Inkipedia:Proposals/Passed/Requests for Rights Overhaul

Another proposal seeking to change the policy pages, this time focusing on Requests for Rights. The final page draft can be found on this page. The existing policy is here. This is primarily more concerned about expanding definitions for user ranks, and being more specific about qualifications, but there are numerous other changes as well. The significant highlights include:


 * Shortening the requests period from four weeks to three.
 * Fast-track system for promotion. If there is a high turnout of unanimous voting, users may see promotion more quickly.
 * Defining a period that prevents users from immediately re-applying for staff should their request fail.
 * Increasing security of voting by raising requirement to vote to autoconfirmed. This prevents people from creating new accounts to vote for themselves.
 * Users may nominate others already, but requires the nominee to actually accept the nomination before voting may begin.
 * Clarifying the purpose of patrollers more, and how experience is not directly associated to edit count.
 * Clarifying the purpose administrators have, and suggesting soft requirements for a nomination to be accepted.
 * Specifying that administrators be a member of the site for a calendar year before being eligible for promotion.
 * While already in practice, clarifying bureaucrat votes are carried out by administrators only.
 * Blocked users will have their votes removed; Blocked users requesting rights will have their request immediately closed.
 * Changes and tweaks to comment suggestions.

A full comparison between the two can be found on this page. Trig Jegman - 03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Start date: 2023-07-28

End date: 2023-08-18

Support

 * 1)  03:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) S3_Badge_Flyfish_100.png Milchik (talk) 4:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  04:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  04:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Eli (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 6) Support these mostly QoL changes appropriate now that Inkipedia has grown. To highlight the fast-track - 7 days with 20 unanimous supporting votes, or 10 days with 15 unanimous. Both options need two higher rank supports.  12:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 7)  13:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 8) Looking through the diff, I see no reason not to implement these changes wholesale. The clarifications are greatly useful and the rule tweaks seem fitting for the site as it stands! GloverMist (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 9)   15:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 10)  16:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 02:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. There are many flaws in the request for rights system at the moment, and this policy proposal will solve many issues in the system, should it be passed. WolfTamerS3 Icon Callie.png 16:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) Heddy (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  19:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) Yoshifan52 (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 5)  21:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The fast track sentence needs rephrasing - "Requests can be closed in ten days weeks". I've supported above based on the sentiment. Propose: "Requests can be closed in ten days if there are fifteen unanimous supporting votes, or seven days with twenty unanimous supporting votes." 12:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. It's not changing anything major, so I am happy to make that change should it pass. Trig - 13:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Some notes:
 * "Once promoted, if you do not wish to have the responsibilities that come with being a patroller, contact the administrator that promoted you, and they will remove your rights." wouldn't it be more appropriate to say contact any administrator rather than a specific one?
 * Tiny oversight: it seems there's no mention on if bureaucrat nominees need to accept their nomination before the voting process begins.
 * "If you want to "take back" what you have said, simply cross it out by inserting and around the text you want to strike out. Please do not remove the text: it is often useful to see what was previously voted." should be under a separate bullet point.
 * "You respect those who want to improve the wiki and take "assume good faith" into consideration." I think it would be helpful to link WP:AGF here.
 * Under the responsibilities section I suggest adding two more points:
 * "You are responsive on talk pages concerning discussion of editing and/or editing behavior, especially your own."
 * "You cooperate with current staff."
 * It would be more clear to change "Would granting adminship help the wiki?" into the more general "Would granting higher rights to this user help the wiki?" Yoshifan52 (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Responding:


 * The first bullet point is a remnant of the old policy, happy to remove it.
 * Will change to be more neutral to terminology for point 2.
 * I'm not sure what happened to strikethrough, that was a bullet point before...
 * I do not like linking to wikipedia both in general and also for policy decisions. Wikipedia policy ≠ Inkipedia policy, and linking to it implies a connection. If you would like an assume good faith page, it should be made domestically.
 * Your bullet points are generally speaking redundant. Non-responsiveness can be grounds for demotion and should be covered there, as all members of the site should generally be responsive on talk pages regardless of rank. Cooperation with current staff is already implied: Someone that does not want to cooperate with staff would not reasonably apply to be one, nor would it make sense for them to accept a nomination. On the flip side, staff would likely vote against the nomination anyway for the same reason.
 * The final bullet point makes sense and can be added.
 * Hope this clarifies everything for you. Trig - 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)