Forum:More rights for regular contributors: Difference between revisions

From the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, the Kingdom Hearts encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:
{{KrytenKoro|Then promote the "shiny" editors to bcrats, and all the other editors to admins. If we can trust them to use the tools responsibly, there's no need to keep it out of their hands just because other wikis get it into their heads that the tools signify kingship of little fiefdoms.}}
{{KrytenKoro|Then promote the "shiny" editors to bcrats, and all the other editors to admins. If we can trust them to use the tools responsibly, there's no need to keep it out of their hands just because other wikis get it into their heads that the tools signify kingship of little fiefdoms.}}
{{Webber22|text=That's.....a risky as hell experiment, man.  Good chance it'll get to someone's head (certainly has happened before...) and they might end up doing some damn fool thing with it - that's not a matter of ''responsibility'' so much as it is a matter of ''mood''.  And what's to stop someone else from locking out ''other admins''?  Let's not make a decision too quickly in the name of a noble experiment just yet.}}
{{Webber22|text=That's.....a risky as hell experiment, man.  Good chance it'll get to someone's head (certainly has happened before...) and they might end up doing some damn fool thing with it - that's not a matter of ''responsibility'' so much as it is a matter of ''mood''.  And what's to stop someone else from locking out ''other admins''?  Let's not make a decision too quickly in the name of a noble experiment just yet.}}
{{Chitalian8|time=04:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)|talk= Eh, I've got no issue with giving trusted non-staffers expanded rights (moving/deleting images, suppressing redirects, editing protected pages). I still think things like blocking users should be left to admins, and of course user right changing should be a bcrat thing.)}}
{{Chitalian8|time=04:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)|talk= Eh, I've got no issue with giving trusted non-staffers expanded rights (moving/deleting images, suppressing redirects, editing protected pages). I still think things like blocking users should be left to admins, and of course user right changing should be a bcrat thing.
 
EDIT: Also, granting non-staffers additional rights should definitely be a case-by-case thing, not just a "this user was here for X amount of time and has made Y edits" thing, though that might be obvious.}}

Revision as of 04:35, 30 November 2015

KHWiki-Forum Logo.png
Forums: Index > The World that Never was > More rights for regular contributors


XMbQaeM.png
ShardofTruth Once you believe, truth and lie are quite the same thing.
Game Clear Data KHRECOM.png If it was just my decision I would promote TheSilentHero, TheFifteenthMember and Chainoffire to admin and be done with it but we have a lot of policies, other rules and differents opinions on this matter here so let's find a way to circumvent them. ;-)

Users who regularly make edits here that contribute to the wiki as a whole should have all tools that are useful for making these edits and probably deal with vandalism too without having to ask for support every time, it makes life easier for everybody.

So my proposal is to create a new group with important rights (move, delete, protect, block etc.) and give it to everyone who (reasonably) asks for them. Our active user list is really not that big anymore so in a way we know each other pretty well (hey, it's that guy with all the image space edits), there is certainly no harm done in the long run and the "active" command chain stays intact.

209.png
KrytenKoro - "Punch your lights out, hit the pavement. That's what I call entertainment. Causin' problems makes you famous - all the violence makes a statement."
TALK -
Agree, though you all know that I also advocate the RationalWiki model where we give sysop rights to anyone who isn't a lunatic.

Based on that, how about "has edited for at least three months and performed at least eighty edits that were not reverted"? I feel that would be a strong enough vote of confidence.

XMbQaeM.png
ShardofTruth Once you believe, truth and lie are quite the same thing. — 17:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Game Clear Data KHRECOM.png That sounds even better. So how do we get this started? Open a vote and write every staff member to voice his opinion?


kd1L4FS.png
Webber22 "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
Not saying I disagree with this, but there is one thing I noticed here: This place has more administrators than of any other type of staff member. Maybe you guys should re-organize and clean that up before creating another special permissions group? That, or simply make this the new moderator group.


ngM1OTj.png
TheFifteenthMember Yes. You're creepy. I can't say we'll miss you while you're gone, so it'd be best if you did go. We all win that way. TheFifteenthMember 16:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I'd be uncomfortable with giving rights to anyone who has received a warning for sockpuppeting, spamming or vandalism.


