Forum:A new User Group?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > A new User Group?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 August 2012 by TyA.


Being active in the file namespace over 58% of the time, there’s many things I consider. I occasionally come across an image that might need to be deleted, or having to need it merged. Rarely I ask admins to protect a certain file when theres a revert war going on. I’m thinking about a new user group. I haven’t thought of the name yet, so in this thread I’ll refer to it as a File Admin.

I’ve spoken to some of the more active users and asked their opinion about it. I would prefer not to reveal the names, but here’s some key points I’ve found among the many active users I’ve spoken to:

  • Asking for certain admin rights solely for the file namespace purposes might fail.
  • If Custodial rights are a requirement, those specific requirements might have to change.
  • Because sometimes admins either are not available/afk, or are paying attention to something more important than merging or deleting a file, a File Admin would be able to pay attention to that specific field and finish the job.
  • Go for merge, since the technical limitations of delete are unsure, and increase the editcount for the tools if it would be included.
  • Such rights would be handy for an active filemaker as admins are asked often to perform such tasks. However Custodial requirements might have to increase and in addition have to be nominated before they’re deemed trustworthy.
  • If Custodial rights were a requirement, only a few out of the current 53 Custodians would probably be trusted and eligible, and a new user category with few candidates might not do too much good.
  • Even if the thread passes, there’s no gurantee Wikia would consider creating File Admins, or handing out specific sysop rights to non-sysops. However there is a chance that they would make an exception.

The main thing I think is that a File Admin will be able to merge files, semi-protect/fully protect files, and possibly – be able to delete and undelete files, and that being a File Admin might require having Custodial rights, and in addition, have a nomination to be trusted with File Admin rights, but this might be subject to change.

--Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 12:49, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - If we can manage to convince Wikia to allow us to have something like File Admins, I definitely think we should incorporate it. The extra tools would be the mentioned ones, i.e. merging, protecting, moving and possibly (un)deleting files, so in essence a file-only sysop. Having the rank of custardian seems a very logical prerequisite. In addition, I believe users who wish to become file admins should also have some 800 (just to name something) file edits and some 500 mainspace edits. A nomination process like the one for sysops should work out well IMO as it requires to state a reason for becoming file admin. Moreover, file admins have the tools to do some serious damage (all can be undone of course, but that takes time) so we shouldn't just let anyone become one. As for the need, I will use myself as an example. I have personally tagged a lot of speedy-deletion-worthy files, considerably more than articles, and, while a sysop usually deletes them within five minutes, I have seen those files not being deleted for, and I am not exaggerating, hours. I check Special:NewFiles more than Special:NewPages (simply because it has more activity) and I have often wished to have the tools to delete those files right away, instead of waiting for a sysop to do it. Because, after all, there are more important jobs and sometimes there are just very few or even no sysops active at the time.

So, in a nutshell, this should be done with a nomination process, requirements set in stone and I can see the need for it because I have often wanted to just delete crap images myself (to name something) rather than tag them ask busy sysops to delete/undelete/merge/etc. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:08, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support - ^ Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 17:26, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I like that idea. — Jr Mime (talk) 17:31, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Support - As nominator's Q/A or something. Also, I do agree that we should have a Requests for File Admin thing. Hair 17:33, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I asked [[w:User:Trellar|Trellar]] that it is possible to do, and she said it was possible to do. Implemented, I don't know... but it is possible. Hair 17:57, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I probably have no real stance on this, but I do have three suggestions, one less serious than the others:

1 - Filesop = Pro name
2 - No new RfFA page, I don't see why this can't be run the normal RfA page (Dunno if a new requests page ever came to mind, I'm just sayin)
3 - Filesopship should be held in a way similar to b'cratship for an admin in that a user must have been a successful, active custodian before they get nominated

