Forum:Adding the "Custodian" user group

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Adding the "Custodian" user group

Adding the "Custodian" user group

New user groups for moving pages

One thing I have noticed about this wiki is that there are a lot of pictures (I certainly think 16,480 is quite a large number), while relatively few admins to rename any misnamed files. Sure, there may be as high as 20% of the images being misnamed, or as low as 10% (I'd estimate), but think about this: 10% of 16,480 is 1,648, which is an absolutely massive number when you factor in that, after renaming the image, you have to replace it in all the galleries or pages on which it is posted, which can be quite a bit of work. With this user group (whose powers allow renaming of images, as well as suppressing redirects), this will allow us to spread the work more evenly, without having to hand out any more sysop powers (which requires a lengthy discussion, while I'm sure this wouldn't, or at least would require a much shorter discussion). I have a few users in mind, who I think would do good work with those powers, but I don't want to reveal their names unless this idea is received favorably.

Also, we could add some requirements for being eligible for the powers: a certain number of file namespace edits, or perhaps main namespace edits, would probably be a good idea. I was thinking at least 100 edits in the main namespace, but that requirement can be made higher or lower. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 03:23, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea as long as they are known to be trusted users. This will definitely help to alleviate the load on the admins to rename all of those files on the Forum:List of misnamed files.  Food Foodbandlt  03:36, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I have never heard of, nor cannot find this user group. Care to fill me in? Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 03:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Here is a page explaining what they do. Basically, they can move images, as well as suppress redirects when moving pages. Of course, I was thinking of making the requirements on here a little less stringent, but, of course, that can always be discussed. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 04:02, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

They would also need the power to edit comments, as some comments use picture links to pictures on this wiki, such as this one.  Food Foodbandlt  04:17, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if that can be specified without giving them sysop rights.  Food Foodbandlt  04:19, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if rollbackers on the Avatar wiki can be given the ability to delete comments on pages and blogs, it should be no problem for Custodians here to be able to edit comments. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 04:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also, it appears CoD Wiki uses this usergroup, so I would say lets consult Cod on this if it's agreed upon.  Food Foodbandlt  04:49, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support All I need to know is how to make the usergroup and how to implement it into this wiki. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 04:52, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support Definitely.  Food Foodbandlt  05:04, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support If this can allow a user to rename files and delete comments then that would be perfect. I mean it really is bother some I ask for admins to rename old files and just say no, same could go for some comments. Altho I'm not 100% sure that's what a custodian does, I'll still support and maybe run to be one. Mainly cause of various mistakes I made in the past. Bos_The_Boss 06:08, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support Many pros with few cons? Sounds good to me. EvergreenFir 06:10, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Do we get to pick a name for the group? –Throwawaytv 07:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to ask CoD about that one; I honestly don't know, but I would guess that we could. What did you have in mind? -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:12, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support Many pros with few cons? Sounds good to me. EvergreenFir 06:10, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support I support the idea, I mainly specialize in Files and I know we need people overseeing new images.  Force ^talk  02:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, I hate bothering admins to rename images, since they might be busy and all I'm doing is throwing file names in the discussion forums, such group is needed.  Force ^talk  02:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment . Since I have not heard about the custodian group before, I will need some more information before supporting or opposing this request. The question is: How can I be sure that a custodian user will not be give any rights except those specified here: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/RuneScape:Custodians (as you are not described the others). Teyandee (Talk) 07:34, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

The real admins of this wiki, the Wikia staff, have fine-grained control over user rights. –Throwawaytv 07:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Of course they have. I am just saying that since the custodian have only images-move right, he should not be give any rights above that as tis is not an admin. Teyandee (Talk) 07:45, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of user rights for each user group used on the CoD Wiki. Seeing as Cod will be helping with the adding of this usergroup, if agreed upon, I believe the rights will be the same. (The Custodian usergroup is at the very bottom)  Food Foodbandlt  07:54, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I know, the only rights the custodian will get over regular users is that they can move files, suppress redirects from being created, and not be affected by rate limits (to editing). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:12, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

In this case - Support. Teyandee (Talk) 08:15, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support If this happens, I would love to be considered to do this job. _|[31 23:45, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Group name

We can pick a name for the group. The default seems to be "custodians" but maybe someone can offer something that sounds nicer. –Throwawaytv 08:19, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up Crew / Cleaning Crew? That's all I can come up with as of now that involves cleaning or tidying.  Food Foodbandlt  08:29, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Image fixers, though that might be too... bland. I dunno, whatever's fine; after all, the name is only cosmetic; what matters are the user rights. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Images control group. Teyandee (Talk) 12:58, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

"Image Control" sounds cool actually, it reminds me of some old sci-fi movie.  Food Foodbandlt  15:04, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Custodian seems fine, since it's a maintenance job. Or maybe dragon assistants? --Tulipclaymore 13:47, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I do not like the default name is that according to Wikipedia, this term can refer to a Janitor. It maybe just me, but for me this work is mostly associated with cleaning various dirty rooms or bathrooms. A title like I suggested above should give a user more satisfaction with this job. It should make him or her feel as an important contributor for Wikia. Teyandee (Talk) 14:29, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Imager Wrap Up? I'm not that good with names... Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 22:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Let's use an MLP name for the group, what about pegassi or something like that? Pegassi oversee the weather of Equestria, so such group should have an honorific like that  Force ^talk  02:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

As awesome as that sounds, it's not really descriptive of the group without explanation... dang that's a cool name.  Food Foodbandlt  02:12, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

Image control? –Throwawaytv 20:06, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support Sounds good to me.  Food Foodbandlt  20:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support I like it. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 21:39, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support. Teyandee (Talk) 15:35, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support Although now it sounds like "bouncers" xD  Force ^talk  17:09, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

More rights

What other rights can this group have that would assist them with cleanup? –Throwawaytv 08:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

So...

