Requests for Comment/The network staffing of Qualitipedia

{{ClosedRfC|Closed by author request, lack of interest, and my belief that QP is simply not ready to explore a structure like this. We'll just see how the bureaucracy works out. --Raidarr (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |

This is a rather lengthy proposal to clean up network staffing for Qualitipedia. It is presented as all-in-one, but can be voted on in portions or changed if there is enough controversy with certain ideas.

Goals include:


 * Adding roles for QP's leaders and making bureaucrat a local title
 * Adding a deputy role for QP's leaders to help in cleanup and management
 * Make both groups accountable and elected by the community
 * Jumpstart catching up our current wikis with QP policy and allow other wikis to 'partner' with us

Network staff
What are they:
 * Network manager, two leaders (leader and co-leader) elected twice a year
 * Network sysop, deputies approved by the network managers and confirmed by a vote on this wiki.

Both ranks would last for 6 months. Managers elected at regular times, NS confirmed 6 months after they get started.

What they do:
 * Upkeep of this wiki
 * Clean up Qualitipedia and its wikis as a whole in structure and content
 * Anti vandalism and quality control
 * Handle serious drama when it comes up
 * Interact with Miraheze staff for whatever is needed
 * Make sure partners are wikis we still want to work with
 * Act as local staff when none are handy

Their powers:
 * ManageWiki
 * Autopatrolled and confirmed
 * Blocking & protection bypass
 * Add themselves to bureaucrat and administrator when needed

If they're not involved in a wiki or don't need a bureaucrat title, they shouldn't use it and defer to the local staff. When they're done or if they go inactive, they shouldn't have these ranks as well. They still keep network title unless voted out or they go completely inactive across QP for long enough, otherwise they hold this title on every QP wiki. They're also entitled to a position on partnered wikis, but should defer to the partnered wiki's leadership.

If a dispute comes, this is the rough chain of command:
 * Network manager (leader, then co-leader)
 * Bureaucrat
 * Administrator -- Network sysop

Note that this is only for mediation of issues in a given wiki; good sense should always prevail and the will of the community should trump any of these points.

Local staff
Local wikis can handle themselves however they like, as long as they're compliant with Miraheze policy and are wikis we want to associate with. A partnership is a way to get in with the brand of QP and benefit from its managers to help set up and clean things locally.

On main QP wikis, local admins should handle the daily administrative work, and network staff get along right next to them (following the above if there is a dispute between them on a simple judgement, or deferring to the community for something serious). The most sensible case should win, QP policy can help as a guideline for good practices. Bureaucrats are the general managers of a local wiki and can be, but don't have to be network staff as well. In general a bureaucrat or admin should be locally elected/supported by the community, while a member of network staff should be elected and supported here. Network staff can't just take over the daily management of a wiki unless necessary or requested, or it becomes too inactive to sustain itself. Generally they should be doing network things while local staff people handle business on their own wiki. Network staff can also be useful arbiters if there is serious drama within a community.

Rights of the user
Everyone should be respected for their opinion as a user regardless of their staff position. Being staff does not make you better than someone else, it just means you're trusted by people to do administrative tasks. Staff are arbiters, but they should also concede when they are wrong and try to limit drama as much as possible. The 'chain of command' is a last resort. For voting and giving opinions as well as when someone does something wrong, users should be treated with good faith.

Escalation should only happen with;
 * Very obvious bad-faith users (vandalism, extreme lack of civility, verified sockpuppets of network or globally blocked users)
 * Alternate accounts in an issue or vote (one person one voice)
 * Serious rulebreakers (multiple reminders and still break rules or frequently reminded conventions)

Basically, extreme first-time offenses or a history of bad behavior may be met with a quick block or serious action, but everyone before then deserves a chance from new users who don't know their way around to regulars with quirks to network staff that made a mistake.

Election
Elections for local staff are not covered in this proposal, and I would suggest they be tried out on one fairly active wiki locally before being pushed as a network policy.

Otherwise, elections are started as subpages of an Election page, working similar to requests for comment. Note that regardless of the 100 edit minimum, 1 account per person remains standard.

Network managers: Network managers should be elected twice a year. Working dates are November 29th and June 29th. One week before, members nominate themselves or who they want to see. On the 29th, the vote begins and lasts two weeks on a page that resembles a request for comment. Users with 100 edits in good standing across Qualitipedia are eligible to vote for two candidates with (no oppose or abstain in this process). The talk page can be used to discuss or raise issues with candidates in general. As long as the candidates are valid (with 200 votes across Qualitipedia minimum) and there are 16 participants in the vote, the top two winners become leaders. Invalid results (ie, not enough participants) mean current leaders stay in power.

First place is the 'figurehead' and second place is the co-leader; they are equal usually, but the first can exercise final discretion in an issue and the second is a backup who otherwise acts like a network sysop. If there's a tie, they can decide themselves who is main leader. If they can't, a run-off vote is started including the third place candidate from before and lasts for one week to decide.

Network sysops: They can be nominated whenever. A thread resembling a request for comment is started. The two managers have one week to endorse the applicant. If they say nothing or vote yes, this part passses. If either vote no, the candidate is disqualified.

In the meantime, users with 100 edits across QP may vote any way they like; support, oppose, or abstain. At minimum:
 * 12 eligible users must vote
 * 75% must support
 * The candidate must be in good standing across QP or globally

After two weeks in full have passed, the result is decided and they either get network sysop access across all QP wikis (and if they agree, administrator on partnered wikis) or by failing something above, the request fails. The request can be closed early if the candidate is disqualified (valid block or opposition from network management).

Vote of no confidence: If a member of network staff is clearly inactive across QP for 3 months or is emergency abusing their powers, they can be removed automatically by a network manager or if proven, by Miraheze stewards themselves.

But if the issue is not this extreme (dispute if powers are abused, seen as incompetent, 'basically inactive' or enough people don't like how they do things) then a VONC vote is started. Support, oppose, abstain through the Elections area in a subpage; 50% support with 12 participants minimum is needed to remove a network sysop, and 75% support with 12 participants minimum is needed to remove a network manager. 100 edit minimum, 1 account to vote still applies. This lasts two weeks, but can be called early with a clear snowball of opposition or if the instigator is not valid as a voter. The user voted on cannot in any way manage the process, be it judging the result or closing the page, but they can present a defense. One page per user.

Housekeeping

 * Network manager and network sysop with the above permissions would be added to each wiki. Current leaders would be placed in network manager and can keep local permissions at their discretion as long as they have edits of any kind on the given wiki.
 * When this is complete, network managers should fully respect the contents laid out in this page - including the best practices and the contents in question, and the creation of an Election area. Also note the timing; current leaders would be re-elected near the end of November if this RfC passes. If QP's management believes they cannot reasonably execute this proposal and do not wish to nominate someone to help see it through or they are unwilling to execute this proposal, they should drop a veto as early as possible so this is off the table as I am serious about seeing it through either way.

Support

 * 1)  I managed to read through the entire proposal and agree with every idea presented. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  We definitely need to get rid of the "bureaucrats do everything" idea. I agree that the staff and general governing policies do need some cleaning up. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  It would be a lot easier to manage each wiki, and it will make a lot better the collaboration. King Dice (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per above. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  11:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Abstain
}}
 * , this proposal will do what it wills. The idea is not a problem, merely my stake in it. --Raidarr (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)