Hi Everyone,
I'm proposing we think how we do user rights requests and the requirements to do so.
This isn't tinkering around the edges like removing the edit count. This is closer to a full reboot, and moves to a competency based system.
I propose we start this reform with the Chat Moderator position.
What's wrong with the current system
At the moment the current requests tell us very little about the person applying, if they can be trusted, and what they'll do with the powers if granted.
To try to address this we introduced the endorsement requirement, but it doesn't fully fix the issue.
We also have a minimum edit count requirement. This is supposed to show both a minimum commitment and ensure the user has a minimum level of skill so they can act as an elementary level of support for wiki help if someone with more editing experience isn't available.
This isn't really effective at either. The active minimum time requirement and the endorsement cover the former. On the latter, 100 typo edits don't prove editing skill, and plenty of other good candidates are excluded - people who can be taught the basics or have learned it elsewhere.
The New System
The new system resolves around three tests:
- The Trial of Skill
- The Trial by Fire
- The Trial of Will
The time minimum would remain, as would the requirement to receive an endorsement.
A user wishing to undergo the trials would, as now, approach an existing person holding Chat Moderator rights. If the Chat Moderator is satisfied that they believe the applicant has the right temperament, personality, level of activity, etc, then they can choose to ask a Bureaucrat to start the trials.
(There's no obligation on any Chat Moderator to endorse anyone if they don't want to).
The Trials
The role of the Bureaucrat here is to administer the three trials, and in the case of the first two trials determine objectively if the person has passed or failed.
Passing the first two trials allows the user to progress to the third, the results are posted as a part of the user vote.
The Trial of Skill
This test is about demonstrating familiarity with the tools. We would come up with a list of elementary things we expect a Chat Moderator to know. Things like voting on a forum, correcting a incorrectly formatted vote, adding basic formatting, using a simple template. We would expect the user to perform these within a reasonable number of edits/attempts (Doesn't have to be first time perfect, but, for instance, if it takes you more than 2-3 to use bold, then thats not going to pass).
Links to the demonstrated edits would appear in the user rights request. A bureaucrat could stop the request if the person clearly isn't at the required standard.
The Trial by Fire
On occasion, some users, like Gunny, have used the Temp Mod tools to give would-be moderators an opportunity to see what its like in the real world, and more importantly, let us see how they will act.
This would make this formal, and expand on it. A user would need to clock up a certain number of hours actively moderating. We'd also need them to deal with a certain number of situations. An admin may even be asked to create an alt to "red-team" against the candidate.
Transcripts of the situation would be included in the vote. A bureaucrat could stop an application at this point if there was a serious issue in how the user conducted themselves.
The Trial of Will
The Trial of Will would be an interview. The Bureaucrat would discuss with the user their reasons for applying, and quiz them on what they would do in certain situations.
This would not be a pass/fail test. The answers to these questions would become the core of the voting forum.... Even if the Bureaucrat liked none of the answers themselves this wouldn't stop a person progressing.
The Forum
After the interview, if the candidate still wants to continue, the Bureaucrat would then create a voting forum. The Bureaucrat would include the results of all of the trials, and transcripts where appropriate.
I can't promise this would stop it completely being a popularity contest, thats always going to be an element of any vote, but voters will have hard facts about what skills this person has and how they'll likely react.
Conclusion
Although this is perhaps more fiddly, I think it would result in better candidates, and allow those who use chat, and open it up to more potential candidates.
Any Thoughts? Agent c (talk) 17:30, July 8, 2018 (UTC)
Comments
This is definitely a fairer and more efficient way to gain rights. Pedro Washington (talk) 22:30, July 8, 2018 (UTC)
The Gunny Test
As with any proposed rule change, I will apply the test I've always used: Is there a clear and present problem? What is the exact root cause of the problem, rather than the symptoms the cause of the problem show themselves as? Do the proposed changes effectively resolve the stated problem? Is the issue problematic enough and the proposed changes effective enough that the changes to a perceived problem do not create new or exacerbate existing problems and are worth the effort to implement? Everything has to pass the KISS method (Keep It Simple, Stupid). I would like input on these points in the sections below. I am very serious to see discussion on these points. This could be a huge change and it needs to have these criteria met. I would appreciate folks to respond. The Gunny 
00:59, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
'
Is there a clear and present problem?
I would argue yes. The current tests are not fit for purpose (they do no achieve what they are supposed to achieve), and I have two would be candidates for Chat Moderator (potentially good ones) who are dissuaded from running because of the edit count. I am also fielding complaints about insufficient and inconsistent moderation. Agent c (talk) 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
What is the exact cause of the problem?
Problem one is the edit count requirement. It is supposed to prove a basic level of skill, but does not do so. Instead it acts simply as a hurdle that isn't relevant to the position itself. Problem two is There are no actual tests proving that a Chat moderator has the right stuff to do the job, beyond the endorser's gut feeling. Agent c (talk) 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
Do the proposed changes effectively resolve the problem?
Yes. The hurdles now become relevant to the position, and we get a better feel for how the candidate will actually use teh tools. 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
Is the issue problematic enough to make the changes?
Given that I am fielding complaints about inconsistent and insufficient moderation from multiple users, yes. Agent c (talk) 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
Do the proposed changes create new or exacerbate existing problems?
I won't lie. Any change will create new problems. I think this will remove the old ones completely. There will be some new ones in administering the tests. Agent c (talk) 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
Are the proposed changes worth the effort to implement?
I believe so. Moving to a competency based system rather than "Edits + Gutcheck" I think will result in a better quality of candidate. Agent c (talk) 21:32, July 9, 2018 (UTC)