• New user group with "move page" and "suppress redirect" rights.
• Given and revoked at bureaucrat discretion with no requirement for discussion.

–Throwawaytv 08:29, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Adding on to that, there are many comments that use images linked on this wiki, as said above. Perhaps we should also add the "edit comments" right as well. Otherwise it sounds good to me.  Food Foodbandlt  08:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments is a bit much... They should ask admins to do that. –Throwawaytv 08:35, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

The edit comments right would only be used to fix image links, although you're right, it is abusable. I was also going to say the "delete" right to delete pictures, but that situation seems to be pretty well taken care of tagging them in the Candidates for Deletion category with the delete template for now, as well as the right being abusable because it's so broad-schemed. There is no specific deletion right for images (that I know of).  Food Foodbandlt  08:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the "No rate limit" rights, so they aren't affected by any editing rate limits. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

That is imperative for this type of usergroup.      13:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Bot rights for their second account? Mass image renaming lead to a mass changes in the articles. If any of the helpers are good at using AWB then can update many files in one pass. I want to keep those edits separated from the regular contributors edits. Teyandee (Talk) 15:50, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Requirements and administrative issues

Giving the rights to a user

Throwawaytv suggested above that the new rights can be given and revoked at bureaucrat discretion, but I disagree with that. The wiki is active enough that no rights whatsoever should be granted without enabling the possibility of a discussion first. That doesn't mean it needs to be as elaborate as an admin power request thread. I was thinking a permanent forum thread where admins and bureaucrats can nominate a user, and if there's no valid objection within a couple of days, the rights can be granted. It wouldn't be a vote, just an opportunity to point out past misbehaviour, if any, that may have been overlooked by the nominator. --Tulipclaymore 14:03, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good way. I also think the same thing should be started for assigning rollback rights, while we're on the topic of user rights. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 20:06, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be one permanent forum for appointing an admin, bureau, and this group, so they all stay in the same place. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 22:40, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget rollback. I'm fine with chat mod not really being discussed, since that's the only one admins can hand out, and it's harder to prove that someone is a worthy candidate unless you're on chat with frequency (you can't just look at their contributions and determine they're a good, positive addition to chat. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 04:40, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I partly disagree. Giving away these "minor" powers can happen all year round and they don't really require much discussion, so I'm fine with collecting them all on one page. But admin appointments/discussions should only happen occasionally (like, quarter-yearly; incidentally, the last one was in early January), bureaucrat discussions don't really need to happen at all unless there's an urgent need to replace someone. They're special cases which require more attention and should be treated as such. --Tulipclaymore 05:04, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I still stand by having one forum for all appointment discussion, but you make a point. I just don't see this group being added to many users, so having them all on one forum would save forum space. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 16:12, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

There is enough space for many discussions: one for admins, one for custodians and one for b`crats. I like keep different thing apart from each other. Teyandee (Talk) 16:24, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

We could just have a page where people request it. If they meet the requirements and have proved themselves to be trustworthy, they can be given the rights. In this way it would also act as a log. No hulabaloo about people nominating people for it - there is a profound difference between admin status and this.      13:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I feel like that would further encourage people to vote and do so on criteria that have nothing to do with image maintentance, and I'd like to avoid that. Especially if there ends up to be no formal requirement in terms of contributions. You're right, they're not full admin powers, which is why the process doesn't need to be as elaborate. An admin saying "I think this guy/gal is suitable for the job, here's why, does anyone disagree?" is easier than a user nominating him/herself and then having to undergo public scrutiny by everyone who reads the thread, possibly ending in rejection. --Tulipclaymore 22:31, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they need to undergo "public scrutiny". These sorts of things don't really need much scrutiny, just a b'crat to decide whether or not to give the rights. B'crats should be knowledgeable and able enough to determine whether or not a user would use these cleanup tools properly.      11:59, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Hence "nomination by admins" as opposed to "nominating oneself". It's a pre-selection by informed individuals whom I trust to make the right choice, whereas if someone nominates himself, I'll have to check him out in more detail. --Tulipclaymore 17:10, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Taking the rights away

Bureaucrats should be able to take the rights away if they detect abuse. If the user was blocked for whatever reason, that would also result in removal of the powers, but they can be requested again if the user demonstrates that the previous behaviour was an isolated incident and won't happen again. --Tulipclaymore 14:03, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 20:06, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Just standard practise, then. But why do rights need to be removed after a block? Unless the block is directly related to activities which are related to the tools given.      13:11, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Is there a block reason that doesn't reflect badly on a user's ability to use admin powers (even if they're limited) responsibly? --Tulipclaymore 22:19, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Preconditions

Requirement-wise, I'd go higher than what Jonny Manz has suggested. 400 edits overall, 100 in the File namespace. --Tulipclaymore 14:03, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good (you mean 400 edits in the main namespace, right?). However, if a contributor has shown real dedication to pointing out misnamed files, I think they should get an exception, perhaps. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 20:06, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

400 edits overall - namespace doesn't matter unless 100 filespace edits have not been attained.      13:12, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there ought to be a number if there's community discussion about each nomination anyway. –Throwawaytv 20:04, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's true if only admins and bureaucrats can make a nomination. If users can nominate themselves, however, that would require an additional level of taking a look at the user's past contributions and possibly an elaborate discussion. That's what I wanted to avoid when I said it should be a "he/she seems like a good fit, let's do it if there are no objections" type deal. --Tulipclaymore 22:17-23, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

• Registered on this wikia for more than a month - it is long enough to have the first impression of a contributor.
• No warnings for not following the rules (like excessive use of profanity).
• Using Descriptive names for the uploaded files.

