UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Limited Sysop Sub-Classes

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Discussion

Sounds interesting. Reminds me of D&D. I'd more than likely vote for.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You were successful in your Spot Check. You spot a policy. You voted for on the policy. You receive 10 XP. You find gold in your basket. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
w00t I leveled. I put my gained stat point into CHA, making me more wicked awesome, and I put my skillpoints into my usewiki skill so I can enter the prestige classes you have brought forth.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of those privileges should be automatic. What's the point of having protected pages if almost anyone can edit them? It's also needlessly complex. Instead, why not just add an "Advanced Editor" class (or something like that) with Move and Protect privileges? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing about having protected pages is that users can only edit them with a request on A/PT and reporting their actions there. A protected page would still be forbidden to be edited, but the users with this ability would be able to serve the protections queue. Even if this was not the case, having protected pages prevent sock account vandalism on mainstream pages, such as templates and historical groups. Anyway, i like your Advanced Editor idea, merging both the move and protect privileges. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do protected pages look like to those who can edit them? How hard/easy would it be to accidentally edit a protected page? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected pages should have the {{protect}} tag at the beginning of the article. If you ever find a protected page whitout this template, please notify a system operator. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The Main Page doesn't have one and neither does Suggestions. Many protected templates don't have it either. If there's nothing else that says a page is protected, then there would probably be a considerable amount of accidental edits. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Protected pages also have a unprotect next to history. When editing the page there is also a WARNING: This page has been locked so that only users with sysop privileges can edit it. above the edit box. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
And now they have this nice blue box that warns people about the protected status of a page, which draws a little more attention than the previous message, IMHO. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Now it's better :). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of moving, those abilities remain beyond the reach of the average user for a bloody good reason. Protection should not be available for everyone because then they will all be able to edit protected pages, and if everyone can edit them while protected, whats the point of protecting them? This is needlessly complicated, and leaves a foul taste in my mouth when i read it. I just plain dont like it. Am i the only person who thinks the system is working if it excludes most applicants? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this is at least a good move to split the fame of sysops being moderators in this wiki. Since being a sysop is only a janitorial task, and the janitor who cleans my company has less education than me, i don't see any good reason why we shouldn't allow more users to serve the administrational queues, It is still hard for a user to be promoted to system operator... it takes at least eight months and a disciplinar and large edit history for one to be promoted from regular user to system operator, and there is still two popular praise process for him to get the really responsible privileges. And, like i said above, having protected pages serves the purpose against vandals and because one still needs to report to A/PT before he can edit them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If they think we are moderators, after all our protestations to the contrary, and even a policy to say it then, to be honest, they are idiots. Theres no need to pander to the intellectually vacant. In answer to a few of the alleged points you made: Time, meh. Id prefer 6 months as in the other policies discussion. The problem with giving everyone page protection privelages is that they will use those priveleges in edit wars. The whole vetting process is designed to make sure people wont abuse those powers. To be perfectly honest, handing out protection privs is like giving children firearms and expectig them to use them responsibily. We would have a collossal mess to clean up inside a month. Sadly, this policy will probably pass, because its a policy to give everyone on the wiki cool toys, and who the fuck cares about little things like "keeping the place tidy" or "being sensible", we get SUPERPOWERS! There is no gap between sysops and normal users. The only difference between the two is that sysops are empowered to perform additional tasks, and have a responsibility to perform them. No more, no less. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you went ahead an put that idea up. <Processing... please hold> --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This is interesting. I'm not too sure wheter I like it or not yet, but it is interesting. Following this it would be possible for a user to progress gradualy up the "ranks", hopefuly finding the level that they are comftorble with. THis might help dispel some of the ideas that sysops are somehow better or superior. It also removes that massive gap between normal users and sysops.--SeventythreeTalk 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. --PdeqTalk* 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this! Jonny12 talk 21:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Soungs good. The jump between basic user and sysop is a bit much right now, and a lot of folks (like me) just want & use the advanced editorial functions, plus a little work on administration, with minimal interest in bans & arbitration. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. It's well-thought out, well presented, and it comes from a basis of assuming good faith in the community. As long as it doesn't get too bastardised by the scaremongers from here to the vote, you have my Keep. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. --Akule School's in session. 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet it bloody is. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually it helps solve the issue of inactive sysops without having to deal with the issue. However, it seems that this way you'll be able to get back some of your sysop powers without the burden of having to pass a peer review. ;) --Akule School's in session. 01:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Haven't you read the page? I'm against this policy. On the minor topic of me still actually giving a shit about how I'm seen: I don't. I have no interest in becoming a sysop again.
Ironic that you choose to mock me on the basis of popularity. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Don'tchya think? Thanks for your opinion, though. I don't believe you need to individually respond to everyone, as you have already made your opinion very well known, and aren't going to change your mind. No need to beat it into the ground. --Akule School's in session. 02:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not responding to everyone (as is fairly obvious, I think). I'm responding to you because I think your support for this policy is the most predictable out of pretty much every other user (with the possible exception of Nalikill). --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points that I'd like to raise. Fistly, in general I am begining to like this policy somewhat. The most obvious benifit that I can see is that it will allow some sort of gradual progression of powers if a user wished to take part in gaining sysop powers. Now, if said user wishes to gain those powers mainly because they like the idea of haing them this would provide a few beinfits. Firstly the gradual progression would allow the community as a whole to "root out" poor sysops earlier on. (by poor sysops, I am refering mostly to people who just want the power and having got it don't use it responsibly). Secondly, after the said user has achieved a couple of sysop abilities it should dawn on them that being a sysop isn't actualy that great a deal. It grants some more limited powers over that of other wiki users but apart from that it mostly just creates more (usualy thankless) work. With something like this in place, we may very well see a general improvement in the quality of sysops, whereby only those who genuinely want the job to help out the wiki go for it. I understand that a lot of people seem to see being a sysop as somehow like obtaining wiki superpowers, a veiwpoint that I have never particuarly shared but hopefully this policy will go some way to dispelling that myth.--SeventythreeTalk 13:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. You can see how a "sysop-in-training" actually does with sysop-related things for a more informed peer review. It also allows the wiki to "test-drive" future sysops. --Akule School's in session. 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Being able to assess users contributions after having a limited increase in "wiki-power" would be helpful for seeing how they would act given higher level abilities. Also, it would allow people with an interest in having the added editing functions to gain those, without having to prove themselves competent to deal with the trickier areas like A/VB, A/SD and A/D -- boxy talk • i 14:18 11 January 2008 (BST)

