Content Recently Changed Pages Sims 2 - Sims who use a broken/corrupted face template List of User Group Rights Fictional User Group Rights Administrator and Bureaucrat - User Blocking Wiki-Navigation Administrator and VSTF User Group Comparison Crash Bandicoot - Bosses Re-directs Admin Portal Administrator Administrator - User Blocking Administrators Administrators' Noticeboard Administrators' dashboard Ambitious Pages Sims 2 - Possible memories for Kaylynn Langerak Sims 2 - Possible memories for Bella Goth Sims 2 - Compatible Aspiration Pairings Sims 2 - Capp/Monty Feud The Golden Locket Elliot Gothic Universe of Shapes C.Syde's Pages Sims 2 - Possible memories for Kaylynn Langerak Sims 2 - Possible memories for Bella Goth Sims 2 - Compatible Aspiration Pairings Sims 2 - Capp/Monty Feud The Golden Locket Elliot Gothic Universe of Shapes Sims (fanon) Mr. Monty Sims who have mastered a skill (fanon) Sims by gender (fanon) Sims by age (fanon) Sims by appearance (fanon) Sims by neighbourhood (fanon) Sims by life state (fanon) Users Sannse Wikia Indefinitely blocked users Wikia staff Bureaucrats Sysops Rollbackers Sims Sims by appearance Adopted Sims Sims by gender Glitchy Sims Sims by age Pregnant Sims Abducted Sims Gothic Universe of Shapes Yin Yang (GUOS65001).png Eight Ball (GUOS65002).png Yin Yang/Eight Ball (2-Item Set) Shapes Pilot Era Shapes Final Hour of Doom Glass (GUOS65004).png Black Diamond (GUOS65005).png F.H.O.D Glass/Black Diamond (2-Item Set) Shapes Polls Talk Pages Community Administration Wiki policies Manual of Style Contact an admin User rights Blog Posts Recent posts Community news Community Discussions Deletion discussions Development discussions Admin discussions Admin's noticeboard Chat Chat Chat Policy Bot Commands Chat Logs Service Commands Command Logs Forums Community discussions Help and questions Off-topic Dashboard Wiki Theme Design Recent Changes Top Navigation Wiki Features Media Wiki System Messages CSS JS Community List Users User Rights Community Corner Community messages Community notices Watchlist Help Content All Categories Add a Page Add an Image Add a Blog Post Add Multiple Images Maintenance Wanted Pages Wanted Images Wanted Templates Wanted Categories

Filter Posts Reset

Categories

Sort By

  • All
  • Following
This post is locked.

Making changes to the User Rights Requests Page

It's been quite a few days since I got the idea to make some changes to the http://csydes.wikia.com/wiki/C.Syde's_Wiki%3AUser_Rights_Requests page. I've had this idea since I've noticed that several of our candidates that have requested rights here have failed to format their requests correctly. Initially I believed that that was due to the fact that the candidates lacked the experience to format their requests correctly.

However it seems that perhaps it's about time that some changes were made to the way candidates are expected to format their requests. The way the requests are supposed to be formatted was adopted by the way candidates were expected to format their requests on http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki. Many of the templates etc. on this wiki were in-fact adopted from the Sims wiki, and then customised to my liking.

I've been looking at some other wikis for inspiration. I got some inspiration http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Category%3ADiscussion_templates from the http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia_SpongeBobia and I thought of possibly making some pre-loadable templates which will duplicate what the candidates need to format their requests, since a big problem I've noticed is that too many of our candidates have completely ignored the "SAMPLE FORMAT, DO NOT REMOVE" label when trying to format their request, which unfortunately resulted in them trying to format their requests using the default which is example rather than copying it.

