Forum:A new usergroup idea: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:A new usergroup idea (edit)

Revision as of 17:24, June 26, 2020

4,624 bytes added , 3 years ago

m

Don't edit archives

CanvasK

30,358

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{proposal}}
+{{proposal|passed}}
 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:
 # They're important enough that it would be prudent to protect them so not just anyone can edit them.
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 This page is so any major objections can be put down. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] 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. [[User:Bwburke94|Bwburke94]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lou Cena|Lou Cena]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 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. &ndash; [[User:Emmett|<span style="color:#000000">Emmett</span>]] 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. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 15:41, 16 February 2019 (EST)
+:I don't think giving block rights to a group with automatic admission is a good idea. -[[User:Menshay|Menshay]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 16:02, 16 February 2019 (EST)
+:::Not the point of this usergroup. We will not be giving anyone other than admins blocking rights. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]]&nbsp;[[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 13:09, 17 February 2019 (EST)
+:The idea of having people that can block who aren't admins has been shot down [[SmashWiki:Junior administrators|many]] [[SmashWiki:Junior administrators (version 2)|times]] [[SmashWiki:Junior administrators (version 3)|before]]. That's why this is going in a different direction. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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. [[File:George Jones.jpg|25px]] [[User:Corrin Fan|Corrin Fan]] [[File:Walls Can Fall.jpg|25px]] 19:39, 19 February 2019 (EST)