FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Add "movefile" right to Rollback
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

As seen on Special:ListGroupRights, only sysops have the ability to move file pages. I don't know why, perhaps because if you move a file a lot of pages get red links. Rollbackers are usually trusted users who won't do any harm to the wiki, so I'm quite sure they can be trusted with the ability to move pages. It should also save some work checking the Move category. So, my proposal is to request Wikia to add the "movefile" right to the rollback group.

Discussion

  • Support - As nominator. Mark (talk) 20:14, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Question - What do we consider a "trusted user"? As of right now, anyone that's been here for a month and has 200 (I forget what the exact number is) edits can get rollback. But, I do see what you're getting at. It would be annoying to have to do use the speedy move template to request a file move. --LiquidTalk 20:17, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Generally users with 200+ edits can be considered trusted. Except if they decide to go on a rampage because of a disagreement, they won't do any vandalism. If so, even if they do move a file we can easily revert it. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm also quite certain that nobody, excluding maybe 2-3 rollbackers, have had their rollback rights removed because of vandalism. Trusting users with sysop tools is a different case, of course. Mark (talk) 20:24, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Even though I don't have rollback Lol, I think other people would highly beenfit and it would help the wiki alot faster. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 20:23, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support See below - I never really understood why sysops are the only ones who can move files. I didn't even realize that was the case until about last month, since I've never had to move any files. --LiquidTalk 20:26, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support+Question - Always using Template:M and taking forever for something to happen gets annoying. But what about the moved-from file? We may start getting move artefacts in the file namespace (I don't think we like that), so could we have "suppressredirect" added too? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 20:41, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that, since suppressredirect is essentially the same as deletion. It wouldn't be hard to just add {{D}} to the redirect page, especially since the speedy deletion category is frequented a lot more than the speedy move category. --LiquidTalk 20:44, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, basically it could be a longer way to delete a page. Even though I trust rollbackers enough it's still a risk. I'm going neutral on adding supressredirect, as the speedy deletion category is of course often checked, but, as I said, I trust rollbackers. If we are adding that right too, I suggest adding a small policy on rollbackers or so. Mark (talk) 20:47, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
If rollbackers want suppressredirect, I'd say that we need a request for rollback process, since allowing anyone with 200 edits to delete a page is pushing it a bit. --LiquidTalk 20:50, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
A request page would be a bit too much. Perhaps just raise the requirements? More months, more edits? Mark (talk) 20:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a request page would be overly bureaucratic and completely unnecessary. Raising the requirement for receiving rollback would just be a burden to the editors who want rollback for legitimate purposes. I think the easiest thing to do is just leave suppressredirect alone. These kinds of things transform rollback from a tool into something along the lines of what sysop is interpreted as today. I'd rather not make the same mistake with rollback that we made with sysop. --LiquidTalk 21:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I Oppose adding suppressredirect. Mark (talk) 21:06, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - To help in maintaining the tens of thousands of images hosted here. While I see the advantage and disadvantage of suppressredirect as commented above, it would make Rollback a position of power as it should not be. Ryan PM 20:55, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they can't really delete. It would be an abuse of their right if they do so, and it's not like they can just press a button. Mark (talk) 20:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - On one hand, Rollbackers are supposed to be trust-able with a few extra rights that would otherwise be reserved for administrators. On the other hand, it would require all Rollbackers understand when it is okay to move a file in addition to when to rollback, doubling the complexity involved in joining the user-group. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:01, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, besides suppressredirect it's not really hard to know when one should move a page. Mark (talk) 21:06, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that way, but I have to throw out about 1/3rd of file move requests because they don't meet the criteria. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:24, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sounds legit. User:Haloolah123/Sig 21:04, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose method, support idea - Stelercus brings up a valid point. Rollbackers are supposed to know just when to rollback and when to undo. Adding this to the rollback usergroup doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. I do like the idea that people other than sysops should be able to move files, though. Perhaps another usergroup would work (if it's possible)? --LiquidTalk 21:26, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