Teyandee (Talk) 16:45, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Candidates

When are we going to start proposing the candidates for this group? I nominate Foodbandlt and EvergreenFir. Teyandee (Talk) 17:50, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with those choices, we'll have to come to an agreement on the formal requirements first. The issues of who (only admins or everyone) can nominate whom (everyone or only people with X experience) are unresolved. --Tulipclaymore 18:38, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

This discussion needs to take place in a different thread. This thread should be submitted to Wikia so they'll add the custodian group. Then (or now) you can add the new candidate approval policy to the guidelines and start adding contributors to this group. –Throwawaytv 20:07, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Requirements and administrative issues (continued)

Moving the discussion along, what is the consensus on the process of giving the rights to users? I personally agree with Tulip, having only admins and b-crats able to nominate users, and if there is no objections the user is granted the rights. Opinions on this?  Food Foodbandlt  23:24, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral I say this because I am unsure. We should at least let users let admins & b-crats know we want the job. Then they can nominate their "favorites", to use the term loosely. _|[31 23:48, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support Some admins(or b-crats) if not all know what's going on and which users to trust, so I agree with the notion.  Force ^talk  02:22, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose Considering that all nominees will undergo the same procedure of approval (admins will add any objections they might have against the candidate), why can`t the users nominate themselves? Teyandee (Talk) 03:24, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment Entirely true, although in that case we might need to agree upon some kind of requirements to nominate one-self as stated above. Although it doesn't really seem like we would need requirements, it seems like it would require less work and research into a user's past edits in deciding whether to support or oppose them. Would this scruntity only be open to admins, or to the public as well?  Food Foodbandlt  04:24, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment The main sticking point seems to be if users can nominate themselves (or others?) or if that task should be left to admins/b-crats, and how much discussion should be involved in determining who gets (or who doesn't get) the powers. Why not have it both ways? Allow anyone to nominate themselves, but if it wasn't an admin nominating them, then the discussion requirements they have to pass should be more rigorous. I dunno, it kinda sounds silly to me, but hey, whatever works (and it's all I could think of right now). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 06:58, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support I actually think that sounds better than my original statement, and switch my support to this.  Food Foodbandlt  13:45, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment The reason I want to keep the nominations admin-only is to keep the process as short as possible. If an admin nominates someone, I trust that he or she has already checked a user's history and deemed him/her an acceptable candidate. If someone nominates him/herself, I need to do that. That doesn't mean a user can't ping an admin and ask "hey, do you think I would be a good fit for this position?", just that it's the admin who does the research and makes the official nomination, to avoid turning what should be a quick-and-done procedure into a circus. It will also help keep the additions to the guidelines as brief and uncomplicated as possible, since I do maintain, like others have said, that there should be additional requirements if it isn't admins doing the nominating. --Tulipclaymore 16:32, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral I think that both ways have their advantages. Users should be able to express their willingness to the job but since admins and bureucrats have so much experience and and responsibility I can understand why they should be decide about who are nominated. Ocredan 07:36, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

In this case both groups of users (self-nominated and nominated by admins) should meet the requirements. Teyandee (Talk) 16:31, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment You can always set up a page (example) for the process and modify it as you see fit. Smuff^{[The cake is a lie]} 16:07, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral I am not convinced either way since I believe admin-only and free nominations will work fine. What must be remembered us that this wiki has a considerably smaller editor base than the other wikis who use this image management user group, so practises there may not work as well here.      17:48, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I personally think only bureaucrats should be allowed to assign this group, since we won't have many people assigned in this group and it decreases the chances of admin-abuse. That's just my two cents. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's been settled already (bureaucrats apply the new user group to nominated users, which gives them "move images", "supress redirect" and "no rate limit"). The only remaining question is how nominations happen (though I think a slight majority currently favours admin-only nominations in a dedicated thread with a short window of objecting). --Tulipclaymore 18:33, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care who assigns the group as long as the nominations don't completely lie in the hands of the higher-ups. _|[31 (Talk) (How I have helped) 20:46, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I wish we can finally make a decision on the matter, it feels the topic has been carried out for long and users abusing the Canterlot Wedding galleries should make us realize we need custodians as soon as possible.  Force ^talk  17:59, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

We have a name and we have a list of rights for the new user group. I think wikia can already be contacted with a link to this thread, so that they can create the user group and it can be assigned as soon as possible once the remaining open questions have been closed. --Tulipclaymore 18:35, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great to me.  Food Foodbandlt  19:12, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I contacted Wikia Staff, and will be awaiting their reply. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 20:59, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, received the following reply: "Hello Jonny Manz,

Thanks for contacting Wikia. The 'imagecontrol' user group is now set up and ready for use. Hope this helps and enjoy! Please let me know if something doesn't seem quite right after taking the new user group out for a spin, these things are very hard to set up properly and honestly it often takes or two further tweaks."

As a side note, now that group and rollback are showing up as groups that I, as an administrator (and not a bureaucrat) can assign (as seen here), so I'm guessing we want to get that fixed? -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 17:38, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do, it is probably best to contact Wikia again and tell them about that.      17:57, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

While you're at it, I've lost control over assigning bureaucrat powers to other users. I don't know if that's a new problem related to the new usergroup, or if it's temporary fallout from that business last night. --Tulipclaymore 18:02, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sent another e-mail to Wikia, informing them of both of those issues. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 20:19, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Received a reply: "Hi,

I've fixed the configuration so only bureaucrats can add/remove imagecontrol and rollback (and restored the ability to add bureaucrats).