Show Need

Show need.--Karekmaps?! 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't think this is needed? How so? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should answer his question first - show how this is needed. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Well it helps close the gap between the sysop and normal user and helps reduce the workload a bit, I guess, without promoting a bunch of sysops. Granted, there are some problems, like the Advanced Editor. If everyone can edit the protected page... yeah. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This would be good because it would allow us to promote people to positions where they can contribute more freely, even if the community doesn't completely trust their judgment in other areas. The way the sysop position is set up at the moment, only applicants that are deemed to be trustworthy in all areas of wiki management can be promoted to a position where they can access any of these added abilities. There are dozens of contributers on this wiki that I would have no issue with them having the ability to move wrongly placed pages as they see them appear, but because I wouldn't trust them to be impartial in vandal banning, I would have to vote against them gaining any access to that ability (as things stand now). Almost all long term editors of this wiki could be trusted to move pages. I know I found it a real pain in the arse (as an ordinary user) when that function was turned off (due to vandal alts abusing it) -- boxy talk • i 02:45 10 January 2008 (BST)
Well then are only two areas needed then? Page movers and protectors, and full-sysops? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If protectors, only a very few. It's not really all that needed, pages get protected on time now, right? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There's only one of those powers I'd feel comfortable other users having without going through what sysops have to now anyway, A/MR. So unless a decent necessity for them to have those abilities can be provided there is absolutely no reason for this policy, and it being a "Pain in the ass" really isn't a great reason to do all of this.--Karekmaps?! 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well there under Hagnat's draft proposal, the only ability automatically given after so many posts is page movement, so he agrees with you there. All others have to go through A/PM, just as normal, the only difference is that if you think someone can be trusted to delete pages (and they still have to follow clear the rules of the wiki in that regard), but arn't sure if they'd make good decisions on A/VB or A/M, then you can still allow them to help out with deletions. Truly, most wiki editor should be free to do most of janitorial type stuff on the wiki, there are clear and well tested rules on what they can and cant do, and with the editing of protected pages, Hagnat has ensured that it is only done through A/MR, so it shouldn't increase edit conflicts there to much. I think it's the case that we should be showing a reason why individual editors shouldn't be allowed to access these added editing abilities, via the promotion process, or A/M, rather than assuming they cant be trusted with them. Most of the long term editors here are definitely worthy of at least a certain level of trust, IMO -- boxy talk • i 07:03 10 January 2008 (BST)
It's the need for the qualifier most that bothers me.--Karekmaps?! 09:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way I can support automatic promotions (except perhaps to enable the move function!) The rest of these abilities should require the user to make a request with an explaination of why they want/need this new power. Others should be able to make comments and any sysop should be able to grant the request after a 1 week consultation. Each extra power would require the same prcedure and for preference a different sysop should be required for each "promotion" No time limit or minimum edits should be required but a user wishing full sysop status should already have demonstrated their responsible use of at least 3 of these functions. --Honestmistake 10:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already covered in the policy. The user needs only to fill the required time in the comunity and the number of edits to be promoted to this class. A simple request in A/PM would be enough for any Bureaucrat to promote the user to his desired class. A Bureaucrat can ask for a Popular Praise period of one week, if he thinks the user is not trustful enough to be promoted. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really what I would want. I am suggesting that each power should be asked for and justified individually and the request always be open to user comment not just at the Crats discretion. Maybe not for the simple stuff like "Move" but certainly for the more abusable powers like writting over protects etc... --Honestmistake 10:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please

