on admin/Bureaucrat work (additional log checks)
  • Vandalism control is limited

Say we match the requirements to Admin, this places the grant of these rights on the same level of trust by the community. The potential increased risk Just means more bodies with the same level of trust as those we give admin/bureaucrat.

Its not an immediate solution to lack of sysops, but it spreads the burden somewhat. The majority of post upload image handling is done by J, which is a great thing, but what if we end losing him for a period of time? That leaves us in the lurch.

The increase on Bureaucrat/Admin would be extended at most, to checking the move/protect/delete logs a couple of times a day.

Vandalism control: With who we have now, I don't see this as a big issue. Maybe in the future.

As for patroller, we keep it as is and potentially adding trusted inter-wiki editors to the list to make RC more visible for patrollers when doing their checks.

To quote Peace in discord: "it bothers me that there is this gap between admin reqs in theory and admin reqs in reality" This will help close that gap, allowing a more gradual build up to the full admin role, if they wish it. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:39, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest, i still dont see the huge problem that creating another rights position helps fix. Forgive this observation but what im getting now since im hearing that patrollers dont want to be admins, they just want some of the tools is "i want the toys, but i dont want the responsibility." This is starting to remind me of all the rules change proposals we had between nv and fo4, where the answer to a problem that wasnt really a problem was to create more bureaucracy. We already have patrollers, chat mods, d mods, wiki mods, admins and bcs. And we want to create another position just so a few folks might upload or rename images easier? If folks want the admin tools, they need to apply for admin. We could use a couple more edit focused admins like energy used to be, or what i thought jacki would be. Hows this for a compromise? We add content moderator to the wikimoderator toolset and folks who dont want to be admin can run for that instead. Open it up to direct rights requests instead of it being a useless combination of chat mod and patroller? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons.png 23:41, October 9, 2017 (UTC)

Had a skim back in the forums to see if can see what you refering too. Spotted something else and someone who wanted add a layer of bureaucracy to voting rules. I'm sure there is more in there though.

I've been aware of content moderator for a while and content to let the status quo be. In the last week though it has been fairly hectic for me as an admin (manageable, but having to put other projects etc to one side more than normal) as issues have been coming through the editorial bullpen too now we have it. In short, there are times a lot comes my way, because I'm visible and those moments are the ones where my mind drifts back to content moderator. I do feel the pressure and rather then spend time complaining about it, I just get on deal with it and look at solutions.

People want to help, but not manage the community, then imo we should encourage that. Tere was years between Peace and Jacki's admin requests and right now I can't help but feel that we will be looking at another lull before I lose the backpack.

Transferring the role to moderator instead is a good compromise, but I would expect a reduced emphasis on chat activity as part of the request, and an increased requirement. Not sure I'd be comfortable giving someone with 250 mainspace edits that sort of power. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 07:25, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

In light of the withdrawal of FDekker's adminship request I feel there's the need of a position inbetween patroller and admin, for those not wanting to the responsibility of an admin, but with some more tools. I also see it as an opportunity to up the requirements for becoming admin. I've given form to my proposal in my sandbox. Content moderator requirements get the current admin reqs, and I set the new admin requirements to 1500 or even 2000, they're outdated. We already have quite a few positions, but as long as there's a need for it, and a clear requirement, we can add it I think. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 16:03, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with the proposed changes. Push admin to 2000, just to fall in line with discussions moderator I think.
Also if a content moderators runs for discussions moderator (or discussions for content), we should handle that request as an admin run. Conmod and dmod combined is the same toolset, less mediawiki. I'd rather close that potential loophole, then leave it open. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:12, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
Since we're saying that the key difference from ContentMod to Admin is Community involvement, I think there needs to be some recognition here that there is some activity. Could be discussions posts, presence and participation in chat/discord, running a regular blog, taking ownership of social media, etc. I'd like it to be flexible but any ideas on how we can ground that? Agent c (talk) 20:11, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
I would agree on this proposal. Any sort of a rank between Patroller and Admin to bridge the gap is really what this discussion is about; thus a yes vote for JSP's idea. As for AGC'S addition regarding a need for community activity... I'd agree with it too (but I may be just a bit biased..?) |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 12:08, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not as active on here as a lot of you guys like J or Sak but I have been on here for close to two years and I fully intend to apply for admin as soon as I hit the 1000 edit mark...unless someone is willing to waive the 40 or so I lack. I'm no guru like some of you are, but I'm willing to take the responsibility. StormRider71 (talk) 22:14, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
It should at least become 1500 edits, the admin requirement. You'd have to add 60 more edits (to reach 1000) before we would implement the new rule, doable I think. Presence in community activities is of much less importance than participation in adding content in my opinion. I wouldn't make it a requirement (perhaps a recommendation) for becoming admin, it may deter talented editors who then must be active in features that doesn't have their interest. Would have been so in my case. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 22:37, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
The problem I have with that J, is the only functional difference from admin to ContentMod is the community based rights. If a Content Mod is running for admin and isn't active in these areas, the natural question is "What do you need admin rights for?". I can't for the life of me answer that question. Agent c (talk) 20:16, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
You would apply for admin if you're ready for more responsibility which is expressed by asking for the added blocking rights. You would also do that when you're a content moderator, but still it demonstrates added dedication to the wiki (checking recent changes for vandals). There's also the large difference between edit count. And in my proposal you can make a choice for content moderator or admin when you're a patroller. From what I hear, people who now may go for content moderator don't want the responsibility of an admin position, and people who are interested in admin, will skip the content moderator request anyway and go straight for admin. But I do see your point, you have to set up a good argument to go from CM to request admin. You can include the recommendation for community involvement but I'm not sure about the strict requirement. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 20:55, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
But what responsibility specifically would they be seeking? Agent c (talk) 21:19, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

What extra rights would you give the Content Moderator then? Protecting articles, renaming files, and deleting both? I noticed Sakaratte also mentions access to Special:MultipleUpload but I already got it as a patroller. --YOD ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ 00:26, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Content moderator can protect, rename and delete articles. They can't block or access Mediawiki. Every registered user can upload multiple files, difference is normal users can upload 10 at a time and admins 20 at a time. Not sure about how many patrollers can upload at a time but 10 is already more than enough. Jspoel Speech Jspoel.png 21:00, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
In a nutshell that is what will be given. Maintenance work based rights over community and mediawiki management rights. Multiple upload was part of the basis Jacki ran for admin, for me it was I want to do more for the community as a whole.
Someone who wants to run for admin, either wants to do so for mediawiki or community purposes in this model. I think as guidance we would need to say a demonstrable intention to do one or the other would be desirable. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 07:12, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

What doesn't content mod give?[edit source]

Pulled from direct comparison of CM and Admin.

Not given Given

Interestingly multiupload is available to all users (something that concerns me a little). Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:37, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think Mediawiki pages, anti-vandal fall in the non-community arena, but with anti-vandal I would still expect an element of community interaction. Features more towards community than anything else. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:58, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.