Hello everyone!

As you probably already know, Jackboog21 has been demoted from the bureaucrat role, and I'm the new bureaucrat now. As it was said in Tuxedoshlyukha's previous post, the wiki needs to be updated in multiple areas.

This post describes all the changes; please read it carefully and don't hesitate to comment. Tuxedoshlyukha, Slimytent12 and me will be happy to clarify any concerns, questions, or issues.

Since it's more of a discussion than a voting, everyone is welcome to contribute.

This discussion will be held for seven days (until November 19th) minimum before all the changes are applied.

GOVERNMENT CHANGES OVERVIEW

Please note that this is a summary of the revamped structure with comments, not how the pages will look; they will be published a bit later.

Summary of the proposal:

1. Councils, committees, and all meetings as a format; replace them with a new format.

2. Archive the forum; the forum (not to be confused with discussions) hasn't been used by anyone except some staff members for a long time.

3. Change staff ranking system to suggested below;

4. Change the voting system to the suggested below.

Staff structure

The main and most important rule is that no staff rank should be a way to show appreciation for the hard work or highlight the user; it should only be given if it can substantially increase the performance. I intentionally avoid specifying any strict numbers required for any ranks; instead, the user has to show they're capable of doing the job, and their promotion will make the work easier for everyone. If the user believes they meet the requirements, they should inform any staff member; if all staff members agree, they get promoted. A public vote is held if staff members can't reach a consensus, or the user disagrees with their decision.

We recommend anyone applying for staff to have a Discord account, or create a Discord account, and join the Editor's server, as the majority of communication occurs on this server between staff members.

Content moderator:

1. As anyone can guess from the name, their job is to keep the wiki's articles, files, categories, and overall content in order.

2. Their technical permissions include rollback changes, deleting/undeleting any pages (including files, categories, etc.), protecting and unprotecting them, editing protected pages, renaming any pages without leaving a redirect, and patrolling changes. Their job can also include helping new users with editing and guiding them to edit properly.

3. To become a content moderator, the user should show a good understanding of basic wiki mark-up, editing guidelines, and style and contribute to the wiki for an amount of time significant enough to show their dedication to the wiki.

Thread moderator:

1. Thread moderators keep the Discussions and comments section in order; they can lock, delete, and undelete any posts and comments, edit posts and comments, and rename them if necessary.

2. To become a thread moderator, the user has to show their social skills and activity on the wiki. As resolving conflict situations can be tricky without having any technical rights, an internship can be offered to a user even if the latter couldn't show their skills but didn't show the lack of them.

Chat moderator:

1. Chat moderators keep the Discord servers in order; the requirements are the same as for thread moderators, but it's unnecessary to be a staff member on the wiki to be a chat moderator. It's also unnecessary to be a moderator on both servers at once.

Administrator:

1. Administrators can do everything moderators can do: blocking and unblocking users, changing the design, and managing the technical part of the wiki. It's expected to manage the social part of the wiki, encouraging social and editing activity. If there are multiple administrators, they can split their duties between each other.

2. Generally, the user has to be a moderator for some time to show they're suitable for this job; the exact experience and moderator status required depends on the situation and what's needed and expected from a new administrator.

Bureaucrat:

1. The only technical permission the bureaucrat status gives is the ability to give other users technical rights, so their main duty is to be active and engaged with the wiki. However, the bureaucrat is also an administrator and is usually expected to be "the leader".

2. Promoting and demoting a bureaucrat should be done through a voting process. A bureaucrat can give this status to another user, but cannot revoke it; thus, in case of demotion, a user has to either remove the status from themselves or the vote results should be sent to Fandom support.

Rollbacks:

1. Rollback status gives a user only two technical rights: using the "rollback" button, which reverts all changes made by the last contributor (which can be done manually by any user, though), and marks their edits as patrolled by default.

2. With that said, this isn't a staff but rather "trusted editor" position. A content moderator or administrator can request granting it to a certain user if they think it's unnecessary to check every edit they make anymore.

Promotion system

Anyone is free to apply to any position at any given time. Users cannot apply for others, however, they're free to suggest applying.

The application form is free, but it is recommended that you list your contributions, wiki-related knowledge, and plans to show your sincere intentions and improve clarity.