Admittedly the user rights request page has become rather cluttered from merging two user rights requests pages into one. While I wouldn't be keen on splitting the page up again to what it was prior to the merge, I was thinking of maybe splitting the page up so that one page could contain the information and one page could contain the request sections. For an easy navigation, I was thinking of making a tab template like http://bdaman.wikia.com/wiki/Template%3AChartab this one. I'm not against the idea of making pre-loaded templates, but the thing is it would take quite a bit of work to make them exactly how I want them, and I'm not entirely sure whether they'd be able to work exactly how I want them, since I've never actually made a pre-loaded template before. But anyway, I was wondering if there were any other alternatives besides the ones that I've brought up.
User Rights Requests
User Rights Requests Requesting administrator rights is currently limited to chat moderators, roll-backers, discussion moderators, content moderators, and assistants only. Users who apply for administrator-ship will have their requests declined if they don't already have chat moderator, rollback, discussion moderator, content moderator, or assistant status. ↑ Administrators and Bureaucrats previously had this ability., ↑ While it would be extremely uncommon to have a user with global user-rights apply for local... C.Syde's Wiki
0 3
This post is locked.
0 1
This post is locked.

Removing Chat Moderator/Rollback/Discussion Moderator requirements for Assistant/Content Moderator candidates

Our current policies require that all prospective candidates or nominees for Assistant or Content Moderator first attain either Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights on the wiki. I could just go ahead and modify the requirements myself, without seeking input from anyone who happens to notice this thread. But I have decided to propose that these requirements to obtain Assistant and Content Moderator rights are removed.
It's important for us to understand why the requirements were originally put in place, and the effects they currently have. When the Assistant and Content Moderator user-groups were first introduced, it was decided that a user must obtain either Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights, before obtaining Assistant or Content Moderator rights.
There are no requirements to become a Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator on this wiki, since none of these user-groups so far, especially the Chat Moderator and Discussion Moderator user-groups, have a significant impact on the wiki. Very few users use chat here, so the need to ban users is almost always overlooked. The forums on this wiki aren't used very often, and talk pages are used on this wiki instead of message walls, so the need to archive threads is increasingly limited.
For users with Rollback rights, they are more likely to cause a problem since if a user is promoted to rollback on this wiki, and they are later revealed to be a troll, they may use rollback to revert good faith edits. The editing side of the wiki is significantly stronger than the social side, which probably explains why there has been one incident of an inappropriate use of rollback on this wiki, but no incidents of inappropriate uses of kicking and banning users, or inappropriate uses of taking over thread conversations, or article comments.
Users that misuse rollback on this wiki receive warnings as a result of their blatant misuse of the tool, or if the situation is serious enough, they may risk loss of rollback privileges altogether. But since the rollback tool is the only thing roll-backers have that regular users do not, there remains to be no requirements to become a rollback here. Users who apply for Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights here always tend to have their requests approved, unless they been found to have a history of negative contributions on this wiki, or on other wikis.
For Assistant or Content Moderator rights meanwhile, a user must have Chat Moderator, Rollback, or Discussion Moderator rights. In addition to those requirements, there are several recommendations that can mean the difference between an approved request and a non-approved request. These recommendations are: having made edits to templates and categories, and use of more "complex" tools or features such as tables, and knowledge of or experience with JavaScript or Cascading Styling Sheets. These recommendations are not compulsory, but they can strengthen the chances of the outcome of the request.
It is possible for a user to not be very experienced, and still have their requests for Assistant or Content Moderator pass. But it's a relatively uncommon occurrence, and is unlikely to happen, unless the user is considered trustworthy to use the Assistant and Content Moderator tools appropriately, and not abuse them for their own gain, and to cause havoc. The main reason why Assistant and Content Moderator rights are held to a higher standard is because they can view deleted contributions, change the protection levels of pages, and edit fully protected pages.
Content Moderators can delete and un-delete pages whereas non-Content Moderators can not. And Assistants have access to several tools such as importing pages, marking reverted edits as bot edits, enabling and disabling article comments in blog articles, editing other user's user blogs, and editing wiki-style forums which are locked and archived on this wiki, and un-editable by non-Assistants.
But to be honest, I feel that Assistants and Content Moderators are held to a high enough standard without needing to have one of the following pre-requisites - Chat Moderator, Rollback, and Discussion Moderator rights - because like I mentioned, there are several recommendations may have or may not have which can determine the difference between a successful request or an unsuccessful request. Chat Moderator, Rollback, and Discussion Moderator candidates meanwhile will always have their requests approved unless they have been found to have had a negative history on this wiki or on another wiki.
Also I do feel that having those prerequisites in place doesn't do much to encourage users to apply for Assistant and Content Moderator rights, especially since Chat Moderators, Roll-backers, and Discussion Moderators will usually just want to apply for Administrator rights which are available for them to request. Users who apply for Assistant or Content Moderator rights are less likely to have their requests declined than if they were to apply for Administrator rights, since there are slightly more requirements to become an Administrator which are just recommendations to Assistant or Content Moderator candidates. There hasn't been a single user on this wiki yet that has had their Administrator request approved that wasn't once an Assistant - Content Moderator rights didn't exist yet at the time.
For all the reasons listed above, I feel that with these changes, not only will Assistant and Content Moderator rights potentially receive more recognition, but users will no longer need to apply for any lower tiered rights first, which will serve as a benefit for users wanting to work their way towards obtaining administrator rights, having a choice between five user-groups to apply for, instead of three. Considering that the process of filtering out users who are unqualified for Content Moderator, Assistant, or Administrator rights is good enough, allowing regular users to apply for Assistant or Content Moderator rights as a first request will do much more good than harm, if there is any harm that is.