We should get the most out of that usergroup. Just adding a group so that they can move files isn't the best way. Perhaps add some more useful rights or so? Mark (talk) 21:28, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
The reason that I don't want to load too much stuff into the rollback usergroup is because I want more people to be eligible for rollback. Loading more rights into rollback means that people who request rollback are going to have to meet more criteria, which I really don't like, especially if the user isn't ever going to need those rights. It seems silly to force someone to learn how to move files just to be able to get the rollback tool. --LiquidTalk 21:31, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Moving a page isn't complicated, RS:MOVE is relatively small, and chances are that they have moved a page before receiving rollback. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 21:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
That's true. Though still, a user group for 2 rights isn't worth it IMO. I'd say we add the following rights: "patrol", "editusercssjs", "editinterface", "unwatchedpages", "suppressredirect", "apihighlimit", "importupload", "import", "move-subpages", "noratelimit" and "deletedhistory". Those rights allow extra access to the wiki, but they aren't part of maintenance, nor can they do much harm to the wiki. It would make it an useful usergroup to which we can add trusted users who don't need sysop rights. Mark (talk) 21:39, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
It has "noratelimit", Forum:Giving users with rollback the noratelimits right. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 21:43, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(Double Conflict) Moving a page does not have the same result as moving a file, seeing as how when you move a file, all instances of that file will become redlinks. When you move a page, a redirect is created, so the redlinks never become a problem. Therefore, the user must understand when they can move the file and that they must replace all the redlinks as soon as possible. Even then, an image redirect will still be created, requiring we give them the ability to suppress redirects, adding yet another right to the rollback group. With that said, despite liking the idea in principal, I have Switched to Oppose. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:44, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Adding noratelimit makes it more clear. Also, Stelercus, do you also oppose adding a new group? Mark (talk) 21:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, before we hand out additional user rights, we should make sure that users know how to use them properly. Patrol is useless, since no one cares about it on the RSW, so I don't care much about that. Editusercssjs is something I would oppose, as users shouldn't have any business that results in a need to edit someone else's personal settings. I can think of quite a few pranks that would result. Unwatchedpages is like patrol: No one uses it or cares much about it on the RSW. Suppressredirect is the equivalent of deleting a page, so I'd have to oppose that. Importupload and import are things with very little use or need. Move-subpages would be a decent userright. Noratelimit is already added for rollback. Deletedhistory would kind of make the delete button pointless. The whole point of deleting a page is so that no one sees it, so what's the point of deleting something if we allow anyone to see it? I don't know what editinterface or apihighlimit are, so I won't comment on those. But, of the oens you listed, move-subpages is the only one I would support. --LiquidTalk 21:49, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(What, another conflict?) Adding a new group sounds like too much for one right. In order to make a new group worth it, we would have to give it a couple more rights than Rollback. If we add too many rights to the group (enough to make it worth it), it would require a more complex way to determine who is trustworthy, defeating the purpose. Admins have not had trouble processing the speedy move requests before (except when all of User:Tarikochi's gifs were tagged at once), so I don't see enough need here to make any of this worth it. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:51, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and as for creating a group with all the rights you mentioned, I would oppose that. To add to what Liquid said, which I agree with wholeheartedly, allowing them to edit the interface is not a good idea. Letting non-admins into the Mediawiki namespace is something I would oppose violently, for reasons I will explain if they are not already obvious. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:54, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: @Liquid: "editinterface" = Edit the MediaWiki namespace. "apihighlimit" = allows user to use higher limits for API queries. mw:Manual:User rights Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 21:55, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
If editinterface is what allows sysops to edit MediaWiki files, I would oppose that also. MediaWiki files have little need to be edited. Just because someone can do something does not mean that person should. We don't need everyone who is capable of being a janitor to actually be a janitor; we just need a sufficient number so that our needs are fulfilled. We have enough sysops right now that any need to edit a MediaWiki page can be fulfilled in a timely manner. --LiquidTalk 21:57, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(Triple conflict) Editusercssjs: Agreed. For those "useless rights", they rather add something to the group, otherwise it would just be rollback. Thats why supressredirect is also added, because we know that they wont use it to move-delete a page, and we can set up a policy about that. Editinterface = edit MediaWiki Pages, Apihighlimit = Allows more edits per minute. Though this usergroup doesn't just add another RfA. The rights I've listed won't do any harm, and we don't need the community to agree. 1000+ edits and 6 months or the wiki or so would be fine, and they won't vandalise and they'd stick to policy. Or we just add movefile to Rollback and make them tag with {{D}}. And editing MediaWiki pages doesn't do much harm... Believe me. If we set a strict policy we should be good. Like any 1000+ edits user would go and change the text of a talk page... Though I say we just add movefiles. Mark (talk) 21:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
