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)

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)
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)

Neutral

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)