Forum:New User Right

Forums: Index → War Room → New User Right

Ello' everyone
I'm here to discuss a possible new user right. → what this user right will do is give normal users the ability to lock pages from anon's. I feel like it'd be a good thing for normal users to have if an anon is vandalizing or edit warring. I think its best to restrict the tool for anti-vandalism/edit conflicts only. With Black ops II around the corner, and potentially more vandalism looming, I'd say this user right would be a good tool to have. Please leave your thoughts below, We'll have to discuss the name for it and also see how it'd be set up (I imagine just like how Blog patrol or rollback works.)
http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 21:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I could see this being handy during the BOII multiplayer reveal. I'm in favor of it. Ph illycj 21:52, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that is a good idea, but not all of the anons on the wikia are trolls, most from what I've seen at times help out with articles that have some grammer and trivia problems, also if anons can't troll it what is stopping them from getting an account and troll on it with that account? Argorrath _{おしゃべり}21:53, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I never said all anon's were trolls, and I assume the new right would just let normal users lock pages like admins do, (lock pages from new and anonymous users only.) http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 21:57, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this is an exemplary idea. A right like this really helps benefit the Wiki, and I hardly doubt any bad would come out of this. Madness fan 34537 http://i.imgur.com/lL5xjBH.png 22:00, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a sound idea as long as the right is handed out to trustworthy users who will use it responsibly and correctly. Red skin -26 22:06, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, mabye you can add the power to the rollback group, as they are already trusted? 22:20, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is handed out to pretty much everyone who asks for it. elmo's

ramblings 22:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I can see the benefits of this but there would never be a need to hand this out to like 2 or 3 highly active users. So the problem of too many people having an admin ability is almost eliminated. A good idea. 23:54, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - So what you're suggesting is that specific users be given the protect access right, but limited to semi-protection only? Based on a quick glance of your RecentChanges, I feel that such a right would be limited in usefulness. Assuming CoD Wiki's adminstrators are quick to respond, pages can be protected with reasonable speed, and only one or two reverts will be necessary in the meantime. I don't want to be placed in the same camp as the opposition who think it dilutes the power of admins. There is no "true meaning to becoming an admin". Admins are nothing more than janitors, they are like every other person in the office, except they have a mop and bucket. It's just that a few of them think that this mop and bucket is some sort of symbol of prestige or coming of age. In the words of Jimmy Wales - "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." 2 2 2 ^talk 02:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

My problem with any creation of this user right is that since it's nothing more than janitorial tools then why would we need another flag when we could just as easily give any user who we "trust" (since "trust" is the deciding factor in the process of giving users new tools) administrator tools through the RfA process. Trusting users with the right to protect pages (along with plenty of other tools that we give to users) should imply that they can be trusted with the other janitorial tools included in the administrator right group. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>

Azuris^talk</option> 04:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Elmo's Wall o' text

<walltext>
This would not work. Period. I see no need for this considering the number of active sysops we have. Handing out every sysop-exclusive tools only serves to dilute the true meaning of becoming an admin. Right now normal users can (with all user rights):

Suppress redirects and move images
Ban users from chat
Delete blog comments
Rollback a user's edits

This is a huge amount of power for a person to have, sans having full sysop rights.

There are more than dozen or so users with at least two of these rights, and at one point or another Kat and Sp3c had all four. Having nearly all the sysop tools split into an assortment of sub-divisions serves no purpose other than to, essentially, become an admin without having an RfA. Consider the hypothetical user, "Bob". Bob has all of these rights, but has had two failed RfAs, on the basis that we "do not need more admins at this time". Add in this new ability, to which he has been entrusted, and you essentially have an admin but without the banhammer or back-end maintenance abilities.

There is also the issue of the application. Getting five additional rights takes the judgement of one bureaucrat; the three more added by the sysop right takes the consensus of the community and the judgement of the closing 'crat. What makes these extra tools more significant than the others, aside from being in one neat package?

Apart from the ethics of the separation of the sysop tools, I see one huge problem with the proposed idea - how would we stop them from fully protecting a page? Blog patrol has an AbuseFilter to stop them deleting non-blog comments, which works because it limits them to a single namespace. As far as I can tell, semi- and full protections have no namespace, and therefore would be very difficult to limit.

elmo's ramblings 22:29, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

We stop them via a nice protocol known as "trust".

