Forum:User rights

Forums: Index > Village Dump > User rights

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4656 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Wouldn't it be cool if rollbackers could also view deleted history (as in, see who contributed to a deleted page, how big the revisions were, that kind of thing, though without actually being able to hack anything up) and ignore rate limits with moves and things? And maybe move files, that'd be pretty useful, too.

Because we trust our rollbackers, don't we? 1234 ~ 05:49, 3 February 2012

That would be. Don't count on it though :D ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:06, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's trivial to set up. We just need an overwhelming show up support to get Wikia to do it! Possibly. 1234 ~ 06:08, 3 February 2012

I suppose rollbacks is currently only a tiny amount of power, and in the minds of the bureaucrats, maybe thats a good thing but maybe this is a good idea. Maybe (even though this idea could suck horribly) you create another user group all together with said more power O_o, but then again that could be quite unnecessary and stuff. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:16, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory vote

Score: +12

• For -- The Zombiebaron 16:38, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, it'd make them more able to do certain maintenance and the like, and also less generally annoying to the admins (probably). 1234 ~ 16:57, 3 February 2012
• Yes, provided we also have a reassessment of the current list of rollbackers. Prune the old shit. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:12, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

  Please don't talk about <insert name here> that way. Mister Victim (talk) 05:27, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

•  Yes Mister Victim (talk) 05:27, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 05:56, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. It will bring me closer to my goal of overall domination, I'm also for trimming the list of users, removing those that haven't edited in years and giving them to more active users (regardless if they want it or not, set 'em to work damnit! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:04, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
• For Makes sense, if it is doable. Pup 02:57 04 Feb '12
• For Rollbackers ain't too dumb. Mattsnow 15:01, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know what this means, but people seem to like it. Cake? Aleister 17:55 4-2-'`13

  It means you don't have to ask an admin to restore deleted stuff into your userspace any more. Pup 12:16 05 Feb '12

  No it doesn't. What part of not 'being able to hack anything up' did you not understand? 1234 ~ 02:03, 5 February 2012

  Copy + paste -- The Zombiebaron 02:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

  But if you could do that, you might as well be able to hack it up directly. The developers ain't dumb. Well, some of them aren't, anyway. At least, not entirely. Can view deleted history entries but not view the actual revisions of deleted pages, anyway, as wikipedia put it. 1234 ~ 02:31, 5 February 2012

  Oh, well then that's not as useful as I thought it was. -- The Zombiebaron 02:52, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

  Well if people are just gonna use it to undelete pages via copy paste, unless they're putting it back into their userspace to work on, just remove their rights for abusing them? ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 03:09, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

• Overwealming support! --ShabiDOO 23:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
•  For. --EMC ^[TALK] 15:45 Feb 6 2012
• Abstain. I think that having Rollback is enough... I would rather article writing was the focus and less janitorial stuff.--Sycamore (Talk) 23:05, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
• What Sycamore said. --ChiefjusticePS3 13:25, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional There's no reason to have access to deleted history, but the ability to move anything is probably pretty safe. Mind you, I seem to recall it being a royal pain to reverse such messes. The big risk would be a rogue rollbacker with a bot wreaking havoc while we're all intently watching a major spectator event hoping for a wardrobe malfunction. Mmm... Tight tight-ends. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2012.02.08.07:36

Another idea

Could be dumb, but here goes. How about we don't alter the rollback group and instead create another group. Turn your attention to Encyclopedia Dramatica, they don't have rollback they have an editor group and they have more power than rollbackers do, but significantly less than admins. Why not just fork that into a user group that can: Protect pages, Edit protected pages and normal rollback rights (you may as well add anything else to that short list that we'd have a use for, such as the suggested view deleted revisions). They still cannot edit MediaWiki, modify user JavaScript files except their own, delete pages and block users from editing. Any takers on this idea, seeing as we can then give rollback for users that lack experience / trust issues and this other group for users that more or less know what they are doing. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 03:09, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Protecting pages and editing protected pages should be kept to users that have had community support to have that authority (ie Admins). Undeleting pages is something many editors can do via round-about methods already - mirror wiki, pages saved offsite, taking stuff from google cache, asking a current admin, etc. Rollback and undelete are similar in style, and make sense to be bundled together, so the initial proposal has a logical drift to it. And I've never had a fondness for ED and the way they manage their site. The quality of articles is lower than what we have here in the most part, and some admin type decisions have been made in arrogance rather than with wiki growth in mind. Pup 04:03 05 Feb '12

