This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Ello' everyone
I'm here to discuss a possible new user right. → what this user right will do is give normal users the ability to lock pages from anon's. I feel like it'd be a good thing for normal users to have if an anon is vandalizing or edit warring. I think its best to restrict the tool for anti-vandalism/edit conflicts only. With Black ops II around the corner, and potentially more vandalism looming, I'd say this user right would be a good tool to have. Please leave your thoughts below, We'll have to discuss the name for it and also see how it'd be set up (I imagine just like how Blog patrol or rollback works.)
21:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

---

I could see this being handy during the BOII multiplayer reveal. I'm in favor of it. Phillycj 21:52, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I feel that is a good idea, but not all of the anons on the wikia are trolls, most from what I've seen at times help out with articles that have some grammer and trivia problems, also if anons can't troll it what is stopping them from getting an account and troll on it with that account? Argorrath _{おしゃべり}21:53, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I never said all anon's were trolls, and I assume the new right would just let normal users lock pages like admins do, (lock pages from new and anonymous users only.) 21:57, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think this is an exemplary idea. A right like this really helps benefit the Wiki, and I hardly doubt any bad would come out of this. Madnessfan34537           22:00, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a sound idea as long as the right is handed out to trustworthy users who will use it responsibly and correctly. Redskin-26 22:06, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea, mabye you can add the power to the rollback group, as they are already trusted? 22:20, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is handed out to pretty much everyone who asks for it. elmo's ramblings 22:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I can see the benefits of this but there would never be a need to hand this out to like 2 or 3 highly active users. So the problem of too many people having an admin ability is almost eliminated. A good idea.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  23:54, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - So what you're suggesting is that specific users be given the protect access right, but limited to semi-protection only? Based on a quick glance of your RecentChanges, I feel that such a right would be limited in usefulness. Assuming CoD Wiki's adminstrators are quick to respond, pages can be protected with reasonable speed, and only one or two reverts will be necessary in the meantime. I don't want to be placed in the same camp as the opposition who think it dilutes the power of admins. There is no "true meaning to becoming an admin". Admins are nothing more than janitors, they are like every other person in the office, except they have a mop and bucket. It's just that a few of them think that this mop and bucket is some sort of symbol of prestige or coming of age. In the words of Jimmy Wales - "I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*." 222 ^talk 02:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

My problem with any creation of this user right is that since it's nothing more than janitorial tools then why would we need another flag when we could just as easily give any user who we "trust" (since "trust" is the deciding factor in the process of giving users new tools) administrator tools through the RfA process. Trusting users with the right to protect pages (along with plenty of other tools that we give to users) should imply that they can be trusted with the other janitorial tools included in the administrator right group. -- azuris_ 04:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Contents 1 Elmo's Wall o' text 2 Status quo 3 Time for vote 3.1 Support 3.2 Neutral 3.3 Oppose 3.4 Comments

Elmo's Wall o' text Edit

<walltext>
This would not work. Period. I see no need for this considering the number of active sysops we have. Handing out every sysop-exclusive tools only serves to dilute the true meaning of becoming an admin. Right now normal users can (with all user rights):

• Suppress redirects and move images
• Ban users from chat
• Delete blog comments
• Rollback a user's edits

This is a huge amount of power for a person to have, sans having full sysop rights.

There are more than dozen or so users with at least two of these rights, and at one point or another Kat and Sp3c had all four. Having nearly all the sysop tools split into an assortment of sub-divisions serves no purpose other than to, essentially, become an admin without having an RfA. Consider the hypothetical user, "Bob". Bob has all of these rights, but has had two failed RfAs, on the basis that we "do not need more admins at this time". Add in this new ability, to which he has been entrusted, and you essentially have an admin but without the banhammer or back-end maintenance abilities.

There is also the issue of the application. Getting five additional rights takes the judgement of one bureaucrat; the three more added by the sysop right takes the consensus of the community and the judgement of the closing 'crat. What makes these extra tools more significant than the others, aside from being in one neat package?

