FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > User Rights Requirements and Community Discussion
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

In light of the recent conflict between the community, editors, and staff in general, I have come to the conclusion that much of the way we handle interactions with the community, and our expectations/requirements for staff are currently antiquated, and a source of friction. I have considered many paths to bring the community closer to the wiki proper through representation among staff. I have also considered methods by which we can encourage the community at large, both on /d and the discord, to contribute to the wiki material. The purpose of this forum will be to propose a varying array of options in order to bring our staff requirements up to modern standards. It will additionally begin discussion on ways we can better involve those on /d and the discord in contributing to the wiki.

Additionally, I will be discussing in the coming days how we can re-initiate community involvement through blog events like those that Agent C used to run. Once posted, this forum will have a timer of one month. I will be paying close attention to how the community feels about each option, and encourage everyone to leave their opinions in the comments below each set of options. This will help me better evaluate which options are more feasible to the community or not. If possible, I will also adjust certain options based on suggestions being made, as I am not perfect, and cannot account for all desired outcomes. Once you have made your vote please clarify in the comments what part of each option you liked, and what you didn't like, and what you think would be better in its place.

I encourage active discussion on everything, and fully intend to post an adjusted final options following the completion of the polling period for a second round of discussion prior to moving it to a real policy proposal.

NOTE THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY VOTE. THIS IS A DISCUSSION. NONE OF THESE OPTIONS WILL IMMEDIATELY BE IMPLEMENTED ON COMPLETION OF THE ONE MONTH TIMER. ---bleep196- (talk) 18:26, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

Poll StartEdit

Poll finished on 6:26 pm May 10, 2019 (UTC).
Poll
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
    • Use # {{yes}} ~~~ if you support the proposal.
    • Use # {{no}} ~~~ if you are against the proposal.
    • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~ if you wish to abstain.
  • Please do not edit other people's votes.

Some options are yes no. Others request selecting in order of most to least favorable. Please read before editing.

User Rights Requests RequirementsEdit

The following sections will cover proposed changes to the current standards of our positions. Some options may be more radical than others. Please keep in mind changes are being suggested to ensure potential candidates are better prepared for the positions they are requesting volunteer rights for, as well as ensure the community is better connected.

PatrollerEdit

Patrollers are the most easily accessible staff position at this time. That said, when I look at what other wikis consider worthy of having patroller rights for, I believe our standards have fallen far far behind the norm. This is especially true when I look at the requirements on our sister wiki, the Elder Scrolls Wiki.

Current Standards:

The minimum requirements for becoming a patroller are:
  • You've made at least 250 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
  • If you have been previously elected Chat Moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.

Option AEdit

Option A would offer the most substantial revision.

The "minimum" requirements for becoming a patroller are:

  • You've made at least 1250 edits in the article, category, module, or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
  • If you have been previously elected Chat moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.
  • You have displayed a thorough understanding of and mastery of the basic editing tools.
    • This includes the ability to help other users who may have questions in regards to editing.

Option BEdit

Option B would offer a more slight adjustment.

The "minimum" requirements for becoming a patroller are:

  • You've made at least 750 edits in the article, category, module, or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
  • If you have been previously elected Chat moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.
  • You have displayed a thorough understanding of and mastery of the basic editing tools.
    • This includes the ability to help other users who may have questions in regards to editing.

Option CEdit

Option C would not revise the current editing requirements, but would add the last bullet point in the other options.

The minimum requirements for becoming a patroller are:

  • You've made at least 250 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
  • If you have been previously elected Chat Moderator, you have held the position of Chat Moderator for a minimum of two months.
  • You have displayed a thorough understanding of and mastery of the basic editing tools.
    • This includes the ability to help other users who may have questions in regards to editing.

VotingEdit

Please indicate which options you find favorable in order from most to least. IE, A, B, C. B, C, A. C, B, A, etc.

  1. B A C - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 19:59, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. B C A |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:36, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  3. B A C LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. B A C - FDekker talk 19:59, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  5. B A C - L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:37, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  6. B C A President Autumn User image president autumn signature 19:37, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  7. B, C, A. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:02, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

Chat ModeratorEdit

Chat Moderator is a more complicated topic. Given how disconnected the community currently feels from the wiki proper, revisions to rectify that gap are desperately needed.

The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:
  • You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.

Option AEdit

Option A will provide the most radical changes to the role.

The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

  • You've made at least 250 edits, and at least 150 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 150).
    • You display a basic understanding of the editing tools, and can help users with editing questions should they have them.
  • You've created 5000 posts within any of the channels within the discord.
    • You've displayed mastery of discord's interface and tools through interactions with others.
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.