Since most editors are generally uninterested in voting on applications, staff members will the ones to review and vote on all submissions. If the staff members have doubts or can't reach a definitive conclusion, or the applicant disagrees with their decision, they can initiate a public vote.

Demotion system

A staff member may be demoted without a prior voting if they severely violate the rules or remain completely inactive (including all Discord, Discussions, and editing activities) for more than two months.

In all other cases, the same algorithm as in the promotion process applies.

• Warning and Blocks

Mini-warnings were previously used as small, minor, warnings for users who violated Wiki rules. However, they were often shown to be ineffective, as users continued to break the rules despite receiving them, resulting in infinite blocks. Therefore, mini-warnings should be eliminated, and staff members should issue more appropriate warnings and consequences.

Below is a proposed warning system that will apply to all non-staff users:

Warning is a verbal, public reminder about the rules of the wiki send to a specific user on the message wall. Its role is to warn the user about potential consequences and document inappropriate behavior cases for other staff. Warnings should not be deleted off of a user's walls, and will result in a warning if caught doing so.

Blocking should be treated as an extreme measure of preventing a certain user from damaging the wiki and should be used accordingly. The exact length and criteria are defined by the staff members for each case individually, however, the following guidelines should be taken into account:

• In cases of minor damage and prior warnings, the block length should be 7 days, and if applicable, should be partial.

• Depending on the severity and extensiveness of the damage and the prior blocks and warnings given to the user, the block length should increase.

• If the account seems to be created for malicious purposes only and in cases of repeated behavior and ignoring the warnings and blocks, an infinite block can be given.

Warnings cannot "expire"; they should always be taken into account along with how long ago they were given, and how a user's behavior had changed since.

If a blocked person feels that their block was unjustified or due to the AbuseFilter being triggered false-positively, they can reach out to an admin on Community Central.

Please note that the guidelines are made vague intentionally to avoid situations that were not taken into account during the development of these rules and thus, require a decision that goes "against" them.

• Voting System

Voting should be started for any debatable changes, such as deleting a page that is not a result of vandalism result or a change affecting a large scope of the wiki's content.

The core principle is that anyone can suggest anything at any time.

However, there are three types of voting depending on the importance and area the decision covers: staff-only, editors-only, and wiki-wide:

• Staff-only voting type is reserved for changes that require a certain level of understanding or interest most editors and users don't have, such as changes to the technical part of the wiki.

• Editors-only voting is for changes that affect the wiki's content but require a certain level of understanding or interest that most casual users don't have, such as adding new templates or changing the pages in some way.

• Wiki-wide voting type is for changes that can affect the entire wiki in the long term, such as bringing major changes to the design, and core parts of technical or social systems. The exact criteria and place for voting depends on the type of it; it should let the majority of potentially interested users participate and last for a reasonable amount of time to make the decision but not make it unnecessarily long.

SOCIAL-RELATED CHANGES

1. Archive everything related to Minecraft, as Wiki users no longer use it.

2. Archive the main server and create a new one instead. The suggested version of the server can be tested here: https://discord.gg/Qe694FjQYa

3. Let main and editors servers exist and be "promoted" simultaneously using two widgets on the wiki.

4. Alter the bot to send recent changes to the editor's server.

TECHNICAL CHANGES

1. Remove AbuseFilter restriction that disallows new users to upload pictures (I don't think it's THAT much of an issue, frankly).

2. If possible, restrict changing "crush" and age parameters to new users due to excessive vandalism.

3. Request the addition of a "patrol" extension (basically marks all edits by non-staff members as unpatrolled and puts them on a special page; content mods+ can mark them as patrolled to remove them from that list)

4. Add a commong draft page for stubs and drafts as an alternative to personal sandboxes.

5. Add a "Hall of Fame" page for acknowledging the people who made significant contributions to the wiki. For each user, make a "card" briefly describing their contributions, when they joined the wiki, what role they played and when they left, if they did. The design prototype can be seen below:

As I had said already, this is an open discussion, so everyone is welcomed to join no matter the number of comments/edits and date of registration.

If there will be no ongoing discussions by November 19th, the decisions above will be applied; all old pages will be archived where it's reasonable and possible, and removed or rewritten in other case.