Apart from the ethics of the separation of the sysop tools, I see one huge problem with the proposed idea - how would we stop them from fully protecting a page? Blog patrol has an AbuseFilter to stop them deleting non-blog comments, which works because it limits them to a single namespace. As far as I can tell, semi- and full protections have no namespace, and therefore would be very difficult to limit.

elmo's ramblings 22:29, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

We stop them via a nice protocol known as "trust".  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  23:14, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

If "trust" is the deciding factor, then what's the reason behind giving them just one right rather than administrator tools? If they are trusted enough to prevent certain people from editing pages then surely they can be trusted enough to use the tools in a janitoiral way? I really don't find this necessary - as this is supposed to be the job of administrators, and is one of the reasons to submit an RfA in the first place. -- azuris_ 01:03, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

why not just give everyone sysop flags just? This is a bad idea, you could use this EASILY to win edit wars. "Trust" isn't a factor here, anyone could and most likely would use this to their benefit. Smuffin^{[The cake is a lie]} 00:30, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith. 222 ^talk 02:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Per COD4, but I agree with Elmo, there is no need for it. Assume good faith. Oh and don't forget this. Dark as night...the batman  03:48, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Per Elmo, this would essentially make a user an under-powered admin. Not to mention the sysops we have are already doing this in a fair and fine manner, adding more un-necessarily could just create problems. ^Smilular Talk 04:24, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Elmo's right. If we give these rights to users, we might as well go the whole hog and make them admins. This proposal is unnecessary and unneeded. Sgt. S.S. 09:09, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

But editing is an admin right too, should we just make everyone admins because you know, "we might as well"?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  13:28, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Since when did editing come under the heading of "admin rights"? Sgt. S.S. 13:32, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well they can edit, can't they? They can also rollback, so should we just make all the rollback users admins? Same with blogpatrol, and custodian. Should we just make them all admins because they have one or two rights which are by default sysop-only? I'm simply repeating what you are saying.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:10, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my original point, in that each individual right isn't a big deal, but having five or six rights that combine to form the entirety of the sysop right serves only to say "hey, you aren't an admin but here's a low fat version of what they have anyway". My primary point of opposition is its redundancy, because of how many active admins we have. Go into chat or IRC, hell even scroll down a bit in the Recent Changes and you'll find at least two administrators. They can be easily contacted through chat/IRC or a talk page message.

Additionally, using trust as a means of moderation is ludicrous. Look at the AbuseFilter for blogpatrol, for example, and you'll see that if trust was it's moderator then users would have been able to use it outside of it's intended purpose. Admittedly those who tried to use blogpatrol outwith its purpose did so in good faith, and I am confident that if this new right were to be introduced that the users entrusted with it would use it responsibly.

My point is, if there is there a need for a right like this, shouldn't we be appointing more sysops instead of handing out their powers one by one? elmo's ramblings 14:44, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Except users get adminship through the rfa process. We're talking about a new userright bro. And how many users have ALL the rights? me and sp3c are the only users to have all of them at once and to be fair all it does is help said user take care of the wiki and edit. Adminship has nothing to do with a seperate user right. The only reason I thought of this and thought it would be a good idea is because users can stop edit wars and protect a page from excessive vandalism. You're over thinking this.hill. So what, a user gets another right?? big deal! You're missing the point that this would be a helpful addition to have on the wiki.

20:32, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

What is more, I would like to point out that even having all of the custom user rights does not grant anything close to the set of tools available to administrators. Banning other users, deleting any page, giving out chatmod, these are just a handful of janitorial rights that only admins can ever have. And furthermore, admins have the responsibility to manage the community too. Whether that be to mediate discussions when they are over from a neutral perspective, to simply being role models whom users may look up to if they want. That sort of community responsibility, however minor it is, would not and does not exist in any of these extra user groups.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  20:36, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

CoD4 and Kat just took the words right out of my mouth. Madnessfan34537           20:40, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

"And furthermore, admins have the responsibility to manage the community too." is false. Anyone can mediate a discussion if they so please - the only difference is that if a situation were to get out of hand then they'd need to ask us for help with banning anybody who needs to be banned. The right is nothing more than janitorial tools, and there should be nothing separating us as "role models" compared to any other user who helps contribute to the wiki in a way that should be admired (as well as helps deal with situations that are out of hand). This is why you must give reasons as to why you/somebody else should be an administrator when nominating yourself/somebody else for adminship; because everybody can and should be able to give input on a forum that helps maintain a civil discussion - this isn't limited to only administrators. -- azuris_ 23:26, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Elmo. -- MLGisNot4Me ^{talk
contribs} 20:57, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

