UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Sub-Group

I haven't made very many changes at the momment, except removing the protection ability. Feel free to voice your opinions, especially on the misconduct section as that was a problem in the last policy discussion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that A/PM is currently well served by those sysops we do have, what does this suggestion really offer except the rollback function? Is it worth creating a whole new layer of admin-peeps just for that?--Funt Solo ^QT 01:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A/MR, you mean? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Yup, I meant A/MR. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don'thave anything to say right now, I'm busy reading. I just want the +1 for now. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any 'advanced user' will already know how to revert pages without needing rollback, and there is in no way so many pages that need moving that it needs to be given to non-sysops. All this adds is additional bureaucratic mess. – Nubis 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Moves are done promptly, what few requests there are.--Karek^maps?! 11:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking personaly, the rollback fature would be usefull.--Seventythree^Talk 11:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Rollback feature, it really isn't much different from Wikipedia:Wikipedia:undo.--Karek^maps?! 12:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks quicker. How often I would actualy use it I don't know, but I can think of a couple of occasions where I would have found it easier than manualy undooing everything.--Seventythree^Talk 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially a single-click revert. If you spot some vandalism in recent changes, hit difference then click 'rollback' and all edits will be reverted back to previous editer. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Or you go to the last good revision, hit edit, hit save. Is saving two mouseclicks and screen loads worth the additional bureaucratic hassle and trying to get Kevan to implement the additional user type to the wiki? – Nubis 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know, that's why this discussion is here. It was worth it to me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You see, I can think of a couple of times that rollback would have come in handy. Couple that with the fact that I doubt I would ever "make" sysop, I can start to see the point in this. --Seventythree^Talk 16:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's say a user starts vandalizing several pages. Before a sysop put an end to his vandal spree, he vandalized more than 40 pages (damn you inactive sysops). Saving 2 clicks per revert, that would mean a save of 80 clicks in this case alone. Even if such cases of vandalism are rare today, i still think it's worth to save 2 clicks to remove vandalism. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And the key difference between rollback and undo is that the first revrts ALL last edits made by a vandal in a page, while the second only reverts the last one. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So rollback is under consideration, but undo isnt different from reverting changes? By the way, there was some talk that this failed to become accepted policy last time round because the silent majority abstained? How does this address previous concerns?Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking of the promotions overhaul policy, that made it almost impossible to become a sysop by wrapping the process in laughable amounts of red tape - right down to the amount of questions a contributer could ask of the wannabe-sysop. My first question was going to be "do you mind if I ask you more than one question?" Anyway - that failed because it didn't reach a 20-minimum voters, but this one failed because it didn't reach a two thirds majority, partly due to apathy (see bob's comment, above, as an example), but mainly (I think) due to the inclusion of the protection in the last version. If this goes in, with a strong explanation of how useful the rollback feature would be (as in hagnat's example), it could do well. I'd vote for it. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to go through the policy again to make some changes. I'll get on it later today, no doubt. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes, probably needs expansion in some parts and rewording. Feel free to look over it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that there isn't very much excitement over this policy, but I do sort of need a few comments... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A little note about whether page movers need to follow any procedures (like only moving Move-Requests or something) could be useful. --Toejam 22:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently SysOps do not but, for the most part they've started making notes of page moves on the page, which is a step in the right direction.--Karek^maps?! 04:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it still fair to say less than ten active sysops?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And can we elaborate on the trusted user election system? I mean I'd like to move things, but people would probably shoot me down. Would you just request, by saying X wants to be a trusted user, or would you have to plead your case? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Karek's comment:

(1) Move was removed because any random joe could do it, which isn't the case here. (2) Fair enough. We could remedy this by allowing any sysop to do this, like what is done over there, but then there's Grim. (3) Not really. It's not a class, any user with just a bit of experience and who wants the ability can be given a couple of extra tools. There isn't any uber long qualification process. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User scripts

I have to say, if we're talking about bugging Kevan for extra functionality for advanced users, allowing User scripts would be a lot more useful. For example, there's at least one script that can emulate the rollback function for any user who cares to install it, and Navigation popups are bloody handy for performing actions quickly, previewing pages and diffs, etc. We'd need User style JavaScript enabled, and maybe query.php for some of the more advanced scripts, but I honestly think this would be much more useful route to take. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)