Option BEdit

Option B will introduce more moderate changes.

The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

  • You've made at least 150 edits, and at least 100 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 100).
    • You display a basic understanding of the editing tools, and can help users with editing questions should they have them.
  • You've created 3000 posts within any of the channels within the discord.
    • You've displayed mastery of discord's interface and tools through interactions with others.
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.

Option CEdit

Option C will introduce no changes to the editing requirements, but will introduce basic alterations to posting amount on the discord.

The minimum requirements for becoming a chat moderator are:

  • You've made at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
    • You display a basic understanding of the editing tools, and can help users with editing questions should they have them.
  • You've created 2000 posts within any of the channels within the discord.
    • You've displayed mastery of discord's interface and tools through interactions with others.
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator, moderator or chat moderator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • If you have been previously appointed patroller, you have held patroller rights for a minimum of two months.


VotingEdit

Please indicate which options you find favorable in order from most to least. IE, A, B, C. B, C, A. C, B, A, etc.

  1. A B C - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:02, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. A B C |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:39, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  3. A B C LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. A B C - 5k messages should be easy for any active chatter - FDekker talk 20:23, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  5. A B C - The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:42, April 12, 2019 (UTC)
  6. B A C President Autumn User image president autumn signature 19:38, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  7. C, B, A. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:06, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

Should we remove the "moderator" rank (see below), will we then also remove the "If you have been previously appointed patroller ..." requirement for chat mod? Also, I assume that the endorsement requirement implicitly assumes that every crat is also an admin?
- FDekker talk 20:23, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we have to remove that part of the requirement for chat moderator. Its not saying you have to have been a patroller, just that if you have been a patroller, you must have held it for 2 months. I would assume that administrator automatically includes BC, given the latter has all of the permissions of an admin to begin with. ---bleep196- (talk) 13:44, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

My main thing is the edit requirement. I think 100 is enough. I would be fine with 5000 required posts. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:08, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

ModeratorEdit

The position of Moderator was initially created when the chat was still a part of the wiki interface. It was also created when there was only one other moderator role, chat moderator. Given the proposed changes to patroller, I am of the opinion that anyone who wishes to hold patroller rights at the same time as chat moderator might as well make a rights request for content moderator, as by that point if they are active on both the wiki and discord sides, they have likely accrued significant editing experience to qualify for both roles. Thus the options for this section will either be remove the role, or keep it, and have it be subject to the requirements for the two roles necessary to obtain it. Renaming the position is also an option, but I am currently without a good alternative, so I will let others make suggestions in the comments.

Option AEdit

Remove the role in its entirety, and allow "moderators" to request content moderator rights.

  1. Icon check - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:07, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon check imo it’s an outdated term. i can imagine it made sense at the time when the only type of moderator position was chat moderator but now we have chat mod, discussions mod, and content mod. i don’t think it’s really necessary either to have patroller and chat mod combination have a title, i think they can remain separate and users can just be listed as both. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 22:23, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Icon check |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:41, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon checkWig agrees with its removalW.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk) 14:28, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Icon check LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Icon check The term "moderator" is outdated and simply no longer necessary. - FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  7. Icon check This term confused me (and still does) when I first came to the wiki. - L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:40, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Icon check The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:55, April 12, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Icon check Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:13, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

Option BEdit

Retain the role, and simply rename it.


VotingEdit

Please indicate which option you prefer. If option A, then at end of discussion period removal of the role will move to policy proposal. If option B, please indicate a suggested alternative name in the comments, and a renaming proposal will be initiated following end of discussion.

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

Do I understand correctly that with option A people who are currently "moderator" will end up with two roles, those being "patroller + chat mod" or "content mod + chat mod"?
- FDekker talk 18:42, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
If they meet the requirements for both they could certainly drum up a rights request for it. I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, especially since we have users who have both Discussion Moderator AND Chat Moderator.---bleep196- (talk) 18:48, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree. I was just wondering whether I understood it correctly :)
- FDekker talk 19:59, April 11, 2019 (UTC)

Content ModeratorEdit

Content Moderators are a step up from patrollers, and are expected to display a mastery of editing on par with Administrators, but not necessarily with the community side competence of other moderation roles.


The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:
  • You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.

Option AEdit

This would be the most radical change of the three options. The line about not being a discussions moderator is antiquated,

The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:

  • You have made at least 3000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • You display a thorough mastery of basic and advanced editing tools, as well as substantial experience utilizing templates.
    • You must be able and/or willing to answer editing questions if brought forward.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator(Either removed or renamed), for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.
    • Individuals holding discussions moderator rights that are seeking content moderator rights should apply for administrator given the overlap between the rights groups permissions.