This new user right gives me an odd feeling that the admins are not so reactive to multiple bad edits to one page that they need to block it, many admins are on at a time where they can sufficiently deal with the page problem, for now I feel its better with Elmo. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}21:09, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary. Not only do we have at least one active administrator online at any given moment to carry out such a task, but I believe Wikia staff is not fond of splitting the hierarchy of user rights. My final and arguably weakest point is that granting users this right would likely increase the number of pages locked to anons, which I don't see as necessary. Joe Copp 03:20, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support this because there are a few non-admin users like me, Damac, Madnessfan and the like who would really benefit from a tool like this. I say let's at least try it. LellowYucario ^Hi!  17:48, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know how this would be a useful tool, locking the page is for pages with REPEAT vandalism. Pages like that aren't found every day. Sure the occasional page gets vandalized, but is that necessary to give normal users this right? Why not make all the pages locked while were at it. Qw3rty! 19:22, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

K, I can fully protect all the pages. Though only for 12 hours. jk ofc dun raeg --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 19:31, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this is the fact that giving regular users this right would prevent anonymous users from editing certain pages, which is what a Wiki is based on. This, by itself, is more powerful than any non-authority user right we have. If we can trust a user with this right, we can probably trust them with sysop rights. DarkMetroid567^okay 22:44, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Protecting a page isn't a big deal. I find it quite strange that people cant seem to notice how HELPFUL this would be. 22:45, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

And TIL the wiki is based off anon's. 22:47, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this would be helpful? I really don't see it. The Wiki isn't entirely based off of anons, but not counting them would be stupid as we get quite a lot of edits from them. Editing to create this encyclopedia is the very premises of this Wiki, and many wish to do it anonymously. Why should a regular user to be able to prevent that? DarkMetroid567^okay 22:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how stopping an anon from vandalizing pages is stopping every single anon until the end of time... and it'd be helpful because with BO II Around the corner we'll be getting more traffic and more idiots who want to vandalize pages. Not to mention if an admin isn't around a user can stop them from doing more damage. Also Blog patrol is a much more powerful user right because you can delete people's comments. This is just protecting things from vandalism, not locking the wiki from editing. 23:01, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

If we protect all of the pages from anons, i doubt all of the anons would make accounts just to make a probable minor edit to the pages. By restricting the anon's right to edit, what good are we as a wiki? Forcing people to make accounts isn't a necessary or helpful tool. Qw3rty! 23:15, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Accounts less than 4 days old may not edit a semi-protected page.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:53, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

From what I see, the main cause is that we feel majority of the anons coming to COD Wiki in the near future due to BO2 may be vandals. But as per Cod4 and Qw3rty's reasonings above, it would take 4 days before the new users can edit these pages, should this new user right be passed, which would be unfair for an anon who has discovered something we haven't and wants to make just one small edit. The main point is that there is no way to tell the intentions of the anons. Besides we have usergroups to pertain directly to vandals (i.e. RCP), so this userright would be redundant.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 01:10, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

With the increase of anons coming to the site do to BO2, would we have a more responsive Admin Team making the the reason to giving the ability of normal people to protect pages more or less usless?Argorrath _{おしゃべり}01:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's the admin team's responsibility. I won't delve on that, but the point I'm putting forth is that we already have rollback and people on the RC around the clock, both cater to the threat of vandals, so this userright is not necessary.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 01:24, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry paragon but I'm not sure you have an idea of what you're talking about. why would they have to wait for 4 days? when you protect a page you set a time limit >.> and your other point, How would it be redundant?? RCP is just a userbox. A user right is protecting a page for an hour or something. I think people have deluded themselves into thinking that this will lock every page on the wiki. All it does is make it so they cant edit for however long someone locks it for. Its not like every page will be locked :/ And the argument that there's always admins around, well damn, Admins are not always around. most of the time it'll take an admin awhile to do something. And like I've said before, with black ops II around the corner we'll be getting more traffic and a shit ton of vandals. and to stop people from saying it'll split admin rights or some other thing, It wont. Its just protecting pages. Not the ability to configure the abuse filter 02:13, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

