Forum:Bureaucrat discussion/Giving rights to admins
The idea of making all admins 'crats, or just giving certain rights to all admins has come up a few times. So the 4 ideas that came up are:
- Making all admins become bureaucrats.
- Let admins assign rollback and custodian rights.
- Remove the 'crat usergroup and select around 5 admins to close tool requests.
- Do nothing.
Support 1&2 - Per my comment earlier, and #3 is simply making 5 admins into 'crats, without calling them crats.00:37, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Support 2 - As Ajr said, admins can already give out the chatmoderator user right, so it would make sense to allow them the ability to assign rollback and custodian. However, as for making all admins into crats, my concern about that is that somebody may decide to sysop somebody else without approval which can cause problems which can only be undone by other sysops eg excessive page protection. They can assign chatmod rights but the power of a chatmod extends only to the chat, not the whole wiki00:56, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- I think if an admin were to sysop another user without consensus, it would be reverted very swiftly, potentially before the user could even do anything, and consequences for the admin and the user if they abused the rights would ensure. I can see where your coming from, but I feel that your concern is unneeded. Matt (t) 01:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Well if we didn't for 1, then what makes it different to 2? 01:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Support 2, weak oppose 1 - Per all. Matt (t) 08:17, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
VERY STRONG OPPOSE 1. Neutral/support on 2.1 and oppose 2.2. Oppose 3. This thread is a colossal textwall contest and I seriously cannot be bothered to read the entire damn thing, but what in blazes has given people the idea that removing the bureaucrat usergroup is a good thing? (This is not a rhetorical question.) Crats have the power to assign/remove adminship to/from users. This is an extremely dangerous power that should not be given out to all administrators. Remember when Ikin compromised Chicken7's account a couple months ago? Had he been a bureaucrat, she would have been able to inflict exponentially more damage to the wiki (disregarding the eventual intervention of Wikia staff).
Seriously, someone explain to me exactly what is broken about this system wherein users who are granted the massive power of cratship are elected with a separate Rf*. The power to assign usergroups should remain with people who are actually trusted with it, and while most of our admins are great, I do not support unilaterally assigning all sysops crat powers. Not, at least, without severely tightening the standards for RfAs, as well as reevaluations for every single existing sysop... and if you do this, what's the point of abolishing the bureaucrat usergroup in the first place?
I don't care if admins can assign rollback because rollback is difficult to abuse, and if someone does abuse rollback, it's easily corrected. I'm on the fence about custodian, because I can imagine situations wherein custodian abuse would cause harm to the wiki (for example, if someone moved an image that's featured on the main page). But assigning administratorship and bureaucractship? No. No, no, NO. Keep those powers with the select few crats where they belong. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- When Ikin hacked Chicken's account she could have done far worse with sysop tools than with crat tools, since any bureaucrat action can be reverted with one click. On the contrary, she could have used the abusefilter-revert right in the sysop group to undo all vandalism prevention by a filter and added thousands of cases of undetectable vandalism into our articles. The argument of bureaucrat rights having a high potential for abuse compared to sysop is so untrue it is almost laughable. ajr 05:57, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Do Nothing We have crats for a reason. To give out crat powers to everyone is a problem waiting to happen. Just look at the 5? times Admins have gone off the reservation. Now imagine that with someone who had more control. Crats were RFB for a reason, and we should keep it that way. Atlandy 01:29, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- They could do far more damage with just sysop tools (example, abusefilter-revert). The potential for abuse argument is really silly and opposers should start focussing on actual fact, like their inability to trust all admins with closing RfAs. ajr 05:59, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Poor logic once again. You are saying that crats have the same power as admins. They were made crats for a reason, trust. I would however let the people who the community has agreed in that posistion of trust the ability to close RFAs Atlandy 01:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Mr. Raddatz, that is not true. If Ikin had control of a bureaucrat account, and decided to make random users or her bots administrators and bureaucrats, and start randomly deleting or messing with stuff, we cannot stop her. It would take Wikia staff to come in and remove the bureaucrat usergroup. That is something I would really really REALLY like to avoid. --LiquidTalk 02:07, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Do Nothing - Per Andorin and Atlandy.01:36, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose 1 and 3, neutral 2 - Simply put I don't trust all sysops to close RfAs. While sysops can close RfCMs, you don't need to look very hard to realize that RfAs are often much more contentious and without a clear decision. It adds an extra wrinkle to supporting new admins that would mean fewer sysops in the long run. Number three just makes no sense, as those people would be bureaucrats, and the thread used to decide our bureaucrats would be RfBs in everything but name. I am fine either way with letting sysops grant custodian and rollback rights, as there's little chance for harm (there are set guidelines) and a bureaucrat is just as likely to give the tools to someone with a bad agenda. On the other hand it wouldn't really make a positive difference besides maybe a couple fewer hours on those requests. ʞooɔ 01:44, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
(conflict)Strong support 2 - I have my concerns with 1, giving 67 users the ability to sysop and de-sysop seems to be an unnecessary risk. The level of oversight between admins is a lot lower nowdays, we even have periods without any sysops around. Proposal 2 would be an excellent change, per Ajr. It makes sense to allow them to grant these similar rights. Also, the abuse possible with these rights is extremely low, and borders on an inconvenience rather than a risk. Moving an image featured on the main page? Nothing dangerous could occur from that, aside from a few visitors seeing a red file link. Also, with sysops able to grant and remove such rights, any abuse will be stopped much faster. 222 talk 02:00, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose 1 and 3. Neutral on 2 iff staff are willing to make the appropriate changes. See my comment in the previous section. Dtm142 02:14, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Staff will make the necessary changes if we decide to allow sysops to grant rollback and custodian rights. ʞooɔ 03:22, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose 1 and 3 - Is this for current sysops or for all future sysops? You guys do realize, that if all future sysops were given the bureaucrat right too, then only staff can remove that? That would compound any bad RfA ruling severalfold. If it was only for the current sysops, then that would effectively create a two-tiered system, and I would wholeheartedly oppose that.
