Welcome to the Club Penguin Wiki! Log in or Create an account to join the community!

Club Penguin Wiki:Archive/ADMINSHIP PROJECT

From the Club Penguin Wiki, the free, editable encyclopedia about Club Penguin
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Historical Page (Archived)
This page is about something that no longer applies to the Club Penguin Wiki. It has been kept for historical purposes.
Notes: n/a
  • Note: What you are seeing here is a forum from the July 2009 reforms. Before this, we had in excess of 30-40 admins and 110 users with rights such as rollback in the wiki. There was also a "webmaster" rank, which acted similarly to being a dictator of something. Thanks to the users of the wiki that supported the movement to reform these rights, the smooth administration system you see nowadays is the result of this forum!


 Closed
This vote or discussion has been closed. Do not make any changes to it.

Hello this is Tigernose. I am making a forum regarding the current system of electing admins. I have decided that there shall be change. This is one of the main reasons why we had over 110 people in usergroups once. I hope you understand and vote. This is clipped to removing the fictional webmaster right.

User Rights

I am sure you have heard the term user right. There are four user rights:

  • Rollback - The ability to quickly undo edits by a user on a page.
  • Sysop - The ability to protect pages, delete pages, edit protected pages, to block people and etc.
  • Bureaucrat - The ability to give user rights to a person.
  • ShoutBox Mod - The ability to control messages in the Shout Box.

I am leaving the latter right out of this, it is new and does not affect my reasons.

When you have a certain user right, you are placed in the corresponding user group. You can be placed in more than one user group. When placed in a user group, you obtain the ability. This is one thing cleared.

User rights are not RANKS. I hate it when people misunderstand the definition of a user right. There is no such thing as promotion. This means, if you are a bureaucrat it does not mean you are a sysop as well. You have to be in both user groups to have both abilities. Many users are considered b-crats, but it doesn't mean they have the same ability as a sysop. You have to have both user rights. This is unlike the sysop/rollback user right. If you are a sysop, you do have the ability to rollback people, even if you aren't in both groups. This brings me onto a message to some 'crats out there: when giving a user admin rights, when they already have rollback right - please take away the rollback right as it only gives off server lag.

What we think now, is this: rollback -> sysop -> bureaucrat. This is wrong, there is no such things as ranks, therefore someone can be a 'crat without even being a rollback.

Now that we have understood what user rights are, we need to consider when and why we should give these user rights to someone.

Rollback

User rights are not ranks. This means Rollback isn't the first step up a tree. Subsequently, you can become a sysop without having to be a rollback. Now, rollback rights should be given to a user who is actively involved in removing vandalism. People apply for rollback rights thinking they are a step up there. Except they are not. Edits do not matter with the rollback ability. A rollback can only rollback edits. So, when making applying for rollback, please think: are you going to use this power. You are better off without the power if you are not going to be removing vandalism. This means you can apply to sysop rights, instead of having to be a rollback first.

When thinking who to give rollback rights, you must consider how many times they have fought off vandals. Stuff like having an active Vandal Watch, or involved in anti-vandalism projects. These are good factors to consider.

Sysop

Now, the sysop right a very important right. Yet, we misunderstand that. Giving a user adminship rights on here is the equivalent of giving adminship on a forum. A lot of you, I guess, go on forums. A lot of you, I guess, crave that adminship right. The adminship right is the most important of them all. It is not below the the b-crat rank, because like I said: being a bureaucrat means you can only promote people. Bureaucratship is a minion compared to sysopship.

We have cleared the fact that user rights are not ranks. This brings us onto the next matter of why someone should be a sysop.
Someone can apply to be a sysop without having to be a rollback. This doesn't mean that if you are denied rollback ability you will be accepted sysop ability. There is a huge responsibility that sysops hold. A sysop can block others. That is scary enough. They are the so called "heads" of the wiki (ability-wise). They do not lead the wiki, but they have the power to block, delete, protect, edit the interface. Applying for sysopship should be a huge responsibility. This all links with the no ranks issue.

So, applying for sysop is a huge responsibility. In my opinion, someone should only be a sysop if they are trusted by the community, are experienced with wikicode, have a lot of edits, are involved in a lot of projects and so on. I am not giving any guidelines, as there are no guidelines. I am simply pointing out you have to be trusted a lot by the community. When disusing the powers, you will get demoted (hopefully to the guidelines of Seahorseruler's potential policy :D).
A total amount of edits above a 1000 is recommended with a 40% mainspace portion, and you must be actively involved in projects. This is the closest I am going to get to rules.