The point regarding 4 days is due to the fact that semi protection stops any account that is not autoconfirmed. For an account to become autoconfirmed, it must be 4 days old or more. This point does not affect anything though, if we're going to care so much about page protection we might as well ban admins from protecting pages as well. No one has explained why this issue with anons and non-autoconfirmed users not being able to edit semi protected pages is suddenly specific to this idea.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:22, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

We have more then enough admins to protect pages from anons. I don't see a need to give out the ability to protect pages to regular users. Conqueror of all Zombies 01:00, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Kat's point is a very valid one and very clearly stated, however, we simply don't need this to be a user right. We have more than enough admins to lock a page, there is always someone online somewhere. 01:17, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of people talking about anons not being able to edit if this user right is given out, can someone explain this to me? Because unless we plan on every user that gets the new right to end up locking random pages I fail to see how giving out this right effects anons. 01:36, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

If this forum does pass, there would be only 2-4 users that would get the new tool. This shouldn't be an issue of effecting anons or people using the tool to win edit wars - which could be easily countered with the removal of rights if necessary. -- azuris_ 10:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that there are flaws within this idea. Firstly, it would make it easier to block off anons if users did not agree with them. What if the anon is correct and the user is wrong? Even in this case, a user can easily block the anon and the page will end up not improving. It gives users the ability to limit what anons can do, just because they do not agree with them.

Secondly, this is a job which is designed for admins. The ability to block anons and other users from edit warring via locking the page is limited to sysops/bureaucrats for a reason. A select but adequate number currently have the ability to do so. Problems with edit warring are generally best resolved by administrators. The fact that it is an administrator also gives the third-party out look on situations, over the decision of a user in the war; which is most likely going to be biased.

To summarise, I believe that not going through with the change is probably the best thing as it leaves the job in the hands of those who the task was designed for, due to admins giving a more neutral viewpoint on situations. DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:10, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

The tool supposedly would be given to very, very few users - most of which I would assume be trusted enough to not use their new tool to gain the advantage during edit wars. And if any user were to use the tool for that purpose, they would no longer have access to it. -- azuris_ 10:43, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Which brings us back to your original speech about trust. Smuffin^{[The cake is a lie]} 17:09, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. If they can be trusted with this, they can be trusted with other tools currently limited to administrators. Whether that means we continue to leave the lock tool to administrators, I don't know. In short, we are proposing a user right to lock pages which, due to there only being few recievers, will be equal to/higher than rollback? DrRichtofen (Talk) 17:32, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Per all in favor of not letting this happen. Dark as night...the batman  22:15, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts in the matter, what if we made this ability only achievable by an edit requirement, like 150 MS Edits or something, so that way, like what some people said before with trust, the user would have to earn this ability. And make it so that way the user can only lock the page for up to 6 hours max, so as not to give the user too much power in the situation. Just a thought... .Necromancer115  23:56, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I partially agree with this. There should be a minimum of 50 Edits (MS or not, up to admins to decide) before a user can use this tool, to make sure the user knows the basics of the Wiki. And to those bringing up the issue of users potentially abusing this tool, I would recommend in this scenario that a notification is sent to the anon who was in the edit war, with a link to an Administrator or Bureaucrat's talk page, so they may file a complaint. The Admin can then investigate, and decide who was right. Furthermore, I also agree that pages should not be locked for more than 12 hours, as that would be harmful not only to the anon trying to edit the page, but anyone trying to edit. Of course, there should also be an ability for administrators to unlock the page, if this case happens. That's my thinking. Metl^Talk 00:21, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Your first point is moot, considering the people receiving it will have 5-10k edits. Admins always have the ability to unlock pages. elmo's ramblings 06:37, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

If this does become applied, I say that an edit requirement is mandatory, the user must have a large amount of Main Space edits to be given a tool like this. Qw3rty! 07:27, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree to any requirement only on the terms that the users who would receive this would need to have experience. However, there are several issues that make an edit requirement stupid and pointless.

Firstly, the user right is handed out on trust. Trust has no permanent numerical value. A number of edit counts does not mean that a user is any more trustworthy. It may show that they are more experienced, but the user right would only ever be effective if the users do not abuse it; something that an edit requirement does not assure us of.

