Forum:Let sysops add rollback and custodian rights

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Let sysops add rollback and custodian rights
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 November 2010 by Liquidhelium.

It has come to my attention that sysops don't have the rights to assign rollback and custodian rights. I feel this is needed, as I waited a few days for my RS:RFRB to go through. Since this is a very big wiki, this would be very helpful. (In my own biased way...) --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 16:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话

CLOSED This is not possible. There are very specific reasons that only a few users can assign and remove rights.--Degenret01 17:05, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Reopened - It is possible. Wikia just has to add/change some lines of code in the wiki's setting file. (Rather technical info here.) Wikipedia allows their sysops to add/remove rollback (and a bunch of other groups too). So its not a question of technical possibility, but whether we want it (and whether Wikia will do it but I don't see them refusing if we have consensus). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:37, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Then what rights/abilities would bureaucrats have over sysops? (Apart from giving admin tools) LordDarkPhantom 18:47, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

They would be able to add Administrators, Bureaucrats, Bots and Forum Admins, in addition to the deleterevision right. ʞooɔ 18:54, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't really see the point. The bureaucrats are active enough that the RfCu/RfRbs are taken care of in a reasonable amount of time. 5 days was a little bit extreme to be honest, but that's because the crats are used to having people come to them on their talk page and this kind of thing takes some getting used to. Making admins would expedite the rights assignment, but it does pose a small risk, as the administrators are not used to dealing with rights assignment or anything like that. We are a big wiki, yes, but that doesn't mean we have a lot of RfCu/RfRbs. Certainly the number is small enough that our bureaucrats can take care of them. ʞooɔ 18:54, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Determining if a user is worthy for Rollback/Custodian is, in my mind, less complex than determining consensus. Therefore, I would not have a heart attack if administrators (who are already trusted to determine YG consensus) were entrusted to determine Rollback/Custodian worthiness as well. However, as Cook said, I don't think this change is necessary. I'd rather keep all the usergroup-assigning to the B'Crats. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:38, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While this might allow rights to be assigned slightly faster, our crats are very prompt in assigning rights (usually within 24hrs). I see no problem currently, but it might be of use. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:47, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

See Cook's Comment. It took 5 days, I think. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 19:58, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Aburnett. The main issue I see with this is that we really do not get to many RfCu and RfRb. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 19:53, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While there may be extreme cases where it might take up to a week for crats to assign rights, as far as I know, they're usually done fairly promptly. As Stellercus said, it'd probably be better if we left all usergroup assigning to crats instead of splitting it up. If we were to split it up, the issue of which usergroups sysops are allowed to assign and which usergroups crats are allowed to assign will undoubtedly come up. It would probably be more practical and simpler to keep the current system the way it is. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:18, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Of course this is possible, but it isn't needed. There is a reason why the bureaucrat group was invented. If anything, admins should be allowed to remove users from those groups, but I see no need to have admins be able to add them. ajr 20:45, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

"There is a reason why the bureaucrat group was invented." I'm not arguing with that in the least bit, but please elaborate. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:24, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

NTY - Unnecessary. bad_fetustalk 20:46, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per above. This is not an issue yet. Matt (t) 22:33, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll reconsider when we are swamped with Rollback/custodian requests, but since that is not the case, there is nothing wrong with restricting that to bureaucrats. --LiquidTalk 23:00, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - These jobs are usually taken care of quite quickly and if they weren't we would probably get another crat then let sysops do this. It just easier and neater if only 1 usergroup can assign user rights. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:07, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There isn't any need for this. The b'crats take care of it and there isn't a significant delay. Andrew talk 23:24, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per other opposition. There is no reason to at this current time when few request the tools. It's not like your gonna die of boredom without those tools without immediate retrieval. Ryan PM 23:28, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn - --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 23:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator withdrawal. --LiquidTalk 23:31, November 19, 2010 (UTC)