Option BEdit

Option B is a more moderate change.

The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:

  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • You display a thorough mastery of basic and advanced editing tools, as well as substantial experience utilizing templates.
    • You must be able and/or willing to answer editing questions if brought forward.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator(Either removed or renamed), for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.
    • Individuals holding discussions moderator rights that are seeking content moderator rights should apply for administrator given the overlap between the rights groups permissions.

Option CEdit

Option C would leave the base requirements unchanged, but add the bullet points present in the other options.

The minimum requirements for becoming a content moderator are:

  • You have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • You display a thorough mastery of basic and advanced editing tools, as well as substantial experience utilizing templates.
    • You must be able and/or willing to answer editing questions if brought forward.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed Content Moderator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator(Either removed or renamed), for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • You do not currently hold Discussions Moderator rights.
    • Individuals holding discussions moderator rights that are seeking content moderator rights should apply for administrator given the overlap between the rights groups permissions.

VotingEdit

Please indicate which options you find favorable in order from most to least. IE, A, B, C. B, C, A. C, B, A, etc.

  1. B A C - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:07, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. B A C President Autumn User image president autumn signature 20:55, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  3. B A C |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:42, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. B A C W.I.G.T.A.I.H.T.W.B.M.G (talk) 14:30, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  5. B A C LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  6. B A C - FDekker talk 20:04, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  7. B A C - L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:42, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  8. B,A,C Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:22, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

The "able and/or willing" should probably just be "able and willing" right?
- FDekker talk 20:04, April 11, 2019 (UTC)

Discussions ModeratorEdit

Discussion's moderator is the newest of our wiki roles, and I feel the one that has been most neglected by the administration and staff as a whole. We have failed on a number of fronts to provide the necessary support and involvement that would provide /d with the representation they desire in staff decisions, while also driving away potential content editors. Our current stock of /d moderators have done an amazing job cleaning up the discussions section, and fostering an active community. I'd like to update our requirements for this role in order to incentivize both them, and the /d userbase in contributing not just to discussions but to the wiki as a whole. I have several suggestions on this front outside of just the role revisions that I will get to.

To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.
  • You must have made at least 2000 discussions posts.
  • Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
  • Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
  • Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
  • If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
  • You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".

Option AEdit

Option A would be the most radical change. Adding minimum editing requirements may not be a popular option, this I understand, but given all other moderative positions have a basic editing requirement, I feel it is necessary to bring discussions in line with the other moderation positions. At this time I feel it is also important that we begin getting discussions users involved in contributing in both mediums, and adding a minimal editing component will help in some ways. That said, I will be addressing projects/methods through which to teach users how to contribute. Should it remain against community opinion, I will remove the addition of said requirement prior to proposal vote.

To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.

  • You must have made at least 4000 discussions posts.
    • You must display complete mastery of all discussions functions.
  • You've made at least 250 edits (In line with chat moderator option A), and at least 150 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 150).
    • You must display a basic understanding of editing functions, and be able to answer simple editing questions should they arise.
  • Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
  • Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
  • Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
  • If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
  • You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".
    • Due to permissions held by content moderator, discussions moderator meeting the prerequisites for the former are encouraged to request administrator rights.


Option BEdit

This would be the more moderate change.

To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.

  • You must have made at least 3000 discussions posts.
    • You must display complete mastery of all discussions functions.
  • You've made at least 150 edits (In line with chat moderator option b), and at least 100 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 100).
    • You must display a basic understanding of editing functions, and be able to answer simple editing questions should they arise.
  • Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
  • Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
  • Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
  • If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
  • You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".
    • Due to permissions held by content moderator, discussions moderator meeting the prerequisites for the former are encouraged to request administrator rights.

Option CEdit

Option C would provide no change in the discussion post requirement, but add the minimal editing requirement currently in place for chat moderators.

To be given the Discussions moderator toolset for use on the discussion forums, a user must meet the following requirements.

  • You must have made at least 2000 discussions posts.
    • You must display complete mastery of all discussions functions.
  • You've made at least 100 edits (In line with chat moderator option b), and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 100).
    • You must display a basic understanding of editing functions, and be able to answer simple editing questions should they arise.
  • Be active on the Discussion Boards for a period of at least 2 months.
  • Have an endorsement from an active Discussion Moderator, Administrator, or Bureaucrat confirming that the user is a regular user of the boards, and has a record of good behavior.
  • Any ban blocks the user from applying for this role for a period of 3 months following the end of the ban.
  • If you have been appointed to another position previously, you must have held it for at least 2 months.
  • You must not hold the position of "Content Moderator".
    • Due to permissions held by content moderator, discussions moderator meeting the prerequisites for the former are encouraged to request administrator rights.


