UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group Trial

Discussion

Ok. Would we say yes to a trial of this idea to see how we get on with it? -- Cheese 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Three months. Reason for this figure? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wan suggested 3-6 months on the voting for the other one. I'll change it depending on the results of this discussion. I'd say 3 months would be a good minimum though. That way we could see how we cope over a decent time period. -- Cheese 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And how will we define whether the trial was successful? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We open a new discussion to make this a permanent feature and ask for the community to relay any problems/improvements/thoughts/etc they had/have on the matter. We as sysops can also comment on whether we noticed any problems on our side (workload/vandalism cases/etc) and after we've done that we take it to a vote to make it a permanent feature. If it's successful, we make it permanent. Otherwise, we just go back to way things are right now, no harm done. -- Cheese 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What about if we want to keep the semiprotections but not the move, or vice-versa. It's not clear according to the policy, and I got the feeling that the semiprotections had more support then the moves. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put some more information about the evaluation into it. -- Cheese 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

2 months-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely 2? -- Cheese 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC) -- Cheese 14:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 2.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anywhere between two and six is fine by me. Don't want it too short for obvious reasons (not enough time to be tested,) and too long, it would just get, well annoying. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

You people sure are persistent, aren't you? Tell you what; next time I make a policy and it's rejected I'm going to start spamming followup "trial period lolz" policies. --Cyberbob 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This². The policy failed. Move on. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think Cheese knows all too well that after a few months people will have gotten used to the system - whether it's working or not - and won't want to give up their ossom powerz. Clever girl... --Cyberbob 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a girl. =/ -- Cheese 14:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's alright, the other VELOCIRAPTOR got him. Has Kevan said its sometinh he might implement yet? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll check with him. -- Cheese 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Being Kevan, I don't think he has said a thing yet, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't, but knowing him he's probably got an eye on it. I've left him a note to ask him if he would be willing to implement it if this gets the thumbs up. -- Cheese 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kevan speaks. Linkthewindow  Talk  16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Added his response to the main page in case anyone else wonders. -- Cheese 16:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Length of trial

This is just a simple count to see how long people would be willing to have this trialled for. The 3 months thing on the page is just a place holder at the moment and I'm open to what you guys think. Just stick your name under the time you think would be best for this trial. -- Cheese 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1 day

1. ja.--xoxo 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

2 months

1. -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
2. The way I understand it, you're practically adding one month to this anyway with the two week discussion and two week voting. Or are you saying the autoconfirmed group be removed for that time? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
3. As mid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
4. A good point.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
5. --SirArgo ^Talk 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3 months

1. This is where I think it would be best. Gives us a chance to see how it works over a decent period of time. One month would be too short and six months would be too long. This, in my opinion, would be the happy medium. -- Cheese 15:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
2. D'accord. --WanYao 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Yep. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
4. 3 months is decent. Liberty 06:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Immediate" Move Protections

This wasn't brought up on the last vote, but I wouldn't mind seeing a clause added that all high-visibility pages that are otherwise open to editing (Suburb, Administration pages, etc,) can be protected immediately if this policy is passed. Saves red tape and opportunistic vandals. Linkthewindow  Talk  15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm bored. Here's what I propose be added to the policy.

Upon passing, the following pages can be move-protected immediately by any sysop without having to go through A/PT

• Suburb pages
• Administration pages
• "Informational" pages (such as Category:Guides and Survivor Skills
• Every page with over one hundred thousand views

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I'll stick that in. -- Cheese 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you don't have regular users with the power to move pages you wouldn't have to protect any pages. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)