That's all I'll probably have to say. MolMan 18:28, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Okay, here goes... First of all, what you're describing is an administrator. ._. If you want to be able to move/delete/protect/whatever, why not just become an admin so you could do even more things and help in even more areas? Second, I don't think I could trust anyone who just wants to do files with the admin tools. Most, if not all, of the people who I know would go for such a usergroup are too immature to become full-fledged admins, and therefore would resort to something like a file admin - which doesn't help considering they would still be too immature to be a file admin too... Edit wars resulting in protection to the file admin's preference, wars over a bad file to delete, undeleting crap that the file admin wants but other admins know isn't a useful file or whatever. If you want admin tools, become an admin. Spanning it out to a file admin or other usergroups like that just makes things muddy. I don't understand why these people just don't run an RfA. The majority of what I did was file maintenance and I became an admin. <.< sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:53, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I don't see what the point is. If you want those rights, go ahead and have a RfA, there is absolutely no point in seperating those tools. By that logic, we should have Blockers, Protecters, Mergers, Splitters, Deleters, Movers etc. bad_fetustalk 20:01, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no way to separate the usage of delete for Files from everything else, same for the rest of the requests for this group. I'd rather have sysops as it would be an annoyance to have a sysop grill a 'file admin' because they used ?action=delete outside of the file namespace. Anyone that needs those rights will get them in RfA as this boils down to the same agenda. The sysop group right is fine for those activities and it's fine to not use the other group rights supplied to the sysop group if you, and anyone else, wish to only maintain files. If you want support for a request of sysop rights, you don't have to ask. Ryan PM 20:41, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

You could use an abusefilter - it's what we do at the Call of Duty Wiki for one of our user groups.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kerri Amber/s.js 21:52, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - If you have a need for administrative tools, run an RfA, not some half-assed copy where hopefully the standards will be more lax. Ronan Talk 21:02, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - It seems to me that it is admins who oppose and custodians who support. The current situation seems similar to a previous thread over a year ago. I suggested this because I often encounter files that need to be merged or deleting and it'd be far more convenient for me if I were able to just perform those tasks instead of nagging an admin to do so for me. I did not consider nominating for adminship beforehand because although I do believe I would be trusted with such rights, I most likely would not use the other rights available as an admin as much as merge and delete, since the majority of what I do here is plainly image maintenance. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 22:53, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Me and flay are not sysops. Also, feel free to request admin rights for image maintenance. bad_fetustalk 02:31, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose mainly on technical grounds, unless Wikia/MediaWiki can do this properly - I had an issue with RSW image renamer: the wiki forgot to recreate revision histories for images when there was a database timeout, and even made a 404 (HTTP File Not Found) out of an image, making it unavailable and need to be reloaded. These "deletions" were really the result of moves. Admins are even unable to move files to their correct names if a file was uploaded to the new name, at any time since the wiki's creation. And yet sometimes a file merge needs a re-upload of the most recent revision because the revision order messes up and the most recent revision isn't shown in articles. There's also an upload bug documented at RuneScape:Bugs#Wikia upload bug. All of this makes me wary of implementing the usergroup as it is, because it'd rest on shaky code.

There's also an issue of permission granularity, which would require new permissions to be created to delete-file, hide-file-revision, and so on, which would only give File namespace administration rights. This would take development time at Wikia, and would require them to keep track of new core changes to MediaWiki, which may be too core-dependent to make into an extension. Wikia would need to push changes to MediaWiki and/or work with them to test the changes and ensure the permission would be well-supported by future versions.

Which wikis would use this? Is it worth the development time? Who would be a file admin here? Would there also be file bureaucrats/oversighters, with the hide-file-revision permission to remove e.g. harmful or offensive image revisions when a real bureaucrat or revdel isn't around? What would be the benefit of file admins over regular administrators? (I am a custodian and I approve this message.)

