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)

Considering that the trial period was suggested by a fair few people in their votes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to offer it as a followup.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Late reply, but no. Fuck you. --Cyberbob 19:35, 26 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)

So, if someone suggests an alternative in a vote we should do it? Like Jorm's policy that said if this policy fails this will happen? It didn't work for him. Why should it work for you? (this is a response to The General. I misplaced it. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:54, 22 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)

You're argument against a trial is effectively: "We can't do that, people might like it!"? How else would we decide if it "works"?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be ignoring all the common sense arguments against it. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

People will like it for the wrong reasons is what I'm saying. --Cyberbob 14:56, 22 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)

9 seconds

1. --CyberRead240 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

10 seconds

1. --Cyberbob 13:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Taking the piss much? =p -- Cheese 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm being deadly serious. --Cyberbob 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I think 10 seconds is too long. If we want a trial why not have a page where people can post the move requests that they would do and then we can evaluate whether or not they would be a good idea. Then we can tell whether or not that move would be vandalism. Too bad something like this doesn't exist! --– Nubis ^NWO 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   That is just brilliant Nubis! Dear god, why didn't you think of it faster! Quick, make three or four policies about it, I'm sure people will be sick of seeing it by the time the third one rolls around and will just vote it in!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:28, 18 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)

   Its removed at the end of the trial and reinstated if the community wants it permanently. -- Cheese 14:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I'd still prefer if the whole thing (including the discussion and voting) was over in three months. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 16:29, 18 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)On second thought, I fear what sorts of vandalism will come from this. I think the system is fine ATM.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:34, 23 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)
5. Yeah. --Janus ^talk 14:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Indeed. -- Adward  14:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
7. But I would like the after trial voting to be bart of the 3 months though as revoking the new status only to (potentially) put it back after 2 weeks sounds silly--Honestmistake 09:39, 19 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)

Karek makes a good point below. Shall we add groups? Linkthewindow  Talk  06:54, 23 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)

:goodpost: - this would create far more work for the sysops than the amount even the most hopeless of proponents of this policy like to think it would save. HURR --Cyberbob 13:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would also save work if we didn't give users the power to edit either? This isn't about saving us work, really, (though it should have that effect in the long run) it's about making it easier for established users to move pages without dealing with 5 miles of red tape. BTW, several of the admin pages are already move-protected at the time when everyone had the power to move pages.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you even read the Move Request page? Seriously, when was the last time you actually contributed to it? Have you been following the actions of established users requesting page moves of groups to make them subgroups when these users aren't even in the groups? As they keep telling me, the red tape is there for a reason. Maybe if you weren't working on Autogroups 4.0 The Revenge you would actually see what kind of requests are made and what people would do with it if they could. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally, it rarely shows up on my watchlist and requests are normally served before I get them. I'm not quite sure what cases you're referring to, so I can't really comment, but I will say that abuse of the move privilege is vandalism. With the extra privilege comes the responsibility to use it sensibly.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Define Abuse. I want very specific definitions. Maybe you should read the page before you think about giving powers to the users. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you mean Iscariot was the one that originally requested those moves? Considering he was in an arbitration dispute with KotD when he made this comment and then the requests. Cheese shouldn't have served the request and that should have been reported as vandalism, he was purposely altering the wiki treatment of the DEM so as to support his rager for them. --Karek^maps?! 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you knew that when I asked you on your talk page what you thought about them. But, yes, he was the one that started all of that. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If I did I would have reported him then. --Karek^maps?! 09:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the short answer here is that Iscariot should have a VB case made and Cheese should stay off the Move Requests page. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and he just needs to be more thorough, it's what his mistakes often tend to arise from, not reading into the background of requests/cases or not having been paying attention to parts of the community/wiki. --Karek^maps?! 09:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just protections

How about getting rid of the move function from this proposal? That gets rid of all the downsides, leaving the biggest benefits (semi-protection of owned pages) intact and without any real abuse issues that we don't already have -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:02 20 January 2009 (BST)

