SmashWiki talk:SmashWiki Status System/Archive 1

This is my attempt to bring in a policy that restricts userspace/forum editing during busy times while retaining the "loose" atmosphere we have. The gist is that when business is slow, we don't care that much if you play in your userspace - we'll still tell people to not do it and lock those who do it excessively, but in the end it doesn't hurt us. When there's a need to do work, though - a situation we all know will happen within the next year or so when SSB4 information starts to come out - then we get more strict on living in userspace and forums. Bulbapedia does similar to this - they're currently restricting userspace edits to one a day since B2/W2 came out (though their reason is more of server load).

I do think we really need a general userspace restriction policy of some sort - we're the biggest NIWA wiki that doesn't currently have one, and I want to have something in place before we need one (i.e. next info deluge). But I don't want to just suddenly say to the wiki "alright you get 5 userspace edits a day now" or something, because people dislike change, and this proposal allows us to impose restrictions when needed while backing off when not.

I am generally open to change suggestions about anything in this proposal, but bring them up here before you edit the proposal itself. Once the proposal is ironed out, then there will be a vote on the final result on a separate page (for clearness). Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 16:38, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

Shwido's fabulous proposal

Well I reckon any userspace edit that has a grammatical error within it should be undone and the user in question should be permabanned.

...what.

...no seriously.

OK, ya got meh. I like this proposal due to this wiki always picking up more traffic every month, even when SSB4 was announced we got immense traffic, when the game is released it's more than likely that the shit will hit the fan. I am Supporting this proposal due to it being very lenient, being a proactive policy that'll help monitor the wiki (there are examples of this becoming and issue in other NIWA wikis), and because in the past there have been a multitude of userpage edits without the use of the preview button.--Shwido ^.^ 20:46, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

I support, too. And just for the record, because it annoys me: on a Wiki, the correct term is "blocked", not "banned", and it's "indefinitely blocked", not "perma-banned". RickTommy (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2012 (EDT)

Support: This is an excellent idea for when traffic starts skyrocketing when more news of SSB4 is revealed. Unknown the Hedgehog 00:48, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Support: I ♥ this proposal--Bandit 00:55, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I have nothing more to add other than that I support this. Toast ltimatum 09:05, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I will have to agree on this because there are times like this, as Shwido said. Dots The PSI Asian 10:25, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Sudden urge to support. ShupaRoeh 22:46, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

I think this is a great idea, I support this. A bunch. The Cheese 20:03, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I see lots of potential benefits and I don't see anything wrong with it. I guess I'll support. Air Conditioner File:Accoolx.png 10:03, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

No reason not to Support. BlindColours 10:23, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

This proposal has my support. Blue Ninjakoopa^(Talk) 10:36, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

You know what, I'm gonna agree with this, so I support this. Smash Master 20:02, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

One thing that could be considered...

Closer to the time, once more and more edits about SSB4 come around, Extension:Patroller could be installed. This adds the red exclamation marks next to unpatrolled edits in recent changes. Then admins, and possibly rollback (if you give them the patroller user right) could then check the edits and make sure they are not stupid. It wouldn't limit the amount of stupid edits but it would make it easier to identify the stupid edits. Also, an autopatrolled right could be given to trusted users. Just a suggestion anyway, one that Wikisimpsons uses anyway (and it works pretty well there). The Solar Dragon ^{(Talk - Contribs.)} 08:05, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I didn't realize we didn't already have this, I support installing it, and at the same time, I would like to become a patroller. On the wikis I am an administrator, I always check and then patrol new edits, and being autoconfirmed myself would be a relief for everyone else. Toast ltimatum 09:04, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

We actually already have this patrol thing, based on the number of "!"s in the recent changes. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 10:29, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

I thought that normal users were supposed to see them too... :S Well, closer to the time, it might be wise to add the patroller right to Rollbacks too so that they can patrol edits as well as admins, as there will be a large amount of edits coming through then. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 17:53, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Branches

I have not yet seen any discussion over which of the two branches is better. Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 15:40, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I choose Branch 1. It is more simple. Branch 2 is too complicated.--ShupaRoeh 16:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I should probably note that I much prefer branch 2 despite its complexity, as it allows non-admins to have a say. Toomai Glittershine The Spark 20:12, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

To be honest, even if we choose Option 2, I'm expecting the system to turn into Option 1, I would predict only staff would want to change it. And because of this, I see little point in trying to teach non-staff members how to do it, and we may as well just go with Option 1. Toast ltimatum 20:38, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I disagree. I'm sure several active non-admins would be interested in participating, and even if it's primarily used by admins, having the option for non-staff to be involved helps enforce the idea that admins are not kings. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 19:12, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

I like option 2 because it means that administrators won't have to be constantly checking the activity level; they can just check the percentage level as it changes and make judgments from there and the activity level. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 20:03, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

I think option 2 should be used, but the line, "Can be done once every 24 hour and no more than once in a row in 48 hours", is confusing. Does this mean once a day, once ever other day, or something else? ScoreCounter (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

it means that if you change the percentage, you can't do it for the next day. ShupaRoeh 13:47, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

So wouldn't it be easier to say once every 48 hours, for clarity?ScoreCounter (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Oppose

Unnecessary bureaucracy is unnecessary. Front page and community central, along with the to-do list should have this covered. If more attention is needed to a particular sector, it can be highlighted using the sitenotice. If high activity requires monitoring of userspace and forum areas, we can discuss that when we are in a point where that needs to be discussed. As far as I can see, we have not reached such a point yet. Because this system is unnecessary, I oppose it. Mr. Anontalk 17:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

I just realized that this wiki has a grand total of 1 heavily active admin. I now support the policy. Mr. Anontalk 17:15, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

What are the restrictions?

Am I missing something here? Have they not been decided upon yet or am I just too stupid to find them? DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER}

Yeah okay that can do with some elaboration. I'll go put that in. Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 21:51, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

They same a bit vague, but I'm assuming that's because they'll be decided on a situation-by-situation basis. Overall, though, they don't seem unreasonable or too restrictive and I now feel comfortable supporting this proposal. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:36, 6 August 2012 (EDT)