Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-4533965-20160908202646/@comment-4220590-20160910121938

Supermorff wrote: Hi everyone. Ultra asked me to voice my opinion on this thread, so I am going to do that.

First of all, I don't think anyone did anything wrong, and I don't think anyone deserves any recriminations (even self-recriminations). Trying out new things and reverting to the previous versions if the new things don't work is one of the main reasons that wikis work so well. Nothing is set in stone, and anything can be changed.

On that basis, if the people who were going to form this new council have decided that, for any reason whatsoever, they don't want to do that anymore, it's absolutely appropriate to go back to the way things were before. In exactly the same way, it was absolutely appropriate to suggest a change in the first place.

Unfortunately, this means we're left in the position of not having solved the problem that brought this up in the first place. How do we make community decision-making more efficient with a smaller active user base?

Off the top of my head, I can think of three main types of community decisions:
 * "should I do this thing?"
 * "should this person get some user rights?"

"should I do this thing?"

A part of the solution is cultural. For the first question, when a user thinks something might improve the wiki (or just a page on the wiki) and wants to ask the community whether they should do this thing, the answer should automatically be "yes". Be bold! (Being bold is, yes, still the first guideline on Sonic News Network:Policy.) Yes, do the thing! You have explicit permission to do the thing. But this must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that everyone else has explicit permission to undo the thing if they think it was better before. (Remember, trying something out then changing it back if it doesn't work is a cornerstone of a good wiki.)

In this situation, you only need to hold a discussion with the wider community if 1) two people disagree about whether the thing is good or not, and 2) the two people have tried talking to each other civilly and cannot come to an agreement.

There is no rules change here, just a shift in encouraging people to use the freedom they already have. You can encourage this by using more permissive language in user greetings, by flagging up a willingness for new editors to try things out without repercussions (except for potential reverts), etc. Essentially, you solve it through advertising.

"should this person get some user rights?"

User rights have changed a lot since we made the rules about requesting them. Bureaucrats no longer have admin rights by default, and there's a new content moderator role, for example. This should mean that users are only given the rights that are appropriate to them. Someone who is trustworthy and will follow community consensus might be made a bureaucrat, so they can give and remove user rights, but if they don't also edit very much they wouldn't be a content moderator or an admin. Someone who edits a lot and would usefully protect delete pages could be a content moderator, but they don't want to edit the wiki theme and they aren't good at dealing with people (blocking and moderating discussions), so they wouldn't be an admin.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, user rights are just tools to help the wiki, not ranks or status badges. Having some extra rights doesn't also give authority over other users, and nobody "deserves" to be an admin or a bureaucrat no matter how much they edit or how friendly they are. The only important consideration is whether this person is suited to the specific tools they are being offered, and whether they can be trusted to use those tools to improve the wiki in accordance with community consensus.

Based on these views, my gut instinct is just to make it a lot easier for people to get user rights. Change the discussion from "who supports this person getting user rights?" to "does anyone think this person will not use these rights appropriately?". Lack of engagement is then not a problem, and the discussion can move forward as an approval.

But people also need to be more engaged with the possibility of removing user rights if they are being misused. For example, if a content moderator or admin is deleting pages that should not be deleted, they should lose their user rights and their ability to delete pages. Indeed, if anyone in the community thinks that the user with extra rights is using them inappropriately, that might be a signal that the rights should be revoked, at least until a new discussion can be held about it. (Remember, trying something new and changing it back if it doesn't work is what wikis are built for!)

The only exception is for bureaucrats, which cannot be easily revoked and therefore require active approval by the community before being granted. (But not necessarily from 15 people. The actual number needn't be specified, but be a reasonable number given how active the wiki is at the time.)

I would especially like to see a lot more people with content moderator privileges. It has a lot of useful tools, while being relatively hard to misuse (lacking the admin's ability to block users, etc.).

Those are my thoughts. Happy to discuss it with anyone, but otherwise feel free to use these ideas or not as you see fit. Thank you for this. This is something to ponder on.