Should we remove the Chat Moderator/Rollback/Discussion Moderator requirements for Assistant/Content Moderator candidates, and give them the option to apply for Assistant/Content Moderator rights to fulfill the requirements needed to apply for Administrator rights later?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for seven days. Time remaining: 02:22:00 September 7, 2016 UTC
0 5
This post is locked.

Making changes to the Block and Unblock system.

This new proposed policy has been put forward, upon being advised by wikia staff to make changes to the way blocks and unblocks are handled.
Currently the policies say that any user who has joined this wiki will automatically be placed on an indefinite block, should they be found to have a history of sock-puppet accounts.
However wikia staff, and possibly a couple of users have said that automatically placing users on such blocks, particularly sock-puppet users that otherwise edit in good faith, may result in unwanted provocation and possibly even complaints.
I actually noticed a user unsuccessfully attempting to request that my wiki be closed down. I initially believed that they were doing this in response to me blocking all their accounts from editing here, hence their having a join date, and being confirmed to have had a history of sock-puppets.
But since I was advised to make some changes to these policies by wikia staff themselves, I've come to think that maybe that user had a point. They weren't being disruptive, and I guess them being blocked may have been construed as a personal attack to them, which wasn't my intention. Still, I will keep all but one of their accounts blocked, because I wish to retain the policy of limiting users to one active account only.
The user in question however won't be unblocked until their birthday this year, as they are apparently one year below the legal age to have an account on wikia. But one thing is absolutely certain is that some users, such as this one will not be given the chance to return to this wiki, not after the disruption they have caused on numerous wikis across the wikia network.
So I've put this policy proposal forward, for users to vote on it, either publicly via thread posting, or anonymously via poll.

Should we give good faith users a chance to return to this wiki, even if they've been revealed to have a history of sock-puppet accounts on other wikis?
Yes I think it's a good idea. [3]
No I think it's a bad idea. [1]
Policy? What policy?! [0]
If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll.
But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 06:08:00 May 4, 2015 UTC
0 2
This post is locked.

Should we fully enable the article comments feature?

In light of a recent idea that has come into my head, I would like to start a discussion as to whether we should fully enable the article comments feature on my wiki.
The wiki features describes the article comments feature as an extension that will let people write comments at the bottom of article pages. Other users can reply to the comments, and signatures and time-stamps are automatically assigned. This will replace talk pages on this wiki.
I've always preferred the talk pages over the article comments option, and I was in favour of disabling the article comments feature. Back in January 2015, a consensus was reached, and the article comments option was disabled.
In April 2015, the article comments feature was re-enabled, but for the fanon namespace only. However I don't see the talk pages for the namespace being used very often, and thus I have begun to question whether we should keep using them, or replace them, and fully re-enable the article comments.
The reason I disabled them, was because I always preferred the talk pages, however since this wiki is a lot newer than wikis like The Sims Wiki, it won't really matter if the article comments feature is re-enabled, since we only have a few semi-active users here, and only one full-time user.
So basically we don't really have any long term wikia users that have been editing wikia for many years that would benefit from keeping the talk pages for the main namespace on this wiki. And even with the comments section fully enabled, we'll still have talk pages inside the project namespace.
So because of all this, I've subsequently decided to propose that we fully enable the article comments feature, and use it to replace the talk pages inside the main namespace.

