[00:30:10] @suzuneu I really don't want to bother to login to Miraheze right now but I just want to say about your RfGP, could you consider waiting until the global group RfC reaches its conclusion? Because if the global rollbacker group changes I think that'd be a better right for you to request [00:33:35] @brandon.wm expanding the scope of global sysop wouldn't nullify the roles in proposal 4 or 5, global sysops might do some of the same tasks but that doesn't mean there can't be other roles doing that. There is no access to PII and if you had any concerns about the permissions granting access to PII you had weeks to raise that argument during the drafting stage. [00:34:08] did I say there was concerns about access to PII? [00:34:12] if so, I’ll have to fix that [00:34:31] either way, the Global Sysop role would be better as is [00:34:52] being able to be that mini-community mod would not be good, as community mod is already a mini-steward [00:35:48] [1/2] > Global Sysops are highly trusted users who have administrator and interface administrator permissions on all wikis for the purposes of anti-vandalism, global policy enforcement, routine maintenance, and to provide assistance to local communities and administrators [00:35:49] [2/2] This is not "mini community mod", it is rather for enforcing global policies [00:38:06] global policy enforcement sounds like there’s authority over content policy, etc. [00:38:12] [1/3] > Community Moderators are a global role that can assist in any aspect of enforcing policies. Their role is to encourage assist and guide communities, and to assist Stewards in maintaining a safe environment for discussion. [00:38:12] [2/3] The alternative is vague. No clear definition. They just enforce policies (could be local or global, who knows) and also they become de facto Meta admins (any particular reason?) They "encourage", "assist", and "guide" communities but no explanation is given for why that requires rights. It combines wiki creator too which is not for any particular purpose [00:38:12] [3/3] So global sysop has a narrower scope [00:38:15] Correct [00:38:22] That's also how I interpreted it [00:38:26] right - that should not be the case [00:38:32] Why not [00:38:42] Community moderators are doing that too aren't they? [00:38:43] content policy is a discretion that should be reserved for Stewards and Community Mods only [00:39:24] it’s a delicate thing to determine and nowhere near GCP or regular vandalism responsibilities [00:39:47] right - but that bar of trust is very, very high for community mod [00:39:50] Correct [00:40:00] right, and so GS shouldn’t be handling it [00:40:18] All that would mean is that there's a higher bar for appointment [00:40:25] So you'd need to be more trusted to get support [00:40:26] So [00:40:31] hell, GS shouldn’t handle GCP either [00:40:33] Heard a new rfc was open [00:40:42] Ok [00:40:51] Yes they should [00:40:53] Is this about the global groups [00:40:55] right, but that would raise the bar significantly [00:40:59] which isn’t the idea [00:41:02] And? [00:41:04] clear cut things with a steward +1 i think is fine [00:41:25] take someone explicitly attacking someone with horrible racial slurs [00:41:32] we can likely trust gs to lock [00:41:45] Is this the global groups thing yes or no [00:41:50] obvious cases are obvious; giving GS authority over the more nuanced cases wouldn’t be the best idea [00:41:50] though i would probably global block than get a plus one to lock or smt [00:41:53] [1/2] So far every time someone opposes it's because "this role requires trust" [00:41:53] [2/2] So are we supposed to distrust everyone on Miraheze? [00:41:58] Yes it [00:42:03] what [00:42:13] no, but practically speaking, our numbers for volunteer ranks right now are low [00:42:15] Nothing in this RfC has mentioned nuanced cases [00:42:21] Thank you [00:42:33] Whenever I support creating a new role, the counter argument is "this requires trust" [00:42:42] And apparently, trust and responsibility are bad [00:42:49] “global policy enforcement” heavily implies authority in nuanced cases [00:42:52] imo [00:42:59] How is it bad [00:43:01] You could've raised this during the drafting stage [00:43:06] cough captcha exempt [00:43:26] ….is “global policy enforcement” not obvious that it includes