Forum:A new usergroup idea

For about a year or two, I've been thinking that we have a good amount of pages around here that fit these two properties: An example would be a widely-used infobox or complex template. We don't really want inexperienced users to have a good idea but screw up the execution because they don't understand the wiki code yet, but we also don't really want to limit all possible useful additions to be restricted to the limited staff members. Autoconfirmed-protection doesn't really solve the problem because it only requires 7 days and 10 edits - that's not really enough time to get acquainted with the wiki or prove that you know how to edit well, only to prove that you're likely a good faith user.
 * 1) They're important enough that it would be prudent to protect them so not just anyone can edit them.
 * 2) They're detailed enough that it would be useful for them to be editable by users who are not admins.

I've recently discovered that it's actually possible to add a new level of protection to the wiki, outside the current two of "autoconfirmed-only" and "admin-only". So I've had the idea of creating a new usergroup to leverage this.

Here is the proposal: After 90 days and 100 edits, users gain the "established" permission. (This is about 10-12 times autoconfirmed.) The purpose of this is to provide a more accurate measure of where a user stands. The gist is:
 * 1) An IP or new user cannot necessarily be trusted, and has not proven anything. They can edit unprotected pages.
 * 2) An autoconfirmed user (7 days + 10 edits) has proven good faith. They can edit pages protected against vandalism.
 * 3) An established user (90 days + 100 edits) has proven editing experience and is likely to have also proven community trustworthiness. They can edit pages restricted to those who are expected to know what they are doing.

This page is so any major objections can be put down. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 17:50, 10 February 2019 (EST)
 * This seems like a good idea. There needs to be some sort of intermediary protection, and 90+100 is long enough for experience. Bwburke94 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2019 (EST)


 * As a new user myself, I think this is fair. However, 100 edits is still a little lenient. Maybe 150 edits minimum should do it. I don’t believe that the longer a user is on a wiki, the more tristworhty they are. It’s moreso about the edits. Maybe shorten the time from 90 days to 75 days, and the edit count from 100 to 150. Lou Cena (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (EST)


 * I support it, although I don't think 100 edits is enough to prove community trustworthiness.  SugarCookie     420   04:15, 12 February 2019 (EST)
 * It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the only viable one. The goal is to provide a protection option that is less strict than admins-only, which this accomplishes without any real harm. As you note, the only real way to assess "community trustworthiness" is through qualitative judgment of a person's edits and demeanour, but having admins/bureaucrats make that judgment is an undue burden on them for very little gain and would immediately become a drama fest every time someone who thinks they deserves the status doesn't get it. This is a reasonable middle ground that offers modest benefit with no real downside. – Emmett  17:30, 12 February 2019 (EST)

This may also end up being too powerful for this usergroup, but I think a way to block users for a very short time (max 1 day) could be given to this usergroup. There were many times where vandals would raid the wiki when there were no administrators around, and it's frustrating trying to undo their mistakes while working on other stuff at the same time. Giving users in this group the ability to block can help combat this, and when an administrator goes online, they could review it and decide what to do next. Of course, people who repeatedly use this option maliciously will have this ability revoked... so maybe make people in this usergroup go through a process like rollback. idk this may not be a great idea, but it does help combat vandalism. SugarCookie    420   15:41, 16 February 2019 (EST)
 * I don't think giving block rights to a group with automatic admission is a good idea. -Menshay (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2019 (EST)
 * I really don't like it either, which is why I believe that for it to work users in this group can apply for that power just like rollback.  SugarCookie     420   16:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
 * Not the point of this usergroup. We will not be giving anyone other than admins blocking rights.  Serpent SKSig.png  King  13:09, 17 February 2019 (EST)
 * The idea of having people that can block who aren't admins has been shot down many times before. That's why this is going in a different direction. Toomai Glittershine [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Polychromatic 13:20, 17 February 2019 (EST)

I don't see any issues with this proposal and my sentiments echo Toomai's and Emmett's. Omega   Tyrant   19:28, 18 February 2019 (EST)

I support it, but they also need to be on the wiki for at least six months, as with time you gain trust. Just 100 edits alone won't do it, and with the six months threshold it would prevent abuse to get to it. Corrin Fan 19:39, 19 February 2019 (EST)