User talk:Nyargleblargle/Drafts/Janitors

Alright a few things I'll like to change:

"Delete pages under ten hours old."

I would bump this up to 24 hours, it's not exactly unfeasible for no admin or janitor to be around up to 10 hours after a vandal/spam page is created, while it wouldn't do much more to allow janitors the ability to delete legitimate pages.

"Place non-autoconfirmed users in a special "superprobated" group that can last up to three hours and prevents them from creating new pages or making certain types of edits, such as page or section blanking."

Would this even be possible to implement? This is changing user groups, which only bureaucrats can do (which is why admins can tell a bureaucrat to put a user in probation, they can't do it themselves). If possible, I would suggest giving them the ability to only block non-autoconfirmed users and IPs, with a max block limit of 3 days.

"Semiprotect articles"

Additionally, they shouldn't be able to semiprotect an article for more than 24 hours.

"Requirements"

Now I think it's taking the completely wrong path here. While limited, these hypothetical Janitor powers are still abuseable and I wouldn't giving them to a significant amount of the wiki. As such, we should instead handle hypothetical RfJs like RfAs, rather than treating them like RfRs. Omega Tyrant 13:42, 18 November 2015 (EST)

1. I suppose bumping it up to something like 18-20 hours would work.
2. Um, I can put users on probation right now, so it is possible. Also, consensus indicates blocking is too powerful of a tool for a group below admin, so I thought I would just add restrictions to cover the bases rollbackers can't handle.
3. Good point, I'll add that.
4. I would be fine with a similar writeup, but I don't feel the process should be as exhaustive. Maybe something entirely new is in order. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 13:50, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Oh damn, before admins couldn't put people into probation themselves because it was technically user rights management. Well then great to see that was fixable.

"Also, consensus indicates blocking is too powerful of a tool for a group below admin, so I thought I would just add restrictions to cover the bases rollbackers can't handle."

I would say consensus is overblowing it then when it's such limited blocking. It would just be better to allow them to outright block vandals and save admins the work of having to block them anyway later on. Additionally, if you are to do this "superprobation" workaround, janitors wouldn't be able to do anything about IP vandals. Also, if you make the janitors' tools too weak, then they won't really do anything that useful.

"I would be fine with a similar writeup, but I don't feel the process should be as exhaustive. Maybe something entirely new is in order."

These hypothetical janitorial powers are still serious enough that they should be given a formal review process that everyone can partake in. The only reason we stopped doing those for RfRs and moved to the automatic process we have today is because rollback is such an insignificant tool that nearly every constructive user is qualified for. Omega Tyrant 14:31, 18 November 2015 (EST)

1. The community has actually been against less powerful blocking abilities than what you propose. I'll have to think about the issue with IPs, though.
2. Okay, I'll make it more similar to an RfA. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Then I'll debate them about it; sure blocks are powerful, but they're also the most useful tool for stopping vandals; you lose much of the point to this proposed class if you're still going to need to rely on admins to ultimately put the vandal shit away. And being able to only block unconfirmed users and IPs ensures janitors will mostly only be restricted to blocking vandals, while a max block limit of 3 days ensures more serious blocks can only be handled by admins. Additionally, there needs to be a level of trust with janitors to not abuse their tools before we promote them; we must not treat this like rollback and let anyone who can handle basic wiki stuff have it, thus needlessly weakening the position in the process. Omega Tyrant 17:23, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Also:

"and five examples of correct use of rollback from different vandals"

Arbitrary requirement is arbitrary, we should avoid setting any hard requirements, especially those based around an arbitrary number, that ultimately won't show if the candidate is truly capable and can be trusted. Again I stress that we must not treat this like rollback, if we are to get something that is both useful and in the hands of sufficiently capable users. Omega Tyrant 18:05, 18 November 2015 (EST)

In my opinion this has all the same issues as the various junior admin proposals: too many abusable powers for an expedited process that's more like an RfR than an RfA, making it rather redundant. Miles (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Like the junior admin proposal, this kinda looks yet again like another way to get around the hard RfAs and given powers with compromise. Yeah... kinda outclassed. Dots (talk) The Heavy Weapons Guy 16:02, 18 November 2015 (EST)

You'll notice I made the approval process more similar to an RfA. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (EST)

Bump. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 20:11, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Maybe they should be able to move over redirects too? (even if the redir has more than one edit?) just a thought. Serpent King 20:15, 21 November 2015 (EST)

Not needed, and I want janitor powers to be as minimal as possible while still being effective with fighting vandals. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (EST)

I still feel like it needs work (IDK how though), but the issues from DNK's were fixed pretty well. I don't think this is a bad idea. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 15:48, 24 November 2015 (EST)