VotingEdit

Please indicate which options you find favorable in order from most to least. IE, A, B, C. B, C, A. C, B, A, etc.

  1. B A C |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:44, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  2. Icon cross none. see comments. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 03:34, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  3. A B C LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Icon cross none of these for me as well. Editing shouldn’t be a requirement for people that want to moderate /d. Especially when they’re about interacting with the community. Being a D mod should be about how you interact with the community above anything else. The editing side isn’t where the community, including /d is. Editing should not be a requirement. Acj1225 (Acj1225) 12:56, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

I’m having a hard time choosing what my top option is for this one. I’m really leaning towards B, because I like the 3000 post cap, but I dont know how I feel about the edit requirement. I think something better may be teaching anyone who runs for d mod all the basic editing features they may get questions on for example: talk pages, voting, signatures, infoboxes, ect. as opposed to an edit requirement. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 20:53, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

  • With all due respect, Autumn... I do believe that setting an edit requirement is intended to incentive the user to teach themselves or request teaching. Teaching itself is not useful if the user does not prove they can put those skills into practice. It's like a driving test - It's not just about being taught how to drive; it's also proving that you can sit behind the wheel and do it yourself. These edit requirements are perfectly reasonable in my opinion. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:46, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
the thing is nom, not every user wants to spend time editing to meet a requirement. users asking for rights to just moderate discussions don’t want to spend time editing. Plus, they can add things into articles but that doesn’t mean they can answer questions about stuff. a teaching session for a new d mod would be much better. they can learn specific things users could ask about without them having to tediously meet an edit requirement that they don’t want to do. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 03:32, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

Suppose I will refrain from voting on this one. It would feel disingenuous to opt for higher standards for /d mod considering that I do not currently meet the full list of proposed changes while still believing that I am well qualified for the position. That having been said, I believe that Option A would have far too high a post requirement. If it takes at least 5000 posts to gain the respect or trust of users, than I would suspect this would be due in no small part to a number of those posts reflecting poorly on the candidate. If a potential candidate cannot build a solid reputation in 2000-3000 posts, then I would hope that community votes, rationales, and comments would be the best intervention in the case of a rights application. These are, after all, the minimum requirements and display only the quantity not the quality of posts.

Looking that the edit requirements, 100 edits is not an impossible endeavor and I am not wholly opposed to the idea of /d mods, or chat mods for that matter, having a base editing requirement. However, as has already been discussed elsewhere, I believe that the edits should include forums, blogs, and talk pages. If the idea is that these edits are representative of basic knowledge, then edits made in the social sphere (the realm in which these mods will be operating) should be just as pertinent as the edits made elsewhere. Often participating in forums such as this one, voting for others' petitions or requests, and ultimately generating a moderator request of their own will require the user to display many of the basic editing skills which would like be exhibited in only 100-200 main space edits. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 07:36, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

I don't know enough about /d to be able to make an informed vote on this. However, I think that chat and discussion mods should have identical editing requirements, regardless of which post number option the wiki proceeds with. Given that they are both "social/community-focused" positions, there's no reason for their editing requirements to differ. --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 10:21, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Save for the actual number of posts on the respective platforms, I see no reason why the vast majority of the requirements would not be identical between /d and chat. The only reason why I would support the A Option for chat mod (5000 posts) but not for /d is based purely off of my own experience and comparable post histories. In only two months of activity on discord my post count (2,251) has almost matched my post count on /d (2,628) which was the result of a year or more worth of activity. And while I am one of the most active posters on /d, I would consider myself in the middle of the pack among the discord users, at best. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 14:05, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

I think the feedback on the discussion moderator changes has, so far, provided the most insight into what people feel like is a fair requirement for moderators of not just /d, but also the discord. As a result of what I've seen so far, I will be shifting the edit requirements for /d and discord moderators to include blog, forum, and talk page edits in the second round of discussion. As the general feeling given by Dyre and others seems to suggest, the current 2000 post minimum is already comparatively steep, so I will not carry forward the 5k option in the second round of discussion. I think a slight bump to 2.5 k or 3k is more reasonable, feel free to leave your thoughts in that department. As far as edit requirements, since several people are calling for them to be consistent, and since option A on the chat moderator request is holding the most favor at the moment from those who have voiced their opinions, I believe a 250 minimum edit requirement with the talk page, forum, and blog stipulation would be in order. -bleep196- (talk) 16:32, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

AdministratorsEdit

Administration is the second highest tier of user rights, short of Bureaucrats. They have access to backend site functions, templates, user rights up to the moderation roles, as well as complete discussion and discord access. The current requirements for Administrator are wholesale inadequate to address representation of the community, and in some regards, inadequate for a master editor, which an administrator should be by the time they reach this role. The current state of our user roles makes introducing changes tricky, as many of our most talented tech minded administrators of the past interacted with the blogs and forums on the wiki.