Especially as this is the only way I'm likely to be able to show that I'm dedicated to improving the wiki. If this passes.... I'm going to work my way up the ladder. I'm amazed no one thought of this before now, this is a wonderful idea.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mental Note: Vote Against --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbob - you're not being fair. This wiki has a system for dealing with vandals or trouble-makers, and (as I understand it), Nali has a wiki-crim record. The thing is, they've served their time under that, and should (don't you think?) be given a chance to reform? Or is the punishment more important to you than the idea of reform? What is it you want, anyway? Do you want Nali to be, as they've said they are, "dedicated to improving the wiki", or do you want them to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, just waiting for the right moment to destroy the wiki? Because you're assuming the latter. Do you want to offer them limited powers, to see how they get on, under the always watchful eye of the big-ops and their ban-hammers, or do you want to keep the ultimately divided system we have now? Finally, do you imagine, for one second, that someone like Nali, with their history, and with the sysops we have, would really be able to abuse any minor editing power they were given for long before they were stripped of the power, punished and forever badged as someone simply not suitable and not to be trusted? In other words, what have we got to lose? (And what potential to gain?) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Spare me the tearjerker, Funt. You should know me well enough by now to know that an appeal to emotion isn't going to achieve a lot. Nali has no business gaining access to any kind of advanced abilities any time soon, and his pathetic plea only reinforces that - I could almost taste his tears falling on the keyboard as he wrote it. He doesn't want this policy to pass out of any well-meaning towards the community (by the way, Nali, it's too late now to try and backflip); he wants it for purely selfish reasons. Let him redeem himself through growing some maturity and restraint in his actions (Note: by maturity I don't mean the pompousness he usually manages, promises to work on, then slips straight back into), rather than through simply processing moves and protections. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was an appeal to reason. As you can "taste [Nali's] tears", I think it's clear who's letting their emotions rule their judgement here. Don't worry - I can see there's no point in trying to reason with you and will now cease. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could actually think I'd get emotional over a wiki matter, but sure. Why not. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I think it might be benificial if users with a bit of a murky past get the chance to reorm somewhat and prove that they can be trusted. I personaly think that Nali has it in him to be a pretty decent sysop, somewhere down the line. Apart from anything else, allowing some users limited sysop powers might dispel some of the glamour of the sysop position, and people might actualy realise the truth: that being a sysop is realy not a big deal, and running fo sysop should vey much be a selfless act to help out the wiki as a whole, as opposed to an attempt to get hold of some (actualy very limited) power.--SeventythreeTalk 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually Funt, I'd think he's served his time when his ban record has been struck, because until then he is/should technically be being careful, it's part of the way the system is set up now.--Karekmaps?! 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
And the fact that you think I'd get teary over a few bits of data on a computer screen is hilarious.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is. I still chuckle whenever I read your post. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nali would never gain anything above an automatic promotion to move and protect pages, without proving to the bureaucrats that his impulsive streak was under control (and I don't see that happening any time soon, no matter how "inclusive" the current 'crats may be). And even then, I don't see him holding it long unless he takes the responsibility absolutely seriously -- boxy talk • i 13:26 11 January 2008 (BST)
That's why I said somewhere down the line. To be honest, I'd rather see individual users not named as a basis for arguments, either for or againgst, as it can sometimes turn a bit nasty, with arguments flying around everywhere, and people getting all irrational. I was mostly trying to say that just because a user in question has had a bit of a murky past that shouldn't, and doesn't automaticaly bar them from becoming a sysop or having any responsibility on the wiki. I think I made a similar point on Cyberbob's most recent promotion bid.--SeventythreeTalk 13:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your reticence in "naming names", and didn't pipe up earlier simply because I didn't want to trash an individual. However, I don't think this is the time to mince words, I like nali, really I do... but he's impulsive, and his judgment less than perfect. He has no chance of promotion now, and only limited chance of promotion under any new system like the one proposed here. If I don't say that, he will be used as a worst case scenario by those who don't give a stuff about offending him. He seems to be a decent guy, willing to ignore slights for the good of the wiki... I hope he understands my needing to say this clearly. And yes, murky pasts shouldn't preclude reformed users from responsibility, if they show a decent track record of changing their troublesome behaviour... but that takes a long, long time -- boxy talk • i 13:48 11 January 2008 (BST)
I think that Nali understands that, from the conversations I have had with him. Personaly I think that it speaks quite a bit for his character that he hasn't gone and gotten himself involved with an argument on this page where some quite nasty attempts to smear his character have taken place. The main thing that I like about this policy is that it would give someone a starting block as it where to prove themselves trustowrthy of those more advanced powers, as opposed to the situation at the present where sysops are voted in based on contributions which suggest very little as to how they will act if they succeed, and, of course when they have had no experiance with any advanced sysop "powers" at all.--SeventythreeTalk 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Watching Nalikill develop on the wiki is an interesting thing indeed, and he has gotten quite better. However, the memories of the internet are very long and not forgiving. --Akule School's in session. 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm kinda impulsive and I turned out alright.... right? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that I have an impulsive streak that needs control, that I still lack maturity, and I do understand that you're right, boxy, about my chances. I'm not offended by anything said on the internet; after all, it's just bits of code, and I understand why I'm being pilloried and it's an understandable mistake. I probably deserve what they are dishing out, insofar as what I did to get banned, what, four times?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbob, if Hagnat agreed to include a special provision saying I was ineligible for any of these new promotions, would you vote for it? If Hagnat was willing, I'd be willing to accept such a provision; I think that this policy shouldn't be voted against for the sake of barring one person. Acceptance being provisional on your keep, of course (and preferably Grim's.)  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that there are very few people indeed who Cyberbob would trust with power here, however limited. He was just using your history as an example.--SeventythreeTalk 22:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kevan's input

I think that we need some sort of indication from Kevan that he would be willing to install any necessary upgrades to the wiki within the next few weeks (if voting was successful), before we put this to a vote or even put the effort into developing it fully -- boxy talk • i 21:40 9 January 2008 (BST)

We should really research what is required to achieve the effect before even presenting it to him. I belive this page more or less explains what needs to be done. - If Jedaz = 03:14, 10 January 2008 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
Oh, I agree. But, this being Hagnat's baby, I thought he may already have the info, and would want to be the one to contact Kevan about it (oh, and I don't like to bother the man ;)) -- boxy talk • i 07:06 10 January 2008 (BST)
I'm sure Kevan is watching this page and checks the wiki at least semi-regularly. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you can never be sure what he checks. But he does lurk and comment where needed. Still, I think it's best if someone does leave a message on his talk page just to make sure he is aware about this. - Jedaz [07:35, 10 January 2008 (BST)]
That seems fine. Just make sure that whatever's finally proposed can be expressed cleanly in terms of those user permissions. --Kevan 10:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This Will Pass

For purely selfish reasons. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

At least have the bollocks to actually explain what your problems are with the suggested policy in this discussion, instead of just repeatedly posting about how much you don't like it. Please. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
My problems with it are pretty much the same as everyone else's. Give people powers simply for being around for a while (any powers) and you can be sure you'll start seeing them being used in edit conflicts and the like. Apart from that, I can state with utmost confidence that at least 90% of the non-sysops voting for this will be doing it for the opportunity to gain power - any power (ref: Nalikill). I can't support this under those circumstances. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 18:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you go for sysop just to gain power? Are you saying that 90% of the users of this wiki are not to be trusted? As it stands, with the editing powers any user has there are edit conflicts, so of course, with this in place, there would still be edit conflicts, but that's balanced by the policy's methods of distributing power. And, as you can see from the changes already made, the strongest fears have been answered with more requirements before any additional editing priveleges are handed out. And, you seem to be ignoring the potential positive effects, such as sharing the workload. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not go for sysop just to gain power. Yes, I am saying that 90% of the users of this wiki are not to be trusted. I don't see any need for sharing the workload, as it's not as though the Protection and Move Request queues are exactly bursting at the seams. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If 90% of the users on this wiki where genuinely not to be trusted, then the entire of the wiki would fall to peices.--SeventythreeTalk 21:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't not trust them to go about their daily business, I don't trust them to use powers such as these responsibly. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, thanks for clearing that up, I was thinking you where pushing the paranoia over the edge a bit! Maybe a compromise can be reached, a creation of a lesser sysop class with some limited sysop powers for trusted users (which would stil require a vote of confidence by the community). You see, I can see the benifits of creating a way for people to progress more slowly to full sysop status, if they so wish (don't forget, not everyone wants to be a sysop). Apart form anything else, it might act as a bit of a buffer, allowing the wiki community to root out unsuitible sysops before they get their hands on too much power, so to speak.--SeventythreeTalk 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This Will Fail