23:14, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

If "trust" is the deciding factor, then what's the reason behind giving them just one right rather than administrator tools? If they are trusted enough to prevent certain people from editing pages then surely they can be trusted enough to use the tools in a janitoiral way? I really don't find this necessary - as this is supposed to be the job of administrators, and is one of the reasons to submit an RfA in the first place. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>

Azuris^talk</option> 01:03, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

why not just give everyone sysop flags just? This is a bad idea, you could use this EASILY to win edit wars. "Trust" isn't a factor here, anyone could and most likely would use this to their benefit. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 00:30, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure?

00:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith. 2 2 2 ^talk 02:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Per COD4, but I agree with Elmo, there is no need for it. Assume good faith. Oh and don't forget this.

Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly 03:48, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Per Elmo, this would essentially make a user an under-powered admin. Not to mention the sysops we have are already doing this in a fair and fine manner, adding more un-necessarily could just create problems. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 04:24, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Elmo's right. If we give these rights to users, we might as well go the whole hog and make them admins. This proposal is unnecessary and unneeded. Sgt. S.S. 09:09, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

But editing is an admin right too, should we just make everyone admins because you know, "we might as well"?

13:28, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Since when did editing come under the heading of "admin rights"? Sgt. S.S. 13:32, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well they can edit, can't they? They can also rollback, so should we just make all the rollback users admins? Same with blogpatrol, and custodian. Should we just make them all admins because they have one or two rights which are by default sysop-only? I'm simply repeating what you are saying.

14:10, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my original point, in that each individual right isn't a big deal, but having five or six rights that combine to form the entirety of the sysop right serves only to say "hey, you aren't an admin but here's a low fat version of what they have anyway". My primary point of opposition is its redundancy, because of how many active admins we have. Go into chat or IRC, hell even scroll down a bit in the Recent Changes and you'll find at least two administrators. They can be easily contacted through chat/IRC or a talk page message.

Additionally, using trust as a means of moderation is ludicrous. Look at the AbuseFilter for blogpatrol, for example, and you'll see that if trust was it's moderator then users would have been able to use it outside of it's intended purpose. Admittedly those who tried to use blogpatrol outwith its purpose did so in good faith, and I am confident that if this new right were to be introduced that the users entrusted with it would use it responsibly.

My point is, if there is there a need for a right like this, shouldn't we be appointing more sysops instead of handing out their powers one by one? elmo's

ramblings 14:44, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Except users get adminship through the rfa process. We're talking about a new userright bro. And how many users have ALL the rights? me and sp3c are the only users to have all of them at once and to be fair all it does is help said user take care of the wiki and edit. Adminship has nothing to do with a seperate user right. The only reason I thought of this and thought it would be a good idea is because users can stop edit wars and protect a page from excessive vandalism. You're over thinking this.hill. So what, a user gets another right?? big deal! You're missing the point that this would be a helpful addition to have on the wiki.

http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 20:32, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

What is more, I would like to point out that even having all of the custom user rights does not grant anything close to the set of tools available to administrators. Banning other users, deleting any page, giving out chatmod, these are just a handful of janitorial rights that only admins can ever have. And furthermore, admins have the responsibility to manage the community too. Whether that be to mediate discussions when they are over from a neutral perspective, to simply being role models whom users may look up to if they want. That sort of community responsibility, however minor it is, would not and does not exist in any of these extra user groups.

20:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

CoD4 and Kat just took the words right out of my mouth. Madness fan 34537 http://i.imgur.com/lL5xjBH.png 20:40, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

"And furthermore, admins have the responsibility to manage the community too." is false. Anyone can mediate a discussion if they so please - the only difference is that if a situation were to get out of hand then they'd need to ask us for help with banning anybody who needs to be banned. The right is nothing more than janitorial tools, and there should be nothing separating us as "role models" compared to any other user who helps contribute to the wiki in a way that should be admired (as well as helps deal with situations that are out of hand). This is why you must give reasons as to why you/somebody else should be an administrator when nominating yourself/somebody else for adminship; because everybody can and should be able to give input on a forum that helps maintain a civil discussion - this isn't limited to only administrators. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>

Azuris^talk</option> 23:26, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Elmo. Template:Sig/MLGisNot4Me 20:57, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

This new user right gives me an odd feeling that the admins are not so reactive to multiple bad edits to one page that they need to block it, many admins are on at a time where they can sufficiently deal with the page problem, for now I feel its better with Elmo. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}21:09, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary. Not only do we have at least one active administrator online at any given moment to carry out such a task, but I believe Wikia staff is not fond of splitting the hierarchy of user rights. My final and arguably weakest point is that granting users this right would likely increase the number of pages locked to anons, which I don't see as necessary. Joe Copp 03:20, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support this because there are a few non-admin users like me, Damac, Madnessfan and the like who would really benefit from a tool like this. I say let's at least try it. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK 17:48, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know how this would be a useful tool, locking the page is for pages with REPEAT vandalism. Pages like that aren't found every day. Sure the occasional page gets vandalized, but is that necessary to give normal users this right? Why not make all the pages locked while were at it. Qw3rty! 19:22, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

K, I can fully protect all the pages. Though only for 12 hours. jk ofc dun raeg --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 19:31, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this is the fact that giving regular users this right would prevent anonymous users from editing certain pages, which is what a Wiki is based on. This, by itself, is more powerful than any non-authority user right we have. If we can trust a user with this right, we can probably trust them with sysop rights. DarkMetroid567^okay 22:44, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Protecting a page isn't a big deal. I find it quite strange that people cant seem to notice how HELPFUL this would be. http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 22:45, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

And TIL the wiki is based off anon's. http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 22:47, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this would be helpful? I really don't see it. The Wiki isn't entirely based off of anons, but not counting them would be stupid as we get quite a lot of edits from them. Editing to create this encyclopedia is the very premises of this Wiki, and many wish to do it anonymously. Why should a regular user to be able to prevent that?

DarkMetroid567^okay 22:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how stopping an anon from vandalizing pages is stopping every single anon until the end of time... and it'd be helpful because with BO II Around the corner we'll be getting more traffic and more idiots who want to vandalize pages. Not to mention if an admin isn't around a user can stop them from doing more damage. Also Blog patrol is a much more powerful user right because you can delete people's comments. This is just protecting things from vandalism, not locking the wiki from editing. http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 23:01, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

If we protect all of the pages from anons, i doubt all of the anons would make accounts just to make a probable minor edit to the pages. By restricting the anon's right to edit, what good are we as a wiki? Forcing people to make accounts isn't a necessary or helpful tool. Qw3rty! 23:15, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Accounts less than 4 days old may not edit a semi-protected page.

00:53, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

From what I see, the main cause is that we feel majority of the anons coming to COD Wiki in the near future due to BO2 may be vandals. But as per Cod4 and Qw3rty's reasonings above, it would take 4 days before the new users can edit these pages, should this new user right be passed, which would be unfair for an anon who has discovered something we haven't and wants to make just one small edit. The main point is that there is no way to tell the intentions of the anons. Besides we have usergroups to pertain directly to vandals (i.e. RCP), so this userright would be redundant. ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 http://i.imgur.com/3hrm0HS.png 01:10, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

With the increase of anons coming to the site do to BO2, would we have a more responsive Admin Team making the the reason to giving the ability of normal people to protect pages more or less usless?

Argorrath _{おしゃべり}01:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's the admin team's responsibility. I won't delve on that, but the point I'm putting forth is that we already have rollback and people on the RC around the clock, both cater to the threat of vandals, so this userright is not necessary. ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 http://i.imgur.com/3hrm0HS.png 01:24, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry paragon but I'm not sure you have an idea of what you're talking about. why would they have to wait for 4 days? when you protect a page you set a time limit >.> and your other point, How would it be redundant?? RCP is just a userbox. A user right is protecting a page for an hour or something. I think people have deluded themselves into thinking that this will lock every page on the wiki. All it does is make it so they cant edit for however long someone locks it for. Its not like every page will be locked :/ And the argument that there's always admins around, well damn, Admins are not always around. most of the time it'll take an admin awhile to do something. And like I've said before, with black ops II around the corner we'll be getting more traffic and a shit ton of vandals. and to stop people from saying it'll split admin rights or some other thing, It wont. Its just protecting pages. Not the ability to configure the abuse filter http://i.imgur.com/vm7BQ.png 02:13, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