One of the clauses is if the move function doesn't work, then we can remove it in three month's time, and keep the semiprotections. So... meh. If one doesn't work, we can keep the other. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Boxy. Though now I'm afraid if I ever decide to make it into a policy, I'll get b& because of how many times it was spammed in this current policy. :/ --Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You know Bob would report you and I would use the B&hammer. So consider yourself smote and make a policy that actually makes sense. Just don't use that damned "Autoconfirmed Group" name. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. You can't ban for a good faith edit, and there are several Sysops who would probably contest such a ruling.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I know you have a reading and comprehension problem. What part of consider yourself smote and make a policy that makes sense did you not understand was part of a joke? You are so dead set on pushing this policy through that you have lost the ability to understand anything that isn't a "Yes" vote. --– Nubis ^NWO 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"I would use the B&hammer" seemed clear enough under the circumstances, considering the comments made below.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you fucking well can in certain circumstances, and you know it. Spamming policies in the hope that one of them will get through is an abuse of the system no matter how good the faith is. --Cyberbob 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid "Good faith" and "abuse" are mutually exclusive. Spamming the same policy repeatedly could be counted as bad faith. Putting up a 2nd revision of a policy based on feedback is not. Either way, you can never ban someone for a good faith edit because, by definition, such an edit is not vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. --Cyberbob 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob, don't argue with him on vandalism! With his 3 edits every 2 months on A/VB he is clearly an expert! --– Nubis ^NWO 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously dose speshul sysop powerz make baby Genral (what's he now, 14? 15?) an EXPERT IN ALL THINGS WIKI RELATED --Cyberbob 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that i've been here for about 3 years (and I've been a Sysop for most of that), I think I know what qualifies as vandalism. Anyway, I am merely reciting the guidelines to you and I have yet to see you give any reason why they might not apply.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, incorrect. Sorry. --Cyberbob 09:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which part?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the spelling (though your grammar could use some work), most of it. --Cyberbob 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've run a spell check on it, nothing is flagged up so I must assume that you are either speaking a different version of the English language or your talking trash; Which is it? Anyway, I was looking for you to point out specific factual errors which I have made and "most of it" doesn't narrow it down.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

You asked which part of it was incorrect. I said apart from the spelling, most of it. I say again, APART from the spelling. You desperately need to repeat Year 10 English. As for the specific factual errors, all of it. --Cyberbob 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I've just notice that you are [for once] right. I completely misread your answer. My mistake. Anyway, I will rephrase the question: Why is it that you believe my statement to be incorrect?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, fuck you. You don't fuck up like that, still turn it into an opportunity to try and act like you're somehow superior (PROTIP: you aren't) and seriously expect to get an answer. --Cyberbob 12:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You made a claim, back it up or fuck of is what I'm saying. I was wondering whether you were trolling or actually had some points to make. FYI, while I was not trying to act superior you have the right to be offended if you wish.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with the erroneous (that means false FYI) inferiority complex. Who the fuck are you to tell me I have the "right" to feel offended? --Cyberbob 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, if it would make you feel better: You have absolutely no right to be offended and you should be shot if you find anything I say offensive! Seriously, if you want to take offence at something I say then you are free to and I really don't care.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about getting banned, ain't gunna happen if you make a genuine attempt to make a workable policy. Some changes I would make;

1. Ditch the move function (obviously),
2. Autoconfirm at 200 post still, but allow for applications to bureaucrats for early "promotion",
3. Abuse is handled through A/VB, but add that confirmed vandalism of semi-protected pages can lead to "demotion",

   leading to a need to reapply manually to get the ability back,

I'd like to hear any problems that people may have with such a policy though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:07 27 January 2009 (BST)

Its existence, even as a hypothetical. --Cyberbob 11:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is what the "against" vote is for.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry fagmeister, but you don't get to spam policies ad infinitum (that means indefinitely in the likely event that you didn't know) until one is finally accepted. The whole point of the discussion period before a policy goes up to voting is to iron out any wrinkles BEFORE it's put up for voting. BEFORE, as in not DURING or AFTER. --Cyberbob 12:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure what point you are making, as the policy was up for discussion for a significant period and you failed to point out any addressable problems in the policy during the discussion period apart from "Its existence". You are absolutely correct that policies cannot be spammed ad infinitum, but that is relevant only if said policy qualifies as spam. As the proposed revision would not be spam, your comment is irrelevant. BTW, ad infinitum is such a common phrase that it may as well counted as English. You seem to spend half your time treating everyone else as idiots and then the other half accusing them of having a superiority complex, hypocritical much?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems in your case I'm right on the money; not only can you not read (as shown above) but you also don't know the difference between a superiority complex and an inferiority complex. --Cyberbob 14:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of thinking I was superior to everyone else, which would be a superiority complex. An inferiority complex would imply I believed that I was inferior to everyone else. I don't think I am the one who is confused here.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: "inferior" changed to "superior" in first sentence.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Read that comment again and get back to me. --Cyberbob 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected. The original point still stands, though.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. No it doesn't. An inferiority complex is where you think everyone else is superior, and vice versa. --Cyberbob 09:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Revision

