Dota 2 Wiki talk:Technical requests

From Dota 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Group permissions[edit]

My suggestions can be seen here. The changes I'm proposing include:

  • Move permissions going from Users to Autoconfirmed
The requirements to become Autoconfirmed are not that stringent, "Move" vandals are some of the most obnoxious type of vandals to deal with as moves can not simply be rolled back, or undone. Requiring users to be "autoconfirmed" is the best deterrent to this form of vandalism.
  • Add abuse-filter-log viewing rights to Autoconfirmed
Again, the requirements to become Autoconfirmed are not that stringent. This would allow dedicated members of the community "in good standing" the added right to contribute by assisting the Adminstrators in monitoring the abuse filters for false positives.
  • Removal of blocking rights for bots
Bots should not be allowed to block other users.
  • Elimination of the Moderators usergroup and moving them to Administrator
The right to block other users is the most important right in this group. Everything else is simply to allow janitorial functions. If Moderators can be trusted to block other users, they can be trusted to do everything else an administrator does.
  • Addition of abuse-filter-log rights to Administrator
Allows Administrators to monitor for false positive actions.
  • Add the check user permissions to Bureaucrat by default.
The Bureaucrat is the top dog, most trusted leader of the wiki community. They have the power to grant all defined permissions on members of the community (as well as take them away). There is no reason to not make Check-User functions default.

-- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 09:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know the reasons behind the current division of rights. I defer to the right honorable RJackson. I personally have no objections to your proposed user rights changes--except that I believe abusefilter-view (not to be confused with abusefilter-private!) should be granted to autoconfirmed users. These changes would grant current Moderators significantly more power, so they certainly shouldn't be implemented without RJackson's input. --Kroocsiogsi 09:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that one. Woops! -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Added to both Autoconfirmed and Administrator. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 09:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
LGTM. --Kroocsiogsi 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Few changes to make though: Remove more rights from bots; while I trust users that host bots (else they wouldn't host bots), some of those users are not actually staff - and so they shouldn't have access to any staff functions via their bot. All a bot needs is: bot, autopatrol, writeapi, nominornewtalk, suppressredirect, skipcaptcha, apihighlimits, and noratelimits (as on tf2:Special:ListGroupRights). As for the combination of mods/admins, their seperation was inherited from standard MediaWiki / how things are done on the TF2 Wiki. Whether there's a particular reason for it to be seperated, or nobody's just thought to combine them, I don't know; I don't see a problem with it myself, but I'll invite some TF2 Wiki staffers to comment too - in case there are some good reasons that I can't think of. -RJ 18:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you willing to grant all Moderators/Administrators editinterface? That might be the most significant change. --Kroocsiogsi 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
All of our admins have the right to editinterface. They amaze me with their .css and .js abilities to get stuff to work. Of course, we stipulate that no changes to the skin be made without approval/discussion (other than addition/subtraction of links in the sidebar), and no changes can be made to the branding (Curse footer). Any community admin found violating those stipulations simply lose their admin privileges permanently. A wiki this size should have roughly 6-7 admins, at least one Bureaucrat, and 1-3 bots, and we prefer that bots are run by admins. This does not include the language specific admins which we still need to talk about. If the people in these positions are not trustworthy with the level of tools I have indicated, then maybe it needs to be reconsidered whether they are right for the wiki in the first place. And just so you know, standard MediaWiki config has a 2 tier admin structure by default, not 3, so Moderators was definitely added in specifically. If you have the right team in place there should be no need for extras like patrollers, or moderators. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 05:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: preferring bots to be ran by admins: On this Wiki, automated tasks are quite regular (mass uploading hero response mp3s, game images, Dictionary system [updating in-game item prices and links], correcting mass-made mistakes), and do tasks that don't require the staff-level permissions to do. With that, my opinion is that somebody trustworthy enough - staff or otherwise - is allowed a bot if they have an appropriate use for it. A bot is just an extra tool available for contributors, and if somebody needs that tool - it can be given to them. If a bot does need admin rights to conduct its task, then I can just tick the 'Admin' box in Special:UserRights. As such, the bot usergroup should not explicitly have any admin-related permissions. -RJ 14:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I have no issue with it. If somebody is staff on this Wiki, then I trust them to make changes to any part of the Wiki appropriately and correctly (gathering opinions, making an informed decision, and getting help if they're not sure how to make something happen themselves) - whether it's the interface, our template systems, or just the layout of pages. Given that nobody I threw the link at at TF2 Wiki have commented, I guess nobody over there has any major concerns with such a change; consider the merging of admin and mod approved. -RJ 14:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I lowered the bot permissions down to the default permissions. The PhP team is at a conference for the remainder of the week, so I will submit the request for these changes to be added to the job queue next week. -- Wynthyst User Wynthyst sig icon.png talk 18:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

Does this wiki have any kind of deletion policy for discussing if a page should exist or not? If not it would probably be a good idea to have one so that users can mark pages that they believe shouldn't exist. e.g. WP:SPEEDY -LastTalon (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)