Forum:Proposed change to user right structure

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Proposed change to user right structure

This is a forum regarding the proposed change to the user rights hierarchy and it's requirements. This was brought up as in the user right section, there is no moderator position even though it can be assigned. From what we can tell, it has the same rights as a rollback/patroller. Listed below is how the current structure is laid out and its requirements. Below that will be the proposed changes.

Current policy

“

• Chat moderators have the power to ban users from chat.
  • Requirements are that you have at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
• Patrollers have the power to roll back edits with just one click and mark edits as patrolled.
  • Requirements are that you have made at least 250 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least one month.
• Moderators have the power to roll back edits with just one click, ban users from chat and mark edits as patrolled.
  • Requirements are that you have made at least 500 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least two months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator or moderator rights request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• Administrators have the power to - in addition to the powers of a moderator - delete pages, protect pages and ban users from the wiki.
  • Requirements are that you have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of moderator for a minimum of two months.
• Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers.
  • Currently there are no set requirements as it is on as needed basis.”

Proposal

The meat of this proposal is to incorporate patroller, moderator and rollback (an unlisted user type) together. In this proposal, because patrollers are currently appointed and will now require a vote. I believe the requirements for admin should be changed. But that will be modified in a different proposal. The patroller requirements will use the old moderator requirements. Below is the proposed changes.

Proposed policy

“

• Chat moderators have the power to ban users from chat.
  • Requirements are that you have at least 100 edits, and at least 50 of these must be in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count for these set 50).
  • You have been endorsed by at least one active administrator (see Making the request below).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki, and in this wiki’s chat, for at least two months.
• Patrollers have the power to roll back edits with just one click, ban users from chat and mark edits as patrolled.
  • Requirements are that you have made at least 500 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least two months.
  • You have not made a failed patroller rights request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
• Administrators have the power to - in addition to the powers of a patroller - delete pages, protect pages and ban users from the wiki.
  • Requirements are that you have made at least 1000 edits in the article, category or template namespace (i.e. talk page, blog and forum contributions do not count).
  • You have been continuously active at this wiki for at least three months.
  • You have not made a failed administrator request in the past two months. This does not include requests which were closed because you did not meet the formal requirements.
  • You have held the position of patroller for a minimum of two months.
• Bureaucrats differ from regular administrators in that bureaucrats can give and revoke other people's administrative powers.
  • Currently there are no set requirements as it is on as needed basis.”

Votes

Please leave all comments under the comments section. Thank you.

Poll finished on 1:19 am March 31, 2012 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

• On reflection, this just simply goes back to where we were before the last change, which was triggered in part by a problem of non chat users being denied moderator rights for not being in chat. I cannot see what problems, if any, this is supposed to solve. Agent c 20:25, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, I like it. 03:59, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
• The Gunny
• Elaborated bellow. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 03:12, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

• Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

• Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 03:08, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
• ToCxHawK 03:13, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
• MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity! 08:23, March 17, 2012 (UTC)
• ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}
• For now I don't really like the change. It something is done with my comment, I may well change it to a yes. [EDIT] Just specifically read that current patrollers don't get chatmod rights, so can't apply for admin? Sorry, can't agree with that, Clyde. Jspoel 16:49, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
• Broccoli. 20:33, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
• -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 20:38, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
• I agree to this but have one suggestion. The Australian Kiwi 20:57, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
• Seems like a fine idea to me, folks should sweat a bit before climbing up ;) CharlesLeCheck 22:27, March 21, 2012 (UTC)
• Only just came across this, and I honestly can't believe how pointless it is. The whole reason you have all these positions is because people weren't happy with having just moderators, so they split the role. Now you want to basically just put it back and change the roles name? This place is a farce. Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 16:43, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I know a lot of people are wondering what is going on with the policy changes. This one actually fixes a structural error and streamlines requests for user rights. Any questions drop them off here. Thanks!--Kingclyde 01:29, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Will Patrollers need a community vote, or do they remain by appointment? Agent c 01:33, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Modified above.--Kingclyde 01:59, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to make patrollers the same as the old mods, I want them elected. Appoinments were fine when it was just rollback, but policing should be by community consent. That means all ban hammers are elected - chat or otherwise, also it makes no sense for a chat mod to be elected to get their hammer, and a patroller not to. Agent c 01:48, March 17, 2012 (UTC)If Patrollers are by Vote, then I can support this.