Secondly, if there was to be an edit requirement, it would have to be very high. As previously stated, only very few users would ever get this tool. This is because it is a tool which needs high amounts of trust to be given out. 150ms is relatively achievable to any user who is persistent enough. This means more users will fulfil the requirements in order to gain this tool. This means to be fair, we would likely have to hand out the tool to a lot more people than planned. If we do not do this we are picking and choosing. This is very unfair and something we cannot do.

In short, an edit requirement is pointless as it doesn't prove the qualities which the tool demands. The requirement would also have to be very high to only have a limited number who could have access. By this stage, people will be around or above the experience levels needed to become an administrator anyway, negating the need for the tool. DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:12, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Very well put Doc, you took the words right out of my mouth. The wiki has more than enough active Admins to handle the situation at any given time and I feel that we should not be handing out any user rights than what is absolutely needed. Talk 19:47, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Status quo Edit

I'm skipping a lot of the discussion here, as most of it seems to be focused on the ethics of giving users rights. From the original proposal, can someone explain to me why a regular user needs the ability to lock pages, given that we have an active administrator crew and numerous ways in which a user can request a page to be locked? ----Scottie theNerd 15:11, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for over-specialization either. If the community believes that these maintenance tasks need more work, then the appropriate answer is to nominate more users for adminship, not micromanage the process by handing out ammo without a gun. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:09, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I've kept quiet about this for the most part, but now I feel as if I should speak. Here is what I think: I think this User Right would be helpful, The Admins aren't always watching these things, and there could be some incidents. I don't think it would hurt at all to give this right to a few Users, especially if it's only three or four. It's the same way for Blog Patrol, so I don't see how that isn't fair. Basically, I just believe this would be a good thing, not bad thing. Madnessfan34537           23:13, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, the ways to request a page be locked are not instant, it can take time to be locked. Also, this could be used as, in crude terms, a learning opportunity for users. Pierogi^Talk 23:26, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

It seems that all in all if it does go through, it would seem to be more of a hassle than beneficial, why do we need to over-specialize this. Also in most to all cases an Admin is watching over the changes of this wikia, and if they aren't then should a new form of aother Admin who could fullfill that desired time-slot be easier than to single handly give 4 users, that might not be on just like all the other admins powers. It just comes to saying if you give 4 people the power, they might not even be on when they are needed at sometimes, or Admins are in that zone protecting the page, making the user with the power useless?Argorrath _{おしゃべり}23:33, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

But the admins are mostly there, we don't need to enforce everything automatically, since I've been here there haven't been many cases of such a situation. Edit warring and stuff like that is easy to just set aside on a talk page or something like that. Like Bovell said, if we really need somebody new to use the lock pages tool, we may as well put them up for adminship and give them the whole set of tools instead of just giving them part of something they likely would of had sooner or later anyway. ^Smilular Talk 23:36, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Per Smil, we have enough active admins so that a right like this isn't really needed. And if needed we would just nominate someone for adminship. Redskin-26 23:49, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Even if admins aren't watching, you can always, like, tell them via message, War Room, Talk page or admin request, or in chat (if any are on). Seriously, an edit war isn't the same as a thermonuclear war. Most things can be handled in due time without any harm being done to the wiki. We've been through several major releases since the wiki has been active without any drama over edit warring and conflicts, so I don't see why we suddenly need to give users the ability to lock pages. --Scottie theNerd 07:44, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

^Yep. We aren't obligated to constantly watch Special:RecentChanges. Just telling us if there are any edit wars/vandalism on a page is a much simpler solution than giving users a right (which would be given to very, very few users in the first place. As I said above, it would be easier for any users who believe they can help with maintenance tasks to just go through the RfA process rather than just getting rights one-by-one in the same way we hand out rollback. -- azuris_ 20:58, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have here is that many of our admins are in America and Europe only. We have no admins who live in Asia or Australia as far as I know, so there are a few hours where there a few admins active. Very few. This means that admins cannot quickly respond to, say, an edit war occuring at 6 AM UTC. You can't really lock the page hours after the edit war finished. Metl^Talk 02:43, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

The amount of admins online at any given time is usually proportional to traffic. Seeing as most traffic is from America and Europe to begin with, the odds of two Asians getting in an edit war at an ungodly hour of the morning for us isn't that likely. Smuffin^{[The cake is a lie]} 02:55, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