I hope that helps, and feel free to let us know if you need anything else.

Cheers,

grunny"

So, looks like the group's all set once we finally settle on the process for nomination and assigning of the powers. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 07:13, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Did we ever reach a decision on the requirements? I see users still mentioning it. I personally think we should do it more on track record than editing merits, since filespace edits consist of more adding, removing, and renaming mostly. _|[31 (Talk) (How I have helped) 20:44, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of indecision about how users should be nominated and appointed into this user group. I still firmly believe in the admin nomination and bureaucrat decision whether to appoint or not. This cuts out almost any requirements entirely, as it is based solely off of whether the admin and bureaucrat decide if the user is up to the job and responsibility. As said above, users can voice their willingness to admins if they think they are up to the job, at which point the admin asked decides whether the user is up to the job, and later a bureaucrat decides once more if the user is nominated. Other opinions?  Food Foodbandlt  23:57, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree with food, let's leave the admins and b-crats appoint people, wouldn't they know already which users are fine?  Force ^talk  00:08, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I figured I'd add my two cents into how I think this process should work.

1. A contributor can suggest to an admin that he'd be a good candidate for the job, and the admin can look into the contributor, see what he or she's been like, how his or her edits have been, etc. Of course, a contributor pestering the admin, or asking more than a couple of admins should be frowned upon, I think.
2. If the admin feels the contributor would be a good candidate, he or she can then formally nominate the contributor in the forum thread that will be set up for such a thing, and then other admins can point out any misbehavior in the contributor's past, or reasons why they shouldn't get the powers.
3. After a couple of days, if there are no objections, or if the benefits of giving the user the powers outweigh any concerns about misbehavior in the past, a bureaucrat can then assign the powers to them.

On a slightly unrelated note, I think we should set up the same thing for rollback (they could either share the same forum thread, and just have different sections, or they could be different threads; either way, I think the approach should be the same in all the other ways). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 06:21, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Since we allow the contributors to suggest themselves to admins, it takes away any potential favoritism from admins to certain contributors, and by having admin only nominations, there's no need for really stringent requirements, because I'm like Tulip, wherein if it's an admin nominating someone, I trust them to have done their homework on the person, and believe the person is a good candidate. And then the objections portion will act as a failsafe, in case one admin nominates someone, and another admin knows of a good reason why that person should not get the powers. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 06:24, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support, though regular users should also be able to voice objections, not just admins. --Tulipclaymore 07:39, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Right, yeah, I meant to put that, but in my tired state, I guess I worded it poorly, so it seems like I was saying only admins would be able to object. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 08:42, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support I'm not against other users objecting, it couldn't hurt.  Food Foodbandlt  10:32, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Giving rights should be a community wide consensus, not just for administrators, overriding any favouritism that administrators might show. Been with this idea from the beginning, although never posted.

JPanzerj My Talk 12:11, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Let's get this over with

So these are the rules for the Image Control Group:

• If a user is nominated by an admin, then discussion will be held. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If further discussion is needed, the time limit will be extended.
• If a user nominates him/herself, the admin that was asked will do a background check on the user and see if they qualify. If they have done nothing bad, the above point is put into play.
  • The user must have 400 edits overall and 100 filespace edits in order to gain the rights.
  • The user must have a history of adding Descriptive names to files when they upload files.
  • The user must have been registered on this wiki for a month or more.
• If the user violates the rules, or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights from them without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 17:50, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the "the admin that was asked will do a background check" part. So a user can ask one admin instead of another or all of them to get better chances of becoming a member of "Image Control" group or avoiding getting negative decision? One admin may found that the users is good for this group and another may reject this request. A user should publicly nominate himself or herself so that every admin will have the chance to vote. If we are building a community we have to communicate. All nominees should be checked by all admins. Teyandee (Talk) 18:08, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of discussion ? The first bullet states that a discussion will be held for one or two days.  Food Foodbandlt  18:14, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with the word 'asking' as it might mean the request on the admin`s talk page which should not be counted as a self-nomination as it might not be noticed bu other admins. This is why I said - 'publicly nominate' in special place. Teyandee (Talk) 18:21, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think the steps go like this: Either I approach a user "hey, do you want to do image control, I think you'd be perfect for the job" or a user approaches me "hey, I want to do this". In either case, I do a background check. If everything checks out, I publicly nominate him in the thread dedicated to the purpose. Other people can voice any objections they have. No objections -> confirmation after a couple of days. Some objections -> more discussion. Lots of objections -> no confirmation. --Tulipclaymore 18:26, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

What Tulip said. The main thing here is that the admin being asked will do a background check (thorough or not, depends on the admin) on the user. After that, if the user is good enough to that admin, then it goes back to the first bullet, and discussion and further background checks are done. If we want to have a section for self-nominations in the forum, I wouldn't mind it. However, I think it's much easier (and much more friendly-looking) if a user goes to an admin and asks. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 19:35, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support I am in full support of these specifications.  Food Foodbandlt  18:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support Me too, I think it will work great and satisfies all parties.  Force ^talk  18:24, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we still doing edit count requirements? I thought consensus was to leave this to the judgement of the nominator, since objections based on "this user does not have enough experience" can be voiced before the confirmation. --Tulipclaymore 18:26, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Those requirements are only if the user nominates him/herself. If an administrator nominates the user, it's implied that the user is good enough to do the job, even without the 400 edit count. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 19:35, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