The introduction of /d and an independent discord server has segregated these sectors from the wiki, leaving many of the older administrators in a position where they are no longer interacting with the community at all. With that said, introducing requirements to interact with /d and discord leaves our extremely talented editors who may need administrator rights to do their jobs in a pickle, as they no longer qualify. The question then becomes, how do we deal with this issue? What requirements do we put in place? I've got several options that I'm going to lay out. Hopefully feedback will allow us to put together a more thorough picture.

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:
  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.

Option AEdit

Option A, B, and C would introduce community requirements with a caveat to accomodate tech minded individuals. A would be the most rigourous.

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

  • You have made at least 5000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • OR if community focused, You have made at least 5000 discussion posts OR at least 6000 discord posts.
    • Most Administrators are expected to display complete mastery of all facets of editing, and at least minimal understanding of backed functions.
  • You have made at least 1000 discussion posts or You have made at least 2000 discord posts.
    • OR if community focused you have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) and display thorough understanding and mastery of basic and advanced editing.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one year.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • Particularly talented tech-minded individuals may circumvent the community requirements IF and only IF they demonstrate a proficiency with skill(s) that are desperately needed, or so rarely seen that not promoting them would be a net loss. These individuals must still meet the other expectations of an administrator as per wiki policies.
    • For example: Java and CSS proficiency. Possession and mastery of a bot through which large scale editing projects may be conducted. Proficiency and understanding of templates.

Option BEdit

Option B would be a more moderate choice.

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

  • You have made at least 4000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • OR if community focused, You have made at least 4000 discussion posts OR at least 5000 discord posts.
    • Most Administrators are expected to display complete mastery of all facets of editing, and at least minimal understanding of backed functions.
  • You have made at least 500 discussion posts or You have made at least 1000 discord posts.
    • OR if community focused you have made at least 1500 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) and display thorough understanding and mastery of basic and advanced editing.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least six months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • Particularly talented/tech-minded individuals may circumvent the community requirements IF and only IF they demonstrate a proficiency with skill(s) that are desperately needed, or so rarely seen that not promoting them would be a net loss. These individuals must still meet the other expectations of an administrator as per wiki policies.
    • For example: Java and CSS proficiency. Possession and mastery of a bot through which large scale editing projects may be conducted. Proficiency and understanding of templates.

Option CEdit

Option C would not change the numerical requirements for editing, but would add all the other bullet points presented in options A and B.

The minimum requirements for becoming an administrator are:

  • You have made at least 2000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
    • OR if community focused, You have made at least 2000 discussion posts OR at least 5000 discord posts.
    • Most Administrators are expected to display complete mastery of all facets of editing, and at least minimal understanding of backed functions.
  • You have made at least 250 discussion posts or You have made at least 500 discord posts.
    • OR if community focused you have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category, module or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count) and display thorough understanding and mastery of basic and advanced editing.
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller, or combined position of patroller/moderator, for a minimum of two months.
  • You have not been site-blocked or chat-banned for a period of at least three months.
  • Particularly talented/tech-minded individuals may circumvent the community requirements IF and only IF they demonstrate a proficiency with skill(s) that are desperately needed, or so rarely seen that not promoting them would be a net loss. These individuals must still meet the other expectations of an administrator as per wiki policies.
    • For example: Java and CSS proficiency. Possession and mastery of a bot through which large scale editing projects may be conducted. Proficiency with and understanding of templates.

Option DEdit

Option D would consist of separating the Administrator role into two facets. Editing and Community Administrators. I won't elaborate on requirements here as that will require thorough discussion, and probably multiple stages of delineation to determine.

VotingEdit

Please indicate which options you find favorable in order from most to least. IE, A, B, C. B, C, A. C, B, A, etc.