I agree with everything you're saying, except that the admins have the support of the community. They were nominated by the community, it was their fellow admins who selected them. --ShabiDOO 18:09, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The community vote for various users, and then there is an admin vote at the end. The admins get a choice between only a few people nominated by the community, so no-one can become an admin without community support. Pup 10:39 06 Feb '12

Countries should elect their presidents that way. The population could nominate a few people and then a group of elite leaders could pick whichever one they feel like picking. Also, an invisible man in the sky is always listening to you and will often make your wishes come true, especially if you ask on Sundays after repeatedly telling him how great he is. Some people have a three letter name for him, but I call him the boogey-moo-moo. --ShabiDOO 22:57, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is one country that already uses this system. They call it the electoral college or something. -- The Zombiebaron 23:02, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your country "Canada" is more like that Zombie. The Prime Minister in power has the final say on who becomes a senators, who are apointed for life. Wasn't that system supposed to be changed by the current Prime Minister? Its a mysterious coincidence that he's not doing anything about it, and that he has a majority in the Senate that he can never lose.

Maybe that system does need to be changed. I'll pray to the invisible man in the sky, I assume he's always listening to me ... maybe my wish will be granted if I ask him not just on Sundays but EVERY day of the week! ;) --ShabiDOO 23:31, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

You could instead have a system where the candidates are chosen by a shadowy cabal, and then the people vote for the person who is part of a party that has put forward the least dislikeable candidate. We could call it Westminister system. Pup 12:14 07 Feb '12

Or we could wait for the guy with the most charisma, people skills, intelect and guns and a willingness to use those guns whenever necessary to completely take over the whole country until the entire culture becomes totally psychotic by murdering entire sub-cultures, reverting to canibalism climaxing with citizens crying and screaming for two months after their leader who torchered them through fear and wounds, dies. Now...who of the admins here at uncyclopedia best fits that description? --ShabiDOO 00:53, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The system that Puppy proposes is similar to something we've done in the past. For example, during the VFS when I was elected, the admins first had a nomination period, where they nominated users and voted on them, and then the users with the highest scores were voted on by the entire community. Also, Shabidoo, the Canadian senate changes over time. Before Stephen Harper was elected Prime Minister we had had several years of Liberal party governments and the senate at the time reflected that. -- The Zombiebaron 01:22, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly had no intention of getting into a "which western country has the best/worst electoral system". The Canadian one seems to work more or less as its a fairly rich country and more or less has human rights respected and they don't let anyone freeze to death in the gutter if they can help it. So on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of humanism, Id give the country a 7.5 which is probably about as high as you can get on the scale these days, and one of the highest rating the world has ever seen. So either they're doing something right, or they are very very lucky. And for those who like pop-pop-pop music theres always: Avril Levigne, Celine Dion, Bryan Adams, Shenia Twain!? Who could ask for more?

Which system do you prefer Zombie? Admins nominate, community chooses? Community nominates, admins choose? The entire community participates equally throughout the whole process? --ShabiDOO 01:49, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I like the admin-nominate entire-community-vote system and think we should give it another chance, if only once. -- The Zombiebaron 01:53, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I respect your stance, and Im sure it worked well when you are selected (you being user of the year and all, deservedly so)...but I feel just as sure that the community is quite capable of nominating good users to become admins, no less than the capability of admins only, and that the entire community is quite capable of selecting amongst those nominees for an admin, just as capable as the admins acting on their own motives and reasons. --ShabiDOO 18:12, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Scrap the rollback group and create editor ones instead

Oh wait. Then we would have less articles than Citizendium. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 07:23, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Semi-related issue

Wikipedia at one stage (and possibly still) did not allow the creation of articles by non-registered users. Conservapedia doesn't allow edits by IPs (by fervently reverting any edits made by them). I wonder if we should do something similar and stop IPs from creating articles, and non-auto confirmed users creating in any space that is not userspace. This would stop a lot of the QVFD quality articles being created, and encourage people who want to edit to create accounts, while still leaving content open for "anyone can edit". (Assuming all this is technically feasible.) Does anyone have a reason as to why this wouldn't be a good idea? Pup 09:17 07 Feb '12

NEVER

--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:54, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

You never object? Pup 12:10 07 Feb '12

Increasing the size doesn't clarify the argument, btw. Pup 12:19 07 Feb '12

Wikipedia still doesn't. I just went there as an IP, just minding my own business, and tried to create "Jed Clampett's wallet". They told me that I could request it. Request it? Like someone else will care to research and reference and write "Jed Clampett's wallet". Maybe I'll write it here, and would need good graphics, or maybe I'll request it there. IP's eat donkey brains. Then again, there's Fischer Price, and Absolute Power, which wikipedia would have not created either. Aleister 11:29 7-2-'12