You have to be trusted to handle the massive powers you have. You may be a good editor, but the choices you make affect everyone.

Bureaucrat

This is a difficult one. I did say that there are no ranks, but being a sysop before having 'crat rights is recommended. In reality though, bureaucrat promotions should be closed. I think there should only be some 4 bureaucrats. The ability is unneeded anyway. I don't see the point of applying to be bureaucrat. Purely because there are already 4 people who can promote people, which is enough. Like I said 'crat isn't a step up the tree. It is simply a power. If someone drops out, then maybe someone else can apply to take their place. This is as far as I am going, 'crat ability is unneeded to the average sysop.

Webmasters

Look what I just found: "link to old site removed". I finally understand this pointless right. They have veto powers!

We get to this point. I am agianst the webmaster right. This is purely because it is not are right, it is a fictional title. The CPW is a free place, anyone can edit - no one rules the wiki. The funny thing is, out of the 4/5 'crats we have at the moment, the majority of them are webmasters. What is the point of that?

Wikia never mentioned a webmaster. Robbsi made the term. He may not have invented it, but he applied to wikis. The closest thing to a webmaster is staff, as they get the ability to make wikis and etc. We do not have webmasters here. Please remove the title. They do not exist. We are the only wiki to have them (with the exception of a couple, which coincidently are edited by users here). I think Joeyaa's famous blog regards this issue, but we should have them removed.

Yay it worked!

Election System

I am now onto how people get elected. The way we do it know should be changed IMO.

Nomination

I don't think the way we do it now is right. No other wikis does it like us. I am proposing, that 2 other people have to nominate you, so you can applicate. You cannot nominate yourself. One of these people, one of them has to be a sysop, the other can be anyone else. This way, deserving people can be given the chance. LarryRawr once said this may turn into a popularity contest. It may, but the people at the moment who are involved in fights and conflicts are already a sysop or a rollback. The people who do not have a userright are usually people who are taking a back seat. Let it stay this way. I don't want regular users to be converted into fighting and in stupid, pointless sockpuppeting.

So this is what I am proposing:

  • 2 people must nominate you for a right. You can ask them too, but they must agree fully. It can not be a sympathy vote, nor a vote because you are their friend.
  • One of these people must be a sysop. The other can be anyone else. This ensures a deserving person to be nominated.

Voting

The way we vote is pretty unorganised. My main concern is the "neutral" section. I think it should be removed. I think this, because a lot of applications are becoming what I call: vote lagged. This means, so many people sign underneath the neutral section, that you can't receive a valid result because this is what the ratio is:

  • For: 2
  • Against: 2
  • Neutral: 20

Funny you may think it is, but it is annoying. Some people are a little to kind here. I'm seeing people saying "I don't think you're ready yet", but putting it in the neutral section so they don't upset the user, while in reality the basis on for or against is by evidence (ie. contributions, length of time on the wiki, known projects) and not specifically by emotions (this user is nice so they should be bureaucrat, or never say no).

This is how to resolve this:

  • No Neutral section. If you neutral, don't vote and leave a reason underneath the "Comments" section.
  • Only Signatures in the "For" and "Against". This means, you should only leave a signature in the corresponding section and no comment. The comment goes in the "comment" section. Not only does this make it more straightforward, you can easily compare the two. It is difficult to compare a "for" section with 10 votes, vs. an "against" section with 5 votes, but each of them have a paragraph clipped to it. A lot of people disagree with this. I am proposing a comment no longer than 1 sentence in a "For"/"Against" section, and any other long comments go in the "comments" section.

Secondly, I am concerned on how we organise votes. I think, in order for a vote to go through it must have a vote difference of 6. What I mean by vote difference is: Votes "For" subtracted by Votes "Against". Now, within this 6 vote difference, 2 sysops must vote "for". Then the application goes through to the administration, where the sysops agree to give rights to the user. To organise these votes, it must indicate the vote difference next to the applicants name, in the section.

For example (I am using "nowiki" for this.):

==Tigernose - Rollback request (+5)==

The "5" indicates the vote difference. When voting, you must change the vote difference.