  1. A B C D - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:09, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. B A D C President Autumn User image president autumn signature 20:40, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  3. B A D C - CCodyy (talk) 22:03, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  4. A D B C |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 00:48, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  5. A B C. I refuse to acknowledge D. LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  6. A B C D - I think this idea is awesome! Require that admins are fluent in at least two "pillars" of the Nukapedia community while acknowledging that most people will have an expertise in only one of the three.
    - FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  7. A B C D - Can you really currently apply for admin after only 3 months?? *checks join date, cracks fingers* WELL THEN. I prefer A, primarily for the length of time of continuous activity required (i.e. 1 year). I'd be supportive of some blend between A & B which uses A's length of continuous service and B's post requirements if A's post requirements are considered too oppressive. I don't support D at all but have included in the vote for the sake of completeness. -L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:48, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  8. B,A,D,C Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:31, April 15, 2019 (UTC)
  9. A,B,D,C The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:12, April 22, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that splitting the roles may in fact be a good idea... But there is a caveat. We already have this split between our different types of below-admin staff. I'm not sure if it is a good idea to have one "global role" of Bureaucrat - it can be good to have a secondary role like Admin that still has a global sweep of the website. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:03, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

Was hoping this one would receive a little TLC from others before I posted, largely because it is the section which I was the most conflicted on.
Like Nomad, I had originally been in favor of creating some sort of solely social focused administrative position to go alongside the current iteration of the position which is almost exclusively driven by editorial requirements yet presently retains a great deal of authority outside of editing. However, having discussed the prospects further here under the social admin section at the bottom, here in the general comments, and here on this very forum, I believe that bleep’s current proposal to add social requirements as well as allotments for admin focus is be the best solution.
The only thing that I would suggest needs more hashing out is the respective numbers of certain edits. Under the /d mod header, I mentioned my issue with discord posts and /d posts being compared on a 1 to 1 ratio, and I believe that discussion applies equally well here. Given one of the other requirements is a minimum of one year displaying continuous activity, I do not think 6000 discord posts would be a high enough goal, especially not if that user intends on using discord as their primary contribution. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 16:12, April 22, 2019 (UTC)
This is a salient point, and after what you said in the prior points I'm inclined to agree on that front. I believe I will need to adjust the numbers based on yours, and others, feedback in the second round of discussions. The consensus seems to be option A, but a more salient benchmark for discord is, frankly, probably double the current number of posts for both categories of requirements. ---bleep196- (talk) 16:37, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

BureaucratEdit

What was brought to light by the two most recent BC rights requests was a lack of hard requirements in place for the role of BC. I refuse, at this point in time, to offer options that include numerical values for the role, as any number will not be able to quantify the necessary experience to ascend to that position. Instead, I will offer two options, one which gives a subjective requirement that the community can determine copackaged with a singular hard requirement, as well as an option for no change. There are no minimum requirements for Bureaucrat at this time.

Option AEdit

The minimum requirements for becoming an Bureaucrat are:

  • Having previously held the position of Administrator for no less than six months.
  • Having displayed an acute understanding of all facets of editing, all functions of the discussions board, and all aspects of the discord server and the community.
  • Having displayed exemplary leadership skills and astute understanding of their role as an administrator.

Option BEdit

No change from the current standard.

VotingEdit

Indicate which you favor most, A or B.

  1. Option A. Great Mara (talk) 18:57, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  2. A - Sigmund Fraud Talk Contributions 20:10, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
  3. A |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:19, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  4. A -- Bovinejeff (talk) 04:58, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  5. A, possibly for an even greater time, its the top spot after all LovinglyGaslight (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
  6. A - Remember that this is just a minimum and that anyone that meets these requirements can still fail if the community does not find them appropriate. These requirements are mostly just to filter out those that are definitely not a good choice; to give an idea of the expectations. - FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  7. A - L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 23:48, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
  8. A - I do not like the idea of "unspoken rules" having such sway. If it is more than just tradition, then it should be codified. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 13:46, April 12, 2019 (UTC)
  9. A, aslong as it actually takes discussions into consideration. President Autumn User image president autumn signature 19:40, April 13, 2019 (UTC)
  10. A Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 02:34, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Please use this section to offer alternative suggestions, and feedback. I will be reading these comments closely.

Anyone requesting access to a role that grants the admin tools should meet the requirements of being an admin beforehand. Great Mara (talk) 18:57, April 9, 2019 (UTC)
Per Mara. |\| () |\/| /\ |) | Talk | Discord | NMC 01:20, April 10, 2019 (UTC)
@Bleep Perhaps include an Option C that includes requiring admin rights?
- FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)


How would we assure that the two last requirements in option A are met? Unless the user is actually tested, there is not necessarily any way to see whether or not the user actually is proficient in all sides of the wiki, unless they have actively been doing all these things leading up to running. Being continuously active on all sides of the wiki would require many hours to be put in every day. I think in practice, finding users that are fully active on all the sides of the wiki is very rare. I worry these requirements may either be too strict, or scare potential candidates away.

