Building on other discussions (especially concerning moving files), I'm finally, formally proposing some new usergroups (if anyone else has usergroups they'd like to propose, feel free to tack on here).

General info on usergroups can be found in such places as Special:ListGroupRights, Help:Group rights, and wikipedia:Wikipedia:User access levels. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:21, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

File mover

This is the really big one, to the point that we have had requests for adminship just to get access to this permission. This usergroup would allow editors to rename files themselves, without having to request it of admins. More information on this can be found on Wikipedia, and I am also proposing that admins have the ability to grant and revoke this usergroup (just a heads-up, this bit is a common theme here). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:21, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


This usergroup would help reduce the number of unpatrolled pages passing through Special:NewPages - many pages of certain types (especially stuff like redirects and card character pages) tend to get created by just a handful of users, and when you consider the number of such pages, being able to give them this right reduces the work for any admin brave enough to venture onto Special:NewPages. More information on this can be found on Wikipedia, and I am also proposing that admins have the ability to grant and revoke this usergroup (see? common theme, right here). ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:21, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


This one isn't a request for a new usergroup, so much as a request to change how it can be assigned and revoked - currently, only bureaucrats are able to do so, but per Help:Group rights, "Any of these may be subject to change or variation on individual wikis." Since we only have two bureaucrats at this time, I'm proposing that we request for admins here to be able to grant and revoke this usergroup as well. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 08:21, August 22, 2011 (UTC)


I would insist on adding noratelimit (unaffected by action restrictions like the page move throttle) to the file movers group. These two rights pretty much go hand-in-hand. When renaming a card article, users get shot down by having to wait more time to rename its associated "other card information" pages and not being able to update the images to match the card's new name.

It was almost exactly one year ago, I asked about customising usergroups for noratelimit and movefile. movefile is restricted to admins by default because of a bug that sometimes causes images to get "lost" and it is possible to have this right given to autoconfirmed or emailconfirmed users. The rate limit for users without noratelimit is 2 actions per 240 seconds by default and these numbers can be changed. A per-namespace limit can't be created.

I'm not keen on changing either of the above. Changing the rate limit will result in inexperienced users renaming multiple card articles before they or anyone else "cleans up" after the first move. Downing movefile a level or two isn't so bad, but I'd still prefer in it a custom group with noratelimit.

Custom user groups are possible, but you need a good reason to have them. See Avatar's fanonadmin Avatar's fanonadmin for example.