But an admin isn't required to make a nomination. The admin can look at a user's contribution history and deem his experience lacking. So the user's edit count would already be taken into consideration, indirectly, whether he nominates himself or not. --Tulipclaymore 00:01, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. With these requirements, it can shorten the admin's background check if the user does not have the required edit count. I'm certainly fine without requirements needed, just tell me you don't want them. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 00:15, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just thinking we're all reading this and we're all in agreement that very inexperienced and untested users shouldn't even be considered. But if there happens to be a new user who's been making excellent edits and image uploads for three weeks instead of the required four, I might want to make an exception to the "rules". But I can obviously only do that if there are quotation marks around the rules and they're more mental guidelines. --Tulipclaymore 00:22, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine without requirements. I agree with what you are saying. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 00:33, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Simplified:

Image Control rights

• The purpose of Image Control rights is to allow contributors to rename pages in the File namespace so they have descriptive names.
• Anyone may nominate themselves or another contributor for Image Control rights. Nominations should be made and discussed in the forum.
  • If no objections are raised and at least one admin supports the nomination, rights may be granted within two days of the start of the discussion.
  • If objections are raised, the discussion will continue until consensus is reached. If no concensus can be reached the discussion may be postponed. The main issues for discussion are the nominee's contributions, participation, and use of descriptive names.

I think hard numbers are unnecessary since every nominee will have their own little two-day discussion. Honestly if chat mod rights are given on admin discretion then these rights can be given on admin/bureaucrat discretion too, since they don't affect other users at all. I think it goes without saying that abuse will result in a block and the removal of the rights. –Throwawaytv 21:10, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that they can be given out without any sort of discussion then? I see your reasoning, just asking for clarification.  Food Foodbandlt  21:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'd prefer, but that's not what I'm suggesting since the concensus seems to be having a discussion first. –Throwawaytv 23:24, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I like the Shadowdemon proposal better, minus the requirements. I prefer the idea of having a pre-nomination stage so the heavy lifting is done before a nomination is announced, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere on this page (several times, probably). --Tulipclaymore 00:01, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, or at the very least, get rid of the file namespace requirement, since that's mainly just uploading photos, and it would be better served if we looked to see if the contributor has a history of uploading descriptively named files or not. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 00:23, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed for sure.  Food Foodbandlt  01:01, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Overall consensus

Can we please get an overall consensus for the process of giving these rights out? This discussion just seems to be getting covered up when any sort of conflict arises. There are two plausible write-ups, those being Shadowdemon's and Throwawaytv's. There are very minor differences between the two, but these differences seem to be catching everyone up in discussion.  Food Foodbandlt  02:37, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Shadowdemon's write-up

Support I support this one, excluding the edit requirements as discussed above. If there is an issue with a newer user's edit count, then it can be discussed and noted as to why the admin believes the user should get these rights. I believe this just simplifies and expedites the process as much as possible.  Food Foodbandlt  00:57, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I am indifferent to the issue however, and agree with both ways.  Food Foodbandlt  01:44, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support. Requirements for a contributor to being eligible for self-nomination or nomination by admins are specified.

Conditions, upon which the rights can be removed, are also specified. Teyandee (Talk) 01:27, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with this consensus, although I should say if we get few people because of the edit requirements, then eventually we will have to soften up to allow more people in.  Force ^talk  01:59, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with this one; this is very close to what I was suggesting anyway, but it's just a little more comprehensive, so I will definitely support this one, in hopes that we can finally settle on this, and start assigning this group. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 03:02, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Comment Also, I feel the need to point out how I think we should have a process very similar to this for assigning rollback; just with different requirements, and possibly in a different forum thread (one thread could be dedicated to nominations for this, the other to nominations for rollback). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 16:26, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think rollback users who are not also admins are needed at all. That would be a subject for a separate thread, however. --Tulipclaymore 14:02, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

SupportI support this consensus. I think the edit requirements are fine as they are and if they need changing later on, fine but right now I think that they are fine. Ocredan 07:09, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support I can live with the requirements though I think they're unneeded since all nominations must, according to that proposal, formally be made by administrators anyway, and the only difference is one of initiative. We can count later and if the exact same "qualified agreement" has more voices in favour, I think we can skip putting those requirements in the policy. --Tulipclaymore 19:28, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support My only concern is that a nomination needs unanimous support to pass... at least that's how I read it. EvergreenFir 19:33, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

That will need to be clarified in the final draft, but I read it as "if the vote is not unanimous, the window of discussion will be extended to determine whether the concerns have significant merit". Ideally, there won't be a discussion at all because no one will object, and if no one objects, there don't need to be expressions of support either. --Tulipclaymore 19:38, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Final Draft

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination if needed.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check on the user to see if they qualify. If they have done nothing bad, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • The user must have 400 edits overall and 100 filespace edits in order to gain the rights.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
  • The user must be registered on this wiki for at least one month.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Note: Discussion is meant to voice objections. Unless there are objections that require discussion, there is no need to voice support for the user.

How does this sound? If there is anything you feel should be added or removed, voice it below.  Food Foodbandlt  23:41, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I would change: If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination if needed.

to: If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination (if needed) until a consensus is reached. (change in bold).