The point regarding 4 days is due to the fact that semi protection stops any account that is not autoconfirmed. For an account to become autoconfirmed, it must be 4 days old or more. This point does not affect anything though, if we're going to care so much about page protection we might as well ban admins from protecting pages as well. No one has explained why this issue with anons and non-autoconfirmed users not being able to edit semi protected pages is suddenly specific to this idea.

15:22, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

We have more then enough admins to protect pages from anons. I don't see a need to give out the ability to protect pages to regular users. Conqueror of all Zombies 01:00, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Kat's point is a very valid one and very clearly stated, however, we simply don't need this to be a user right. We have more than enough admins to lock a page, there is always someone online somewhere. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 01:17, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of people talking about anons not being able to edit if this user right is given out, can someone explain this to me? Because unless we plan on every user that gets the new right to end up locking random pages I fail to see how giving out this right effects anons.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:36, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

If this forum does pass, there would be only 2-4 users that would get the new tool. This shouldn't be an issue of effecting anons or people using the tool to win edit wars - which could be easily countered with the removal of rights if necessary. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>

Azuris^talk</option> 10:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that there are flaws within this idea. Firstly, it would make it easier to block off anons if users did not agree with them. What if the anon is correct and the user is wrong? Even in this case, a user can easily block the anon and the page will end up not improving. It gives users the ability to limit what anons can do, just because they do not agree with them.

Secondly, this is a job which is designed for admins. The ability to block anons and other users from edit warring via locking the page is limited to sysops/bureaucrats for a reason. A select but adequate number currently have the ability to do so. Problems with edit warring are generally best resolved by administrators. The fact that it is an administrator also gives the third-party out look on situations, over the decision of a user in the war; which is most likely going to be biased.

To summarise, I believe that not going through with the change is probably the best thing as it leaves the job in the hands of those who the task was designed for, due to admins giving a more neutral viewpoint on situations. DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:10, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

The tool supposedly would be given to very, very few users - most of which I would assume be trusted enough to not use their new tool to gain the advantage during edit wars. And if any user were to use the tool for that purpose, they would no longer have access to it. -- <choose><option>azuris_</option><option>

Azuris^talk</option> 10:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us back to your original speech about trust. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 17:09, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. If they can be trusted with this, they can be trusted with other tools currently limited to administrators. Whether that means we continue to leave the lock tool to administrators, I don't know. In short, we are proposing a user right to lock pages which, due to there only being few recievers, will be equal to/higher than rollback? DrRichtofen (Talk) 17:32, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Per all in favor of not letting this happen. Bats a.k.a Rarity Filly 22:15, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts in the matter, what if we made this ability only achievable by an edit requirement, like 150 MS Edits or something, so that way, like what some people said before with trust, the user would have to earn this ability. And make it so that way the user can only lock the page for up to 6 hours max, so as not to give the user too much power in the situation. Just a thought... .Necromancer 115File:MW Pickup Benelli M4.png 23:56, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. There should be a minimum of 50 Edits (MS or not, up to admins to decide) before a user can use this tool, to make sure the user knows the basics of the Wiki. And to those bringing up the issue of users potentially abusing this tool, I would recommend in this scenario that a notification is sent to the anon who was in the edit war, with a link to an Administrator or Bureaucrat's talk page, so they may file a complaint. The Admin can then investigate, and decide who was right. Furthermore, I also agree that pages should not be locked for more than 12 hours, as that would be harmful not only to the anon trying to edit the page, but anyone trying to edit. Of course, there should also be an ability for administrators to unlock the page, if this case happens. That's my thinking. Metl^Talk 00:21, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Your first point is moot, considering the people receiving it will have 5-10k edits. Admins always have the ability to unlock pages. elmo's

ramblings 06:37, June 21, 2012 (UTC)