"we just need a sufficient number so that our needs are fulfilled." and the rest are just tardy to the party, eh? WinkFull slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 22:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
If we add all those rights, we would have to have community consensus. 1000 edits isn't enough. People get that in less than a day when they artificially edit. The problem with AWB and its inflated edit counts is that edit count is not a reliable indicator of whether or not a user is trustworthy (well, edit count is never an indicator regardless of whether AWB is around). A time limit doesn't mean a user is trustworthy either. Look at my contribs. I had one edit in March 2009 and my second edit was in November 2009. What if I suddenly made 1000 minor edits (such as removing whitespace) in November and wanted to edit MediaWiki pages? That can't happen. Anything of this sort requires some kind of community approval. --LiquidTalk 22:03, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(For Liquid's Clarification, Conflict) The reason the Mediawiki namespace is reserved for admins is because vandalism to the software could be devastating. All customizations to the wiki software would be editable by people in the supposed usergroup, which could end kind of like this. The same applies to granting the supposed group the ability to edit the CSS/JS files of other users, as malicious style sheet/script could potentially make the wiki permanently unusable for the person in question unless somebody fixes it. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:06, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(Double Conflict) Evil: Kinda'. Both to make Wikia accept our request and so it isn't just not-trusting/making Rollback more difficult. Liquid: We always need community approval of course, but remember these rights aren't that big of a deal. And I don't think anybody would spend 1000 edits to get that right to abuse it... I really think we should just add movefile. Steler: As I said, if you do the fuss of making 1000 edits to just edit the CSS of the wiki to break it won't happen. Even if an anon found out about it, and does it (which is extremely unlikely) it's easy to revert. I agree we shouldn't add editpersonalcssjs though. Mark (talk) 22:08, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
They aren't that big of a deal, but they are rights that are unneeded and have the potential to do harm. For example, no one uses import (as far as I know), because there is no other RuneScape wiki that has information of interest to us. What if someone got the 1000 edits on a whim and asked for import, and then proceeded to import every single page on the WOW Wiki? That would be a logistical nightmare for sysops who then have to delete all that stuff. Though they're not a big deal, they still indicate a certain level of community trust, and therefore a consensus must be established each time those rights are handed out. Therefore, that would be another bureaucratic RfA process that we don't need. And therefore, I would oppose it. --LiquidTalk 22:12, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Ted, there are some things you said in an above comment that concern me. "For those "useless rights", they rather add something to the group, otherwise it would just be rollback." It sounds like you're saying the added rights are just to make it worth creating the group, which is not a good reason. " If we set a strict policy we should be good.". Policies only exist so people know what they can be punished for doing, but they don't make it impossible for them to break the rule. If we make a policy that says you can't vandalize the interface, people who are interested in doing so will not care what rules are in place against it, so a problem is still created. If we actually trust a user to edit the interface, they should really just be running for adminship... "And editing MediaWiki pages doesn't do much harm... Believe me." The fact that the sitenotice is a Mediawiki page is reason enough to keep the interface editing reserved for admins. Vandalism to the sitenotice will appear on every page, and if we trust a user with that kind of thing, they should be running for adminship. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:13, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support - I would love to allow rollbackers the ability to move files with suppress redirect, but without suppress redirect there's just going to be a ton of move artefacts. I don't see suppress redirect as equivalent to deleting a page since all the history is preserved. So I support allowing rollbackers access to image move, but only if they also have access to suppress redirect. Also if rollbackers get all those suggested rights, they should probably get a more general name, such as vetted users. vetters? I dunno. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 22:16, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

That's what we're discussing above, and that is specifically why I oppose this. I believe that rollback should be for people who want the rollback tool. Giving them all these rights just creates unnecessary bureaucratic checks, and would shut out people who want to use rollback and only rollback. --LiquidTalk 22:18, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Allright then, no usergroup. But still? Adding movefile rights? Rollbackers won't abuse it... So I'm just sticking to just supporting the movefile right. Users know when to move and when not to move... I don't see anybody moving pages without any reason, people just know that. Could you tell me why normal users aren't allowed to move files?