There's a bit more I'd like to say, but I'm stuck for time right now. -- Deltaneos (talk) 15:05, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about that after I got this posted; noratelimit is definitely something we'd want for the file movers group.
I figured that might be the case, which is why I stuck to usergroups that are already in use on Wikipedia - I figured we'd have at least a slightly better chance of Wikia giving us usergroups that are already in use on other wikis then if we came up with our own. Also, the Avatar forum link doesn't work... ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:47, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Oops, meant to link to their ListGroupRights.
Continuing from where I stopped, I'd imagine we get significantly more pagemoves than most wikis. Almost everything comes out in Japanese first and the majority of them get renamed in the English version and some of them have even have different "beta" English names in the anime, manga and video games. Combined with the "other card information" pages and a number of images, it is a lot of page moves and two at a time isn't very optimal. Giving auto/emailconfirmed users noratelimit causes problems and not everybody who knows how to clean-up after a page move is ready for adminship. That should hopefully qualify as a good reason to have the custom group.
suppressredirect should probably be added to that group too. Other card information and file pages don't need the redirect left once their links are updated. It is a bit more misusable, but like all userrights, users should have a fair idea of when and when not to use before being given them.
(I guess the usergroup should be called something like "mover" rather than "file mover" at this point.)
Giving people rollback on its own isn't something we've done often here. On a number of other wikis, it seems to be a trophy moreso than an anti-vandalism tool. Still there's nothing wrong with giving rollback to people who know when and when not to use it. But shouldn't we at least set up some sort of request/nomination procedure before considering giving more users the ability to grant and revoke this right?
In fact, more formal requests for bots, bureaucrats and the proposed usergroups, if added, should be setup. Although there are individual concerns for each of them which would need to be looked into before setting them up.
Manually patrolling pages, like granting rollback, doesn't seem to be something people have used much. Although I don't tend to mark legitimate new pages as patrolled, I do still ignore the automatically patrolled pages when checking for illegitimate/questionable creations and it would be handy if some users like WinterNightmare who make a lot of new legitimate pages had theirs automatically marked as patrolled. -- Deltaneos (talk) 19:03, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
If there's one thing I've learned from Wikipedia, it's that having one proposal for something technical and its process is never a good idea. This should be purely about whether we want the usergroups themselves, and we can decide the procedures for assigning and revoking them in other discussions, even if this means Wikia will hold off on actually setting up the usergroups until we have decided on such procedures.
I think, probably, the main reason page patrolling has been largely ignored up to now is probably a lack of awareness; the closest most people ever get to it is that little "New pages" link at the top of Special:RecentChanges. In this particular case, it's not necessarily a bad thing, since non-admins can't patrol pages, but then we have to make a point of advertising it to the admins and hope that some of them will take a few minutes from time to time to patrol a handful of pages, in which case, being able to automatically handle large numbers of new pages from users that know what they're doing helps out a lot. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:31, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
We're willing to work with you guys on this, but I really need to see clear examples of why all these new groups are needed. Extra groups are really confusing and hard to maintain on the backend and its hard to justify if you're more or less just creating a base user group with one extra or less right. --daNASCAT WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 23:06, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Cool, I'm sure I'm not the only one glad to hear that. ;)
The main arguments so far are:
  • For the "[file] mover" group, that we get a lot of page moves here (especially around the time English boosters are announced and released), and we have a lot of file moves to be done as well; both of these pretty easily overwhelm the number of admins we have, and there are several users who would benefit from this usergroup (and who would, in turn, then benefit the wiki), but that we aren't comfortable with granting adminship just to allow them to move pages without a throttle and files.
  • For "autopatrolled", it's to make Special:NewPages patrolling easier - as was mentioned above, we have several highly prolific page creators, and if the pages they create were autopatrolled, it would prevent a lot of unpatrolled titles from ever hitting the list.
  • The "rollbacker" grant/revoke thing is mostly just to allow any admin the ability to grant non-admins the rollback right, e.g. if they do a lot of vandalism fighting but don't want adminship or wouldn't pass an RFA, and I wouldn't be too bothered with Wikia saying "no" to it.
ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:55, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Autopatrolled is part of the [1]. You must also request that extension in order for that to work. --daNASCAT WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 17:14, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oh... That puts a bit of a damper on it, doesn't it? =) If it's possible to configure it in that way, I suppose we could use FlaggedRevs mostly just in the Card Rulings: namespace, but really, this bit just turned into a discussion to be had separate from this one. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:43, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
Autopatrolling does really need to be advertised. I was active on Wikipedia for three years and have been an administrator here for seven months. I still had no bloody clue what it was until I asked Dinoguy as a result of his mentioning it here. Now that I know what it is, I have to say I like the idea of giving the right to other users, though of the new groups proposed here, it's the least important one to me personally.
For file moves, I give you Set Card Galleries:Generation Force (OCG-JP). Just checking the edit history should you a good idea of how long it actually takes the current admins to move all the files.
I do think rollback should be granted to some non-admins. I had that right when I was active on Wikipedia and missed it quite a bit when I became active here instead. Upon passing my RfA, I was very happy to see rollback again. It's tremendously useful. When we have a very persistent vandal (or three, as was the case just yesterday), users without that right can quickly become overwhelmed. However, when to use rollback and when not to needs to be made very clear. Without mentioning any names, I've seen several admins use it at inappropriate times (such as to revert a user who was wrong but also clearly trying to help. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 00:17, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Like the rollback misuse there's also some page deletions without explanation. I admit I behaved like that too starting out. The problem exists more with admins from before the request for adminship process was set-up, since there was no previous evaluation back then and a lot less was expected in terms of etiquette.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but it is possible to give users rollback on its own. The request here is for admins, not just bureaucrats to be able to hand out this right. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
I do occasionally misuse it myself, but I don't think I do so consistently.
I realize that, but I've always found it odd that literally no one who is not an admin has that right on this particular wiki. Come to think of it, it's something I always meant to bring up to you. Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 00:51, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