For purely logical reasons. --Omega 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. Wouldn't bet too much on it, though. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Me too, I already see the sheep coming to pasture. Omega 07:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this will fail mainly for the misconduct section. Eg, someone gets ban privileges and bans person X for no reason. They can do this upto 3 times before losing their powers (well at least in theory) - Jedaz [07:39, 10 January 2008 (BST)]

that was merely an example on how one could be punished. A user who abuse it's own powers still have to face the ruling of the sysop team, and that might include the removal of the privilege he abused. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case could you clarify that? You should specificaly state that the same procedures that occur for normal Sysop misconduct also apply to the sub-classes (in addition to the extra parts), because reading it at the moment you don't get that impression. As I read it a person can only be removed if they meet section 2 or 3 of misconduct. - Jedaz [05:56, 11 January 2008 (BST)]

Not Automatic

As I said above, I don't think any of the privileges should be automatic, at least not for everybody. We don't want to give better tools to vandals, do we? How about those with unstruck bans (or bans above a certain level, or even just plain warnings) would always have to go through Popular Praise to get Advanced Editor privileges, not just when a 'crat says so? I'd also prefer that everyone requesting those privileges would have to give a reason why they need them and/or what would they use them for. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

500 edits is a lot, most people who are interested in vandalizing the wiki will not have the patients to occur that many edits. That being said I don't think adding a bit about users with unstruck vandal data would hurt this policy either. Although I prefer letting the user wait for the warnings to be struck rather than making them do the Popular praise thing. --Barroom Hero 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
For the second time i like one of your ideas and add it to this policy, Midianian. Thank you. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Most criticism against this policy is based on the fact that most users cannot be trusted with the powers they are going to receive once this is approved. I won't say that this is wrong, as i too have some doubts about that, but i'd rather assume good faith than this. If we cannot trust our users, what's the point of having this wiki community ? If it is for users to be feuding against each other, let them do that ingame, or on their own forums, This wiki should serve as a place for all users to gather and share information about the game they enjoy playing.
Anyway, even if the worst come out of this, we can simply tweak the requirements that are needed for one to acquire certain promotions, or remove the automatic ones and switch them for popular praise periods, or have a more harsh punishment for those who abuse their powers. Things can be worked out later if any of the stuff that is decided in this policy turns out to be wrong.
One thing is certain: the success or failure of this policy will tell us how healthy this community trully is. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so idealistic. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Stop spamming the policy discussion with asinine one-liners. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above statement is ironic. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's my first one-liner, so you couldn't accuse me of spamming the page with one-liners. Oh, and you have been, and most of them have been counter-productive, rather than practically critical, which is (in my opinion) asinine: whereas mine was a request for that to stop. So, it's not really ironic at all. You'd like it to be, but it isn't. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you bother trying to make me look like a fool with logic when I plainly don't give a rat's arse one way or the other? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you care enough to take the trouble to tell me that you don't care. Isn't that ironic? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want you to stress yourself needlessly over countering me. I'm just a nice guy like that. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just ignore the troll. If it says anything worthwhile, then respond. Otherwise we shouldn't feed him. --Akule School's in session. 13:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's not go around calling each other trolls, or starting rows. All that does is create pages of spammy insults that we all have to skim through to find any sembelence of reasoned argument and makes the entire page much harder to read.--SeventythreeTalk 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright. One of the reasons why this would work is the fact that A/VB would smack down those who abuse those privileges, just like the edit rights to pages, and once someone is confirmed to have abused their powers, they have them taken away. Then, once they get the powers back, a bureaucrat could put them up for peer review in order to see if they should get them back. --Akule School's in session. 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"peer review"... didn't see that bit in the policy, did you make that bit up all by yourself? These privileges should not be handed out like sweets at a kids party in the first place. As for peer review, well i think we should have that for the existing admin team let alone for any lesser tier that gets implemented! --Honestmistake 14:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
While assuming Good Faith is all fine and good this is a bit much to ask assumption of good faith for, the whole point of assume good faith is to keep users from being banned or punished until they have shown they need/want to be. In this case we're giving people powers to do possibly hazardous things, powers that they do not need to perform normal wiki functions and powers that unless they were using them to do hazardous things, they would need once in a blue moon. If common need can't be shown for why we should give these potentially hazardous powers out more freely than they already are then what is the point of giving them out at all?--Karekmaps?! 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Major flaws

Not that this will make even the slightest bit of difference, what with no one caring about the consequences and instead going to vote heavily in favour of getting new toys, this entire concept has a number of major flaws.

  1. The smallish number of active sysops on this wiki allows us to maintain something resembling consistency, except when rogues like vista undermine rules they dont like, such as suggestions rule 10 (Like it or not, you cannot call me a rogue and not make yourself look a fool. Yes, im harsh, but i always stay within precedent and rules). That said, things are largly consistent on this wiki. Rulings for one thing tend to go the same way. There are a few notable exceptions, but those are arguments for another time and place. Allowing large numbers of people to have the power to make those decisions (Lets be honest here, all but the most unpopular of the regulars will vote themselves all these powers) will result in an impossible to standardise and police system. It will be anarchy. This is because:
    1. Sheer quantity of dipshits making rulings would be absurd. They would overrule each other, cause trouble, start drama... etc.
    2. All the work made in tidying up the Vandal banning page will be undone. We will be back to good old 2005-6, where we just had flamewars and the place was a farce.
    3. It will be impossible to ensure that each individual is not operating from a personal vendetta against a user, and even if they are, it will be impossible to prove that they are. A/VB should not be subject to this at all in any way,shape or form.
    4. A/VB will turn from rule of law to rule of most popular. It will be as much of a farcical popularity contest as the crat elections are. People such as myself would be crucified constantly on the page, if only because there is nothing there to punish people from being jerks to people they dont like. We will have two kinds of justice, that for the popular, and that for the unpopular. Not saying we dont have that now (We do, and it is pretty obvious if you look), but doing this will throw even the pretense of a fair go for all out the window. It will be a fucking kangaroo court.
  2. The position of sysop will essentially be rendered meaningless.
  3. People, in general, are poorly educated overly emotional irrational twerps. The whole point of the existing system is to keep such individuals out of the toolshed. This completely undermines that.
  4. This turns promotions into a popularity contest once again. Especially with two noted inclusionists in the crat spots. Whoops, hes popular! PROMOTE! Unpopular but highly competent and contributive users would not get a fair go in a system that requires such majority support, especially not from the current crats.
  5. There are already ways for people to help out these days. They can go improve pages, correct links, fix redirecs, report things for speedy deletions, participate in discussions regarding style and content.

