Editing SmashWiki talk:Junior administrators (version 3)
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
#::I meant most of them (myself included), not all of them. [[:User:ZeldaStarfoxfan2164|ZeldaStarfoxfan2164]] ([[User talk:ZeldaStarfoxfan2164|talk]]) is made in America 22:36, 29 October 2015 (EDT) | #::I meant most of them (myself included), not all of them. [[:User:ZeldaStarfoxfan2164|ZeldaStarfoxfan2164]] ([[User talk:ZeldaStarfoxfan2164|talk]]) is made in America 22:36, 29 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
#'''Neutral''' for now: I'm not fully sure about this proposal, so have some thoughts.<br />If I'm not mistaken, this policy's goal is giving more users a more effective way to deal with vandals, since right now non-admins can only undo, rollback and mark for deletion, and therefore have no way to actually stop an ongoing vandal attack.<br />The main issue is the low power gap between this and full adminship; therefore, in order to widen said gap, let's see how actually useful would the powers proposed by this policy be.<br />- '''restore''': completely unneeded, as regular users cannot delete pages and previous versions of files are kept.<br />- '''delete''': not fully needed since pages can be simply blanked and possibly marked for deletion and deleted by an admin later. This means more janitorial work for full admins but is relevant to widen the power gap. I don't see spam pages and files causing actual problems by merely existing, unless they contain illegal material. A truly dedicated vandal could also edit a page more than six times to give it a big history and bypass this. The one use I could see for this is '''undoing malicious moves''' (is there another way?).<br />- '''lock''': relevant for stopping vandals, but could also be used to stop edit warring which (as I understand this policy) might lie outside the scope of this position. This too could be time-restricted.<br />- '''suspend''': definitely the most relevant of all; its proposed implementation seems fine but I wonder if six hours is enough to guarantee an admin's presence for a check.<br />Overall this kind of position seems a nice way to help holding back vandals. The "another group of users to never be online" criticism would not hold if the group were large enough and its users were decently distributed along time zones. Which of course is also true for full admins, which leads to Miles's criticism.<br />Hope this helps. -[[User:Menshay|Menshay]] ([[User talk:Menshay|talk]]) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (EDT) | #'''Neutral''' for now: I'm not fully sure about this proposal, so have some thoughts.<br />If I'm not mistaken, this policy's goal is giving more users a more effective way to deal with vandals, since right now non-admins can only undo, rollback and mark for deletion, and therefore have no way to actually stop an ongoing vandal attack.<br />The main issue is the low power gap between this and full adminship; therefore, in order to widen said gap, let's see how actually useful would the powers proposed by this policy be.<br />- '''restore''': completely unneeded, as regular users cannot delete pages and previous versions of files are kept.<br />- '''delete''': not fully needed since pages can be simply blanked and possibly marked for deletion and deleted by an admin later. This means more janitorial work for full admins but is relevant to widen the power gap. I don't see spam pages and files causing actual problems by merely existing, unless they contain illegal material. A truly dedicated vandal could also edit a page more than six times to give it a big history and bypass this. The one use I could see for this is '''undoing malicious moves''' (is there another way?).<br />- '''lock''': relevant for stopping vandals, but could also be used to stop edit warring which (as I understand this policy) might lie outside the scope of this position. This too could be time-restricted.<br />- '''suspend''': definitely the most relevant of all; its proposed implementation seems fine but I wonder if six hours is enough to guarantee an admin's presence for a check.<br />Overall this kind of position seems a nice way to help holding back vandals. The "another group of users to never be online" criticism would not hold if the group were large enough and its users were decently distributed along time zones. Which of course is also true for full admins, which leads to Miles's criticism.<br />Hope this helps. -[[User:Menshay|Menshay]] ([[User talk:Menshay|talk]]) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (EDT) | ||
===Comments=== | ===Comments=== | ||