 a proofreader ▸ 

00:17, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

For Wikia, development isn't hard at all. Basically, they open the source of the runescape wiki, and add ~4 variables indicating that there is a new right "File admin". If you see the third example on here, they added the new user group "ninja" which incorporates a few admin capabilities. It only took 3 lines. So, for them to create this file admin, the effort for them to do this, isn't anything. Hair 14:03, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
It won't only take 3 lines though. For instance, file delete and article delete are both under 'Delete', which means they can't just add 'File delete' in a similar sense to your example because it's non-existant. Proofie's point is perfectly valid. bad_fetustalk 22:09, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
Creating a usergroup with different existing permissions is easy. Creating a set of file-* permissions (because those don't exist yet) and then the usergroup is not. (The exception to this is that there's already a permission to move files, which was implemented in MediaWiki because moving files is more touchy than moving articles.)  a proofreader ▸  00:01, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose on all grounds - What is being suggested is a parallel adminship for the File namespace. As if there is something special about the File namespace. There isn't, and the apparent urgency to delete files is completely unfounded. In fact, deletion of mainspace articles demands far greater urgency. Nobody will see files unless they are watching Recent Changes or click on an image link in an article. On the other hand, one can search for a page using the Search function. Is it time to propose a Mainspace admin user group then? Moral of the story - if you want administrator privileges, request to join the sysop usergroup, it isn't that scary. 222 talk 06:45, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Ignoring the technical aspects as to whether wikia would/could allow it or not, this just seems illogical. Apart from the ability to merge files, these abilities should all require consensus to receive, and even then, you need delete to merge files anyway. If someone was to pass consensus to receive these tools, it would be very unlikely that they would fail a real RfA. So if consensus was required to become a "file admin" I wouldn't have a problem, but I would certainly find that very illogical and useless. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:33, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Initially I liked the idea, but reading through the opposes above it does seem more sensible to nominate someone through a RfA if they do enough image maintenance that might render deletion tools useful to them. Using them for such a narrow purpose would probably apply to a half a dozen users, which doesn't seem overly useful to me. cqm 02:12,4/8/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose - I see no need for it. All this stuff can easily be done by an admin, and it's done quickly. I do a {{D|Example deletion}} and the file is deleted in an hour. Anything that a file admin can do is already done by admins already. Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:24, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well, usually, but when I did that a couple of days ago, the image remained for hours... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:33, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, some precious image waiting to be deleted isn't some kind of emergency that requires sysops to respond within minutes. There's nothing wrong with the file sitting there for a few hours. 222 talk 07:26, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Hence the handiness of fadmins. They could delete the file right away while the sysops do something more important. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:00, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't even make sense. It's not like sysops have millions of things to do per minute. bad_fetustalk 14:09, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Questions - Could someone please give me a list of candidates for this usergroup? If this is a suggestion to create a usergroup for 2-3 users, I don't think it's worth it. I personally can't think of more than 2 users that could be trusted enough with this, who would actually need it. Also, to clarify, this tool only works in File namespace, and not in other namespaces, right? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to makes it just for the File namespace, yes. Ronan Talk 17:42, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
So, does anyone have a list of users who could be candidates for this usergroup? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:53, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Should the nomination process be applied, users who want it can nominate themselves. Currently, while looking at the list of custodians, I think the following will want these rights (note: if your name is not here or is here unwillingly, don't kill me, this is just what I think based on file edits and activity): Spine (how'd I guess that), me, Coel, Athe, Exor Solieve, Sword Frog. I know it's a short list but these people (and others) are doing the most image maintenance (not even counting uploads) that aren't sysops and would benefit from this proposal. I bet there are more people who'd nominate themselves. Don't flame me now, I just replied to your list request. :P User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:19, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
I think a list of 6 users is not enough for a new usergroup. Also, Atheist has less than 300 file edits, so I don't think he'd pass a request to be in this group. And a usergroup for 5 users is definetely not enough. I oppose getting this new usergroup. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:35, August 22, 2012 (UTC)
Why do you think those people can pass a request for file admin but not a request for adminship? They'd practically have the same requirements in the first place, I don't see why they can't just go become sysops. bad_fetustalk 14:38, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Fergie basically said it all. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:39, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I Agree --Henneyj 18:57, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There isn't consensus to implement a new usergroup. All of the candidates that were mentioned for the role as file sysop are invited to run an RfA. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:20, August 22, 2012 (UTC)