My question is what will be made of current patrollers? Will they be made into "old mods" (new patrollers) or be given the rights of the new patroller? Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 02:05, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Wow that was incredibly redundant. I meant to say lose their rights. Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 02:11, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I should let Clyde answer this, but my understanding is that the current group of mods and patrollers will have their status reviewed if needed to make sure they meet the new criteria and if so will change titles. The current group of patrollers will need to apply for chat mod rights(vote required) if they wish to attain the new position, just like they would have had to to be a full moderator. I suspect they would still retain their current suite of rollback/patroller rights, since there are 24 users with either rollback and/or patrol rights outside of mods and admins. The Gunny 02:54, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds harsh, but I guess it has to be done. EDIT: But does it HAVE to be called patroller? Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 03:12, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Current patrollers will be upgraded to everything but chat ban. They will have to apply for chat mod as well. But all new patrollers will be elected.--Kingclyde 03:51, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to call them moderators. "Patroller" gives the impression that they just have patroller rights. Otherwise, I like this. 03:59, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The reason I did this is to narrow down the positions and also we do not have an actual position listed as moderator in the special pages and I believe that this helps narrow things down.--Kingclyde 23:04, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yessie. "Moderator" gives the impression that the user specializes in the entire wiki, rather than just patrolling or chatmodding. Yeah other than that I'm all in favor. Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 04:15, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  I don't think an aspiring patroller needing to apply for patrolrights as well as chatmod rights is the right way to go. Then there's still the problem of users getting flak because they may have edited plenty, but not been in chat. Like SD or even myself. If chat existed a year ago, I would not have passed the chatmod vote and not have been able to apply for admin later on. If a user is not active in chat (so more of an editor), they can just add to the request they don't need the chatmod rights. In that case, the patrol rights are given if the request passes. These patrollers should also have the right to apply for adminship 2 months later on. Another thing to notice, the patroller position (-chatmod) will be harder to get compared to the old situation, 2 months of activity while in the past it was given for free based on edit activity and also the admin position will take longer to reach, 4 months of membership in total. Jspoel 16:06, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

They won't have to. If there are current patrollers then they need to apply for a community vote for chat mod. New patrollers (post-rule) will be elected by the community and thus will have chat mod powers as well.--Kingclyde 23:04, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

This thing is getting more complex by the minute. What happens to MysteryStranger then? When I look at the proposed policy he can't apply for adminship because he doesn't qualify for the new patroller position, having no chatmod rights. And I don't think he honestly can be bothered applying for it. Or will he automatically get them if the new policy passes? In any case, users like him need to be able to apply for adminship. In his case 3rd of April. He waited long enough and made the important contributons to the wiki. Jspoel 16:06, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, looking back on November 2010 I remember there were at least 3 members (including myself) who got rollback rights (so patroller) after only a few weeks as a stimulant/reward. Worked well for me anyway. Adding the option of bc's giving patrol rights on their own judgment during the first month, maybe 2, within release of a new game can be included as well. Jspoel 21:16, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I have this awful feeling that come release of a new game, we'll be back to the old system with rollback rights (given on request/merit) one way or another. Agent c 17:18, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think we can still include the mod position. That request would be applying for patroller rights as well as the chatmod rights. I know we're trying to lessen the requests, but I feel most mod requests have been made now since the split, because in the new situation you can apply for admin being a patroller as well and the mod position will be hard to get from now on anyway, because you'd apply for chatmod as well, and we are now at the stage we have (almost) enough people filling that position. Jspoel 16:05, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused at the moment. Would it be possible to notate the different position requirements above as to include which ones require votes and which, if any, don't? I was assuming that the new position would require votes, or am I mistaken in this? The Gunny 22:40, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

The new position would be voted by the community. It will no longer be handed out by an admi or bc.--Kingclyde 23:04, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick idea, what if we added patroller to the admin requirements, as well, instead of dissolving patroller and moderator into the same position? The Australian Kiwi 20:58, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

When this was first talked about, if I remember correctly, that was my understanding of what the intent was. To make a route to Admin that did not include needing to pass a chat moderator vote for more edit minded folks. Of course you'd still get chat monitor rights as Admin, but you wouldn't be exposed to the scrutiny of your chat habits for moderator/patroller votes. I have no problem with this iteration, as it's just like the old system and I didn't have much problem with that. My only issue was chat oriented people voting no on moderator requests for a person that had no intention of being in chat. Either way, I guess there will still be times when this makes for unclear situations, but we'll just have to deal with that when it happens. The Gunny 21:10, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I'm not quite sure how it ended to become this, since, as Gunny said, I thought that was to be the change in the first place. -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 21:30, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

I don't agree with bureaucrats having absolutely no requirements. They way it stands now a random hobo may just drop by, create a profile and apply for BC first thing after. While it's obvious he in practice wouldn't stand a chance to be elected, but that it could happen points that there should be a requirement, if only for consistency's sake. First off, a BC is a type of admin, so the requirements should be at least the same as an admin's. Ideally, it would be something like double the requirements for an admin, as well as some time served as one. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 03:19, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just an extra caveat "Except in times of emergency" to cover things like the split.Agent c 03:23, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

The bc's never had formal requirements. I haven't changed that as we need to change the requirements for admins. I figure we can start a separate discussion and policy amendment once thins is done. It's not like we are removing any requirements. I just want to hit the requirement nail one the head after discussion. One piece at a time.--Kingclyde 03:43, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

And besides, there already is a random hobo as a bc :)--Kingclyde 03:50, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think having official requirements are necessary for bureaucrats. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to put some in place. -ΣΔ^{Let's talk!} 13:24, March 17, 2012 (UTC)