There is only one way to come close to a fair system: Allow each sysop a Veto a month on those promotions (Where they can just shut it down regardless of how well or poorly a candidate is going). Make any case of proven misconduct result in immediate withdrawal of the abilities and permenant disqualification from A/PM, and make a sysops voice count for three times as much on any administrative page than one of these "sysop-lite"'s. Even then this still has a whole fuckload of problems that voters will cheerfully ignore because, lets face it, its a policy to give them everything they want, some of it just for posting lots, and the rest for being popular. Its a disgustingly poor idea and it will literally slam this wiki nose first into the ground. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the policy? A/VB is only available through the same system of promotion that we currently use for sysops. You're loudly shouting that this policy will give everyone unlimited powers to create untold anarchy, but that's not what it does at all, if you take the time to read it. You're coming across as a power-mad scaremonger, absolutely distrustful of anyone not yet in your position of responsiblity. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I have read the policy, though i did go back and reread it. have you examined promotions voting recently? Oh wait, of course you have. Popular folks get vouches, regardless of qualification or suitability. With two inclusionists in the crat positions, nthey arent going to be turned down. Its just the way it is. In such an environment those kinds of people tend to be successful. They also are not very qualified. Also, power mad? If i thought it would help id ask to be demoted for the proceedings of this, but it wont, so im not. Pardon me for being sensible instead of martyring myself for a lost cause. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So, not only do you not trust anyone who wants promotion, but you also don't trust the people that have been voted into the beurocrat position, with more responsibility than you, that would be making a final decision over promotions. Note, I didn't call you power-hungry (you're already a law unto yourself, and an expert at the "just following the rules/just following my judgement/just following precedent" multi-faceted defence against any questionable action), but power-mad. You're so caught up in being right all the time that you don't trust anyone but yourself. My advice - go for a walk in the hills. Stretch your legs. When you're so worried about your pet wiki that you're convinced that letting your control slip by a tiny amount will cause it to "slam ... nose first into the ground", then I figure you're too close to it. I don't expect you to listen to me, but (on this occasion) I mean well, and I don't mean to be patronising. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, if you are going to launch a personal attack, get your facts straight first, and make sure you make it looks coherent. I can barely understand your thing. Im not even sure where you pulled the whole power hungry thing from. Now are you going to refute the points made or call me names. pick one. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Summary: you don't trust anyone but yourself, which is a sign of mental ill health. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess thats a no. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What points am I supposed to refute, exactly? You're saying that you don't trust the beurocrats, and you don't trust regular users. I'm saying that blanket distrust isn't healthy or reasonable. Was there some other point you made, apart from general scare-mongering about every other wiki user except yourself and perhaps some select group of sysops that clearly doesn't include vista? Feigning confusion is an interesting diversion, admittedly, but a bit transparent as a debating tactic. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange as it may seem I am leaning heavily towards Grims side on this. I assume the points he wants refuting are the big 5 he numbered at the top. 3 is uncalled for and not fair to the majority of the community (there are some notable exceptions!), 4 is; to steal A comment Grim aimed at me recently; a straw horse and 2 really is irrelevent to the discussion. 1 however could very well come true if the majority (or even a largish minority) got these powers. There is absolutely no need for everyone to do any of these tasks often enough to warrant letting them do it at will. A role as "assistant sysop" promoted to use certain named powers seems to me to be a much better option and I would envision perhaps 20 or 30 people taking on that role! --Honestmistake 14:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see where he is coming from in point 1, however, the fact remains that any sysop-like action that was done with the automatic promoted users (protect/unprotection, edit protected pages, etc.) is resolved through A/M not A/VB, where it is designed to handle such cases. --Akule School's in session. 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

I think that perhaps the protecting/unprotecting/editing ability shouldn't be an automatic privilege. While it cant do much permanent ("physical" type)harm to the wiki if someone edits a protected page, it can do significant drama based harm to the community in the form of edit conflict/arbitration/misconduct bullshite. I think this should be bumped up to the "popular praise" version of promotion. While it would be reasonable to expect a lower level of impartiality to be able to protect/edit these pages, there should still be a vetting process before users are allowed access to such a potentially drama ridden part of wikidom -- boxy talk • i 13:10 11 January 2008 (BST)