Ok. I'm intending on taking this version to voting either tomorrow or the day after. I've decided to lower the trial to a two month one followed by the discussion and voting but aside from that there is very little changed. Any thoughts on anything I've missed? -- Cheese 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The point? --Cyberbob 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main page

1. Not only is this a bad idea the fact that a twice failed policy gets a "trial period" vote should make this Vandalism as Policy Spamming. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

   If someone tries it again after this one I intend on taking them to A/VB for that very reason. --Cyberbob 05:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   It failed once and this is an alteration to the policy based on feedback gathered from voters. There is plenty of precedent for a policy being put up for voting for a second time after alterations have been made.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   BULLSHIT! The only change to this policy from the previous version is that this is for a "trial period" of said policy. There is no alteration and the sections are even CUT AND PASTE copies of the other version. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   The trial period was a change recommended by several voters, which is why it was put for voting with that alteration.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

   I also find it funny that you are so behind this policy when you were the one that voted: I would also agree with Nubis that we do not need extra people to prance around in red tape.--The General on this.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

   These are two different policies with different aims. My reasons for voting against the one linked are twofold. Firstly, it would allow practically anyone to gain Move, Deletion and Protection permissions with nothing more than a week's discussion. Deletion can be very damaging, even accidentally, and giving vast majority of people the ability to edit protected pages then it would make protection useless (or force us to protect everything to sysop-edit only, making the ability useless). Secondly, it's aim was to give more people the ability to carry out wiki maintenance. As legitimate deletions and page protection still have to go through the relevant pages and those pages do not have a significant backlog, giving more people to ability to carry them out would not speed things up but would merely tie yet more people up in red tape.

   As the requirements of this policy are stricter, page moves can be carried out on-sight and it does not attempt to give deletion of protection privileges, it avoids those problems.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

   Are you saying that moves no longer have to go through the Move Request page and that it is going to be the responsibility of the sysops to go through the move logs to make sure there isn't vandalism? Or are moves going to have to be posted still? Since you finally found A/MR the other day can we assume you will be as diligent with watching the move logs? So now instead of being able to discuss and/or deny requests we will have to pour through logs and track down whether or not that move is this vague "abuse" that you never gave me a definition of? Brilliant!

   Has it occurred to you that your move policy is going to give the ability to move pages to a vast majority of people and that you yourself said that sysops would have to move protect a lot of pages manually but somehow this is less work than having to to protect everything to sysop-edit only - you know, the reason you were against the other policy I linked? --– Nubis ^NWO 00:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

   Moves by those with the move permission never have gone through the page, so it isn't a change. People are still welcome to note down any controversial moves which require discussion. "Abuse" is the same as "vandalism" - a bad faith move is vandalism. I assume you simply want people to log down the moves they make, not that they should have to wait for someone else to carry out the move? One point I would like to make is that we don't require all edits to be logged on A/VB so we can patrol them for vandalism, yet anyone with an account can edit the wiki, so it doesn't particularly follow that we should require people to note down every move made. Having said that, I suppose I wouldn't object to moves being logged down on the page as a reference.

   My reason for voting against the other policy was not the extra work it would create but because making all protections sysop-only would make the Halfop level of protection useless as they could never actually use it. It's a catch 22, really: If we give lots of people the ability to protect and edit protected pages, we make protection pointless; If we counter that by making all protections sysop-only, then we make the lower level of protection useless.

   For the record: I am actually in favour of giving regular users extra privileges. However, there need to be decent requirements before giving them out and I believe that such a policy would be useless with the present level of red tape involved in the system.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)