87,171
edits
Forum:A new usergroup idea: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:I support it, although I don't think 100 edits is enough to prove community trustworthiness. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 04:15, 12 February 2019 (EST) | :I support it, although I don't think 100 edits is enough to prove community trustworthiness. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 04:15, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
::It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the only viable one. The goal is to provide a protection option that is less strict than admins-only, which this accomplishes without any real harm. As you note, the only real way to assess "community trustworthiness" is through qualitative judgment of a person's edits and demeanour, but having admins/bureaucrats make that judgment is an undue burden on them for very little gain and would immediately become a drama fest every time someone who thinks they deserves the status doesn't get it. This is a reasonable middle ground that offers modest benefit with no real downside. – [[User:Emmett|<span style="color:#000000">Emmett</span>]] 17:30, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ::It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the only viable one. The goal is to provide a protection option that is less strict than admins-only, which this accomplishes without any real harm. As you note, the only real way to assess "community trustworthiness" is through qualitative judgment of a person's edits and demeanour, but having admins/bureaucrats make that judgment is an undue burden on them for very little gain and would immediately become a drama fest every time someone who thinks they deserves the status doesn't get it. This is a reasonable middle ground that offers modest benefit with no real downside. – [[User:Emmett|<span style="color:#000000">Emmett</span>]] 17:30, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
This may also end up being too powerful for this usergroup, but I think a way to block users for a very short time (max 1 day) could be given to this usergroup. There were many times where vandals would raid the wiki when there were no administrators around, and it's frustrating trying to undo their mistakes while working on other stuff at the same time. Giving users in this group the ability to block can help combat this, and when an administrator goes online, they could review it and decide what to do next. Of course, people who repeatedly use this option maliciously will have this ability revoked... so maybe make people in this usergroup go through a process like rollback. idk this may not be a great idea, but it does help combat vandalism. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 15:41, 16 February 2019 (EST) | |||