The current version does not explain how non-unanimous nominations would be resolved. Also, I personally feel that support/object should be given by all. A vote ensures that all admins/crats are aware and express themselves. Not voting is not a adequate substitute for abstention or support in my opinion. EvergreenFir 23:57, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely missed that. I agree entirely and see your reasoning for the voting, the only reason I omitted the voting in this draft was because it was never objected to in the discussion above when mentioned. It's definitely good that admins show that they are aware of the nomination.  Food Foodbandlt  00:09, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding a vote and a lengthy discussion is kind of the point, though. It's supposed to make the process quicker and more streamlined and is the middle ground between "any bureaucrat can appoint anyone without discussion" and "everybody can nominate themselves and organize their friends to vote for him/her". If everybody votes anyway, we don't need the whole nomination-by-admins-only thing, which would mean we're back where we started. You can assume that all active administrators monitor the forum, and certainly all administration-related threads. --Tulipclaymore 14:08, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

To avoid further discussion on this, just remove the guidelines. Administrators can make good calls anyways, so those were just something admins have something to look for. It doesn't matter. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 18:04, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting, can you elaborate a little?  Food Foodbandlt  18:33, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I see, you want to remove the requirements. I'm totally fine with that, I definitely trust the admins to make well thought-out decisions based on things other than edit count.  Food Foodbandlt  21:36, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

Re-write #1

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If they have done nothing bad, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
  • The user must be registered on this wiki for at least one month.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Note: Discussion is meant to voice objections. Unless there are objections that require discussion, there is no need to voice support for the user.

Removed guidelines and added further explanation on admin's background check of users, kept the rest per discussion above. Objections or changes?  Food Foodbandlt  00:59, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remove the registered thing. Then, it should be done. Lord of Shadows ^{Words mean nothing!} 02:07, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, forgot that was part of the requirements  Food Foodbandlt  02:24, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Re-write #2

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If they have done nothing bad, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Note: Discussion is meant to voice objections. Unless there are objections that require discussion, there is no need to voice support for the user.

Hopefully the last re-write. Objections or changes?  Food Foodbandlt  02:25, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose In theory, everyone who had uploaded at least 2 properly named files can think that he is eligible for self-nomination (because 2 can be considered as "a history of adding descriptive file names to the files"). This is why we had "100 filespace edits in order to gain the rights" to be sure that user understands the FW:DN and is confident in giving descriptive names. Teyandee (Talk) 03:12, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

As Shadow said, I believe that's the reason why the admin checks the background of said user. Just because a user comes to an admin asking to be nominated does not mean the admin is obligated to nominate the user, especially if the admin does not see the user fit for the job. Also as Shadow said above, those were more of a guideline for admins rather than requirements.  Food Foodbandlt  03:16, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Adding on to that, why make an exception in a policy for a user when you can leave it entirely up to admin decision? Personally I trust the admins to make well thought-out decisions, and if one admin makes a bad decision then that is the point of the discussion over the nomination. If one admin sees the user fit and nominates them, then all of the other admins, as well as users, have the chance to voice their objections in the following discussion period.  Food Foodbandlt  03:20, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

The thing is - should we allow the users to self-nominate themselves? If the answer is yes, the we should discuss and write down full requirements for the contributors. If the suggestions will be made by admins only, the we can leave the decision, whether a user can be nominated, to the admin. Teyandee (Talk) 16:57, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Users technically don't self-nominate themselves under this proposal. They ask an admin if they can get image control rights. The admin can say yes, and then he nominates the user. Other admins (and other users) can then still say "wait a minute, the user isn't experienced enough, let's not rush this", blocking the user from receiving the rights until consensus is reached. Or the admin can say no, and then nothing happens. --Tulipclaymore 17:26, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

What Tulipclaymore said is indeed what this proposal states. If you believe that users should be able to self-nominate themselves without asking an admin, then that would be another story entirely, but this is saying that users ask admins for the rights. Then the admin proceeds to perform a background check into the user's history and nominates them if they see that they are fit to do the job and handle the rights.  Food Foodbandlt  17:34, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Err... why is this getting complicated again Tey? I thought everything was agreed upon? I guess if there's still doubts then they should be solved in a chat to fasten the discussion process and get Custodians approved as soon as possible.  Force ^talk  04:23, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Some of the admins here like to repeat the words consensus and discussions and this is what we are doing here. If we want the instruction we should have the requirements, if you want to speed up the process then just appoint Foodbandlt and EvergreenFir as two good candidates. I think everyone will support me. Teyandee (Talk) 16:57, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think you took that descriptive file history a little too far there Mr. Yattaro, I'm sure people don't think 2 properly named files are enough... unless they are Two-Face. Bos_The_Boss 03:52, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

This is not my name. And you should understand that 2 is more than one and, in theory,can be considered as a history. Teyandee (Talk) 17:21, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on it took me a whole two seconds to figure out your username origins, leading me back to the original Samurai Pizza Cats series in Japan. And as I said only 2 files and running for nomination is exaggeration at it's finest. But it seems you get the point that self-nomination cannot occur without an admin to give the big "yes" to the user who wants to be a part of image control. Bos_The_Boss 23:19, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. 2 is obviously not a "history", but how much is a "history?". 20? 200? Users have the right to know the number of required edits in "File:" namespace. Plus it will up avoid the abuse when admins can say "you have not enough edits" but not giving the exact number. Such requirements should be publicly available. Teyandee (Talk) 15:50, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

You raise a valid point Teyandee. I agree with you.  Food Foodbandlt  16:10, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Re-write #3

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If they have done nothing bad, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • The user must have 400 edits overall and 100 filespace edits in order to gain the rights.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Note: Discussion is meant to voice objections. Unless there are objections that require discussion, there is no need to voice support for the user.