Additionally, I think there should be an exception in the rule that would only apply if there is one or less users with bureaucrat rights. This exception would lower the requirements to run significantly. This is to ensure that the wiki always has one or more bureaucrats. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 14:42, April 22, 2019 (UTC)

The idea is not that they are constantly active in all fronts of the wiki, but they understand the functions of each aspect of the wiki, editing and community wise, and have demonstrated this in the past. Bureaucrats, like administrators, often have an area that they specifically focus on. As an example: JS has always heavily focused on maintenance. Agent C focused on the community, blogs, forums, and /d when it came into existence. Gunny focused on Templates, CSS, and Java. Despite their Foci, they always had their feet in the other pools, and paid attention to events that were occurring in the other segments of the wiki. When they each ran for the position, the community recognized that dedication. This is merely translating those qualities from unspoken rules into text. No one here expects the BC's to be doing this 24/7. That's impractical and unfair. That said, there is a demand for a certain level of higher dedication to the position, as BCs serve as the voice and mediators of the wiki as a whole.
I won't lie to you. BC is the one position where I believe the bar needs to be strict, but not unobtainable. If someone is thinking about running for BC, they should, frankly, be prepared to deal with all facets of the wiki, some of which they may not like. That's just what the role calls for.
I'm in agreement with regards to the one or less rule. That is something that absolutely should be codified. I will make sure to catch that in the second round of discussions.---bleep196- (talk) 17:08, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

Reconnecting CommunityEdit

For this category I have several suggestions which I think will be of nominal interest to both the editing and community focused areas. I am also fully open to taking suggestions on this front.

Reboot the New User NetworkEdit

Advertising and getting our /d and discord users involved in the new user network would go a long way into boosting site contributions, while teaching /d and discord users the know hows of editing. It would also allow staff mentors to become more familiar with those in our community within a territory they are familiar with.

Comments/SuggestionsEdit

Leave comments and suggestions for how to realize this here.

Ey, count me in. I think Leon had some ideas for this with his Proving Grounds. I tried blowing some life into the NUN a few months ago but it was just too much for me to handle on my own. I hope we can achieve more together this time around!
- FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
I'm always happy to help with new editors as well. :) --L84tea Tea kettleWould you like a cup of tea? 02:02, April 24, 2019 (UTC)

/d Staff AMAsEdit

Staff have a notably miniscule presence on /d outside of the discussion moderators. I'd like to encourage more staff to post Ask me anything's on the discussions board in order to facilitate /d users becoming more familiar with us in their home turf, and allow them to voice their concerns about issues that specifically affect their experience.

Comments/SuggestionsEdit

Leave comments and suggestions for how to realize this here.

Community focused weekly eventsEdit

I'd like to bring back things like The Hole, and potentially creative writing contests centered on /d and the discord in order to facilitate staff and editors getting involved in discussions. Not having those events anymore has hurt wiki activity and the communities connections with Staff. Its time we changed that.

Comments/SuggestionsEdit

Leave comments and suggestions for how to realize this here.

What is/was The Hole?
- FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)

Weekly Discord EventsEdit

I'd like to think of some weekly events on the discord server that would get staff and the userbase involved. I'm not as clear on what could be done here, but I hope it sparks some creative discussion for things we can do.

Comments/SuggestionsEdit

Leave comments and suggestions for how to realize this here.

We could play games with leaderboards, or maybe hold some sort of tournament with (virtual?) prizes.
- FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)
A few of the /d mods and users got together to attempt something like this. The inaugural Wiki Warlord competition, a sort of deathmatch in Fallout 76, was mildly successful. There was a user tag made for the winner as well as a 2500 cap reward, and last I heard future events are being flushed out, likely with more themed combat in place rather than a no holds barred match. As far as on site, the SNM has been slowly working on a bunch of content, but it is caught in an awkward position. The blogs can be a pain to access on mobile, even though that's what is often easy for many members use, and the /d is missing a few of the conveniences of editing pages which make some of the SNM features workout. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:11, April 15, 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder if we could contact wikia and see if they have plans to better integrate those two aspects. If not, we can round up some people and think of ways to circumvent the shortcomings in both mediums (there is always a way, we just gotta be creative). ---bleep196- (talk) 21:11, April 15, 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I would be interested to hear what they say at the very least.

In regards to /d, there's only so much to be done. Ostensibly Fandom has shown an ongoing interest in the platform as evidenced by their recent update and rough roadmap of other desired features to be add. But for the time being, the means of using edit heavy blogs like SNM are simply not available at this time. And if we have a direct line-in to make a worthwhile request regarding /d, I would first ask that a series number of notable bugs which were introduced by the update and which affect almost all /d posts be addressed first.