I'd also like to say that for a usergroup to be created, Wikia needs good reasons. Those rights add them. And, IMO they do add something to the group. I'm also assuming they won't break the rule, though I'm really AGF and trust users. Mark (talk) 22:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(Brilliant, three edit conflicts!) There's a Mediawiki page that determines what name appears for each usergroup (hence why Admins are referred to as such, even though the website software refers to the usergroup as Sysops), so that change could be implemented without bothering Wikia. Just thought I would throw that out there. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
As for Ted's most recent question, see this comment from above. "Moving a page does not have the same result as moving a file, seeing as how when you move a file, all instances of that file will become redlinks. When you move a page, a redirect is created, so the redlinks never become a problem. Therefore, the user must understand when they can move the file and that they must replace all the redlinks as soon as possible. Even then, an image redirect will still be created, requiring we give them the ability to suppress redirects, adding yet another right to the rollback group. With that said, despite liking the idea in principal, I have Switched to Oppose." I also agree with Liquid on the topic of the extra bureaucracy required when doubling the number of rights in the group. User:Stelercus/Signature 22:24, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
AGF has a limit. If we assumed good faith, then everybody should get bureaucratted right now. After all, why not? We should assume good faith and think they won't do anything bad, right? Of course not. The same thing applies to the all-encompassing usergroup.
As for adding movefile to rollback, we have to consider what rollback is used for. I believe that rollback is for people who want a faster way to deal with vandalism. Movefile is for those who want to do maintenance work. The two don't intersect. I can tell you that when I applied for rollback, I had no idea that RS:MOVE existed, and I had no intention of ever moving a file. The fact that adding movefile means that rollbackers now have to understand something unrelated to the purpose of rollback is troubling. It will shut out the people who want to rollback but don't want to maintain files. --LiquidTalk 22:25, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
If a redirect is not supressed, the file will also redirect meaning that there won't be any redlinks. The sysop can check if the links are changed and if not can notify the user/do it him/herself. And it's not very hard to realise that a file creates redlinks. If we notify the rollbackers on their talkpage that they should have a look at the page, then they are even better aware. Perhaps add a note to to rollback examples. Also we're not forcing users to move those files, we're just giving them a shorter way to do it. It's just useful to be able to quickly move a file when you accidentialy upload it. Mark (talk) 22:30, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we're giving them the right means that we have to make sure they are capable of using it properly. Look at RfA's. If someone runs for sysop only intending to close discussions, and has a great track record of being fair in consensus determination, do we just sysop him without considering if he knows how/when to block and protect pages? Of course not. We need to make sure that the user knows what to do in every aspect of the usergroup. Same thing applies here. If we lump this with rollback, we will create the necessity to check if users requesting rollback know when to move files, something that we really don't need to do. This is just a convolution of the rollback group. --LiquidTalk 22:34, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Template:M was invented for a reason. We have more than enough administrators able and willing to move files. If anything, just enable it for everyone, instead of further modifying the rollback group.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:39, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. Yeah. Moves are not that hard to revert. Though I'll see what comes out of this. Mark (talk) 22:41, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
(Holy flying Edit Conflict, Batman!) I would be happier with that then adding it to rollback, seeing as how rollback is supposed to be a vary simple group (per Liquid), but I would still oppose it (per everything else said). User:Stelercus/Signature 22:43, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional strong support - for allowing non-sysops the ability to move files. Many a time I have seen a poorly worded/overly-long file name, but without the ability to move it I have trust that another transclusion of Template:M will do the job. I don't think that rollbackers should get this right automatically as part of the rollback-granting because reverting and moving are totally different things. I don't really mind of redirect-suppression is allowed or not; it doesn't take that long for redirects to be deleted. Before I can fully support this, a few extra things will have to known about the users with this privilege. They will have to - as part of the agreement - fix any future red links that will occur when the redirect is suppressed or deleted; they will also have to go through a separate system to rollbackers. A more general name would also be better, for identification and such; "trusted users"? 222 talk 00:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Naming it "trusted users" is just opening the door for more of the "trophy" or "reward" attitude that we have right now with sysops. That's definitely not what we want. --LiquidTalk 00:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Good point... 222 talk 03:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