'deleterevision' would be a good thing to add to any group which can delete pages.
Also, (I've seen it used before, but I couldn't find it at Special:ListGroupRights), hide log action? (or more specifically; to remove any unwanted deleted page names from the recent changes list) -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:35, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

The "hide log action" is part of deleterevison. deleterevision is overused by the VSTF in my opinion. Acknowledging what trolls are doing as borthersome is one thing. Removing totally inappropriate stuff is another. deleterevision is used where they overlap. I don't think it's necessary to hide things like "<username> sucks" and I have seen it used on stuff like that a few times. Things like death threats, grossly defamatory content, unauthorised personal information, copyright violations, pornography, links to virus sites etc. are what it's needed for. I don't see very much of those here. -- Deltaneos (talk) 16:13, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
So basically, if we notice something that does need hidden, take it to you, then. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 17:41, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

About the File Mover Group

I am the (at least) one who went to the admins about this and was trying for admin status in order to have the ability.

I ricochet all over this wiki and in the process I find things that need adjusted. I can mark the file or page as needing fixed and what needs fixed. However, I am already there at that point and it would be quicker and more efficient just to do it myself while I am there. Going to the admins on this just slows the process down and bogs the admins down, They have enough to do improving the workings of the site. In fact the name I gave them was not "File Mover" it was "Janitor". Just like any other organization we need support staff to go along with administrators. We need someone to sweep up the clutter.

Glittersword TalkContributions 00:30, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

There's a reason the role of administrator on Wikipedia is closely associated with a mop. ;) Adminship is very much a janitorial position, and on a wiki as large and busy as this, any work that can be shared with non-administrators is just that much less work admins have to do themselves. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 00:42, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Janitor was previously the name of a cross-Wikia usergroup, based on a similar idea. Janitors had admin-like access on most Wikia wikis, but could only use it for "clean-up" actions and nothing like enforcing local policies. It's similar to the current VSTF usergroup and the term janitor is sometimes associated with that group. I think using the name janitor for the proposed group would cause confusion with the janitor and VSTF usergroups. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:50, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
As it is said (or written) A rose by any other name...(I don't think I need to finish the statement).
It is the job that counts.
Glittersword TalkContributions 00:32, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

....what needs to be done to get this implemented? Cheesedude (talkcontribs) 23:50, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

An agreement on what we want, at least. I don't think the patrollers group or admins being able to grant/revoke rollback are especially needed. Movers (noratelimit, movefile and suppressredirect) or whatever we agree to call them, I think is needed. -- Deltaneos (talk) 00:29, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
The first two would be nice to have, but I'm not particularly attached to them. Also keep in mind, I intended for each group to be discussed (and, if consensus was so, requested, unless timing lined up correctly) separately; this is why each has its own section. I'm fine with "Movers" myself, unless someone has a better suggestion...? ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:47, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
I'd really like this, if you guys area also ok with it. I've seen a bunch of pages that have weird symbols in them and don't need them, like / in Assault Mode. ---Dark Ace SP™ (Talk) 04:16, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there's any opposition to the "Movers" group, and I think our need for it has been demonstrated reasonably strongly, but we haven't actually made the request for it to be implemented yet. That being said, the "/" is in the page title of /Assault Mode because that is the literal name of the archetype. What other pages are you wanting to rename because they have "weird symbols" in their titles? ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 07:04, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
That was the only one, really, and oh now I get it. And maybe to have that right in case a Decks for Free! page got whacked, because of a name change. ---Dark Ace SP™ (Talk) 13:47, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Is this topic dead? -- (talk) 00:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

The new usergroup hasn't been requested yet. It's something I've been meaning to get back to doing for a while now. If there's any comments you'd like to make on this topic, I think you can still do so. -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:06, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.