Should we enable the article comments feature completely, so that it will replace talk pages inside the main namespace?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 07:26:00 October 15, 2015 UTC
1 4
This post is locked.

Anonymous editing restriction

This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect.
I've noticed that unlike on the Sims wiki, on C.Syde's Wiki, we don't really have very many users on here, and I was thinking in order to modernise, we should put this policy into effect.
My proposal is that we eliminate the process of having unregistered users contribute here. Meaning that users who are unregistered will no longer be able to edit on this wiki.
Currently here at C.Syde's Wiki, unregistered users are able to edit here, but the places where they are able to contribute are increasingly limited, and thus I don't think it will hurt to eliminate anonymous editing entirely.
So I've put this policy proposal forward, for users to vote on it, publicly via thread posting.

Should we disable anonymous editing here at C.Syde's Wiki?
To weigh in on this discussion and vote, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 06:47:00 August 1, 2015 UTC
1 4
This post is locked.

Making changes to the Contributions and Pages system.

This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect.
Currently here at C.Syde's Test Wiki, unregistered contributors are strictly forbidden from actively engaging in any activities other than giving queries on user talk pages. I was thinking that maybe to encourage more users to practice editing here, we should allow them to start off as nothing more than what I was three days before I got an account - Wikia contributors.
My proposal is that we eliminate the process of automatically locking all pages inside the main namespace, and talk pages. This will also allow unregistered users to vote publicly on forum threads without having their votes discarded (if any), and be able to participate in community discussions.
Most of the templates will remain locked so that only registered contributors can edit them, and most of the pages that have been locked to administrators only will remain this way. I suppose it won't hurt to allow unregistered users to leave messages on the administrator's noticeboard. So......

Should we eliminate the policy restricting the participation of unregistered contributors for this wiki?
Yes I think it's a good idea. [3]
No I think it's a bad idea. [0]
Policy? What policy?! [1]
If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll.
But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 02:46:00 May 7, 2015 UTC
0 3
This post is locked.

Making changes to the Rollback, Moderator, and Chat Moderator system.

This new policy request has been in my head for quite some time now, but it wasn't until today that I have decided to suggest that this policy proposal be taken into effect.
I've noticed that unlike on the Sims wiki, on C.Syde's Test Wiki, roll-backers, moderators, and chat moderators are listed as staff, despite not being in the position to take bigger actions against trolls, vandals, and sock-puppets.
Currently here at C.Syde's Test Wiki, users can request for rollback, moderator, or chat moderator rights separately, or they can apply for the moderator deluxe feature which is basically three nominations in one.
My proposal is that we eliminate the process of having users apply for rollback, moderator, and chat moderator rights separately, which will make it compulsory for users to obtain all 3 rights together. This new proposal will not change the requirements needed to obtain these rights, nor will it affect users that belong in any one of these 3 user groups.
For example, if a user currently belongs in the rollback user group, and this policy takes into effect, then they will become a moderator, and chat moderator. In other words they will become what I call, a deluxe moderator.
I personally think that merging these 3 usergroups together so that they can not be obtained separately is a good idea, and it should make things a tad easier for users to have their RfAs approved, since it's a big step up from rollback, chat moderator, and moderator, to administrator. I myself can remember the pressure of having to apply for administrator-ship on the Sims wiki, the first time.

Should we make it compulsory for rollback, moderator and chat moderator rights to be obtained together on my test wiki?
Yes I think it's a good idea. [2]
No I think it's a bad idea. [1]
Policy? What policy?! [0]
If users are not comfortable with giving their names, I won't scold those unknown people to the air. That's why I've given users the option to vote using a poll.
But for the users that are comfortable with voting publicly, just vote below.
To vote for, just post:

{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' — <your reasons for supporting this policy change here>
To write a neutral opinion on this policy change, voting neither for or against, but just to give feedback on this policy change, just post:

{{Neutral}}'''Neutral''' — <your reasons for not supporting or opposing this policy change here>
To vote against, just post:

{{VoteAgainst}}'''Oppose''' — <your reasons for opposing this policy change here>
Please do NOT quote this post, as it will clutter up the thread, and make it less effective.
Please do not vote if you are not registered. All unregistered votes will be discarded and deleted.
Countdown:
Voting shall last for five days. Time remaining: 05:34:00 May 3, 2015 UTC
0 3