See below. 222 talk 06:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support - It is a good idea but as said before it shouldn't really be a thing for rollback users. Either requests for rollback which i don't really like as it will just be over-bureaucratic or stricter requirements for rollback or create a new usergroup for this. Also if they get this they also need the suppress redirect otherwise it is half useless because admins will get things moved from {{t|m} to {{d}}. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 01:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - We could get another usergroup, say Ajraddatz's, that have the noratelimits right and movefile, as well as a couple of other convenient things (like autopatrolled). This group could be added and removed by admins, making it a convenience rather than a burden.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Scroll up a few lines, read the huge chunk of text under my "oppose method, support idea" comment, and then reconsider this proposal. And sysops can't change userrights. --LiquidTalk 01:41, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sysops can add and remove rights, if the ability is added to the user group. Reading above.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 02:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
{{IMANIDIOT}}. I'd support Ted's new user group proposal.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 02:56, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Most of my edits are file maintenance, and I would like to be able to move files but do not particularly want to become an admin. I got rollback solely for norateslimit, and would like to keep that but lose rollback (I've only ever accidentally clicked it). Riblet15 05:53, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Clears up all these 'rollback vs. maint.' issues. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 05:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup- Awesome idea. This will be perfect for more experienced users who are not quite ready to be sysops. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:18, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question to those supporting a new usergroup - Exactly what rights do you guys want in that group? --LiquidTalk 01:21, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I share Liquid's concern that if we create a new group with several rights, it will become too complex to determine who is ready for it (essentially, having to run for the group like an RFA). Once that becomes the case, the purpose of the group will be effectively destroyed. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:24, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
These gents have a point. It seems like this rights group would just be a grab bag of miscellaneous crap that has no clear direction or role to fill. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 01:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
The group could literally be named maintenace, could be added and removed by admins (to put less emphasis on it), and have movefile, noratelimits, autopatrol, patrol in it. Basically, rights for maintenance.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 02:32, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
If it will be maintenance, there should be "suppressredirect" as that will eliminate redirects in the filenamespace and other suppressing times. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 05:29, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Even if an RFA-style process is necessary it would not make the group useless because people in this group need not have all the requirements to become an admin. Riblet15 05:21, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does patrol and autopatrol do? 222 talk 06:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
It marks a revision as patrolled, not sure what that does but it's not used much. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 06:46, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Help:Recent changes patrol, found this... utterly useless imo. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 07:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
I already knew what the above users explained, but thanks anyway. Is it even enabled on our wiki? 222 talk 07:55, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 08:02, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
Some people do actually use it, and it wouldn't hurt for it to be included.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 18:27, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support a new usergroup - Per Aburnett. 222 talk 06:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Per above. Sounds like it could make things more convenient. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Adding the movefile to rollback will be making people who use rollback have to learn stuff they don't have to just to use rollback. And Per above. User:TyA/sig 11:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Per all. also, can we call is The League of the Super Epic Noobs.

  1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 18:58, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
Noob... call it "maintenance users" (saw it above) instead. PS: if we ever call it "The League of the Super Epic Noobs" I will, I will, I will, uhhh...? 222 talk 06:47, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support adding rights to rollbacks - Rollbacks are trusted users, as 200 edits is still quite a lot. If the right will be added to this group, and there are people abusing this tool, they will simply get their rollback removed(but do assume good faith though). I would support a new usergroup if the procedure is quick and there won't be a discussion. Just ask an admin to comfirm you are trusted by him JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:57, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - Per other supporters. Rollback was meant for rollback only. Move additional rights to the proposed/suggested Maintenance usergroup. Ryan PM 20:29, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support new usergroup - This seems like the best way, assuming it can be implemented without too much difficulty. Also, would I be correct in thinking that the image movers usergroup (whatever it may come to be called) will have noratelimit? I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL]] Talk - Contribs 23:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC) 

New usergroup

Now that many users have expressed intentions to support a new usergroup, we should make it clear exactly what will and what will not be included in that usergroup. I should remind everyone that we have a balancing game to play. We need to include enough rights in that group to satisfy maintenance workers, but we cannot have too many, or else we would need some kind of Request for Maintenance process, which is overly bureaucratic.

