Forum:CT:Small RFRUR tweak

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. —spookywilloww^talk 01:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Brainstormed just the smallest change last night that's really simple and straightforward, and thought I'd swing it by CT instead of SH first.

Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights currently states that only administrators and bureaucrats can be removed using a vote with this method. This page is rarely ever used, so this probably never got updated. In the more modern era, we also have rollbacks and discussion moderators, both of which count as positions of authority. If someone is genuinely abusing (as outlined by the page) + someone provides concrete, linkable evidence + 2/3rds of the community agrees to vote them out, then this page should also support the removal of rights for those positions.

As for the specific changes, "administrators and bureaucrats" in the intro and "admin or bureaucrat" from point 1 would be changed to list "rollbacks, discussions moderators, administrators, and bureaucrats", and "adminship" in points 3 and 4 would be changed to "the relevant position". It's worth noting that if Forum:CT:De-separating admin RFU/RFRU votes passes, bullet 4 would be removed, rendering only point 3 to have "adminship" replaced with "the relevant position".

Othernotedly, I would suggest a different SH/CT be made for whether to include review board members in this. The review boards do not operate on the Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights and are a bit of a different beast in and of itself, so this change is only aimed at the other two positions that are considered to have authority.—spookywilloww^talk 14:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. —spookywilloww^talk 14:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
2. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 14:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
3. HeadSpikesWalls (she/they) (talk!) 14:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
4. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 14:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
5. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 15:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
6. Imperators II^(Talk) 15:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
7. OOM 224 (he/him) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
8. Bonzane10 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
9. Lewisr (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
10. Definitely. Rsand 30 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
11. —SnowedLightning (they/them) 19:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
12. this reminds me, I should hook up C4-DE to this Cade Calrayn 19:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
13. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
14. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
15. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 21:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
16. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
17. Any position that comes with additional user rights, authority, etc. over any part of the wiki needs a process to remove them. I want to clarify, does the wording account for if additional positions get added in the future (or would this policy would need changing every time)? But support! Immi Thrax (she/her) 23:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
18. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 00:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
19. Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 00:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
20. Herasoars^(comms) 17:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
21. Dropbearemma (she/her) 12:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
22. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
23. Dentface (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I agree in principle, however Jade's point is very pertinent and I cannot in good conscience support this while we have no eligibility reqs for primarily Discussions users. While one could argue that they should edit more, we should not be forcing this upon these users without taking similar action to force users who are primarily editors to participate in Discussions. And I will admit that I often don't consider Discussions when we look at policy updates, so thank you Jade! Manoof (he/him/his) 22:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

   On second thought I need to think about this a bit more... Manoof (he/him/his) 23:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

If this passes, will allowances be made for Discussions users to vote? Because we have a huge split: 90% of Discussions users do not edit, thus not meeting voting requirements. Additionally, 95% of editors couldn't care less about Discussions. It seems like the group that this would affect can do nothing, and the group who doesn't care holds the power. Jade Moonstroller (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Immi also brings up a good point that the wording should not list specific positions, but rather say that for any position elected by the community at large, the community at large can also vote to remove a member. This and Jade's point show that this overall good idea needs some further tweaks before it's ready for prime time. Asithol (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  • That part was somewhat intentional! Indeed, any position can be added with amendment. There's currently ongoing chatter about how review board members might need their own removal page, as they are not handled on request for user rights, but rather, Wookieepedia:Review board membership nominations. That is the main logic of why there might be some sort of 'Removal of review board membership' page, instead, despite these being voted in positions.—spookywilloww^talk 21:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes, any policy can be amended, but a well-written policy is one that doesn't need to be amended whenever some administrative matter changes; it is written using general language. You're right, "any position elected by the community at large" is too general, but "any position elected through Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights" may be what you want. It's a solid idea, and will obviously pass as-is, but a little pre-CT discussion could have strengthened it. Jade's point appears to be unaddressed thus far as well. Asithol (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)