Forum:Rights restructure

For a list of who has what here see: Special:ListGroupRights.

The above is all the possible rights that can be dolled out, as well as a link to who has what here. There has been discussion of restructuring the rights, and who is in what group in order to facilitate better rule enforcement and conflict management. Who should have what, when? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone
read, edit, createpage, create talk. Obvious I know, but someone has to start. ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we keep everyone and autoconfirmed the same. I think sysops get block, vandal, delete, patrol, autopatrol, protect up to the sysops level, and the ability to create other sysops. Crates get the rest. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds good to me. Keep Irrational Number and Ninja? ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree only on the "sysops can make other sysops" point. I don't think that's necessary. Hopefully, we'll have some sort of sysop-nomination procedure and/or RFA in which only sysops can vote, and then a crate can swing around and actually perform the promotion.  02:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * what's the talkpage for, then, other than for making brxbrx feel silly for posting there?--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 02:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages in the forum namespace are meant to be used as discussion, not their talk pages. The forum talk pages are for discussion about the discussion. 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm doing this right.--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 02:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the frequent causes of griping is people unilaterally promoting/demoting another editor, so I agree with Blue about having some sort of consensus procedure for creating sysops. 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also can anyone please explain what the 'createaccount' is useful for? If you need another account for some reason why not just sign up for it? 11:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it's for places like CP that have closed account creation, or for people whose IP is blocked. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion/restoring
I propose that auto-confirmed users have the right to delete and restore pages, and that sysops/crats are charged with deepburning the most offensive content. For example: brxbrx makes a shitty article, Z-Rex deletes it. Later, Maratrean decides to write on the subject, and uses brxbrx's shitty article as framework. Another example: Occasionaluse uploads tons of kiddy porn and starts doxing random people. Ty deep burns the porn and the dox, then proceeds to notify the FBI. Z-Rex attempts to view the dox and kiddy porn, but cannot because it has been permanently destroyed under Ty's vigilance.---brxbrx 02:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

yea
---brxbrx 02:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

neigh
Auto-confirmed deleting articles? I dunno, seems a bit too easy. 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bot. Script. bye bye wiki. ТyUser_talk:Ty 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of that. So I guess a probationary period?  Hmm...  This is for coming up with new user groups, right?  Like, if we desysop everybody?--Foucault5.jpg-brxbrx 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My two cents
I am going to stay out of this debate completely; I am fairly indifferent both as to where the rights will fall and as to which ones I will wind up with. But whatever is hashed out here, the Wiki will need to end up with some method — rules, the right set of administrators, whatever — to kick trolls and troublemakers out and keep them out. And this discussion needs to be kept clear of trolling, of Dadaistic nonsense, of name-calling, and of other collective wheel-spinning exercises, which will reduce it to irrelevance as other discussions have been reduced before. That is all. 03:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds sane. Seconding. --Sid (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These are core issues and I agree. However, I'd also add the need to restrict the use of sockpuppets in administrative affairs. As checkuser is a no-no it would have to be through some qualification of time/edits criteria. 11:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Genghis re: sockpuppets and I'd add that every single problem that's been raised in the last few days could be solved by minor modifications to our existing guidelines, including turning some of the more important exhortations into actual rules. Completely redoing a system that for the most part works with the exception of a very short list of issues that have repeatedly plagued us (sysopping, cratting, trolling, cranks) is extremely poorly advised when the community can't even get it's head out of its ass long enough to see that shit like the vote to decrat Human was a more horrid abuse than what he was accused of. I'm sure that last point won't be well received, but any serious examination of the complete lack of due process, including no direction on who could vote, how many votes would suffice, or even an indictment that actually stated a claim (LX and I were the only people discussing whether there is a "rule" that even prohibits what Human (and Blue!) did), reflects at least to me that when the community gets all lathered up it can't even be trusted to make a cup of tea properly. Whether anyone agrees with me on the example I've used they might nonetheless agree that people are proposing all these entirely new structures, including a "Consitutional Convention" when we've got our hands on a very few sticky but discrete issues that level heads can prevail over. A new system potentially fraught with its own unknown perils doesn't thrill me. Baby steps. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What I think needs to change is not who gets different levels of rights, but the handing out of sysopships to all and sundry - that needs to stop. First of all, desysop anyone abusing their powers, second of all, new demotions to be by some RfA process. Third of all, anyone having a drama should be blocked for 24 hours. They can whine on RWW or the facebook group if they want, but not here. The good old days that other oldies hanker for are dead. Get over it. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin is right. Sysop abuses are a huge problem because they erode confidence in authority and lead to predictable and sometimes even legitimate cries from those on the receiving end. Let's get a real process for this. You know, not just desysop anyone who abuses his power, but say one with, oh I don't know, some protections that ensure it doesn't turn into a public lynching or a proxy referendum on issues that were already smoldering? Nutty Roux (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah, maybe a couple of warnings first. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)