Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/User Rights

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/User Rights

This page is waiting to be archived by an administrator. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Please see this for a breakdown on the current user rights structure before commenting This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Changes made after 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) will not be counted. Results: Merge bureaucrat and administrator rights Do not merge patroller and chatmod Do not merge patroller, chatmod and importer Do not merge bureaucrat, admin, patroller and chat mod Remove the Bot Approval Group Remove the importer group Keep the News Reporter group Remove the Chatmod right (merge with admin) Should we merge/change any of the rights we currently have? (Note: This excludes QCG and RQM, they can be discussed in the article rating forum after we decide how things will be rated) I think we can get rid of a bunch of groups. Things like news reporter (though we should have an official news team of some sort), Bot Approval Group, and QCG aren't fundamental. I think to replace the BAG, we can just have bot rights requested in the same place as any other user right, like MediaWiki.org does it. QCG will likely not be necessary with changes to the rating system. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) BAG - ditch it, it was inactive anyway. If someone wants to run a bot, community can decide whether the bot is needed, while admins/community can judge if the bot owner is responsible enough to be trusted with a bot. UltrasonicNXT (talk) My ideas for each right: Functionary - keep it (we need to transition all checkuser/oversight rights to this also). A request process should be made for this as well. Details on the requirements can be decided later. Bureaucrat - No reason to change anything unless community wants to change the 80% support requirement. Personally I think 80% is fine for crat requests. Unlike admin requests, reaching 80% was not hard in my request, so I don't think it's much of a problem to keep at 80% Administrator - definitely keep this group lol. 80% support requirement is a bit high in my opinion. If a request doesn't get a lot of votes, just a few opposing votes can shoot down a good candidate's chance of success. I'd say 60% support required, or at most 70% Patroller - Keep this group since it's a good starting ground for future admins to show their responsibility plus this group's rights help take a load off of admins. I think it should be renamed to "Rollbacker" because the right of rolling back vandalism seems more important than the ability to patrol edits. I think the current request process works fine Chat moderator - don't make any changes to this group or its request process Importer - This right is defunct. Not much needs importing anymore, and if something does need to be imported, its easier to leave an admin a message on their talk page than to request a right that they'll probably only need once News reporter - We can probably remove this user right, but we should make sure we keep an actual established news team. New members to the news team can be invited or in some cases can ask for access to the team. This is essentially how other LEGO news sites add new members to the news team. Bot approval group - get rid of this. Bot rights can be requested on a user rights request page and granted by admins QCG - remove this group, its hardly useful. If we keep the rating system we have, this can probably be merged into patroller/rollback. If we don't keep the rating system, we can just remove the right/group altogether RQM - same as above So yeah, that's my thoughts on the rights and groups. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) My turn - unless anyone has any good ideas: Functunary: What is this? 'crat:Same admin:maybe lower requirements patroller + chatmod = a beautiful union? Importer - no need News reporter - need to be a separate right? BAG - not needed Bot - a request for rights page for that instead of BAG QCG, RQM - Depends on how reviews and rating system turn out. CJC95 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC) (CJC, added note on functionary on the info page). Here's my view anyway: Merge bureaucrat and admin. The only thing a 'crat can do that an admin can't is grant admin rights. In my opinion, if a user can't be trusted to responsibly hand out admin rights, then they shouldn't have admin rights in the first place. Merge patroller, chatmod and importer. If a user's trusted to run the wiki, they should be trusted to run chat. And vice versa. The news reporter group seems to run really well to me. But if we wanted that merged into another group, that'd be fine with me. But I'd suggest admin, not patroller. BAG- per NXT NovaHawk 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Merging crat and admin is good. UltrasonicNXT (talk) A lot of ideas to read and acknowledge... merging 'crat and admin sounds fine; the distinction was always a little funny. Merging CQM, chat moderator, and/or patroller... I've seen a few instances where users were certainly ready for one or two of those but not the other(s), so I strongly oppose that. BAG and Newsreporter can probably go, but I'm not sure about the rating ones... BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Can I ask what users were ready for one but not the other? (And what do you mean by CQM?) CJC95 (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I meant QCG; confused it with the old Custom Quality Moderator thing acronym-wise. :P And Sci is a good example of someone who could certainly use patroller but not chat moderator. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC) QCG wouldn't be merged though - whether it will still exist or not depends on the result of the section on ratings. CJC95 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "If we keep the rating system we have, this can probably be merged into patroller/rollback." -- ToaMeiko. I was responding to that suggestion. :P BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC) So, it appears we have four options here (2 and 3 not being mutually exclusive): Leave things as they are. Merge 'crat and admin Merge patroller and chat mod Merge all four (only mentioned over at the initial discussion by Ajr, but an interesting idea nonetheless) CJC95 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Set up a vote below so we can get this resolved and move on already. I left out "leave things as they are", because that would be the result of everything being opposed wouldn' it? Please add any other alternatives I missed. NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Vote Merge Bureaucrat and Administrator rights Support See reasoning above NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) yup, any admin should be trusted to be a crat UltrasonicNXT (talk) CJC95 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC) No reason not to. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) When this was first proposed, I was in opposition. But thinking about it more, I see no problem with merging them. - Drew1200 (talk) I support this; as [someone, wasn't paying too much attention to who :P] said above, if they have the rights there should be no reason they can't give them out. -LFY1547 If one can be trusted with admin, one can be trusted with 'crat. --TheNightingale - Sky Above, Voice Within 07:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Pretty easy, there are good admins and we should have the best of the best. Why not? Just make the process have more requirements to apply for these rights --Nexus (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Oppose It would only take one administrator with bad intentions to essentially take control of the wiki by removing every other user's rights, and we'd have to manually fix that all through the database which would be a pain in the ass for everyone involved. And you can't say that a Brickipedia administrator has never abused rights... Bureaucrat is very large responsibility, more than just administrator rights. Bureaucrats should not only be familiar with the community but also their administrative duties. By merging the two rights, you'd be giving people bureaucrat rights before they become familiar with their administrative responsibilities. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Fix through the database? Wouldn't it just be a simple matter of a board member removing the rights from the offender? And I can't say I've ever come across an admin abusing their rights with regards to changing user groups. NovaHawk 00:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Except that board member who would have to do that is always me (honestly I'm the only board member this term to have done anything board-related that didn't involve replying to a discussion) and 9 times out of 10, rights like crat (and higher-up rights) have to be changed through the database (so it has to go from being a board task to a sysadmin task) because interwiki user rights still don't work and probably won't for a long time because it's awaiting a patch to MediaWiki core. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC) It may just be me, but I can't see Berrybrick or BFN sitting back and letting some 'crat go on a crazy rampage through the wiki, on the extremely unlikely event that it would happen NovaHawk 03:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Completely and entirely in agreement with NovaFlare here. I don't see any of the current admins going crazy, and any future admins would be voted on via the typical RfR, where users would be aware that they're voting for both rights. Really, the probability of an admin turning into a troll is so low, that it's barely even a concern. There have been admins who have abused rights before, but I don't recall there ever being an admin who tried to take over and destroy the entire wiki. Furthermore, even if that unlikely event were to occur, the board members and sysadmins could fix it pretty easily. - Drew1200 (talk) It's happened before, and like I said, it would only take one. Sure, you can't see it happening with any of our current admins. If you could foresee the future, that would be impressive, but of course you can't. It's something that can happen that can't be predicted. And you can't really speak for the board members and sysadmins that would have to fix something like this. It's not easy to have to rewrite the user groups table like you seem to think it is. --ToaMeiko (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC) OK.... now I'm confused- when's something like this happened before? (apart from Wikia removing all our rights.. and we're not likely to make all of Wikia staff admins on here :D). Before I was thinking of an incident when a former admin abused their rights (and I think it was moreso just abusing other people than abusing their actual rights) but it wasn't related to editing user rights NovaHawk 23:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Comments Neutral. Berrybrick (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Neutral. I can't come to a decision. The only additional thing Bureaucrats can do over Administrators is add or remove Bureaucrat or Administrator rights from an account. In theory it just appears to be one additional function that is very small. Why would you have a user group for such a small function. However, all it would take is one Bureaucrat to assign Administrator rights and/or Bureaucrat rights to a bunch of users and work with them to do as much damage as possible. We can't afford for our content to be damaged, not if we're competing with the "old wiki" to provide the best and up to date content. I don't know, may be I'm over-reacting and thinking of the worst possible scenario. But the potential still exists. I may add more if I can think of any points for either side of the argument. SKP4472 (Admin) 10:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Neutral. I've typed arguments for both cases and this is really difficult. Both have convincing sides and I can't seem to oppose the idea, but supporting it doesn't feel right either. As per SKP really, catastrophizing is the best way to plan ahead sometimes. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Neutral. Not sure how necessary it is, nor what harm could from from it. BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Merge patroller and chat mod Support See reasoning above NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) CJC95 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC) SKP4472 (Admin) 10:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Yeah sounds good. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose 99% of the people who request and receive chat moderator rights don't actively edit nor do they even pay attention to changes made to the wiki. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC) We could stop giving chat mod to people with the ability to sit in chat and talk for a few months without getting in trouble. Sure, it means we won't have 3/4 of the people in chat as chat mods anymore, but you know, we rarely need chat mods at the moment anyway. (If you're concern is the current chat mods without patroller getting patroller, I'd refer that as an issue for the red section whose name I can't recall off the top of my head below) CJC95 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Most of our current chat moderators have patroller rights anyways but don't ever edit, which is part of why I don't want them merged, because users like that shouldn't have patroller. Nobody should be holding rights they don't use nor have any intention of using. tbh i don't know why half the people I've ever seen request patroller even requested it in the first place, especially at wikia because patrolling edits isn't even a thing there. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Which is why I am saying that we don't give those people chat mod/patroller... The ones who currently have patroller and don't use it isn't an issue for this discussion, that is for the bit about removing current rights below. I can't think of a reason why users who don't edit and sit around in chat doing nothing need chat mod. People have always just seen chat mod as a reward for being in chat. Instead of considering this merging patroller into chat mod, and lazy chat people getting extra rights they won't use, think of it as merging chat mod into patroller. Chat mod is no longer a right, and only those who need patroller get the chat mod. Does this mean we have less chat mods? Yes. Does that affect anything? No. Chat has always had at least 4/5 of users at one time being a mod, and considering we've had only had to have 5 blocks since we've moved, we clearly don't need lots of mods. If this happens I'd support re-voting on all the chat mod/patroller rights anyway (only 4 people could stand with keeping them), and nearly all the chat mods already have patroller at the moment... CJC95 (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (Are there chatmods who can't be trusted with patroller?! They shouldn't be chatmods.) UltrasonicNXT (talk) (You basically managed to summarise my mass of text in a line. :P If they don't deserve patroller, shouldn't have mod.) CJC95 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (Note about people requesting and not using patroller) This is why patroller used to be given out by admins, not requested. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Per Meiko. - Drew1200 (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko, merging the two is a terrible idea. We have enough mods as is. --Nexus (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus  ? If you have patroller, it's pretty likely you have chatmod. If anything, the number of chatmods would go down with this merge, not up. NovaHawk 11:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I think what Nexus is saying is that everyone who would want patroller would end up getting chat mod as well, even if they hardly ever chatted or didn't know chat policy very well. I can name some great editors on this wiki who rarely chat but who do have patroller, such as Figura. He's fine with just patroller— there's no reason he should have chat mod since it's not something he needs (not that it would be hard for him to get it). The editing aspect of the wiki is very separate from the chat aspect, and I think we should keep it that way user rights-wise. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose per my comments in my earlier discussion with CJC, as well as per Meiko. BrickfilmNut (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko. --LK901 18:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko. Jeyo (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Comments Merge patroller, chat mod and importer This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Note- will only succeed if vote to merge patroller and chat mod does, and it isn't voted to remove the importer group altogether. Support # See reasoning above NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose Same as my reason against merging patroller and chat mod, but I think importer isn't even a necessary group anymore. It's no longer necessary since all our content is imported. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC) As per Meiko. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko. --TheNightingale - Sky Above, Voice Within 08:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Comments Not sure on the necessity of importer, but don't care really. (CJC forgot to sign this...) I see no issue with merging patroller and chat moderator, however I don't see the need for an importer any more. Unless I'm missing something for which I will apologise, there isn't anything left to import is there? SKP4472 (Admin) 10:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko really, again. --Nexus (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Merge bureaucrat, admin, patroller and chat mod Support Oppose The main reason is that this would mean there would be a lot of unpatrolled edits around the place, or edits which would need to be manually patrolled, when there really doesn't need to be. NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Berrybrick (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) If we do this we may as well give everyone full control over the site as soon as they sign up. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC) No offence to our new users, but I do not feel comfortable knowing that they only have to apply for user rights once and if they succeed they get huge amounts of power and responsibility placed on their shoulders. I personally am not comfortable with such risk being taken. SKP4472 (Admin) 10:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Definitely not, as per arguments above. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per all, who brought this idea up? I couldn't see all the chat mods with such rights. It seems absurd. --Nexus (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Comments Remove Bot Approval Group Support NovaHawk 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Make users request bot rights like they would any other right. ToaMeiko (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments Missed this one, sorry :P NovaHawk 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Remove importer group Support As per what Meiko and SKP said above. NovaHawk 11:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC) CJC95 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Yes. -NBP3.0 (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC) it was only a temporary group for two of non-admins to have post-move. Those two users never even used the right and aren't active here anymore. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per my earlier comment regarding this. SKP4472 (Admin) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments Really not too sure about it so I'll hold off on this vote for now. --Nexus (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus News repoter Merge with admin Do nothing I think that the group works just fine as it is. --LK901 12:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) It's fine how it is. Merging it with admin rights would mean anyone who joins the community and is only interested in participating in news would have to work their way to adminship over months of work. That's just unnecessary given how separate the responsibilities of admins and news reporters are. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Comments Forgot to have anything about news reporter here. Feel free to add other alternatives. NovaHawk 23:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Why try fixing what already works? :P --LK901 18:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Remove chat mod altogether (merge with admin) Support I get that this will be wildly unpopular and all the chatmods are going to oppose. I'm going to say it anyway- at any given time in chat, it appears that over 3/4 of the group have chat mod rights. And over 1/2 are admins. So what's the point in having everyone as a chatmod? And really, when's the last time anyone's really used their chatmod rights? NovaHawk 23:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC) # Recently, its seemed to me the people who are most likely to get kicked are chat mods :P - Per Nova. CJC95 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC) There are so many admins, and too many chat mods. I think that merging Chat Mod and Admin would work best. --LK901 12:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Per CJC. --Jeyo (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Ajraddatz (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC) SKP4472 (Admin) 21:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose As with the discussion on the potential patroller/chat moderator role, I think there are quite a few users who can use chat mod, but not admin. And I always found a small right such as chat mod a good sort of "test" for users before they became admins. So I'd oppose. BrickfilmNut (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Per BFN. --TheNightingale - Sky Above, Voice Within 00:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Comments Actually, I'd rather just..."re-elect" the current ones :P CJC95 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC) I think this is the best idea. - Bug (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Would this make current chat moderators administrators, or make them lose their rights completely? How will we choose who gets "bumped up" and "bumped down"? --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) The idea behind it was to just remove chatmod from everyone who currently has it. If they feel they should be "bumped up", they can make a URR for admin NovaHawk (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC) I guess that's okay, especially if LK901's request for adminship passes, since he's the only chatmod I see as a good admin candidate right now. I'm not going to vote on this since I don't have much of an opinion in either direction, so just count me as neutral. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Note- merged new votes/comments and changes to votes from the "Open stuff" thread NovaHawk (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Reconsideration? I hope that this doesn't count as editing the green box. Anyway, the chat mods who ignore the forums aren't responding to hearing of their rights being removed too well. Not that I voted, but I didn't consider how they would react. Awful of me, because I would have opposed then. What about anybody else? Berrybrick (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC) I suggest going ahead with it. It's their loss for not paying attention to forums. It's a user's responsibility to pay attention to what goes on in the community. We can't just undo anything we vote on because the some people were too lazy to voice their own opinion. Live and learn. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Yes we can. :P I think you mean that it doesn't mean we should. Just because the decision was made doesn't mean it was a good one. I have my own reservations about their lack of actions, but from Sibo's articulation, it doesn't seem that different from when you decided you wouldn't feel useful without some right (I can't remember if it was bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, or something different). Anyway, I'm not even talking about revoking it right now, I'm asking if people who supported thought of how the chat mods would feel, and yeah, if it turns out that we were all inconsiderate, then something might have to revert, and it is better sooner than later. Berrybrick (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Suggestion: To not make any kind of an Order 66 around here (I clearly know how Cmods would feel about the removal), we could do what I mention below. Explanation: I felt so proud when I got the Chatmod rights, and I belive you did too. I felt I actually could show people that I was able to succeed in at least one way. To be or get fired is not that fun and when you actually try to use your rights when needed I feel like getting that kick is not just wrong, but also pretty harsh to hear or recieve. Also, sometimes I am on chat just waiting for some other person with rights. If e.g. I didn't have the Cmod rights and had to wait for an admin to come and rescue me ... You see how it ends. Not that realistic anymore, but hey, anything can happen. As I am the only one on chat at special times. My thoughts on further work on this subject: Merge Patroller/Rollback and Chatmod (I feel it is a good match, cause, well. Patrolling edits - Patrolling Chat). That would not harm the chatmods, plus it would make more sense. If this change would be used, I think many would appreciate it. Name suggestion: Either just Patroller, Patroller Moderator or CE (Chat & Edits) Moderator. Just saying what could be. But well. Also, please read any further thoughts about this in my upcoming blog. ~ Sibo2808 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Strong oppose. This issue has been open for over four months. If they can't be bothered in all that time to get off chat and actually look at the wiki for once in their lives, I would say they shouldn't have any rights in the first place. This forum was advertised multiple times in chat over that four months, and like anything else brought up in chat which actually pertains to the wiki, the links were point-blank ignored and I may as well have been talking to a brick wall. Personally, I'm more than fed up with talking to myself, or at the very best, to two or three other people in these forums. Maybe doing this, it will teach people that forums actually have some impact. NovaHawk 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Oppose: Per Nova, and there actually is no need for mod. --LK901 18:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Well, as far as I can tell, only one of the chat mods is annoyed about this? :P We only have four anyway. The only one to have kicked recently is Sibo, and all those times admins were there (and some were arguably unnecessary). CJC95 (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC) The way we do user rights requests This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. I think we only need one request page with subsections for each group. At no time have I ever seen so many requests at once that each group needs its own request page. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) That would work. CJC95 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'm happy with that. NovaHawk 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Me too. Berrybrick (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Indifferent; it'd certainly work, though. BrickfilmNut (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Sounds good to me. SKP4472 (Admin) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Closed: result: use on page Requirements/running time of rights requests Current requirements/running times: Right Requirements Process Functionary Nothing in place Nothing in place Bureaucrat (to be merged to administrator) 2 months as administrator A vote, requiring an 80% pass rate at end of 2 weeks (ended early if unanimous support after 5 days) Administrator 1000 edits, has been on the site for 2 months A vote, requiring an 80% pass rate, and must last for at least 2 weeks Patroller 250 edits, has been on the site for 10 days A successful request here, with the result being decided by an administrator. News reporter none A vote made by existing News Reporters here Bots none Previously approved by the Bot Approval Group Functionary (checkuser+oversight) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. My suggestion: No limit for number of users However, I'd say the forum about "having enough members of this user group already" being an invalid reason to oppose would not apply here, as keeping the group as small as possible could be seen as a way to keep confidential information more secure. Must have been an administrator for at least 1 year 80% pass rate ? NovaHawk 00:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) I approve. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Administrator (including former bureaucrat right) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. I'd suggest: 1000 content namespace edits (mainspace, reviews, inventories, parts) 80% pass rate Has been on the wiki for at least 3 months Vote to take 2 weeks, or can be ended early after 5 days NovaHawk 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I don't think changing 1000 edits to 1000 content namespace edits is a good idea. 1) because it makes it harder than it has been since we moved off Wikia, and 2) it was already harder to get adminship here after we moved off Wikia because things like comments and forum posts no longer count as edits like they did at Wikia. I'd suggest 500 content namespace edits as the requirement. Other than that everything seems fine. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Sure. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe 1000 edits should be lowered? Other than that, it is fine. --LK901 21:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, fair enough, personally I'd rather a bit more (like 750), but I guess I can live with 500 NovaHawk 00:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Patroller This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. My vote's for leave as is (except the successful request would go on the single URR page) NovaHawk All requests already go on one page. CJC95 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I mean the request would go on the single URR page that's being implemented, not on the admin noticeboard as stated in the table NovaHawk 23:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC) We could probably add that admins can appoint them. Berrybrick (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Oops, added :) NovaHawk 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Per Nova. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) News reporter This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Keep as is NovaHawk 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) ^ Berrybrick (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I just gave myself it to be honest. :P -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Bot Make a request page for it where admins will review the purpose of the bot and see if it's necessary or not. Maybe set some requirement for the user requesting to have some number of contributions already and/or have been on the site for some certain amount of time. The bot approval process shouldn't be a necessary thing to go through however since not every bot needs to be reviewed/approved by admins. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Sounds logical, support. -NBP3.0 (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC) How does this sound: User have a min 100 edits, or been on the site for atleast a month? --LK901 21:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC) I was avoiding that kind of strict rule because it's not unusual for us to get a MediaWiki developer or other familiar user to come in who knows how to operate a bot to perform some task or another. Setting that kind of restriction would require them to wait a month and get 100 edits even if they know/care nothing about LEGO before they could have their bot perform said task. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) "The bot approval process shouldn't be a necessary thing to go through however since not every bot needs to be reviewed/approved by admins" - and who would decide whether it's necessary or not though? Wouldn't it be easier just to put them all through it? NovaHawk 21:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC) That would mean, for example, you researched it and made yourself a bot for some task, but instead of you (a trustworthy, knowledgeable user) being able to immediately being able to put your bot to use you'd have to wait for it to be reviewed and whatnot, which is not only a waste of your time but also a waste of time by the people who have to review the bot. --ToaMeiko (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC) But who would decide who the "trustworthy, knowledgeable users" are? :P NovaHawk 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Elegibility to vote on a URR This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Currently at 50 mainspace edits. I'd say keep as is NovaHawk 02:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Keep as is. --ToaMeiko (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Fine, but I'd note that in the past its often not been enforced unless people find it beneficial to their own ends to do so. CJC95 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Other responsibilities Facebook page - no real way we can do a request process since content creators for the page need to be added manually by a page admin (e.g. myself [and I believe Lcawte and Ajr are also page admins]) Twitter - same as above but Twitter doesn't even support "page rights", so basically I just have to give people the password to the account Google+ - nobody even uses google+ and I don't know how Google+ pages work Liaison with TLG - Not something that can be negotiated in the community. All this is is someone in contact with TLG who TLG knows represents Brickipedia. Until I myself have secured good contact and trust with TLG's CEE team, I can't really tell TLG to start listening to multiple people from our one site. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC) @Facebook/Twitter/G+: why exactly can't a request take place here? They can be manually added by a page admin once a successful request goes through. About these responsibilities, I'd suggest creating a Brickipedia page on here just so people know who runs what so they can contact them if needed. @Liaison- I wasn't suggesting changing anything about that, I was just putting it down to cover everything. NovaHawk 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Honestly all the pages need is ~2 active individuals to run them. A page in the project namespace could work but I don't want it to have a request page because a bunch of people will request access to it who don't need it, deserve it, or whom I can't trust. I already deal with this a lot especially with the Facebook page. Adding a request form for it is unnecessary when we have close to all the social media staffing we need already. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Being that Google+ is a popular social network, I think it'd be beneficial to keep it running. Part of the reason there's only 9 followers is because the newest post is from March, 2012. Google+ doesn't seem to be too popular with Brickipedians, but as far as advertising goes, it might be okay. As for Facebook and Twitter, I don't even have an account, so no comments. - Drew1200 (talk) I'm happy with 2-3 users per site. But maybe we should decide who those users should be? There's never been any formal elections, it's just been thrown around the place. NovaHawk 01:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I'd be more than happy to report news on the Facebook page and Twitter page as I am frequently active on the two sites and only once in a blue moon do we see posts. Also, community podcasts? Is it still in discussion because I'd voluntarily join it. I have good ideas for it also. If I could be a supervisor/editor of social communications, I'd keep everyone following us a heap of new information and podcasts are cool and nobody is really understanding of them because it's a smaller community compared to other larger ones but it brings interviews to life and adds a lot more fun to this gloomy editing hub (as I like to call it) --Nexus (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Community podcasts could be a thing, probably on a monthly basis. Let's come back to that idea in a month or so however since it's less important to the community as other big changes we're planning at the moment. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Vote Keep all groups as is ToaMeiko (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Elect members for each group (current members must also go through election) NovaHawk 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Comments Removal of rights This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Changes made after 00:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC) will not be counted. A brief amendment - may already be a policy for it, but doubt it - removal of user rights rough draft (dependent on how rights are decided above really): If a user is misusing their rights, it may be removed without notice subject to further discussion If the community agrees that a user should not have their rights due to misuse If they have been inactive for x months CJC95 (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC) (A user who has lost rights for inactivity may get the rights back upon return to activity) (Though if we go ahead with the proposal beneath this, then that would only apply to rights lost due to inactivity after said proposal) CJC95 (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Sounds good. I wouldn't mind setting up a "request for removal of user rights" page, similar to whatever URR we end up with, just so people know where to put it if it ever does occur. As far as "misuse", it'd have to be a pretty clear abuse wouldn't it? For "x" months- would 3 do? NovaHawk 22:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Yes - something like randomly banning people, removing rights for no reason, etc. CJC95 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I think 3 sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC) 3 is fine, but since I don't see many people becoming active again after a long term, 2 months could work too. --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) 3 months seems like an acceptable amount of time. However I do agree with CJC. If an administrator has his/her user rights removed they should be permitted to have them back upon their return to making active contributions on the wiki. Perhaps create a template for administrators who have had their user rights removed due to inactivity that clearly states that the user can have their user rights returned upon request. This template could be placed at the top of their user page or talk page. SKP4472 (Admin) 10:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Per CJC and SKP. -NBP3.0 (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I can't see why not. Start fresh as we are renewing things. --Nexus (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus If a user can have their rights back on returning to the wiki, I don't see the point in spending time removing them in the first place to be honest... UltrasonicNXT (talk) True, though removing the rights could be seen as precautionary measure in the unlikely event that the users account is hacked. I don't know. Perhaps they shouldn't be removed for inactivity. SKP4472 (Admin) 13:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC) If a user is misusing his/her rights, sure, they should be removed...but not without notice. The person should get some correction first, don't you think? --Jeyo (talk) 06:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Vote Adopt proposed rule #1 Support NovaHawk 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Yes but they (or any fellow community member) should have the right to appeal the removal, and they should be given clear instructions on how to go about such an appeal (we should probably make a talk page notice that is given to anyone who has their rights removed in this manner). --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments Adopt proposed rule #2 Support NovaHawk 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, but there should be a community agreement for rights removal in a formal discussion; we shouldn't just up and remove someone's rights because everyone in chat is complaining about them. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments Create a "Request for removal of user rights page Note- will only pass if Rule #2 does Support NovaHawk 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC) ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) SKP4472 (Admin) 21:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments Adopt proposed rule #3 Support (3 months) Support (2 months) I've seen on a few occasions new users contacting inactive admins asking for help. It's rare, but better if it wouldn't happen at all. If they don't have an admin flag, then it's less likely to happen NovaHawk 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Mainly I've been doing this already every few months. We may as well write it into the policy. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) ^ Agreed. -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Oppose Comments We should make an exception to this rule however if an admin gives a clear notice and expected duration prior to their leave. On Wikipedia they usually call these "wiki breaks", and people generally don't have their rights removed during them. However if someone gives no prior notice, doesn't let anyone know how long they'll be inactive, or they are inactive for a great deal longer than they said the would, their rights can be removed. There should also be a user talk page template that we make to notify users of their rights are removed due to inactivity. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Sounds good NovaHawk (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Sure. -NBP3.0 (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Closed- all three rules to be adopted, and a request for removal of user rights page to be created Remove everyone's rights and start again? Please hold off on this topic until "Should we merge/change any of the rights we currently have?" has been resolved I think remove any rights that a user doesn't use or where the user is clearly inactive. Anyone who still uses their admin, crat, chatmod or whatever rights actively should be able to keep them. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) This depends on how greatly the rights change, so discussion should be held off until a consensus is reached below. CJC95 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)