Re-added edit requirements. Teyandee raises a valid point. While it is up to admin decision whether or not a user is eligible or not, there has to be some kind of standard to avoid one user having below said number of edits getting the rights and another user being denied the rights for not having enough edits. Objections and changes?  Food Foodbandlt  16:23, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

The best remedy against abritrariness on the side of one admin already exists: other admins. All the restrictions do is make it impossible for someone to be nominated if he happens to not meet them, even if he only misses them by a hair and is otherwise super-qualified. They don't do anything to stop an admin from rejecting someone for whatever reason they choose, unless you want to force admins to nominate someone if they meet the threshold, no matter if there are other concerns. --Tulipclaymore 17:04, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to force admins to nominate someone, I want everyone to know the rules and requirements for the nomination and approval procedures. We can discuss any other versions of requirements. For example, maybe 400 edits is main namespace is too much, but this number should not be too low. We must be sure that user is confident in contributing to wikia. Teyandee (Talk) 17:30, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

In that case I think the requirements should be turned into a suggestion. Like: "While an admin may nominate any user, whether he or she has approached an admin first or not, it helps having experience with improving the wiki in general and improving image-related sections in particular. An edit count of about 400 overall and about 100 in the File namespace is a good guide, as are a history of uploading images with descriptive filenames, adding categories to images, and pointing out existing misnamed files in the forum." That way, admins aren't left completely without guidance, but can still use their own judgement, and users who are interested in the position have specific achievements they can aspire to.

Also, can we please rephrase that "done nothing bad" sentence? "If the admin considers the user qualified for the position" or something would sound much better. --Tulipclaymore 17:53, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion concept would work well I think, I never thought about that. It would get rid of the requirement but keep a guideline present to everybody and their neighbor wouldn't be going around asking admins for the user rights.  Food Foodbandlt  18:20, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that a user with 399/99 edits or even with 389/98 can be a good candidate. But where is the border of that "proximity area"? We can specify "the more - the better" but then again - what are the limits?

I just do not want anyone to point at user, who did not exactly met the requirements, but his good contributions helped him to become the member of this group, and say "Hey, he may be a VIP - he is a group member despite he lacks several edits". If one will raise an objection that the user is missing X edits, will the admins "He has shown good contributions" be enough as an argument?

By "done nothing bad" one might mean, for example, that user was not blocked or warned for not following the rules. The is not the same as "being qualified" as in "meet the requirements". Teyandee (Talk) 18:29, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

I hope we can get over this soon. Oh well...  Force ^talk  18:53, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

1) It's called a sense of judgement. That's why there's a discussion after the nomination and not just an appointment, so that that judgement can be called into question, if necessary.

2) Yes.

3) "Gives the impression of being able to handle his powers responsibly" is one of the things I would require before I consider someone qualified, and of course any prior blocks would counteract that impression and therefore preclude me from nominating the user, or prompt me to speak out against him or her after the nomination. It doesn't need to be stated explicitly, because it's very possible that a user may have done something stupid months ago but improved his or her attitude since. --Tulipclaymore 18:58, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should require a reason further in depth to be stated other than "your edit count is too low." If we do it that way we can remove the requirement and suggestion all together and rely entirely on admin discretion. If an admin is doing a background check they should be looking at more than just the edit count anyways, if they believe that the edit count is too low I can't imagine it would be very hard finding a more comprehensive reason. On the other hand we could leave the suggestion in place, to prevent that "I uploaded two good images, I think I can handle the rights" and leave the wiggle room up to to the admin.  Food Foodbandlt  21:18, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Some stranger

Hi guys, I'm from the RuneScape Wiki. I saw this thread in your Recent Changes and thought I'd pop in to see how you're planning to go about adding this usergroup. The thread in which our wiki reached consensus for Custodians is located here for reference, if anyone is interested. I hate to come across as the random rude guy that butts in to wikis trying to meddle, but I saw that your proposed requirements are 400 edits overall, 100 of of which in the file namespace. I think what needs to be considered is that Custodian tools leave little potential in terms of misuse or vandalism. It's not like rampaging across articles, blanking or spamming dozens in seconds flat - renaming images firstly takes a bit of time (as the default "new" title is the title already in use, so one cannot simply bulldoze through the process) and secondly, just isn't that big of a deal, in that far, far fewer readers will either know or care about file names as opposed to vandalised content. Thirdly, you should consider the fact that if you have to worry about Custodians (or Image Controllers) misusing their tools, should they be allocated them in the first place? I know you could say "you never know", but in broad terms you'll know who you can trust. My (long-winded) point is that these edit requirements may be too high, and the criteria too strict - but that's purely my opinion, and it's completely your community's choice. I might as well add that we too went from "Janitors" to "Cleaners" to "Maintenance" before finally settling on Custodians, but as far as I know no other wiki uses that title, and it isn't the default name for the usergroup. Cheers, Ronan ^Talk 19:16, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know, but CoD Wiki also uses the name Custodians. The only thing we are trying to figure out still are the rules/guidelines associated with assigning the user group. As little as there is to abuse, it's always good to ensure that it isn't abused at all rather than not abused very much in my opinion.  Food Foodbandlt  04:37, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Re-write #4

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If the admin considers the user qualified for the position, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • It is suggested that the user have at least 400 edits overall and 100 filespace edits, a history of categorizing their uploaded files, and/or pointing out misnamed files in the forums.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

Note: Discussion is meant to voice objections. Unless there are objections that require discussion, there is no need to voice support for the user.