all cases? [00:43:41] Well I didn't mean for it to include all cases [00:44:04] Feel free to go on wiki and change it so that the proposal says they don't take on cases with nuance and only handle blatant and obvious violations like vandalism, unambiguous harassment, extreme and directed racial slurs, etc. [00:44:07] It’s not that - it’s that we currently don’t have a ton of volunteers. Lowering the bar a bit for right now, allows us to raise the bar later when we have good candidates. [00:44:24] Hmm [00:44:27] Well given the expansion of global patroller/rollback it shouldn't be a problem imo [00:44:28] Raising the bar right now means that there’s less of a chance that anyone ends up in those roles. [00:44:40] We can’t have any randos on the roles [00:44:43] Because they can’t build that trust like they would otherwise. [00:44:43] Tho Brandon [00:44:48] See 2.1 [00:44:52] Which is [00:45:00] election requirements for roles [00:45:13] This can be handled by anyone already [00:45:30] For stewards keep the same as normal [00:45:31] obvious cases are classified as spam or vandalism 99% of the time [00:45:34] The highest role of anything [00:45:43] So like, if the people who we'd trust with global sysop now get global rollback, and then people with higher trust (like Raidarr just as an example) would be global admin [00:45:45] Assistant [00:45:47] Is ok [00:45:54] It's not said so in policy [00:46:04] I've always gotten the impression that's how it is in practice [00:46:11] But still policy says they only do spam and vandalism [00:46:30] my point was more that 99% of obvious cases are spam or vandalism [00:46:38] so it’s already all clear [00:46:45] I didn't get that impression, like look at mockupedia [00:46:59] There is almost no changes between [00:47:04] "you Nazi I'll run you over with my car" on a talk page isn't vandalism [00:47:04] Trusted and entry level [00:47:11] But it is unambiguous harassment and attacks [00:47:16] Mockupedia would be something that should be handled by a Steward anyway [00:47:19] The only difference is user support [00:47:24] By 10 percent [00:47:30] Which really isn’t that much of a difference [00:47:31] That specific Nazi comment was handled by a global sysop [00:47:32] in that case, it’s good that there’s no ability for GP/GA to handle [00:47:45] While the rest was handled by stewards yes [00:48:09] imo that’s not how it shouldn’t have been done. not because it should stay up (obviously, should be deleted), but just because cases like that are under steward watch [00:48:26] I don't see why they can't be under global sysop watch [00:48:27] and so that overall should lay at the feet of CMs and stewards because they have a lot more background into [00:48:37] and just more ability overall [00:48:39] Why [00:48:45] Why do they have more background and ability [00:48:47] Like Brandon the difference between the elections of trusted volunteer and entry level almost have no differences at all [00:48:55] The only change I see is different [00:48:56] Because you don’t want cases like those to get splintered. [00:49:09] Is there user support percent [00:49:19] Ok how about it's also added that all cases of harassment and other GCP violations must be reported to stewards [00:49:24] what does user support have to do with this [00:49:41] Every problem you've raised (trust, entry requirements, splintered, etc.) are also applicable to community moderators and stewards [00:49:46] Overall I just don’t think a GS change is necessary [00:49:52] Ok it’s just me talking about how it almost had no difference besides that one factor [00:49:53] one day we’ll have this kind of discussion before the RFC opens, and I’ll eat my hat [00:50:04] right, but Stewards and CMs are either classified as Stewards, or assistant stewards [00:50:15] the idea is for the complicated things to be handled by the immensely trusted peoples [00:50:20] because that’s their job [00:50:26] We should have this during the RfC drafting [00:50:38] :ThinkingHardMH: [00:51:01] this is just my point, Collei [00:51:05] Like really there is almost no difference between the election processes for trusted and entry [00:51:13] change for the sake of change without meaningful difference doesn’t seem productive [00:51:22] what would you propose? [00:51:29] it’s too late