TIL an edit war will ruin the wiki and demands that somebody be watching the RC at all times in order to prevent such an apocalyptic scenario from happening . -- azuris_ 06:20, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, an edit war is not a crisis. We don't need to activate any emergency powers to stop a couple of editors from reverting each others' edits. Four clicks will undo any frivolous edits done. If there's anything that needs to be learnt, it's that the community can involved in the editing process though mediation and discussion on talk pages instead of blocking pages outright. If there's anything that needs quick response, it's vandalism -- and regular users can already undo those edits themselves. --Scottie theNerd 10:40, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

When has there ever a time there was a massive edit war when an admin wasn't online? Even if there are not any admins online, there are VSTF usually always online and they can take care of the problem. Qw3rty! 07:53, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

VSTF wouldn't get involved in something so minor. If there are know admins online - then the least people could do is intervene themselves and try to stop it. It's not something that requires immediate attention from administrators/VSTF. -- azuris_ 22:38, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Admins are usually online to handle the problem. There isn't one time I can remember when there wasn't at least one active sysop on IRC. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 22:37, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm considerably neutral on this as I can see the benefits of allowing more users to have this ability as shown in the success of blog patrol and custodians, however, unlike blog comments and poorly named images, locking pages is very uncommon, and as such I don't see the direct need for more users with the right. 22:52, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if the result of this very long forum is that most users agree the new user right isn't necessary. If this is the case, we can wrap up winter the discussion pretty soon. Joe Copp 23:38, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I Agree. I say we go ahead and start to close this. Redskin-26 23:41, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should take a vote, people's opinions might change, etc. Pierogi^Talk 22:30, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

That's highly unlikely seeing as nobody has provided anything new. I'll give it another day before I close it. Joe Copp 03:06, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think a vote could do just to be sure about it. --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 11:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Time for vote Edit

As this has been discussed for some time, I think it's time to make a vote. --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 11:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Support Edit

1. I find it very disappointing that people have deluded themselves into thinking that protecting a page is some huge deal. this would benefit and help the wiki yet people are to stuck in the politics of it to actually see this. If a normal user cant handle protecting a bloody page then they shouldn't be getting sysop flags anytime soon. I'd also like to note that the whole reason I made this is because it would be HELPFUL. Something which people for some damn reason cant grasp!! 18:43, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
2. If edit wars are such a minor problem, then it should be something an average editor can solve with the click of a "lock" button. Metl^Talk 18:54, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

   So should we give this right automatically to all new users? DarkMetroid567^okay 00:16, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

   Edit wars are a minor problem, but giving the average user the ability to lock any page means removing the right to edit, which is a major action. Because edit wars are minor problems, the admin team is more than capable of responding to issues as long as they are notified. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 03:50, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

3. No sufficient argument against it has been provided. What HAS been provided instead is a political discussion on how it may or may not interfere with the "power" structure on this website. This combined with my previous reasoning is why I can only support this, therefore.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  21:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

   Proof. I see no reasoning against it that mentioned any "power structure". So either you haven't bothered to read any opposition, or you're just being stubborn. :/ -- azuris_ 00:17, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

   And to expand off of that - any reasoning I see in the opposition is based on the fact that, if this forum does pass, we'll be handing out a tool to a very small number of users, when those users can just nominate themselves for adminship and recieve the tools that they need. There's also the problem with edit wars being a small problem that can easily be solved with either a few clicks or just by talking to an admin that is online. We're basically creating a new usergroup that would be handed out as rollback when we have the RfA page for this exact same reason, which is to give users rights for any maintenance tasks that they feel they can help the wiki with.