I've read over the above discussion about the "suggestion" method a few times and this is what I believe to be the best parts of each solution coming from the discussion. I changed the wording of the "adding categories to files" to "adding categories to their uploaded files" to avoid flooding Special:RecentChanges with categorizing entire galleries of images to try to meet the suggested "requirements." Objections or changes?  Food Foodbandlt  04:24, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support and Comment Change "forums" to "forum" (Keep the link). And why do you want to limit the support voices?. With no positive replies, one might think that nobody else is reading the forum thread. Plus, posting Support signs gives more motivation and makes the discussion more friendly than simply replying "No objections". Teyandee (Talk) 18:07, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with voicing support, but it can easily be assumed that users, admins especially, browse the forums each day. I wouldn't be against it, but I was just looking on the side of the fastest discussion possible.  Food Foodbandlt  18:28, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Re-write #5

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If the admin considers the user qualified for the position, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed.
  • It is suggested that the user have at least 400 edits overall and 100 filespace edits, a history of categorizing their uploaded files, and/or pointing out misnamed files in the forum.
  • The user must have a history of adding descriptive file names to the files that they upload.
• If the user violates the rules or abuses their rights, a bureaucrat can remove the user's rights without discussion.
  • User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again.

You're entirely right Teyandee. There is absolutely no harm in voicing support as well as opposition. The discussion will still use the duration of the specified time whether anyone posts support or not, it could easily be used as a constructive tool. I also fixed the spelling of "forum," that was a typo. If there are no other suggestions or objections, I believe this about wraps it up.  Food Foodbandlt  03:08, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

The previous wording didn't exactly forbid stating support either. You always could, you just didn't/don't need to. But fine... --Tulipclaymore 03:21, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support. Teyandee (Talk) 18:15, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support Definitely; this is the most definitive version yet; I would be shocked if this wasn't good enough. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 22:39, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support  Force ^talk  05:10, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Final result

Well, the end result seems to be consensus for Re-Write number 5. I will go ahead and go get the nomination thread started right away. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 04:55, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Post re-write

Sorry for missing the re-write discussion, I'd like to offer some revisions:

• Too many "wills" and "musts".
• The wiki has guidelines, not rules.
• "If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her, the admin that was asked will do a background check using their best judgement on the user to see if they qualify. If the admin considers the user qualified for the position, the nomination will be made and discussion will ensue if needed." This puts the responsibility on an admin instead of the community.
• This section: "User rights can be regained, if and only if the user shows that what happened was a mistake or was an isolated incident and won't happen again." It's like you're writing excuses for people before they even need them.

–Throwawaytv 16:43, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

"This puts the responsibility on an admin instead of the community." That's the idea. --Tulipclaymore 16:44, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

That's not the idea since this wiki is run by contribution, participation, and discussion, not admins. Compare with admin guidelines where it doesn't say anywhere "an admin will discuss", "a bureaucrat will give", or any of that. It's very bad wording that makes it seem like the admins appoint these people personally. This is not the case. Compare:

• Contributors to the wiki who have made significant contributions may be bestowed administrator rights following a discussion on the forum.

~

• If a user is nominated by an admin, discussion will be held immediately. After one or two days, if the vote is unanimously positive, the user rights will be given to the user by a bureaucrat. If the vote is not unanimously positive, further discussion will take place, extending the specified duration of the nomination, if needed, until a consensus is reached.
• If a user asks an admin to nominate him/her...

Just... this is not the right way. –Throwawaytv 16:52, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's the idea here, in this specific case. Letting administrators make the formal nominations is a compromise between discussing every applicant fully (as is the case for full administrators) and letting bureaucrats appoint whoever they like without having to give a reason (as is the case for chat mods and rollback). The community is still involved and the rule - which is a rule because its procedures have to be followed and were approved after participation and discussion by the whole community - is quite clear about that. The wording specifies how the nomination and the ensuing discussion take place, not just that it takes place. There are no such specifications for admin discussions (at present). --Tulipclaymore 16:59, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

The "they're not rules, they're guidelines" is mostly semantics, maybe I shouldn't have brought it up together with the other points.

I guess I support either letting bureaucrats nominate whoever they like or discussing every nomination fully, because the middle ground of "ask an admin and if no one opposes in one or two days then okay" defeats both the overall need for community discussion and the status of admins as "trusted contributors". Really sorry to be raising this after the discussion has ended, but I feel this needs addressing. –Throwawaytv 17:10, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, it's a rule because it details a specific procedure to deal with an administrative issue. Guidelines, on the other hand, deal with content and reflect the most recent determination of the ever-changing consensus regarding content, a consensus which can change before the guidelines reflect that change.

The reason administrators are the gate-keepers in this proposal is not because they're administrators per se, but because they're trusted contributors with a lot of experience who can be expected to display proper judgement when it comes to determining whether someone would be a good fit for the position. In any case, it's a done deal; we may as well see how it works out now; we can always change it in a few months if it turns out there are issues or there are problems with community acceptance. --Tulipclaymore 17:20, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

I know I haven't been part of this discussion, but I'd just like to add something here, concerning when huge batches of images are renamed; for example, within the past hour, Jonny has done a huge amount of renames (of the past 50 changes, 26 of them are him sorting out Spike's images) and this is understandably flooding Recent Activity. Is there a way to either stop image moves from showing up in recent activity, or would it be possible at all for users with this user group to be allowed a separate account with a bot flag for this purpose? --Kinrah 08:13, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

They should get a second accounts with bot flag. Teyandee (Talk) 08:18, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably won't go anywhere close to that crazy with image renaming (at least on this wiki) again. But in case of anytime I do, I'll go ahead and make a bot account (even though I won't be running any software off it; at least, I wouldn't at first), since you're right, that does flood Wiki Activity (and Recent Changes, no doubt). I didn't even think of that when I was renaming all those images. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 10:39, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, scratch that, as the bot account would also have to receive image control rights in order to move files. I'll just exercise more restraint with image renaming from now on. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 10:53, May 8, 2012 (UTC)