Club Penguin Wiki:Archive/Potential Blog Right?

Forums: Index > Votes > Archive/Potential Blog Right?

I propose a new right designed for the blog - Copy editors (suggest for better names welcome) - They have all blog-related rights, and this should be the start of making the blog posted/administrated to more.

Copy editors have:

1. Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)
2. Permission for deleting comments on Blog Articles (blog-comments-delete)
3. Permission for editing Blog Articles (blog-articles-edit)
4. Permission for toggling comments on Blog Articles (blog-comments-toggle)

These rights make blogs more administratable, as well as making the new posting job easier for non-sysops. --Zapwire 14:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Vote (+3)

For (9)

1. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 17:20, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
2. --Lily8789 18:46, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
3. --Brookelas ^Talk! Yes, I like ZW's ideas {NOT BECAUSE I AM IN, BUT PPL IKE EUROPEA AND TELTU WHO NEVER POST???)
4. M'kay. Sifting through blog comments was one of the main things that didn't particularly enthrall me when I was an admin, so let some non admins share the responsibility. - Wompus78 18:50, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
5. Europea^{I am so bored right now.......} 21:43, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
6. --You can't be too Careful anymore ^{HAPPY 2010!!}_{Last videos of 2009!!!} 01:44, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
7. Sounds like a good idea! we need to make sure that there aren't a lot (or any at all) of spam in Blogs (the comments section)
8. Sure!--Daisy13103 ^{Talk to me here!} 22:20, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
9. Good idea! --Squishy Shop! Talk! 02:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, blog mods sounds good. But too many rights can cause havoc. I would choose this over AVT anytime, but if this goes through, no more rights whatsoever, because Wikia won't give us them. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah you have the best ideas Dancing Penguin 14:41, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Against (6)

1. Unneeded, useless, duplicated admin rights, silly. — Joey ^aa 21:34, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree, we should just give the right to sysops. No need for an extra right. Trust me, when the spotlight restrictions are lifted, we'll be promoting left right and all around, and new rights won't be a problem. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 21:44, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
3. What Joey and Tigernose said. Dancing Penguin 22:06, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
4. Why have it?? I mean, it would make less users participate!--Ratonbat 12:03, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
5. Unneeded. Rollback, Sysop (a.k.a. Adminstrator) and Bureaucrat rights are enough. --Staffan15 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:05, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
6. No ranking needed!Abce2|Gene, lick the crocodile. 23:50, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I would suggest that we choose hal, Europea, and teltu. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 17:55, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Those aren't good choices: they rarely post. I'm think people who post to the blog often but aren't sysops: ClubPenguinArchives, Brookelas (maybe not), etc. --Zapwire 18:29, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
• The name News Poster/Editor/Admin sounds cool. --Zapwire 18:30, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

• News Editor sounds great, but my criticism is that some people may think it's typically just someone who edits news posts. Something including "blog" or "moderator" sounds more wiki-friendly. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 18:44, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Im against brookelas and cpa from getting these rights because they will abuse it. I would rather have the users who i suggested because they can be trusted not to abuse and are experienced --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 21:51, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • The users you mentioned rarely post: ideal people are people who post often but no sysop powers. I listed some good candidates. --Zapwire 22:17, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

We need to pick someone who wont abuse. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 23:24, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Lets let people chose themslevs. we will pick the best. this will be so that we dont have to look at every user on the wiki. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 23:29, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, someone like CPA or Brookelas would be good; but remember the whole point is that they're bothered enough to do the job because you don't get any special abilities when making blogs, but rather have to simply moderate them. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 18:03, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I reckon ClubPenguinArchives and/or Iamred1 are decent candidates. - Wompus78 19:08, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as iamred is mostly inactive and never comes. CPA is new. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 22:37, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

So what Sea? CPA's a great user, and must have this right. Iamred might have a chance to redeem himself - maybe with a trial of this right? --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:41, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I just have a bad feeling about those 2 users getting those abilities... --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 22:11, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

• I do think this is a great idea, but like every great idea, there are some downsides. For now, my vote is yes and no. Mr. Neutral is back! --$harkbate ^Talk2Meh 03:36, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
• I doubt staffers will program a new right just for you. --☺Happyface☺ ^{I quit, Don't Talk to Me.} 02:11, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
• They can, they have done with other wikis, but there's no point of a new right anyway. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 15:42, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think I am perfect for the Job

Requirements:

• 3 Months of experience on the wiki.
• Post a lot of blog posts on the main page.
• Read a lot of blog comments.
• Not be power hungry.
• Be trusted by the community.

