SmashWiki talk:Junior administrators (version 3)

Some Clarifications

I mostly made this as a combination of SmashWiki:Junior administrators and SmashWiki:Junior administrators (version 2), both of which failed to pass. I added some questions I need answered before I attempt at getting this approved as a policy, which are in parentheses. Hope this works. DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 14:40, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

The same problem is present with this proposal as with the previous proposals to similar effect: the differences between normal admins and junior admins isn't significant enough. The most important, major powers that are used by admins are the abilities to manage blocks, deletions, and protections; however, you assign junior admins all of these. Essentially, there's no reason that anybody would qualify for junior admin under a proposal like this if they wouldn't pass our current RfA system. That's why I continue to oppose a junior admin system. Miles (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Per Miles, as an editor of Bulbapedia as well, I've always been against the idea of the existence of Junior Admins. They just generally feel unnecessary to me, especially if they have virtually the same abilities as admins. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

I actually like this idea for some reason. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:49, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

There's still the issue of having the same abilities as an admin however. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

To be blunt, I agree with the above - however, I'm sure there's a way to figure this out. The way I would do it would be:

• Rather than explicit blocking powers, allow access to a suspended usergroup, which wouls be functionally similar to a block, whereby a user cannot create new pages, nor edit the mainspace, but can still edit any talk page.
• Allowed to hide pages to non-Rb's (if that's a thing on this system, not sure), which would simutaneously act as a non-permanent Delete and Protect.

ScoreCounter 14:50, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Two things. 1. Where can I find a list of powers that various people have? 2. This is very much a work in progress, and is subject to change. DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 14:52, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Then vandals would wnd up vandalizing talk pages. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:52, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Per INoMed. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Sadly accurate. Also, regarding current powers, please refer to Special:UserGroupRights. Miles (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, but Talk Pages have zero influence on the frontend, so it's really ineffective vandalism. And I doubt half of them care about Talk Pages anyway. Also, even after looking at that, I'm not sure there is a viewable page blacklist. I know there's a whitelist in MW.ScoreCounter 14:57, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Vandalism's vandalism, I'm afraid. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:58, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Speaking of vandalism, I will say let's try to from now on not complain about it so much and try to quietly deal with them again. I don't think Toomai's impressed by the wall of sentences on his page right now. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Actually, would there be a way to make a usergroup from which people are automatically removed after some time? Like auto confirmation? That way, the block is fixed in length. Then, you could get the RB's involved and allow them to remove - and only remove users from that group. Also, agree with the above, but there needs to be some resolution other than everyone knee-jerking for admin.ScoreCounter 15:02, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

A block by any other name is still a block, and a power that really shouldn't be extended below admin-level. It's a power with a huge potential for misuse, and there's a reason we require a community consensus significantly in favor of an RfA candidate to give someone such a power. Right now we have three active admins (myself, Toomai, Nyargle) and a whole host of rollbackers. We have the situation well enough under control. Miles (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Which would be my opinion too if everyone didn't disagree with it. I suppose the point I'm trying to make in a way is that there is no middle ground, so you're either an admin or you're not, even if you added a halfway house. *Yawns quietly* You know what? I've just remembered why I disliked this idea in the first place... ScoreCounter 15:15, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Some qualms

• Is there a way to prevent junior admins from lowering protection just so they can edit pages?
• While it's not absolutely necessary, I would like to lower the max edits for junior admin page deletion, most vandal pages will have five or six edits at most.
• I'd like to put further restrictions on suspension, like only allowing it for blocking new accounts (if possible).

Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (EDT)

The third one. That (especially if IPs can be suspended too) would make my current standing (weaker moderate support) go to a strong support. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 11:10, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

I already edited that... DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 11:11, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

WOOPS. Well my vote is officially a very strong support. This could make the recent failures (Serpent King, Drilly, Nutta, and hopefully not Aidan) have a chance to properly deal with vandals without having to wait TWO HOURS before an admin makes a move at all. This also could possibly benefit other users such as INoMed and Disaster Flare maybe. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 11:14, 25 October 2015 (EDT)

Support. These changes are much better in terms of avoiding putting too much power in the hands of Junior Admins. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 14:10, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I continue to oppose this proposition. I understand the desire to have more people with the power to stop a vandal, but this still seems overly knee-jerk and unnecessary. We have rollbackers, we have admins, and I really don't see the demonstrated need for this intermediary level to exist. If your concern is lack of admins, I would say that three active ones is a sufficient number for most things, and besides that the standard RfA system has been working fine. I'm also concerned about adding more hierarchy and user rights stratification to the wiki. Miles (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Per Miles, oppose. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

The problem is that rollbackers don't really have the tools to actually stop a run of vandalism as opposed to individual vandal edits and admins are expected to have great conflict resolution skills. Therefore, I feel that users that can really be trusted for janitorial purposes but aren't believed to have the necessary conflict resolution skills (i.e. some of the recently failed RfA candidates) could be given this position to be more effective in fighting vandalism while not having to be given a whole slew of tools that are really needed mostly for conflict resolution. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 14:51, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Yes they do... Sort of. They can hold off vandals easily, but not eliminate them with the block tool. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:53, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

That's what I mean. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I don't trust anyone without admin-level conflict resolution skills with the power to block users. Miles (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Miles has a good point. While I do trust the people in question, until they show better conflict resolution skills, they shouldn't have power like that. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I can see that perspective, and you are certainly entitled to it, but I personally disagree. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 15:00, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

I now Support... Only because ganonmew mentioned me. (Actually, this is a great idea!) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:40, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Uh... Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 15:52, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Let's do this proper.

Support

1. Support. Need I say more? This concept allows users to tackle vandals easily without 1. The hassle of waiting for an admin to come and block the vandal. 2. the hassle of an RFA. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:12, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   I now change my vote to Strong support. Yes, the admin tools passed down to junior admins are some of the most powerful, they's been weakened so much that they are only really useful for fighting vandals. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:21, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

2. Support. As I've stated before, I believe this is a good position to give users who are good with janitorial work, but lack the dispute skills that are expected of those with the full set of admin tools. While the tools granted are some of the strongest given to admins, they're watered down to the point where all they can really be used for is to fight vandals. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   Point made. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:14, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   Yeah, I figured. Just thought I'd summarize for the formal discussion. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 15:18, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

3. Very strong support per everything everyone and I have said so far. However with Toomai having shut down two of the sockpuppet vandals, my support is weaker than before, though my point still stands. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 16:13, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   So, just support? Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 16:22, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   I...don't...know. Considering it was very strong support, my best bet is a shift to just strong support. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 16:29, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   Shifting back to very strong support. We've had a noteworthy amount of editwarriors and trolls around lately. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 15:36, 6 November 2015 (EST)

4. Strong Support As everyone else has said. Also I made the initial drafts of this so why wouldn't I support this. DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 17:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
5. Support There's people such as myself who want to deal with vandals quickly, but can only do so much with rollback. This would be the way for those people to be able to have what they need. (Now, I could just be paraphrasing this in my own little way, but still.) Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 11:10, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

Oppose

1. I Oppose. It just doesn't seem like we need to bring back an idea we've dropped twice already. I agree with Miles that it is too close to being an actual admin. Serpent∞King (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   I intentionally lowered their powers to the point where just about all they can do is revert vandalism. Their only 3 advantages over Rollback are deleting pages with small histories (yes, that restriction can be implemented), protecting pages (which they can't edit when fully protected), and suspending users (not same as block, read article). DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 17:11, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