Deserving Users

Like I said, I won't make any guidelines, nor I hope there will be, but when voting for someone, you have to physically look at their contributions, and not their editcount. Some users may have 1000 main edits, but they might all be 2 byte minor edits. Please consider this.

Amount of Admins

This is a major problem. This has been going on since 2008. Have you heard this before:

“ There are never too many rollbacks! ”
 
— TurtleShroom

Slight problem with that: There are too many! This brings me back onto my message: user rights are not ranks. This means rollback right is as important as others. The main problem concerning this is reverting conflicts. With the amount of sysops and rollbacks we have got, the amount of reverting conflicts are HUGE. The only way to solve this is to have IRC meetings. This can be easily done, I have planned it out in my head, but that is for a different day.

Right. So this is how it should look like.

“ There are too many rollbacks! Only give this power to users who actively remove vandalism. ”
 
— Tigernose

With the amount of users who have user rights, conflicts are abundant and we can't solve anything. The administration should consist of about 10 users who are trusted to maintain the wiki.

However, we should not focus on numbers. Some people are suggesting: 10 admins, 5 crats, 16 rollbacks etc. In my opinion, we should get the job done, by removing unneeded user rights, and then see what the numbers are. Chances are, it will be a positive amount. We can't have a fixed target, because then we have to specifically choose who to keep and who to demote. That will be very long, so just get the job done.

We have addressed the issue of the amount inactive admins and have demoted them. Now is the time to demote the active admins who don't need the powers.

Okay, okay, not many people agree with this. I am changing it. Okay, you're right, no one at the moment is undeserving. BUT we need to stop promoting users. Like Joeyaa says below, we should only promote users if you really need to. This is linked with my first section on this forum. Read it, and you'll understand when you should promote a user. --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 20:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

“ The amount of users entrusted with rights is relative to the wiki's need, and as very little vandalism now occurs we have no need. ”
 
— Joeyaa

It's the truth, lets not entrust all these important right to new users because the current ones don't use it well either, if we have a sysop that is inactive or just not using their rights (well or at all) then demote them. It's not a rank, it's something that should be temporarily given to any user at a time when we have a need for another user with said right, and must be used if said user doesn't want to lose it. I really must agree with Mr. Tigernose here; please hear him out on this, he has my support. --NOT A STAFF OR HELPER — Joey aa 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary

This is the longest post I have made so far. I hope you understand and I hope this will get put through. I will make a seperate vote for each section I made in the post, so things can get addressed seperately. Each section is slightly categorised, so the vote sections will have varied titles.

--TЙГЭPHO3Ь (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Votes

User Rights

I agree

I do not agree

Opinions

Webmasterism

For

Against

  • NO. What if Robbssi comes back and sees what happens? Unknown4 Talk 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
He won't. He hasn't came back for 2 years. Nor would he care. I wouldn't care, he was never a webmaster in the first place. --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ummm Robbssi has been a webmaster. I have read the history of the main page. And if he still plays cp we could and anyone still has him as a buddy we could find him and ask him to go here and aggree or disagree with this. Unknown4 Talk 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
What he thinks theoretically matters even less than a current webbmaster, because he's quit as well. --4th hale (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I think it is time. All the webmasters have agreed. This project is going through. Time to message all of the webmasters for their last approval, and we will replace anything webmaster to bureaucrat and delete any webmaster pages. --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 12:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Webmaster page deletion

  • Do you REALLY have to delete the Webmaster pages? I don't think that Joeyaa would want to help me fanon and export every peice of wiki history/culture again. If you MUST kill the Webmasters, do it if you must, but keep the pages until I can figure out what to do with them.
  • What would you want to do with them? They aren't needed. We aren't deleting the pages though, simply removing all of the webmaster stuff within the pages. --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 22:16, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Election System