I just noticed this edit to the main policy proposal page from Hagnat, which may allay my fears. "A user also poited out that it's possible to block the edit protected pages feature for the advanced user, forcing users to first unprotect a page to edit it. That would announce that the page was protected and that a user edited it in Recent Changes, which would a) allow other users to notice a protected page being changed b) discourages vandals to vandalize protected pages, as they take more time to be edited and draws more attention than the regular page edit." If the edit protected pages was removed from the automatic promotion section, I'd be happy enough -- boxy talk • i 13:15 11 January 2008 (BST)
I guess i should warn in here when i make such changes in the main policy. :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod]
Well, it did happen while I was editing in this section, so no worries there... but anyway, I still think that editing protected pages should require a "popular praise" promotion -- boxy talk • i 13:36 11 January 2008 (BST)
Maybe have a sysop or beurocrat have a look at theirr contributions, and just check that they're not going to be stupid with the power?--SeventythreeTalk 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is already in the policy. If a crat finds a user not worthy of the promotion he is requesting, he can ask for a one week popular praise period for others to vouch for him. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed that last time I read it.--SeventythreeTalk 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw it, but don't know if I (as a crat) want to go through heaps of users contributions looking for stuff that may make them unworthy of editing protected pages. Better to let them request the specific ability, and have people who have had dealings with them present the evidence for or against. It's not such a problem with the ability to protect and unprotect pages (because those contributions are flagged as such on recent changes), but edits to protected pages look like ordinary edits to everyone else, unless they're watching the specific page edited -- boxy talk • i 14:00 11 January 2008 (BST)
Well, a group could be made for people monitoring those who have the required edits in order to determine their suitability and to flag any potential problem uses to you. --Akule School's in session. 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, a committee to determine if you are suitable to edit protected pages? Just convene a committee of interested parties when they request it... by holding an open forum to discuss their suitability... ie, do it like we do promotions now, those with insights into their behaviour put forward their opinions and evidence to the 'crats -- boxy talk • i 14:25 11 January 2008 (BST)
No. I mean a wiki group like Project Welcome. Basically people who just spend time looking over the suitability of candidates. Bureaucrats can feel free to ignore them if they want, but they could prove to be a useful workhorse for sifting through data. --Akule School's in session. 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
WTF? Project Welcome? Vetting people for promotion? You idiot -- boxy talk • i 14:36 11 January 2008 (BST)
...simplification then. It's early, I understand. I'm talking about a group of general users who make a wiki group purely to look over other users edits for any problems that might need to be brought up to the Bureaucrats, and see if someone needs to be peer reviewed for that privilege. They have no power. No nothing. They basically are like the now defunct Wiki Monitors in that sense, but are more like Project Welcome in that they are working toward the betterment of the community and promotion of healthy attitudes and edits for the wiki. Basically, a group of users who tries to make things easier for the Bureaucrats. If you don't want that to happen, I guess you could ignore them, but regardless I imagine people will start that group up if/when this policy passes. --Akule School's in session. 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I can only see that sort of a group being a vehicle for jerks trying to gain more voice for their contribution to a promotion bid. Let people make their case in A/PM on their own merits, without brining in "wiki monitor", semi-official status -- boxy talk • i 14:52 11 January 2008 (BST)
Eh. It could work with the right people. I simply stated it as an option to prevent you and the other Bureaucrats to have to look over every user's contributions. Regardless, I assume something like it will be made. --Akule School's in session. 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Like it was said before, 500 edits is a shitload of contributions. One wouldn't be unknown to the crat team with such ammount of edits. But if you think that this would too much for the small crat team to handle, we could allow sysops to ask for the popular praise period then, allowing a sysop to veto 3 users a month (so we dont get a rogue sysop vetoing all users who request their promotions). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean a veto to popular praise, or a veto over the entire promotion vote? Why bother with a policy change at all, if the whole thing can be veto'd on a whim. Imagine as well, you're 13 days into a vote, and suddenly Grim comes back from holiday and vetos it on general principles (see above), thus wasting everyone elses time. The power to ask for a vote is power enough. The power to veto a vote is too much. This would turn from a policy that promotes good faith to just another suggestion for over-powering the sysop team so that they can retain their exclusivity over the unwashed masses. And all this because boxy doesn't want the responsibility? Stand down as 'crat if you don't want the job. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean veto the automatic promotion, forcing the user to go through the popular praise period. In no way a sysop can veto the whole process, only slow it down. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, good - I was worried for a moment there. Thanks for clarifying that. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, lack of skillz in english failed me there for a second. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy text change

There has been several changes in the policy from when it was first created. Read the policy again and comment here. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes to Misconduct should help dissuade people from making problems, and with all of the syops being able to rule in on prospective promotions, it should take some of the burden off of the Bureaucrats. It's a well-thought out policy, Hagnat. Kudos. --Akule School's in session. 18:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
there is already a subjective rule in the misconduct section (rule 4) that give sysops the chance to remove the privileges from a troublesome user. That alone should dissuade people from abusing their power. To help ease the crat burden this policy already increase the number of crats from 2 to 3. Allowing sysops to rule on these promotions would be almost the same as backseat crating, and that would be something i dont look forward too. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Rule 4 of misconduct looks good. I think the sysop input could cause some controversy: "The only reason why you are putting me up for peer review is because you hate me!" etc. etc. However, I see little other way to officially ease up on any burden to Bureaucrats without adding more levels of complexity. I'd probably say to leave it in the Bureaucrat's hands as they should be the ones to say: "I believe there is enough concern by the community to warrant a peer review." If a sysop wants to have someone peer reviewed before they can get their powers, that sysop should contract the Bureaucrat and voice their concerns. It's not like Boxy won't look at someone who people point out to verify that they should be peer reviewed. --Akule School's in session. 19:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Akule. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-watches the wiki screech to a halt- --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, it's the idea that the Bureaucrats are the managers that Kevan has in place as his proxies, and the sysops are the supervisors. The Bureaucrats have final say on the "hiring" of new sysops, so they should also decide when a peer review is necessary. --Akule School's in session. 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
laughs @ Anime. Well, it is a new year. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why they must be given three chances. Reduce it to one chance (They fuck up big, they go) or two in the case of really minor stuff. Oh, and you completely ignored everything i said above. Great show old chap, great show. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's seems far too much of a "forgiving" policy. Why should we give someone 3 opportunities to seriously screw up with a power before doing anything? Someone could ban 3 users, have the power removed, earn it back, ban another 3 users, have the power removed, earn it back, ban 3 users..... I sort of like the principle of the idea of the policy, but the execution is so far of the mark that I really don't feel I could vote for it. Also, the most obvious things seem to be missed: What happened to the rollback permission? Isn't that the most basic janitorial function and the one that the most users would benefit from?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand, if they ban three users, they'd have to go through Popular Praise again to get their banhammer back. I somehow doubt anyone who banned three users without a valid reason would get many Vouches.
However, instead of taking away some of their privileges after three Misconducts of one power or all of their privileges after five Misconducts of any power, I'd rather have them lose all their privileges after three Misconducts. You have to take into account how fast the Misconduct warnings get struck. The way it's currently written (or at least how I understand it), you could theoretically get away with one unreasonable ban per month. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the punishment of any proven Misconduct be (as it is currently) decided by the Misconduct proceedings, rather than be written in stone? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
One strike, followed by permenant removal of all abilities. Believe me, it is not at all difficult to stay on the right side of the law. Ive managed it, despite 8 attempted misconduct cases. Oh and hagnat, im still waiting. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for someone to stay out of jail when everyone hates him. :D I'm with Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"permenant removal of all abilities". Imagine, Grim, if one of those Misconduct cases brought against you had succeeded, and your abilities were permanently removed, with no ability to reapply. As usual, you're being too harsh. Why not remove all abilities but allow future reapplication? (All the poking hagnat with a pointy stick stuff is amusing to watch. Did you follow people around at school and poke them? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he considers your broadside section to have been discussed as much as was merited by it's content. That's what happens when you use damp powder.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I was, of course, referring to those by the new subclasses proposed. As for the rest of your drivel, ad hominem does not an argument make. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused (not difficult) - do you mean non-permanent, then? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
He means that sysops can continue doing as they please, but the new proposed sub-classes should have a one strike and you're done policy. I disagree with that, as it doesn't really seem right for sysops to be able to work off their misconduct punishments but these new sub-class sysops not being able to do the same. All users can retain their edit privileges by being good little boys and girls and having their warnings removed. For these powers, I can see the same applying to vandal banning, however, they are forced to go through peer review once they are eligible for their misconduct case to have been removed. If the general wiki populace doesn't trust them with the powers, then they are taken away until the candidate can actually be mature and prove to be a trustworthy individual. --Amanu Jaku 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks - that's what I thought he meant! No wonder he wouldn't debate it with me - it's untenable. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that people shouldn't get the same punishment for the same offense just because they're in a different group? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually i think sysops should have three strikes, with one strike vanishing every 6 months (Until they get demoted, and applied retroactively over the lot of us), but with these lesser positions being proposed, because they are lesser positions, they will also have lesser standards from the users to get into them, and should thus have a lesser tolerance for fucking up. Especially when they only have one ability to keep track of. Seriously, how hard is it to go by the book on a single ability? Not at all. That said, i think the whole idea is stupid in the extreme. what we have works, even if the majority of sysops are more than willing to let popular people go for things that would get a newer user, or unpopular user, crucified. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
SysOps as a position have a significantly higher level of involved trust, it's stand to reason that SysOp promotions would be very rare while lower level promotions would be come a two a day type thing in which most every user will have these abilities. The difference is rather simple, SysOps wouldn't be common so permanent removal of one of them would have a large impact, lower level promotees would be extremely common so removing one of them would be like taking a cup of water from an ocean.--Karekmaps?! 12:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Except permanently. That's a pretty tough punishment. Oh, and you're exaggerating horribly when you say there'd be two promotions a day. Each promotion step beyond the first (which itself can be ramped up to a vote by a sysop) requires a long process of votes and ratification by a 'crat. To say that everyone would quickly become powered-up is to join Grim in his Wail of Ultimate Scaremongering. Catch yourself on. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was exaggerating to make a point, specifically that they would be a common occurance and most users would probably be promoted, at least most that would be at risk of using the powers(dare I say! I shudder at the thought dear sir.) I don't know about permanent but the punishments definitely shouldn't be the same, and that one could easily be a little more extreme as it has far less of an effect.--Karekmaps?! 12:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against tough, punitive punishments. I'm arguing against permanent demotions with no chance of reform. That just breeds contempt in the system, and those who "janitor" it. We're probably agreeing here. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems so.--Karekmaps?! 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Protections Question

