Well, for starters, what is an "op"? Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, on some of the other wikis I'm on, "op" is short for operator, and operators are another word for administrators and bureaucrats, and other high-ranking positions. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh OK. Well, what is the specific problem that you're trying to fix here? Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the rare case of op abuse, the admins responsible get demoted down to a standard user. I don't think that would be fair, because many users work hard to earn operator status, and then they have to work hard again. With THIS policy, they only get demoted by one position, meaning only some of their power gets taken away. Then they will still get fair punishment without having to work hard all over again, and still get the message to not abuse their op. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Bureaucrats are so few in number any abuses can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This policy is a solution looking for a problem. If a bureaucrat did actually go rogue (or had their account hacked with malicious intent) and used their full powers we'd have a major problem. A steward going rogue would be absolutely catastrophic. --LukeSurl t c 23:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit the issue this proposal is trying to stop is minor, since op abuse rarely happens. But this issue is not what you are mentioning, LukeSurl. The issue I'm solving is the fact that if an op abuser gets fully demoted, they will have to work extremely hard again to regain power. With my policy, they'll only get some of their power taken away. And then with subsequent op abuses, they'll be brought down by one position each time, and once they're fully demoted, then warnings and blocks are issued. So if a bureaucrat abuses their op, they'll still have admin powers, but not the unique ones that bureaucrats have. I just think it's unfair for users to have to work hard again for operator status after a demotion, and I think this policy will make the punishment a little more fair. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose - "I just think it's unfair for users to have to work hard again for operator status after a demotion" - That's the whole idea. If someone abuses their operator position on here, Crat, Admin, CU, then they should expect everything that's coming to them. In short, I think it's absolutely fair that they lose what they worked towards. If they didn't want to get punished by loss of their post and status, they shouldn't abuse their tools and position, should they? - AND, they should work TWICE as hard to get it back - it may help them reconsider abusing it in the future. FishBarking? 23:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think this would be good, because if they are only demoted by one position for each case of op abuse, (and then receiving warnings and blocks for any shenanigans after being brought back to a standard user), they are given a few more chances to prove that their power did not fall into the wrong hands. I always like getting a second chance on something I fail to do, and I think everyone should get that opportunity. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, put your Rfc template on the talk page. Secondly, oppose rules creep which makes, I'm sorry to say, no sense to me. I agree with BarkingFish, except that losing your "ops" isn't "punishment" so much as it is that you have been found to be unsuited for the responsibility. One must then prove one has matured, or conquered ones inner demons, or whatever was the problem, before being considered again. That's not punishment. That's protecting the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, maybe you're right about it not being "punishment", but I just want admins and bureaucrats to get multiple chances to prove that they are worthy of power. To issue these multiple chances, they only get demoted by one position, meaning they only lose some of their abilities for each time they abuse them. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is - Those "multiple chances to prove that they are worthy of power" also gives them multiple chances to abuse those powers. Once is enough. If you don't use it right, you shouldn't get another opportunity. If I disturbed someone robbing my house, I wouldn't invite them back the next day to try again. Fuck that shit! Sorry. Best thing you can do with this idea is bury it - if you don't, I imagine the respondents to this RFC will do it for you :) FishBarking? 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not laugh, but I got this idea from a nursery rhyme. I was for some reason thinking about how I used to like it, and I remember how Little Bunny Fufu got 3 chances to stop bopping the field-mice' heads, before that fairy turned him into a goon. I think it would be lucky for anyone to get multiple chances to stop doing something they're not supposed to do before they get the worst consequences for their actions. But if you guys still hate this proposition, I'd suggest at least making it an option, so in a case of op abuse, either completely demote them, or use this. :} Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose To illustrate my opposition to this, let me use the example right out of your suggested policy: "For example, if a bureaucrat abuses their op, (e.g. blocking a user or IP just to be funny), they will simply receive a demotion down to a standard administrator. If the behavior continues, they will be demoted to a standard user." In this case, if a bureaucrat abuses their tools and blocks a user improperly, your policy would remove their crat-ship and allow them to continue the abusive behavior with the admin bit they still possess. If a user with privileged access is abusing their privileges, the first and only priority should be protecting the encyclopedia. Adminship and cratship (and other forms of privileged access) are positions of community trust precisely because they do have more potential to break things. If that trust is violated, then the user should have to work particularly hard to regain it. To do otherwise is begging for additional abuse. In my opinion we should be making it easier to remove these authorities, not harder. ElHef (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Okay, I'm hearing things like Op, promotion, demotion, and punishment. If Op = Oppose... you got my vote. Do you know where you are? Just in case you're confused, this is Wikipedia. Maybe these terms are used prominently on other websites with other projects, but they do not equate to commonplace or appropriate here. I'm not really sure how seriously to take this, since according to your userpage, "Bacon's the name, Wikipedia's my game!" I think you may want to spend a bit of time around the project (a couple of years?) before attempting to propose a new policy. Spend time reading some of the current policies and guidelines, review the notability guidelines and the various deletion process and policies. Fix some typos. Learn about what a reliable and independent source is. And primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Try to add some appropriate sources to articles. Then try your hand at writing an article. Ask for help. Acclimate and learn a bit about the community. And ask for help again. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 15:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the reason I've taken so long to respond is that I have become increasingly busy. But now that I'm on summer vacation, I'll be more active here. Anyways, Cindy: As much as I appreciate your advice, I have been here long enough, (and I "learned a bit about the community" during the long time where I was inactive), and I have already read over the current policies, (which I always do whenever I first join a wiki). Though if there's ONE thing you're right about, it's that those terms are indeed used more prominently on other wikis, and it's my mistake for using the term "op", as it is only used to refer to Chat mods, not wiki admins (at least on the other wikis I'm on).
- But anyways, back to the argument. This proposal is not a completely new concept, but rather a minor rule built onto an existing policy: If you abuse your admin/bureaucrat tools, you get completely brought down to a standard user. (I'm trying my best not to say "demoted". :P). Let me illustrate this in a better way. Rather than using an example, like the one on the actual proposal page, I'll use an analogy that matches the issue: A user gets promoted to a bureaucrat. [A kid climbs up to a part of a tree near the top.] With the current policy, the bureaucrat abuses their tools and they get completely brought down. [The kid attempts to get onto a thin branch above him, and falls all the way to the ground.] With this policy, the bureaucrat only gets brought down one position, leaving him still with his admin powers. [The kid climbs up again, but this time, he only falls down a few branches.] If the abuse continues, the admin will get brought down another position, (no longer an admin, but still a rollbacker or a patroller). [The kid attempts to reach a thin branch again, but falls down a little bit more.] The rollbacker/patroller abuses their tools, and they are completely brought down to a standard user. [The kid attempts to climb onto yet another thin branch, and then he finally hits the ground.] The user is powerless, so now any shenanigans after being brought down will earn him warnings and blocks. [The kid's parents are angry with him for his dangerous behavior up in the tree, and any shenanigans after he falls out of the tree will earn him punishment.]
- So basically, one screw-up after climbing up to bureaucrat ship causes you to fall all the way down to nothing. But with my proposal, you never fall too far upon screwing up the first time, and you end up having more distance to fall before you're actually vulnerable to blocks and warnings. Bacon-Cheddar Man 5000 17:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]