For

Against

Discussion

  • I say yes to lack of neutral, but no to the comments section. It's much simplier to put them in the section you vote for. --Zapwire (Talk|contribs) 14:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A compromise could be that you should only put a reason no longer than a sentence. If you want to make longer reasons, put them in the comments section. --TЙГЭPHO3Ь (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 15:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ditto Zapwire, and I agree with the voting section, but I do not agree with the nomination section. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Elections may cause too much of a hassel. I don't see the point of ANY government AT ALL
  • I do not agree with the part it says you can't leave comments and you can't nominate yourself, I mean maybe your not so active and ppl dont see you often but maybe he's a great editor....--Ratonbat 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know, but I have some sort of reason which I can't explain in English...--Ratonbat 23:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to think about this... would this mean you couldn't nominate yourself? Alxeedo Blah blah blah... (Contribs|Editcount)
  • Yes, that is the proper way anyway. It can stop stupid and pointless nominations taking place, like users who have 30 edits requesting to be a sysop because they have a lot of friends on Shout Box. --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Amount of Admins

I agree

  • Way too much. But it's more about the status than the actual abilities for most but not all people. --4th hale (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree

Uh, what? If users are set so badly to become a sysop or other right then they simply want the rank or power, they'd understand what's in the wiki's best interest. Do we want people who will leave if they don't get their way with extra rights? That's a recipe for disaster. NOT A STAFF OR HELPER — Joey aa 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions

Well, To be honest, The admin right is given to enough users right now. There should not be any more, but that does not mean we should demote active ones. I think there are way too many rollbacks though, and some rollbacks should be demoted. The rollbacks that should be demoted are the ones that only use their ability to revert edits to the way they like best. I have noticed many users reverting edits for no good reason! And many rollbacks use their ability to revert an administrator's edit, which is often fixing a mistake that the rollback made. Heres an example of a no good reason revert:

23:04, 15 August 2009 Iceanator189 (Talk | contribs | block) m (8,343 bytes) (Reverted edits by Spider880 (talk) to last version by Iceanator189) (undo)

I ended up undoing his edit back to the last version, because he had no right to revert a perfectly good edit. Im not just talking to Iceanator, im talking to all that use their ability for this. I mostly use the undo button for edit disagreements, so i can give a valid reason for reverting. I only use the rollabck button for vandalism, and vandalism only. No, speaking of the current administrators, Most of the admins dont power abuse. They only use their tools when they feel it is needed. Right now, I can only think of 1 admin that power abuses and he only uses his right for making unfair blocks. If you see any rollback revert a perfectly good edit, I suggest you revert it back... If you do revert it back, you are not power abusing, you are taking action against power abuse, which is the right thing to do. I have to admit, some users with the rollback ability can be plain annoying. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • In my opinion the amount of admins doesn't really matter. What matters is if users are getting the rights that don't deserve them. For example: If theres alot of admins that all Deserve sysopness then that should be fine. ~~Bluehero~~
  • I think that all the current (active) Admins have done a great job doing what they are doing, and we shouldn't demote anyone, but no more promoting for a few months. Alxeedo Blah blah blah... (Contribs|Editcount)

Comments

I dont get how we can have to many of something like rollbacks or sysops because the more their are the better the wiki will be proteced for I dont think we should stop promoting user because i think its better if we have as much as we can, except for webmasters there should awalys be 2-4 webmasters no more no less. --Brendan7195 Viva la Wii 16:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, There can be too many. If there are more than enough, many admins disagree with eachother, and that leads to more un-needed debates and arguments. Right now, i think we have enough. I disagree with demoting some active ones, but i agree to stop promoting new ones. As for webmasters, I am starting to feel we don't need them. Wikia staff and the rest of the wikia community don't respect us much because we have webmasters. If we stop using the term, and just have regular crats, we will be treated like a regular wiki again. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tigernose! I don't know if you remember me or not but I used to come on alot before summer started. And i would like to say that I think your idea is great! When I used to came on here I remember that alot of users were promoted only because they were friends with higher ranked users an only because they craved adminship powers. I think that your idea will help to solve this. I would also like to say that when a problem user comes to this wiki like the "walrus" instead of giving them attention by putting them on places like the "Wall of shame", we should just block them and forget about them. That way they are more likely to get bored and leave the wiki. ~~Bluehero~~

  • Hey Bluehero! Thanks for liking the idea. It will go through after Seahorse's new policy does. Also, we have decided to take off the Wall of Shame and all Str00delization, to stop feeding the vandal. Hopefully you won't see any of that anymore! --Թայգէրնոս (Chat|Edits|Vandals) 12:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.clubpenguinwiki.info/index.php?title=Club_Penguin_Wiki:Archive/ADMINSHIP_PROJECT&oldid=424475"