Now, lets assume everyone gets all the protections powers. They go through the process of protecting their userpage. Would said person be allowed to edit their own protected userpage without going through the protections process?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume so, although an exception could be tacked on to address that. I know there was once discussion about adding the handsoff extension which basically does that but it was removed because of user subpages like the danger reports, or something like that.--Karekmaps?! 01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
More people having the right to edit protected pages would mean that a lot of group and user pages could be protected without inconveniencing the user/group too much, as long as we had an exception to having to go through the A/PT queue for "page owners". So as long as a group like the Malton Bounty Emo Killers had a few members with limited sysop privileges, we could protect their page from editing by the vandal alts that plague us now -- boxy talk • i 22:23 18 January 2008 (BST)
It would be nice if we could protect signatures, now that users can edit them. Could avoid people like User:Diablo. I still don't like having every user the ability to protect things, but would it be better if they could edit protected pages? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like every user having the ability to edit protected pages actually, to easy to vandalise policies and or protected templated sigs/templates.--Karekmaps?! 22:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, frankly protections is the #1 thing that needs to be dropped or changed dramatically for this policy to have my vote. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my first reaction to this policy discussion too. But what more do you expect from people trusted to edit protected pages. Remember that simply editing a protected page is extremely easy to fix, and also very obvious when done to high profile pages... and if it's a little used page, it's still obvious, even if it's not noticed at the time. Next time someone looks at the page, it's near the top of the history. Double the amount of edits before being allowed to protect/edit these pages? Remember, it should be that those who abuse this power get booted quick smart. I think the potential of being able to protect many group pages outweighs the risks -- boxy talk • i 11:09 19 January 2008 (BST)

Thoughts

There's a few important points I'd like to make that will hopefully be addressed.

The sub-classes

  • Advanced editor : Almost completely fine with this except the protections part. Why oh why? Half the actives users in the wiki will have this ability, and making them go through a request is silly and over-complicated. Moving should be automatic though, as all users had this ability and it's also helpful.
  • Ban privilege : Another why for this one. I'm also in complete agreement to what Grim said on this. It's not like we are being overworked or anything. I'd much more prefer if these users were given the rollback button at this stage if that's possible.
  • Delete privilege : There is absolutely nothing wrong I can see from this. Works well with move-deletes. This looks fine to me.

Promotion types

  • Automatic : Automatic should be only for move privileges, and/possibly the rollback function. Question: How long is the request left on A/P? I say 3 days as that seems long enough for a sysop to request that it be bumped to popular praise.
  • Popular praise : Bad name in my opinion, but the rest is fine by me. So it's like stepping stones, with the second last one being a request for system operator?

Misconduct

Wouldn't 150 edits in 1 month be more appropiate since the duration is cut in half?

Also, I'm in agreement with Grim's #2 comment. I waited 4 weeks....

Nothing else to say at the momment. The protection and ban privilege is a big no in my mind and I'll probably say against if some compromise isn't met. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

misconduct section update

it seemed like a good idea in the moment.. i must have been drunk when i wrote that thing, which now i realize, like chewbaccas in endor, doesnt make any sense!! I have removed the whole misconduct warning mechanism, and substed with our current system + a limit on the punishment a single sysop can cast against a user. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Better. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The 5 SysOps and the month limit on power removal both need to go, a misconduct case is by default as many SysOps who can weight in, this basically says that misconduct without at least 5 SysOps weighing in can't be addressed by the system thus making it easier to abuse ones powers. Then the month thing makes it so that even if it's a gross misuse of power they can't be vandal banned and they can't have their powers removed because, as long as they aren't vandalizing pages(say they choose to protect many popular and commonly edited wiki pages) they are going to get their powers back in a month and can start all over again. I'd rather they get punished with the current misconduct system instead of limiting misconduct's strength.--Karekmaps?! 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Would at least one sound better? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should be a two tiered system. With more users having these limited powers, sooner or later there are going to be cases where people vandalise the wiki with them. Such cases, where there is a proven case of vandalism using sysop powers (move, protect, delete), should mean an immediate revocation of the abused power. When the misconduct is simply a mistake or something done in ignorance of the rules, then the system we already have should suffice. Sysops don't loose their powers for being sloppy every now and then, they learn from their mistakes, and if they don't learn, then they loose the powers eventually -- boxy talk • i 01:53 17 January 2008 (BST)

Was this withdrawn?

