[dismiss]
Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first!
Notices
The Skill parameter has been removed from Smasher infoboxes, and in its place are the new "Best historical ranking" and "Best tournament result" parameters. SmashWiki needs help adding these new parameters to Smasher infoboxes, refer to the guidelines here for what should be included in these new parameters.
When adding results to Smasher pages, include each tournament's entrant number in addition to the player's placement, and use the {{Trn}} template with the matching game specified. Please also fix old results on Smasher pages that do not abide to this standard. Refer to our Smasher article guidelines to see how results tables should be formatted.
Check out our project page for ongoing projects that SmashWiki needs help with.

SmashWiki talk:Junior administrators (version 3)

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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 Dekzeksig-Oct.png 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. INoMedssig.png 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 Dekzeksig-Oct.png 14:52, 23 October 2015 (EDT)

Then vandals would wnd up vandalizing talk pages. INoMedssig.png 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. INoMedssig.png 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)

Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=SmashWiki_talk:Junior_administrators_(version_3)&oldid=747238"