Comment - I'm not entirely sure why we are having a multitude of proposals in a single discussion rather than separate threads, but I'll roll with it. Personally, I do not trust myself or most other administrators to give out judgement on a request for the sysop group right, let alone make it where Wikia Staff must come in to revert problematic UserRight issues. I do not support points one and three of this section. That is the only problem I see, staff shouldn't get too involved in this community as much as has been done to similar wikis like Glee and the Muppet wiki.
I support the addition of sysops being capable of assigning Rollback and Custodian group rights since they are not consensus orientated but checked upon set specifications. I would like to see DeleteRevision in the sysop group instead of just the bureaucrats, but Wikia and past consensus dictates otherwise. Ryan PM 12:17, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
Granted, if sysops were able to give out rollback/custodian rights, they'd likely know the applicant better, and be better able to make this judgment call. But, do we really want to push the limits for rollback/custodian? This is one area that I can anticipate a future wheel war (albeit unlikely), should someone borderline be given the rights.
The possible solutions are to just have all sysops apply the hard limits with no bending whatsoever, to get quick approval from some different people, or, to do nothing and hope that nothing bad happens, which, in all honesty, it probably won't. I just want to throw this out there, so that we're aware of this nuance. --LiquidTalk 04:36, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose 1, Support 2 - Where bureaucrats stand out from sysops, to me, is not necessarily the trust to use the extra tools, but to be a correct person that is able to analyze and judge on RfA's. I have no doubt that all the current sysops could use the extra tools, and not abuse them. But I know that there are admins that I would not trust with closing RfA's or making those type of judgement calls. Although I do believe the current admins would be able to handle assigning rollback and custodian rights. It's not like it's going to go unnoticed if a sysop assigns rights to a user that totally shouldn't have them. 09:35, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
Support 4 and 2 - Oh, c'mon. I've never recognised any issues. There are thousands of other wikis out there, including Wikipedia, that function fine with the same system as ours... Chicken7 >talk 14:08, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's userrights system is very similar to ours, but they do in fact allow sysops to assign rollback and filemover (custodian) rights. This is what's being proposed in item 2. Dtm142 20:40, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
Support 2 - As per Matthew. Rollback and custodian rights have very little risk and honestly, do we not trust our admins? While I can't say I always agree with some positions (that applies to everything though), I do trust them. RfA's are incredibly strict and difficult to pass these days, so I'm sure we can trust our admins to be able to apply such basic rights. Hofmic Talk 01:40, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
Strong Support 2 or 4, Strong Oppose 3, Oppose 1 - Simply put, rollback flags aren't a big deal by any stretch of the imagination, the only real form of abuse possible coming from Special:MultipleUpload. I'm not overly sure where the abuse begins with Custodian flags, but with the exception of image deletion I'm pretty sure it's not much worse than rollback. Smuff [cite your sources or die] 02:18, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Custodians can move files and move pages without automatically creating redirects. Not a whole lot of abuse possible with that. Matt (t) 02:21, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
- On a side note, Custodians cannot delete images *slaps on another speedy deletion template*. Hofmic Talk 08:00, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Support 2 and 4, Strong Oppose Others - I like 2 because I don't see the harm in handing out such harmless tools like custodian and rollback, but I don't think that wikia will ever go for that, so I also like 4. ɳex undique 02:30, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
- They will allow it if we have consensus to do so. ʞooɔ 02:34, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Bitchin', so I'm all for it. ɳex undique 02:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - (posting this down here because it probably wouldn't have been seen in the above section) Knowledge I really wanted to gain from this thread was what the community wants from bureaucrats at the current point in time. What do we honestly expect from them? Are they users who have seen to be outstandingly mature, etc., or are they something else? Tied in with that, what does a user have to posses to pass a RFB? At the current point in time I don't see any real standard of what makes a bureaucrat. This is something I have always wondered because I have never really been involved with either bureaucrats or RFB's. Matt (t) 01:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Strong Oppose 1, 3; Neutral 2, 4 - 1, 3 per above. (If 1 does pass, can we rename the group "Administrats"?) I don't see any harm in allowing Admins to assign users to those two groups, though at the same time, I don't see much necessity for extending that ability beyond 'crats.16:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose 1 and 3, Neutral on 2 - Options 1 and 3 simply make me laugh to myself when I read them. Over the course of this Wiki's short, yet interesting, history, there have been more than a handful of rogue ranks that, if they had more power, would have done more than just put this community on its knees had Wikia not eventually intervened. Heck, we have a short snippet in the Admins list page (I believe) of ranks who have lost their rank to either stepping down or losing it for abusing their powers. I know that the b'crats aren't as active as they should be, but the rank requires maturity, which usually only comes with age, and with age comes more responsibilities. Although we'd all love to have a b'crat on at all times, it simply is illogical to think there ever will be a fair majority of the time. Removing the Crat usergroup would yield horrendous results if an sysop went power crazy (not saying any would, but let's keep all options open). If a rogue sysop had the tool to derank, and derank all of the other sysops that were online at the time, there would be nothing anyone could do until Wikia stepped in if the rogue went on for long enough. tl;dr Although b'crats aren't the speediest of people, they are necessary, and if we need a new one to pick up slack, try to elect someone to do so. Chaos Monk Talk • Sign 01:36, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - Proposal number 2 received considerable support, and Wikia has been contacted with this request. It seems Wikia is on board with this idea, so admins will from now on possess the ability to add and remove rollback and custodian rights. Suppa chuppa 05:04, January 11, 2012 (UTC)