Forum:CT:Other position requirements pt. 2

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Other position requirements pt. 2
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. —spookywillowwtalk 02:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
"it's Saturday? what the actual—"
"yes, spooky, it's Saturday already"

—earlier today, shenanigans

Hi, this is a follow-up CT to the other one that passed last week. It's primarily due to each clause being voted on independently and I didn't want a gazillion part CT. Again—I don't really exactly know where people's thoughts lie on this, but it seems enough of a pass/fail thing that an extra longer CT seems like it would just be everyone's vote comments restated. And you know, nothing like a surprise vote.

This CT concerns removals or clause swaps from Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights, and the change that would take place if passed as a result of each is listed at the bottom of each section.—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Part 1 - "You cannot nominate yourself."

Essentially… on requests for user rights it specifies "You cannot nominate yourself." Anyway I personally don't see the need for this; in actuality, I've seen a lot of evidence for other sites in which self-nominations are better. Some reasons I'm proposing the removal of this is:

  1. People could have a new user with no edits nominate them anyway; literally anyone can nominate anyone as it is anyway.
  2. The bar is low as it is, but allowing people to self-nominate for a position like rollback means people can seek the position easier if they want it. If people have the courage to put themselves up for a nomination, then by all means, in my opinion.
  3. Rollback especially was originally established as a tool only, but it's slowly becoming a bit more (in that they're visibly separate from other users in Discord as people who can be contacted for help and are trusted to know what they're doing). It is also in some cases, though not all, a stepping stone to adminship. If people want to jumpstart their own votes, then they should be able to, especially since we don't have an interest page such as the review board recruitment.
  4. If an individual (for whatever reason) isn't a fit for the position in question, the community can (and will) vote no anyway.

Anyway, for those who do know me in this regard, I love seeing people get promoted. I love seeing the diversification and continued growth of our team. But I also dislike the Wook's "de-facto" way of promoting people. In the old days, it was understood that you never brought up being promoted or anything like that, you'd appear as meek as possible and simply wait for Tope to reach out to you. I think people should take initiative and seek the positions they want. But then also, obviously, if they're not fit for whatever reason, then of course the vote won't pass.—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If this were to pass, "You cannot nominate yourself." would have its bulletpoint removed from both "requests for rollback" and "requests for adminship." In addition, the bullet point above would be changed to "You may nominate another Wookieepedian or nominate yourself. (If nominating another user, please ensure they accept the nomination first.)"—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support removal

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. Get rid of the negative stigma around self-nominating. It is not as bad as people make it out to be. Not all who want to nominate themselves are power-hungry. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 02:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. See ya on the other side OOM 224 (he/him) 02:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. Points 3 and 4 especially sum up why I think this good. It removes barriers and if a hypothetical self-nominator isn't a good fit for the position there's not suddenly something preventing the community from voting against them. Fan26 (Talk) 02:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 03:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. I'm not confident enough to ever nominate myself for anything, but I don't see why anyone who is shouldn't be able to put themselves forward. Zed42 (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Lewisr (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 05:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. Asithol (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Part 2 - Other clause

I'd like to propose swapping this clause under requests for rollback: "They have demonstrated a need for the ability through extensive anti-vandalism work."

With pt. 7 from requests for adminship, "They have demonstrated an understanding of the community's methods of operation." Why, one might ask? Rollback was by definition, at one point, just a rollback tool and that's all. In culture and reality though, I've personally adopted the opinion that the position could be much more than it is. Per this SH of Fandom updates by Chris for example, we'll soon have QuickAnswers on the wiki. And—this will be a rollout that's unavoidable (so debating whether it's liked or not is somewhat a moot point unfortunately)—but… any rollback or admin will be able to edit these by default. Unless we specifically prevent rollbacks from editing QuickAnswers in local policy, they'll be able to in terms of ability anyway.

But tldr; I think rollback is a great way to get involved in site leadership. I think that by swapping it to just stating that they should understand how we operate (which is reasonable because if one doesn't, they might revert the wrong things) then that's fine enough. It also means that perhaps, though the position is named "rollback," the position can expand its responsibilities to include stuff such as QuickAnswers (again, forced addition coming soon) or other tasks that can be delegated from being admin only to start devolving that. I suspect due to wiki culture reasons that we'll probably have a lot of rollbacks who do a lot of vandalism work, but phrasing it in such a way that it's just an earmarker we can give to trusted users who understand how we work is better in my opinion. I'd also like to see us start viewing various types of wiki permissions in different lights than they had been in the past (I retain a copy of my offer for rollback from Tope and it was…traumatic, to say the least.)—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If this were to pass, "They have demonstrated a need for the ability through extensive anti-vandalism work." would be swapped with "They have demonstrated an understanding of the community's methods of operation."—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support swap

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 02:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. A no-brainer, really OOM 224 (he/him) 02:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Fan26 (Talk) 02:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 03:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Zed42 (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Lewisr (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 05:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 08:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 23:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Asithol (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose swap

Part 3 - RFA redundancy

  • They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki.
  • They have at least one year of contribution to the site.

Both of the above bullet points are listed under "requests for adminship." Honestly, seems redundant to list this with two different times? And regarding the use of the word "actively" it's kinda subjective anyway and…honestly, people will vote the same either way, we should really just state this once. The other clause stating one year of contribution would remain intact.

Proposing the removal of "They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki."—spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support removal

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 02:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  2. —SnowedLightning (they/she) 02:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  3. Rsand 30 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  4. Silly "rule"; if you want to vote support or oppose for whatever reason, fine, but this is an inherently subjective criterion, so it's not a valid criterion to point to whatsoever. OOM 224 (he/him) 02:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  5. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  6. Ew, redundant clauses Fan26 (Talk) 02:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  7. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 03:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  8. Subjectivity like that just seems like it could be used as a way to arbitrarily deny people. Zed42 (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  9. Lewisr (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  10. Bonzane10 Sabine Starbird (holonet) 05:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 08:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  12. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 09:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  14. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  15. Inherently subjective. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
  16. Asithol (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  17. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 21:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal

Discuss