I meet the requirements!

Be honest. Really. Think about it. If you think you REALLY meet the requirements, and would like to be a proposed candidate, sign below. Stats that can be easily checked (the number of posts that you posted on the main page) will be and if you do not meet the criteria, you will be removed.

• Ozone101 Ozone101 23:32, January 17, 2010 (UTC) Did not meet requirements
• --Brookelas ^Talk!
• I haven't done blog posts for the main page because no one hears me. I want to put blog posts about many things, and I need some help, but no one hears me. I wanna be a candidate, but if this prevents me from being a candidate, so remove me from the list... --You can't be too Careful anymore ^{HAPPY 2010!!}_{Last videos of 2009!!!} 01:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC) Did not meet requirements
• I think I can do the job. User:ClubPenguinArchives 03:02, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I will give it a go, as part of becoming more active. --Iamred1 (TALK|BLOG!|EDITS!) 06:55, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Better Name

In the name of nostalgia, may I suggest Blogmaster as the title? --† This is Serious Business! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{TurtleShroom Productions: Patent Pending.} † 22:36, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Blogmaster sounds cool, or what about Blogmod? Both sound unfamiliar, but we'll get used to them. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:01, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

The blog part is good, but they aren't the supreme leader, just the moderators. --Zapwire 17:09, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes I like blogmod. Dancing Penguin 21:06, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

i think a good name wood bloggers --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Roozie1 (talk • contribs • edit count)

Blog Moderator. Blogmod sounds weird, but this is right. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 20:49, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said Blogmod sounds weird, but we'll get used to it. And if we don't, we'll just shorten Blog Moderator to Blogmod anyway - like civilization did with system operater and sysop, and every other pormenthau in the world. --Tigernose Chat • Edits 20:54, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I personally like 'blogmaster'.--{{SUBST:NAEsig}} 13:04, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

More rights

Add your own - also sign ones you like

1. Search deleted pages (browsearchive)? (search removed blog comments) --Zapwire 17:21, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Move files (movefile) (make it easier to find images for posters) --Zapwire 17:21, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
3. Remove avatar? (zw wouldn't recommend this) --Zapwire 17:21, January 19, 2010 (UTC) Only staff can do this.
4. Edit interface (for updating url blacklist) --Zapwire 17:21, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
   1. Weak oppose: Its good if they could only use it to update the blacklist. They will use it to edit other pages. I wouldent trust them with this as it can easily be used to on purpose or accidently make the site unusable. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 20:26, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
5. Delete/undelete (for removing blog posts, zw does not recommend) --Zapwire 17:21, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
   1. Good idea for deleting pages. We can restrict it to the blog namespace. Ive seen it before on other wikis --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 20:27, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
6. Idea: Admins can revoke and grant access to the blogmod right, since it is minor. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 20:26, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
   1. Leave the user rights modifications to the bureaucrats. - Wompus78 20:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
      1. One issue: there are only 2. If they are offline when a blogmod account is compromised or if they misbehave, no ones there to revoke their powers. Wikipedia allows admins to grant rollback abilities. --seahorseruler |Talk (EditCount) Yoshi! 22:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
         1. ZW does not approve. --Zapwire (talk/blog/edits) 22:46, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Block 'em. — Joey ^aa 22:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

why not let Admins promote them?--{{SUBST:NAEsig}} 13:07, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well that was the whole idea behind the admin and crat merge, duh! --Tigernose Chat • Edits 17:13, January 25, 2010 (UTC)