As for the issues with mobile reaching the blogs, the simplest solution is to load the page in desktop mode rather than in the mobile version. It is something you have to be aware of beforehand but it fixes most issues. Pure mobile...that is something else entirely. As best I can tell, the degree to which blogs and polls on the main site are supported varies wildly. On both Bing and Chrome, the two browsers I am familiar with, the mobile site does not actually have a unique interface for the blogs the same way that it does the front page. And once you navigate the drop down box (the mobile front page does not appear to support front page polls or blogs) it leads to the desktop page listing the blogs. However, selecting a blog then takes you to back to mobile. There will be a neutered version of the blog with an OP which may vary in its appearance, but the comments are devastated. Some of the traditional post formats, like using an asterisk to indicate a poll response, simply do not load at all.

But none of this factors in user engagement is the hardest part and would be no fault of Fandom; if people cared enough to participate in the existing features, they would do so on their own. Choosing to run the site in desktop does not call for much effort, but if we could at least offer the path of least resistance, then more users might be willing to engage with aspects of the community outside of their usual comfort zone. That one click from any page mentality along with the recent incorporation of new links to the /d pages reflects Fandom at least taking steps in the right direction. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 09:03, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Overall Comments/Discussions not specific to any one subsectionEdit

This is all I have at the moment. Feel free to add additional ideas and suggestions, or maybe even just complaints you have here. I'm going to be watching this forum closely and listening to all voices.

This looks excellent 👌
- FDekker talk 20:19, April 11, 2019 (UTC)

Closing thoughtsEdit

I really appreciate all the feedback and discussion this generated. Due to personal circumstances, I will attempt to get the second round of discussion up as soon as physically possible following the end of the timer. As there has been no further posts/votes/discussions in a few days, I'll go ahead and summarize the feedback I've received thus far, and how this will impact the second round of discussion.

PatrollerEdit

Option B has the most sway, with A and C being the order respectively. Option B will move forward to the second round of discussion, where users will have the opportunity to provide suggestions and feedback on how to proceed further.

Chat ModeratorEdit

Option A is the favored option, with B coming in second. To be consistent with the requirements for discussions moderators, I will be including the forum, talkpage, and blog edit stipulations to the edit requirements in the second round of discussion.

ModeratorEdit

Removal of the title appears to be unanimous. No action for the second round of discussion, I will simply include it in the policy vote.

Content ModeratorEdit

Option B is the unanimous favorite among those who voice their opinions. It will be moved forward to the second round of discussion, any feedback or suggestions will be welcomed.

Discussions ModeratorEdit

I was very pleased with how much discussion, from all sides of the wiki, were involved with this role. It helped elucidate a set of what I hope will be fair requirements. Given Dyre's comments on the minimum post requirements, I came to the conclusion that our extant discussion post requirements are already fairly steep, and that elevation isn't really necessary. That said, to bring the position in line with the requirements of chat moderator, in the second round of discussion I will be suggesting an edit requirement in line with option A's requirements, with the stipulation of talk page, forum, and blog edits counting towards said requirements. If we are succesful in reviving several of the community/editing interface projects, it will hopefully be very easy to meet those requirements.

AdministratorEdit

Option A was the clear favorite, which would make the minimum edit requirements far more in line with what's needed for mastery of editing on the wiki side. The stipulation for admins who are community focused, and the added sub requirement for most admins to have a certain activity in the discord or /d was extremely popular, and I am fairly happy that I seem to have found a good middle ground with the tech focused individuals clause. In light of what Dyre spoke about, I think it would be a good idea to elevate the minimum discord posts for option A from 2000 to around 5000, as they are far far easier to accumulate than /d posts. Additionally, 5000 discord posts is easily achievable in the 1 year requirement timespan. During the second round of discussion opportunities to voice feedback and any other suggestions will be available.

BureaucratEdit

Option A was unanimous here. Dekker has suggested a minimal requirement that one is actively holding Administrator rights. I've considered this, and I think its fairly logical that this would be a basic requirements to begin with (Even with the administrator for 6 months clause.)

Reconnecting the CommunityEdit

The discussion on reconnecting the community didn't get nearly as much input in the forums as I was hoping for, though several users noted strong support for the NUN, Discord/Discussion activities, and The Hole both here and in Discord. I've thought about it, and I think a little more discourse would be good on those topics to get a better idea of what people would get behind and support. NUN is an obvious one. Thanks everybody for giving your opinions.

Second Round of DiscussionEdit

The second round of discussion will begin as soon as I am able to construct the full forum and get it posted. It will last for a period of one week, with the opportunity for feedback and further suggestions. At the end of that one week timespan, the changes will be proposed for an official policy vote. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:24, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

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