So, please post ideas for what you want included in that group below. For the record, I will strongly oppose anything that allows users to edit other users' personal css/js pages as well as the MediaWiki namespace. --LiquidTalk 23:46, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Those who are supporting this section are indicating support for a maintenance usergroup that contains movefile, suppressredirect, and noratelimit. This will be handed out by bureaucrats, and would have an appropriate entry level requirement. --LiquidTalk 00:28, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Just a rough idea. How about 150+ file edits and 200+ mainspace? 222 talk 00:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Entry requirements are set at 400 mainspace edits and 50 file edits. --LiquidTalk 01:20, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd personally be fine with it if it included movefile autopatrol patrol noratelimit and suppressredirect. Also, if you really want it to be not bureaucratic, allow admins to add and remove it. That way it can be given out easily, and removed just as easily should it be abused.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:48, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
The sysop part would be something I wholeheartedly oppose. Giving sysops that ability would be fine if we had a small number of sysops; however, with the high number that we have, it's going to get chaotic. What I meant was that we can have it given out like rollback used to be given out. Just drop a bureaucrat a note, and he'll add the usergroup. What I don't want is some kind of archaic discussion process that can get as nasty as RfA's sometimes do.
As for your groups, I would oppose autopatrol and patrol, simply because I want to keep this limited to the rights that people actually need/use. No one uses patrol on the RSW; you even said it yourself. Adding those rights is just pointless. --LiquidTalk 23:52, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, very well.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:54, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I support what caek Ajr said. ʞooɔ 23:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Noob and nub Ajr and helm basically covered it all. 222 talk 00:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - pet Ajr, and "would have an appropriate entry level requirement." *Resists urge to make fun of in RuneScape terms of level requirements* Also, some people do (Cook) use the patrol from time to time, although I never really understood the use on this wiki when most editors already "patrol" the RC without the right. Do we know if Wikia would be willing to make the group and would it be specific to only this wiki (such as forumadmin is to the few select wikis with *.wikia.com/forums/)? Either way, this would mean the removal of noratelimit to the rollback right? As it was only meant for that one right to begin with. *Must increase Maintenance levels* Ryan PM 00:42, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be specific to this wiki, like the patroller group are on Brickipedia.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:43, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Yah.. While I see that they have that group, they have a much less of a choke-hold on who can apply for the usergroup. I'm just hoping that when a random number is assigned to the group, it isn't more than 400 edits and no less than 200. Otherwise I'll respond with: "Number may have been pulled from ass." And what on Gielinor did you do to your signature? Ryan PM 00:58, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Liquidhelium. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL]] Talk - Contribs 00:54, September 25, 2010 (UTC) 

Comment about entry requirements - Rollback requires 200 edits; AWB requires 500. I'm thinking of placing this at 400, since it's more important than rollback, but not as important as to allow the user to vandalize under the radar. Of course, the usual stipulations about the user and user talk namespaces apply. --LiquidTalk 01:02, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Entry requirements - Like I said above: 150+ file edits and 200+ mainspace. Reasoning being that the ability to move images require some sort of knowledge of files, being adding the "speedy move" template or uploading a new image. 222 talk 01:15, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I like the file edits idea. However, I should say that file edits are a lot rarer than mainspace edits. Since suppress redirect allows the user to suppress a redirect for ANY move, not just a file one, I'd like to keep the 400 mainspace edits requirement intact. Then, I'd like to tack on about 50 file edits, which I think is more than enough to understand the nuts and bolts of files. --LiquidTalk 01:17, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be the right thing to do. 222 talk 01:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