Naminé (Live talk sprite) 1 KHCOM.gif
NinjaSheik - All of this might have started with a lie...But I'm really am glad that I could meet you...
TALK - One day, the light-it will be ours, and it will bring us together. Til then, I'll be in your heart...
I'm pretty busy with doing papers since it's nearing the end of the fall semester, but here are my two cents of the matter: I'm supportive of the idea of TheSilentHero, TheFifteenthMember and Chainoffire being promoted, but to admins? I don't think that's necessary. We already have quite a few admins already, as Webber22 pointed out. So, how about promoting them to mods instead? Currently, the users with mods right are Chitalian8, LevL, Troisnyxetienne, and UnknownChaser. However, everyone here knows LevL has not contributed to the wiki in a VERY long time. LevL's last mainspace edit was back in Feb. 2015 and UnknownChaser hasn't been active since the beginning of the month. Pushing UknownChaser aside, LevL hasn't contributed to the wiki in over 6 months. Chitalian8 and TNX are active again, leaving two active mods altogether.

It's not like we get a lot of vandalism in the first place, there are some articles labeled for moving but hasn't been discussed yet, rarely any edit wars, and if anyone wants anything deleted, we have the Pages of Deletion of that very purposes. Sure, the admins may not get to it right away, but it's not like we're going to forget about it as long as the articles are labeled properly and are notified on the Deletion page. That's why I think it's unnecessary to promote them to admins, but I'm not oppose to it, either. They're good and helpful users, and all of them done a lot for the wiki. :)

XMbQaeM.png
ShardofTruth Once you believe, truth and lie are quite the same thing. — 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Game Clear Data KHRECOM.png This is not really about who deserves to be admin and who doesn't or if we have enough admins or not. I simply don't think there is a reason to keep these tools from contributors just to validate the admin position.

I also agree that harm can be done with these tools but as with any other edits they can be reverted. I'm also not saying that admin and mods positions should be abolished because the staff should remain the first to be contacted in case of questions or when conflicts need to be resolved.


kd1L4FS.png
Webber22 "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
But that's exactly what's going on. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your idea. But those tools are one of the things that make mod and admin positions unique. Giving them out renders those positions (at least mod) obsolete. And look at the current admin situations - we kind of already have too many. We only need like...two or three, ideally ones who are perfectly suited for that kind of thing like you and Kryten. The rest? Move them down to mod. The ones who have been inactive for a long time, I'm honestly not even sure they'll need any of these tools, and when/if they return, they could simply ask one of the current admins for their permissions re-implemented. It's a crass term, but you basically just kind of have to trim the fat if you want to optimize the userbase. And for the record, the users whom you suggested should have these revved up permissions, I DO believe they should just be bumped up to moderators. It'd be kind of a clutter the other way anyhow. That's just what I think, and I think we just need to be efficient about it: The fewer ranks we have, the less to deal with. Tweak moderator permissions and tools, then simply promote more moderators.
HjFnsj1.png
TheFifteenthMember Myes, but THEY didn't know that! We have to consider THEM! And yet we must also be mysterious, myes, myes... TheFifteenthMember 20:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I've always seen the role of an administrator as more than just a user with special tools. Admins are role models, mediators, representatives and editors with knowledge of the wiki. I'm completely against moving down any current admins to mods because they're all excellent at their job. Yes, some are currently inactive, but they're marked grey on the staff page for a reason and will come back eventually.

I don't see a need to create a new "sysop" group because I always thought that's what moderators were for. They're one group to me.

Personally, I'm not too fussed about getting any special powers. I've always thought adminship is unwanted responsibility that I don't want to be burdened with and I don't think I'd use the mod tools too often, aside from deleting a page here and there.

209.png
KrytenKoro - "Hurricane beats all housing or apartments. This sucker is a Cat-6!"
TALK -
Then promote the "shiny" editors to bcrats, and all the other editors to admins. If we can trust them to use the tools responsibly, there's no need to keep it out of their hands just because other wikis get it into their heads that the tools signify kingship of little fiefdoms.
kd1L4FS.png
Webber22 "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
That's.....a risky as hell experiment, man. Good chance it'll get to someone's head (certainly has happened before...) and they might end up doing some damn fool thing with it - that's not a matter of responsibility so much as it is a matter of mood. And what's to stop someone else from locking out other admins? Let's not make a decision too quickly in the name of a noble experiment just yet.
3BGiwDL.png
Chitalian8 Say... — And here's me, playing the world's tiniest violin.

Your face is priceless. — 04:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

20px-Pin_000.png Eh, I've got no issue with giving trusted non-staffers expanded rights (moving/deleting images, suppressing redirects, editing protected pages). I still think things like blocking users should be left to admins, and of course user right changing should be a bcrat thing.

EDIT: Also, granting non-staffers additional rights should definitely be a case-by-case thing, not just a "this user was here for X amount of time and has made Y edits" thing, though that might be obvious.