Otherwise I wouldn't mind putting up my better another version. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take over this policy, go ahead. I am rather busy in here to tweak it wisely. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So unwithdraw it? Is that possible? And you would mind if I butchered your policy? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You can unwithdraw a policy. It makes no sense to start the whole argument again. And i asked boxy to finish this, but if you want to it's all yours. Do your worst --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod]

Question: Does everyone hate this policy or are we willing to give it another go? I don't want any wasted effort.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be as un-biased and objective as possible (as I have another policy that would kinda not be in sync with this one). I hate it. It gives menial tool to too many people. 'Too many cooks spoil the broth', or however that saying goes. Maybe if there were just 0.5 sysops and 1.0 sysops, then fine. But not 5 different administration user account levels. Come on. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked it... so... --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the concept of an intermediate step between normal users and sysops is worth considering. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, my views on this have been echoed. I'll butcher it shortly. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea of having move, protect, and rollback in the one package, and the user requests them, and is considered for 3 days. Perhaps it is best to limit this policy to just dealing with those, and see how it works out before suggesting handing over delete and banning privileges to a wider section of the community. These changes give significant benefits without risking too much -- boxy talk • i 01:08 23 January 2008 (BST)
Ay, Boxy - it needs to be simplified to have any chance of getting through. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sandbox2 contains the removed bits of the old policy. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New discussion

Please go through the policy again, I have made many changes. If there's any standing problems, feel free to voice them again since it's unlikely I'll catch every word in that wall of text above. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I kinda liked having the protections idea. but making it automatic was maybe a lil dangerous. What do people feel about it being a "per sysop approval" type thing, which would be x amount of edits, and not have a history of vandlism?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any more problems? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Idea

This is a bad idea. It just adds more bureaucracy to an already overcomplicated system.--Jorm 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting

This policy has already been in discussion for over two weeks and thus, I will be forced to put it into voting or it will be archived. If you have any last changes, do so now. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the ability to edit protected pages. That is the one privilege that was likely to improve our ability to prevent vandalism if given to more users (by allowing more user and group pages to be protected from blow in vandals). And the misconduct section needs to be spelled out a bit more clearly. I figure if an advanced user ability is used in a proven vandalism case (the editing of a protected group page in bad faith) the user automatically looses the rights of advanced user. If it's a purely bureaucratic mistake (editing a protected page in good faith without a A/PT request), then they go to misconduct as per usual -- boxy talk • i 05:52 25 January 2008 (BST)
+1--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you really sure about the protection? Well alright. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(I'll get to the misconduct part soon). Is this a decent compromise? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmkay, clean up the misconduct part how? And are we settled on "advanced user?"--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be a section about disallowing significant edits of protected admin pages (eg. admin archives/rules) without an A/PT request, but also allowing users to edit protected pages if they are deemed to have ownership rights (group and user pages) -- boxy talk • i 03:37 26 January 2008 (BST)
If there's anything else, spelling, grammar, little fixes, wording, just go ahead and do it. Makes things quicker. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has made a convincing argument as to why this is a good thing! I really don't see the point of this as it stands. I can see good reason for some sort of junior sysop position but this doesn't seem to be that! --Honestmistake 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It reduces workload, it gives back an ability that every user had in the past and arms them with anti vandalism tools. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Problem with the move thing though is that back when users could move pages it resulted in move wars. --Karekmaps?! 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not assigning this to ever user, and nor is it automatic. On top of that, if they do abuse their new tools, we have the power to remove them. Other wikis have shown that giving these abilities doesn't necessarily create chaos, so why should it be so different for us? The gain outweighs any problems.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember move wars being all that big a problem (and that's what arbitration is for). The reason that moving pages was restricted was that vandals used to move pages multiple times (as well as editing in vandalism) making it a nightmare (compared to simple editing vandalism) to work out what went where. This was done by blow in vandals. I see no reason that users with over 500 posts shouldn't have the move ability, and if they do abuse it, simply take it away from them -- boxy talk • i 03:32 26 January 2008 (BST)
Why this is a good thing? Well, apart from allowing others to move their own pages, and newbie character pages in the main namespace (usually at least a couple per day), giving long term users the ability to edit protected pages means that we can protect more pages, like The Malton Bounty Emo Killers page (which is regularly vandalised). This means that the owners of these pages will be able to edit these pages even though protected, while blow in vandals wont be able to even touch them unless they put in a lot of time building a history of editing here (and really, who's going to bother?).
Basically, this policy gives back the move function to long term users without risking giving it to vandals, and also gives us a way to protect user and group pages without making them inaccessible to their owners -- boxy talk • i 03:32 26 January 2008 (BST)

I don't have any problem with allowing trusted users to move pages and I think allowing them to edit protected pages may be a good thing too. However, I can see no merit in allowing them to protect pages... would they need to report page protections as now? would they only be able to protect pages that the sysops have already deemed should be protected or would they be able to excercise their discretion? Giving out new edit tools may well be a good thing but our current guidelines were written to deal with a limited number of folk using them, multiplying that number by 100 or a 1000 or even more is likely to lead to a lot more conflict. That conflict would almost certainly descend into edit wars with both sides convinced they were right and it was the other who was acting in bad faith. I just think this is going to turn into a mess for very little actual gain!--Honestmistake 11:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Am I missing anything? Is it safe to assume that the lack of recent comments means this is ok for voting? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

put it for voting, let's see how it goes. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. I'll give it a couple or so hours, then I'll put it in. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems

So it seems like the general consensus is that protection should be removed and the misconduct section should be changed. Any suggestions? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have a kind of two week trial period where if try to abuse the powers at any point then they can be stripped of the powers and receive a warning. They will then not be allowed to reapply for the powers until they have worked off the warning (ie 2 months and 250 edits) and even then, the decision to allow them to have them back is up to the bureaucrats. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Limited_Sysop_Sub-Classes&oldid=1028379"