@helm: indeed, file edits are a lot rarer, and slower. I do alot of work for improving images, and still i only have around 500 file edits. This means a requirement for 150 edits requires a lot of work, and that shouldn't be required if you ask me. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:30, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Entry requirements are to be set at 400 mainspace edits and 50 file edits. --LiquidTalk 01:20, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Helium's entry requirements. - [Pharos] 02:50, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support entry st00f - Sounds fine to me. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 02:56, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - I'd rather have 250 mainspace and 200 file edits, but well. bad_fetustalk 07:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

File edits are a lot rarer, and slower than mainspace edits. I do alot of work for improving images, and still i only have around 500 file edits. This means a requirement for 200 edits requires a lot of work, and that shouldn't be required if you ask me. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:30, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you. I'm fairly sure that even I have gotten 50+ file edits in a single day, and I certainly would not consider myself an image editor. Also, the main thing here in this group is file move, I would even prefer something like 200 file edits and no mainspace edits rather than this, since mainspace isn't that important here. bad_fetustalk 10:00, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree too. I'm not a major image editor and I have over 200 file edits, most of it accumulated over a short spree. 222 talk 10:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think 50 file edits and 400 is good. Also, please don't do discussion(DDD =D) for an user if he gets it or not. We should actually open a page for delisting, as there might be abuse of the thing, which might be discussed. I also think this group needs surpressredirect, as if they don't have this, admins still have to clean it up. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:30, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Even with suppressredirect, users such as me and my bot (if Wikia would hurry up and give BrainBot AWB) will still need to clean up if the images movers don't correct all the broken links. 222 talk 07:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Then the people wanting to be in the usergroup should say they understand that if they want to move the image they have to change the links too(like you got to have read those pagesi on RuneScape:Rollback examples/Signed), and if they don't they will be warned and if they don't listen they will have the tools removed. It should also be noted not only the file links should be checked, as that's only when files are inserted, but whatlinkshere should be checked for all links to the page. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:31, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
Uhh... that's already been done to existing pages. A reminder will be added to a future page. 222 talk 10:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think 50 file edits are plenty. I only have 51 file edits. It's not that easy to rack up file edits. --LiquidTalk 20:13, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

The image templates category lists many templates with further categories for images needing file edits (e.g. [[:Category:Uncropped images]] and Category:Images needing transparency). It's not hard to get edits for files, just a tiny bit more time consuming (not to mention edit wars). Ryan PM 03:38, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I got up to 50 edits yesterday just by adding maintenance templates (e.g crop and jpeg) and categories to files instead of doing real work and improving them =P. - [Pharos] 09:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed very easy to rack up file edits. You could get up there by simply adding "speedy move" templates. 222 talk 09:13, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well, then you don't need movefile right. I'm certainly not an image editor, but I have 1.5k+ file edits. bad_fetustalk 15:17, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Chess is right. It is very easy to get them. You may add speedy M or categorize them, not hard. I would support 200 file/400 main. User:Haloolah123/Sig 16:11, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think the requirement should be 50 file uploads, tracked using some genious' edit report as indeed, adding tags to images also counts as a file edit, which makes watching file edits almost useless.