   Now, on to that interference of "power" - I myself have already explained to you that the tools are anything but "powers" and that the responsibility that goes with the tools is only the responsibility not to abuse the tools themselves. Any other form of responsibility is supposed to be something that every user has. And, if anything, this is just calling out users who opposed based on something you either don't understand/disagree with - and should be noted as an attempt to nullify opposition without sufficient reasoning in itself. -- azuris_ 00:27, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure I created an entire section that discarded the political discussion to focus on the practical need, so I don't see how Callofduty4's supporting argument is in any way accurate. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 03:46, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

4. Per my reasoning and the three guys above me. Madnessfan34537           21:46, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
5. I may not be an editor, but I've seen enough of repetitive reverts and fixes to pages that are either filled with speculation or vandalism. Just a while ago Argorrath was constantly editing the AKS-74u because another anon kept re-editing it based on speculation from a youtube video. This would be a good right to give certain trustworthy users.  S^WIFT TALON  21:50, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

   Though once he new the error of his ways he ceased to stop editing, He himself did't think he was wrong, but once the truth was shedded onto him, he quickly stopped editing on said page and instead went for forgiveness, most edit wars are when the opposing editor doesn't explain as well to why the edit has been undone in the first place, something that is easy to tell the user why it has been undone, and hopefully the user stopping editing the same page with the same bad info.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}02:45, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

   This is a clear example of why we don't need more users to have this ability. There was an edit conflict, yes, and we can't stop that. However, this was something that was resolved through communication rather than locking a page, and an admin could have easily been notified to lock the page if necessary. There's no case in this scenario where any other user would have been required to take administrative action. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 03:46, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

6. Per all, and CoD4's comment. Pierogi^Talk 22:53, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
7. Looking from Cod4's comment, I think it might be just better. --MLGisNot4Me ^talk 22:57, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Edit

1. While there is usually an admin present, there are a few timezones with less admin presence that could do with this. Overall, neutral. Pierogi^Talk 18:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC) Changing vote Pierogi^Talk 22:53, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
2. As I've stated, a very helpful user right to hand out, but on the other hand, not as required as user rights such as blog patrol and custodian.
   

   Crazy sam10 • Talk

   
   19:03, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Edit

1. As has been said, I do not feel that this user right is necessary. There is usually at least one admin to cut down edit wars or excessive vandalism with the additional ability to block any harm makers. If not, then users wouldn't have to struggle long until one would become online. Also, for some users it would be basically admin rights without a green name - if we trust users enough to give this userright, then we should be able to trust them enough with admin rights. -- MLGisNot4Me ^{talk
   contribs} 11:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC) Changing vote.
2. This isn't an extra needed flag by any strike of the imagination and can be carried out by administrators without the need for help. I don't want to see more rights that can be given out without community consensus. Smuffin^{[The cake is a lie]} 18:19, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
3. Per MLG and Smuff'n. There is simply no need for it as of now. Qw3rty! 18:29, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
4. Per my points above, and per Smuff. elmo's ramblings 18:36, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
5. As I have stated in my previous comment; we have more than enough active Admins around at all times. So there is no need for handing out a flag that Admins can't do themselves. And with another Admin sure to be coming onboard very soon who is almost hyperactive, well the point is almost a non-issue. Talk 18:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
6. Per my points in the discussion as well as per all. ^Smilular Talk 20:29, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

   The discussion was about wiki politics. None of it pertained to the actual forum.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  22:22, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

   What the basis of my argument was that just giving somebody a full set of sysop tools would be much, much easier than giving them it in bits and pieces. ^Smilular Talk 00:13, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

7. Per the points above. Redskin-26 22:20, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
8. I really don't find this to be necessary. I must agree with Whiskey. I do think my opinion subject to change if a better argument is provided, however. Joe Copp 00:01, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
9. If admins are behind on maintenance tasks you could always, you know, nominate more people for adminship. As with my previous comment, I see no need for over-specialization here. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:06, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
10. Semi-locking pages isn't always needed. With a large team of administrations, how much "help" would we actually get? Per WHISKEY35 and Bovell. DarkMetroid567^okay 00:12, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
11. Unnecessary. If a user were to need any tools like these for maintenance tasks - they might as well request them on an RfA. Not to mention that "edit wars" are not a big issue, and can be easily fixed by contacting an admin who is on. Just because admins are meant to perform janitorial tasks doesn't mean they have to constantly watch the RecentChanges in order to prevent something as simple as edit wars from happening. -- azuris_ 00:17, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
12. I can see how it helps, but it isn't that hard simply to ask a mod to do it. --Sgt. Sackboy 01:27, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

    Mods are pretty ineffective at protecting pages.

