This is a working page for mockups related to the concept of "Users whose content and content related activities are recognized to be of a good standard".
This isn't even a "proposal" yet. they are concept ideas at most. Discussion on talk page please.
Concept - Nominating content users with low overhead and issues, low "gaming", yet with human review in the loop
The idea is to automate as much as possible, including automating the majority of any communal input handling.
The concept assumes availability of discreet icons that can be shown if necessary, and a modified SecurePoll for the automation. The goals are scaleable, automated, "review facts and give opinion", hard to game, simple experience for users, and low time for participants. In this idea:
- Computer checks standard computer-checkable criteria for the user, and states if eligible.
- User self-completes a set form + checklist. (100% easy and scaleable)
- If computer checkable criteria aren't met then it's rejected.
- User listed as seeking "trusted content editorship". Specifically, a (discreet) header automatically appears on their user pages, and a (discreet) icon is displayed next to their name, for the next 7 days. There is no on-wiki posting or activity.
- Anyone seeing someone standing for the role (ie noticing the icon next to their name etc) can click to visit a simple interface where they can read the nomination form and add their !vote and optional comment. These are non-public for now.
- After a week, community input ends, and all communal views are shown on the poll system.
- If the community view is < 20 users or <= 50% then it's an automatic computerized fail.
- If more, the candidate can post a response, and (Piotrus' idea) existing "trusted content editors" review the community input. They vote simply "support" or "oppose" and an optional comment. 8 votes and 75% = pass.
- The system is mostly automated, builds on existing code (SecurePoll) and scales very well.
- The nomination and community input is fully automated, doesn't involve communal debate or pages, and is trivial on editors' time.
- Requests with inadequate evidence or low community views just end there anyway, they never get beyond automated stuff either.
- More positive requests (only) get reviewed by existing trusted content editors, who can see any praise or concerns of the community. Their sole action is support or oppose and an optional "reason".
- Community time is trivial.
- Ability to dramatize is minimal (comments hidden until it doesn't matter, poll based on communal feedback is by existing trusted users who just vote yes/no).
- And hard to game (wider community input is advisory; all problems will be identified but trusted content users each personally decide if they matter).
Concept: Other implementation details
- Any user who was the principle author of an FA or GA, has passed RFA, and has not had an adverse finding on their own personal conduct via a community ban/RFC/RFAR, can add their name (and the claimed FA/GA) to an initial list. After checking, these users will be entitled to vote on the second tier of the process until we have 100+ users "voted through" the process. At that point they stand down and may themselves apply.
Scrutiny of "odd results":
- While judgment isn't needed for the result usually (strict percentage criteria), some nominations may be contentious because they have been influenced by canvassing, pile-on, or some highly emotive or faux issue, which does not speak to the criteria for the role. Such (hopefully rare) cases will be passed to the 'crats via their noticeboard with a request to review and judge if the criteria for the role are met, or valid strong objection exists, and if the result was reasonable.
- (to add)