I also think that if you have 1000 mainspace edits you are quite trusted too, so it should also be made available for special cases(like Liquidhelium would have been if he wasn't admin) who have 1000 edits in the mainspace. Not all users with 1000 mainspace edits should be allowed then, however, but the crat will decide wether the user is trusted or not. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:07, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
That criteria seems a little high up. I'm not sure whether you really need 1000 edits to be trusted. 222 talk 00:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
1. Holy shit that thing is awesome! 2. After finding out that in around 2 hours even I managed nearly 130 file edits, I'm in support of 200 file edits but not 1000 mainspace. If trustworthiness is the issue, couldn't we make it maybe 500 main 300 talk/forum? 1000 seems a touch high. - [Pharos] 12:04, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
The point of this group isn't to reward trusted users; it's to give people who need the tools access to them. 200 edits with 50 in the file space is fine, I think.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 12:57, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
It is always true, as most test statisticians know, that you get what you measure. If you want lots of edits, you'll get people doing lots of edits... lots of insignificant, otherwise meaningless (and possibly annoying), edits. --User:Saftzie/Signature 13:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
@Joey, how exactly are image tags making it useless? Are you aware that the only point of making image edits a criterion is that there is movefile right, and if you don't have that, you use the {{M}} tag, which increases the file edits, not file uploads. File uploads aren't even relevant here. Now, coming to trustability part. You don't need mainspace edits to be trusted, file edits are at least as trustable as mainspace edits, and since file edits are a must to have here, there is simply no point of having mainspace edits as a criterion. I actually would say that the only criterion should be 250 file edits. bad_fetustalk 15:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
If we're only going to go by file edits, which I agree with Chess makes sense, we should have the limit around 300 IMO mainly because it's a nice even number with double 0s. User:TyA/sig 00:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
The entry requirements will remain at 400 mainspace and 50 file edits. If we keep suggesting random varieties of numbers, this thread will never be closed. But personally I would still prefer and increase in the number of file edits to 150. 222 talk 00:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Chess's comment does make sense, file edits should be counted only. If rollback needs 200 main only, then why shouldn't this group need 200-300 file changes only? - [Pharos] 00:30, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Brains, there's nothing wrong with suggesting things, and those are not random. bad_fetustalk 14:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - All the requirements seem good and patrol does seem a bit useless for the new usergroup. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 04:18, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 04:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. But what would we call this new usergroup? Maintenance? — Enigma 16:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Group called maitenance. I'd support 200-250 file edits and anywhere from 400-1000 mainspace. User:Haloolah123/Sig 17:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If the discussion on new charm log namespace passes, it'll mean that this group will also have the right to edit those. So, if it does pass, which it probably will, then having mainspace edits requirement would make sense. However, that's still not a really important right, so I'd suggest that we make the requirements about 250 file edits and 150 mainspace edits. bad_fetustalk 17:21, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand that some editors specialise or are better at one thing than another but NOBODY gets 250file edits before 150main edits making the main req kinda pointless, it needs to either be higher or just non-existent - [Pharos] 18:37, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - And I think it should be called "Janitors". kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:39, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

That might work. — Enigma 19:16, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
I like "Janitors", being named "maintenance" can get confusing. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 19:24, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Can't use Janitors, they are VSTF + Staff and their w:c:janitor wiki, or rather they won't permit it. Ryan PM 19:27, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Ugh... How about "cleaners"? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 19:31, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Custodians? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 19:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Custodians>Maintenance>Cleaners, but custodians may be too close to janitors. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
At least where I am, custodian is just the PC term for janitor. Luckily, seeing as how they are different words, the clash with w:c:janitor should not be a problem. Also note that regardless of what name Wikia gives the group, there are MediaWiki pages we can use to change the name of the group that will appear as within the interface. It's the same function that makes the Sysop usergroup name appear as "Administrator" on every special page. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:00, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Sanitation Engineers! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 20:03, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Insane automatons! Anyways, I don't care about the name, but please don't make it put too much emphasis on the group. That's why I think that maintenance would be good.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:25, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
In this case "Maintenance" is used as a complement as opposed to a noun, so it would be odd to use as a usergroup name. It's not natural to say "I'm a Maintenance", but saying "I'm a Custodian" is. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Then why is the "rollback" group called "rollback", and not Rollbackers or Counter-vandals, or antivandles or ajraddatzisthebest or something like that? It hardly hurts us to call this "Maintenance".
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. It's not a matter of whether or not the word we use hurts us, it's matter of what the best possible name for the group is. "Maintenance" works as the name for the group, but there is no clear translation that can be used to refer to an individual. If we went with Maintenance, "Maintenance user" would have to be used when revering to a member of the group. Regardless, I think Custodian is a better name for the group in general, but because it's an opinion I can't back it up with logic. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:54, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Because I haven't supported/opposed my proposal yet, and because I can. --LiquidTalk 02:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The new usergroup will be created. I'm going to make the entry requirements for file edits at 200, since there really hasn't been any significant discussion/agreement for any of the other requirement levels. I am going to contact Wikia about creating the new usergroup, which will be named custodians. --LiquidTalk 02:23, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.