now anyway, but out of curiosity [00:51:34] I fine with [00:51:35] [1/3] > complicated things [00:51:36] [2/3] You're arguing against a strawman, I said earlier on that I didn't intend for this to apply to complicated/nuanced cases [00:51:36] [3/3] I'll get to the other argument next [00:51:42] The assistant [00:51:47] Process [00:52:21] right, and I replied that 99% of obvious things are already handled, and the 1% generally needs steward attention anyway [00:52:26] I believe global sysops handling cases of unambiguous GCP violations is productive as long as they report back to stewards because it makes things get taken care of faster [00:52:28] yes [00:52:30] but [00:52:30] But trusted would just need a minor buff in obtaining support [00:52:33] we didn’t [00:52:34] But besides that [00:52:38] What’s the main topic [00:52:38] And that's currently not allowed under policy [00:52:42] unless someone wants to close the rfc [00:52:42] We are talking about [00:52:45] What is currently being done is not in policy [00:52:52] The RfC... [00:52:55] it’s fine i think [00:53:13] Ik but what is the main thing you are taking about [00:53:25] nothing really needs sorting aside from Proposal 7.X (I forget the exact sub-digit) [00:53:29] I still want Wiki mechanic renamed to technican smh [00:53:33] I'd appreciate if someone could copy on-wiki my statements about intending this to only apply to unambiguous cases and also remove the part about helping with wiki setup given that it would conflict with wiki mechanic [00:53:42] You could add a proposal for that [00:54:09] maybe later my brain is mushed rn :( [00:54:17] if someone wants to be my guest [00:54:19] could you attempt to clarify: what are the practical changes that the focus change of GA would accomplish? from a day-to-day perspective [00:55:05] i prefer mechanic, though obviously you can create at will [00:55:24] only comment I’ll add is that if/when you do, just say “Proposal 4, but make it Wiki Technician instead” [00:55:29] so the rest of the stuff still applies [00:55:37] Technican seems more accurate, it’s technical, but theres so mechanics [00:55:47] we’re farmers not auto dealers [00:55:50] lol [00:55:50] :farm [00:55:56] farmers lmao [00:56:07] cc @.labster for name [00:56:22] I second that. Technician sounds much better! [00:56:32] I think we should just keep it as is [00:56:41] Well from what I can tell they do already handle unambiguous GCP violations but in policy it states they only handle spam and vandalism so it'd put into writing what they already do, which has been done before [00:56:48] But if you want to, just kindly make the Proposal 4.2 [00:56:53] you wanna make the proposal! [00:56:56] and Wiki Mechanic 4.1 [00:57:15] I agree [00:57:18] Your idea is great [00:57:21] Nope. because I am off to bed [00:57:25] 3 am [00:57:27] dang [00:57:29] go eep [00:57:30] I have chosen to abstain proposal 2.1 [00:57:37] <.labster> WM is just confusing with Brandon, WT confuses with WikiTide [00:57:56] Not everything has to be thought of as an abbreviation [00:58:06] that was our original thought as well I think [00:58:11] but it generally is [00:58:16] Correct [00:58:22] Plus the WM in this case [00:58:24] MH, WT, WF, GS, GR, WC, IA, etc. [00:58:27] Is wiki mechanic [00:58:30] ||cough Content Policy and community portal sure weren’t|| [00:58:36] @notaracham has an entire page on abbreviations lol [00:58:37] <.labster, replying to yoshi459292927370272> It is [00:58:46] uh [00:58:50] we’ll revisit that trust me [00:58:57] CP is a peculiar abbreviation for sure [00:59:09] Lol [00:59:12] Off topic but how it’s being the only global sysop member [00:59:12] ya think [00:59:37] anyways [00:59:46] irc time [01:00:03] [1/3] 💤 [01:00:03] [2/3] 🛏️ [01:00:04] [3/3] 🛌🏻 [01:00:34] honk shoe [01:00:39] thoughts on the rest of the stuff in the RfC? [01:00:47] particularly Proposals 3.1 and 3.2? [01:01:34] I do think [01:01:37] The GR [01:01:41] NEEDS a buff [01:02:12] So it being able to do local blocks helps it better [01:03:05] welp, we can all vote here! [01:03:07] so we should [01:03:16] make our voices heard, stuff like that, etc. [01:03:52] gonna look through [01:05:14] Proposal 3.1 I support [01:05:28] Due to it being a CVT group [01:05:37] That is supposed to counter vandals and stop them [01:09:59]