    

    Crazy sam10 • Talk

    

    02:31, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

    I'm hoping he meant admins. DarkMetroid567^okay 02:32, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

13. I feel the New User Right is very unnecessary, as edit wars aren't much of a big issue, alongside the fact that we have a group of ableminded Admins who should respond quickly if such edit wars persist.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}02:39, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
14. Per myself. 222 ^talk 02:55, June 29, 2012 (UTC) Not valid reasoning Joe Copp 05:51, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
15. Per Bovell The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 05:48, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
16. Since he took the words right out of my mouth, Per Smuff. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 23:29, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
17. Per my comments above: this has nothing to do with wiki politics; it's just unnecessary and redundant. We have a significant administrator team that does deal with issues reported to them. Proponents of expanding user rights seem to have the impression that a wiki needs 24/7 coverage, which is not the case. I'd much rather see users learn to go through discussion and mediation processes during edit conflicts instead of resorting to locking pages (which is a big deal, because it goes against the fundamental right of anyone being able to edit, and thus should only be invoked if editing is truly out of hand, such as mass vandalism). Allocating these user rights would imply that we don't have enough admins (in which case we should call for more nominations) or that our current admins are incompetent (in which case we should get rid of them). Giving out the ability to lock pages in the event of edit wars would be counterproductive because instead of encouraging users to go through editing processes to resolve edit wars, we'll have page-locking wars. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 03:38, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comments Edit

To anyone who's mentioning that "there's enough admins", this is not saying anything about why we should not be able to give rights to other users to help out.

When we introduced blog patrol, we didn't do it because there weren't enough administrators. We did it because it would have been useful for us to have other users who could help existing admins delete offending blog comments.

The same applies here. We would be giving a select few users the ability to protect pages should the need arises. If we're going to take "there's enough admins" as a reason to oppose this idea, it must be qualified with a consequence. Just saying "there's enough admins" doesn't mean anything on its own, it's simply a statement that is unqualified. Regardless of this, there have been times no admin is around to protect a page being consistently vandalised. It's happened before. To say that "there's enough admins" is simply irrelevant. We're not even discussing admins here.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  22:27, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your comparison to Blog Patrol to be an adequate example. Blog Patrollers have to deal with a high number of comments, which is why we hand out that right; we don't have enough on-duty administrators to cover that much material, so it is effective to have users help out. In the case of locking pages, however, you'd be hard-pressed to find a time where more than one edit war is occuring at once. Edit wars don't happen every day, and I truly think that since this right would only be handed out to a few well-educated users, it would not be that much of a help to the administrators active at that time. If this user right is so elite, the community would probably elect these individuals to be administrators anyway. Joe Copp 23:58, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, this can be used to protect a page from vandalism as well. So actually, yes, this will probably be used frequently, due to vandalism being an everyday occurrence. Pierogi^Talk 01:00, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

So, we have to create an entirely different right that serves the same purpose as the sysop right group? And vandalism does not warrant page protection, it warrants an undo and possibly a ban if they continue to vandalize. Which means that it would be far more beneficial to just nominate users for adminship than to give ~3 more users 1 extra tool that they would hardly use. -- azuris_ 01:12, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how this could really "help". Edit wars are not common in the first place. Just think about it, when was the last time you saw an edit war? Why should we give a tool to a small number of users who will likely never use it when we already have an abundance of active administrators? DarkMetroid567^okay 02:27, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

It only needs to be put into use once for it to be of any more "help" than we already have. For it to be of no "help" it would have to be never used, and that's simply not going to happen.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  07:58, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

Except it doesn't "help". The current RfA process offering the /same tool/ (with other tools of course) and will be far more beneficial to just nominate more users for adminship than it will be to just give them one flag based on the same reason we support/pass RfAs ("trust"). -- azuris_ 22:47, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

I sense a right that will only be given to a few select users will cause controversy over whether the right decision was made by the bureaucrat. Joe Copp 23:26, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

This isn't even an issue with having "enough" admins. We have admins. On any wiki, one of the abilities (and responsibilities) of an admin is to lock pages when necessary. Is there something remarkably difficult about this action that prevents our admins from doing so? Otherwise, I can't see why we need to get regular users to take administrative action. All it takes is for a user to report an edit war to an admin and it gets locked. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 03:55, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus is that the right is unnecessary, and thus will not be implemented. Joe Copp 03:14, July 1, 2012 (UTC)