Just for you Pup 12:08 07 Feb '12

Thanks. Makes me proud to be a TV viewer. Since you can fix things on wikipedia, would you be a kind red link and put in the third rule of uncy, "Dance like you've never danced before" in the Uncyclopedia page, maybe linked to the rules page here to prove to the anal editors that typing exists. This has wandered off the question of should IP's create pages here. That's all. Alek 12:29 7-2-'12

I'll get to it. Given the revert war I had just to get the mother loving SOPA reference back in there, it might take a while to tweak that article to what I was looking for. Also planning to add the extra projects/namespaces in there as well. Pup 12:44 07 Feb '12

They tried to revert the SOPA protest? Weird. Some people will revert anything. Thanks, I didn't know you were working on the page. You are a Puppy in the window for sure. Aleister 12:18 7-2-'12

NEVER Let's just patrol Recent Changes. Nothing difficult there. We sometimes spot good IP edits, and I'm sure all of us started our experience here by first editing as IPs before becoming addicts and sniffing a line of Uncy each morning. Mattsnow 13:18, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

PS my brain was malfunctioning, as I thought I read to ban ALL IP edits. I agree that IPs shouldn't CREATE articles. Good brainwave here Puppy, as I don't remember one article created by an IP being good. I'm all agreeing with you and stuff. Mattsnow 14:38, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

No very bad idea, why? Noobs ill get discouraged and never bother to learn to write articles, QVFDing articles takes a few seconds and when we could potentially get great noobs and writers, I see it as a minor draw back. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:02, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

That must be why Wikipedia has been struggling over the last 5 years. QVFDing diesn't take a few seconds. It relies in the majority of the active userbase being almost constantly on the lookout for new IP articles and deleting them. Given that we have a small active userbase that would be better utilised actually creating good content, then I can see a definite advantage behind it. Besides, a good article will usually take a number of revisions and rewrites to get into shape. We even had a competition once that showed even many experienced authors couldn't write an article in an hour that would survive VFD. Given that a good article takes a bit of dedication, and the creation of an account shows the smallest amount of that, I see no issue. Especially when they can still edit existing articles. Pup 03:41 08 Feb '12

I loved that one hour competition. It's where fun grows. A drawback is that lots of our "classic" in-joke pages would have been not there if IP's didn't write them, and the pages that the 92 vandal would have been not there and so many of my laughs would have gone unlaughed (some pages too, I've got a few that built on IP vandal pages). The good things about banning IP pages is the time saved and the attack-on-friends that some of them do would be lessened (I imagine they put up a "Jim is a homo hahahaha suck my dick or is ugly" and then they photocopy it and give it to Jim. Hahahaha. Those were the days.). The whole thing rests on if the admins and others who have to put up QVFD pages want this new idea to pass. Ten of my sockpuppets are IP's, so this will put a crimp in my style. Aleister 12:27 8-2-'12

Wait what? Surely that entire post is in jest.

1. The only articles that failed in the 1 hour contest were clearly jokes or purely conceptual, and even a handful of those survived. This point is irrelevant, anyway, since quality goes purely case-by-case. Dr. S wrote Kitchen Sink in a single edit; my arguably best article was written under a tight time-constrained contest. Martin Van Buren and Being and Nothingness were started by single IP edits.
2. QVFD actually, literally takes seconds. At our current level of activity, 1 user patrolling newpages once an hour and an admin doing batch deletions whenever could control any new article maintenance.
3. Vandalism is hilarious. We need more, not less. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 12:46, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well put. That's how I recall the one-hour layover. I still have my one hour entry, with very little changed. And vandals are fun! Maybe this will be a good idea when there are less people here, and uncyclopedia is used by two users and three admins. Aleister 12:51 8-2-'12

Hey, one of my one-hour entries ended up being a feature (after some minor editing and someone fixing up the obvious issue with the name of it). The reason I pointed it out was that a good article does generally take time. True, there are exceptions to the rule. And I've taken IP pages before and created something worthwhile out of them, but in those instances it's more that I've completely rewritten the page. But it's a was an idea that came up when looking interwiki, and I still see an advantage in it. Pup 12:17 09 Feb '12

Oh yeah! Well, two of my 15-minute quicky round features went platinum, and on a dare I've juggled six IP page rewrites with one hand tied behind someone else's back, the other hand over my eyes, and the keyboard's keys purposely taped-over and jumbled up so by sheer luck alone I was able to scoop them out of QVFD and land them gently within the hour. Aleister 00:30 9-2-'12

Yeah. But you're a freak. Pup 04:33 09 Feb '12

¡¡¡MORE VANDALISM!!! --ShabiDOO 18:15, February 8, 2012 (UTC)