2. Oppose, see above. Miles (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
3. Oppose for the same reasons as Miles. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
4. Oppose I honestly don't see why it would be necessary. It's just another group of users to never be online when we need them. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 16:39, 26 October 2015 (EDT)
5. Oppose Unproper group honestly. Already opposed second version. Dots (talk) The Falcon 12:46, 30 October 2015 (EDT)
6. Oppose "I strongly feel that jrs should not have any form of the block tool." The suggested ability of "suspend"ing users is identical in all but name. Toomai Glittershine The Inconceivable 22:58, 4 November 2015 (EST)
7. Oppose. I agree with Miles about this. Pika, Wild Turkey Appeared! 15:49, 10 November 2015 (EST)

Neutral

1. Until we can establish two things, I can't make a judgement call. 1) What would the RfJA be, 2) Can this actually be put in place? ScoreCounter 17:09, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   It would be a bit like a RfA, but I havent finalized the idea in my mind yet. 2) Yes, Most of the restrictions are enforceable by the Mediawiki CSS. Does that answer your questions? DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 17:14, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

   We'll have to wait and see. I'm really unsure. Eh, I'm a hard guy to pursuade, either way. ScoreCounter 17:31, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

2. Neutral leaning towards Support I found out that a lot of the recent RfAs were from people who just want to combat vandalism. Most of them don't even know how to handle editing disputes. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 22:27, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

   For the record (if my RfA can be called recent anymore...) I have made an honest and significant effort to better/prove my dispute handling skills. Serpent∞King (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

   I meant most of them (myself included), not all of them. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is made in America 22:36, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

3. Neutral for now: I'm not fully sure about this proposal, so have some thoughts.
   If I'm not mistaken, this policy's goal is giving more users a more effective way to deal with vandals, since right now non-admins can only undo, rollback and mark for deletion, and therefore have no way to actually stop an ongoing vandal attack.
   The main issue is the low power gap between this and full adminship; therefore, in order to widen said gap, let's see how actually useful would the powers proposed by this policy be.
   - restore: completely unneeded, as regular users cannot delete pages and previous versions of files are kept.
   - delete: not fully needed since pages can be simply blanked and possibly marked for deletion and deleted by an admin later. This means more janitorial work for full admins but is relevant to widen the power gap. I don't see spam pages and files causing actual problems by merely existing, unless they contain illegal material. A truly dedicated vandal could also edit a page more than six times to give it a big history and bypass this. The one use I could see for this is undoing malicious moves (is there another way?).
   - lock: relevant for stopping vandals, but could also be used to stop edit warring which (as I understand this policy) might lie outside the scope of this position. This too could be time-restricted.
   - suspend: definitely the most relevant of all; its proposed implementation seems fine but I wonder if six hours is enough to guarantee an admin's presence for a check.
   Overall this kind of position seems a nice way to help holding back vandals. The "another group of users to never be online" criticism would not hold if the group were large enough and its users were decently distributed along time zones. Which of course is also true for full admins, which leads to Miles's criticism.
   Hope this helps. -Menshay (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

   Oops. Restoring was a leftover from when I copied from the two failed drafts. Let me fix it now... DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 13:14, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

Comments

Bump. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 20:33, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

I've never understood when people say this, it just looks like spam. Also @DekZek, will it be Toomaj deciding or Porplemontage deciding. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 20:40, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Bumping is like a revival of an old conversation. It sort of reminds users that this discussion exists. Serpent∞King (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Oh. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 20:46, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Ganonmew, Toomai is normally the one that checks this stuff. Because of the new usergroup suspended, though, Porplemontage might need to also help with the CSS implementation. DekZek, The creature of your nightmares 21:56, 29 October 2015 (EDT)

Everything doesn't need to be CSS code. (Like HTML, Or Javascript... For example) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:24, 30 October 2015 (EDT)

Bump 2. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 20:51, 4 November 2015 (EST)

At this point, consensus seems split at best and leaning towards oppose at worst. Unless anyone has any other opinions, I think we may have to reject this policy soon. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2015 (EST)