UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Sub Groups:The Cheesy Version

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Stick your comments and discussion type stuff here. -- Cheese 23:29, 10 July 2008 (BST)

As with all the other subgroup policies that have preceded it

I don't think this will work. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 23:37, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Why not? This is similar to what we have now except that there's now that extra step before we give folks the ban hammer. -- Cheese 23:39, 10 July 2008 (BST)
I just think this adds unneeded red tape to EVERYTHING. Seriously. But if we were to implement something like this, I'd prefer the pseudo-sysops didn't vote on Misconduct/VB. Why? Because it's exactly there that inexperience etc. comes into play. People are often rejected because they are not trusted on those pages. But if we had a pseudo-sysop class, who could perform all the actual janitorial duties etc., but who was by definition not involved in the contentious pages... a lot of people who are good contributors but not quite sysop-worthy could have added powers to help out, including newer users. And a lot of people might not be scared off by having to deal with Misconduct cases and VB.
However, here's the real' problem as I see it. It's not so much about powers etc... People just don't want to be sysops. It's a fucking headache, and not because of the grunt work, but because of all the drama and bullshit. People are really turned off by it... No one single factor is to blame for this attitude. But some include people not wanting to deal with the organised troll hordes, as well a general lack of faith in the system, i.e. the way the rules work as well as well as the "culture" amongst sysops ATM. People just don't have a lot of faith in this system and don't wanna be a part of something they see as failing. Miserably. I think there are some solutions to this, but I really don't know if the current sysop crew has the balls to do it... and that's part of the problem, IMO... I dunno... to be honest this is how I feel about it, and maybe I don't speak for anyone but myself... But I have a hunch that I just might be expressing the feelings of a lot of other people, to some degree at least... --WanYao 00:03, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Of course the current sysop crew doesn't have the balls to do it - why would they? The ones in power are coincidentally the happiest with the system. They've got virtually total control; they'd have to be crazy to let that slip through their iron fists. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 00:14, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Lissen, I'm looking forward to the new X-Files movie myself, but I don't have to live out conspiracy obsessions via the wiki. I have the real world for that. ;P Anyhoooo.... Actually, the problem isn't that the sysops have too much power. It's that they don't have enough, or what powers they do have they aren't actually using effectively. And, it's obvious they are anything but a hive mind power cabal, because if they were they'd actually be dealing with the issues and problems. For example, people like you. --WanYao 00:36, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Owww, that hert... :(
I know they aren't a hive mind cabal, but certain individuals definitely enjoy their power. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 00:43, 11 July 2008 (BST)

"With less than 10 active sysops"

is adding another level of user really likely to improve things? And as far as i can tell this system makes becoming a sysop harder, having to pass through 2 hoops instead of one. And if someone is voted in as a halfling, they appear to need to fufil the same criteria as a full sysop. so why not just give them full sysop status? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 00:11, 11 July 2008 (BST)

It would give the public a good chance to think twice about the person's merit, or allow active community members to help the wiki without getting caught up in vandal banning.--Labine50 MEMS | MHG 01:48, 11 July 2008 (BST)
In addition to that, I'm pretty sure getting promoted to a half-op would be somewhat easier than to a regular sysop is now. As a half-op you could show that you're trustworthy, making a promotion to a full sysop also easier (assuming that the candidate is trustworthy). Instead of one big step, you've got two smaller steps. I'd say that's easier to climb. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 02:28, 11 July 2008 (BST)

No thanks. A low number of sysops is ok so long as there is decent coverage, which we actually have at present. The biggest problem we have at the moment is an extreme shortage of people who are good enough to do the job right and actually willing to give it a go. Both Revenant and WanYao would make good sysops, but neither want the bother. What we have at the moment is a climate where those actually suited to the position can see whats going on. How there are idiots like bob who cause drama and start shit flinging at every opportunity and cause nothing but headaches for sysops. They decide they want nothing to do with it. The only people who actually put themselves up for the position are doing it for greater power rather than to serve the community fairly, and end up being total idiots. A case in point, AHLG (Though he seems to have grown a protobrain in the last few weeks). The only exception to this rule was Seventythree and he left. Which sucks. Making a new sysop subclass wont solve this problem, all it will do is bloat the numbers of idiot sysops, which i have spent the last 18 months whittling away at. --The Grimch U! E! 03:25, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Jedaz' comments below reflect yet another reason I, for one, don't want to be a sysop. Everyone is effen slack assen these days. Specifically, I am referring to Misconducts and A/VB... Now, perhaps people are just busy... Perhaps this is what happens when we have too few sysops... But... It kind of appears from my vantage that the sysop team, taken as a whole, is shying away from controversy, almost like they're hiding and avoiding getting involved in some of these things going on. And that is BAD beccause a lot of stuff that is happening RIGHT NOW is CRITICAL to the direction this wiki will take in the future... Anyhooo, this what to me looks like slacking and/or timidity, just means that someone like me -- who'd actually try not to be slack-ass, and who has no fear of jumping into a fray with Goons or other sysops or any of these stupid e-cliques -- would end up doing all the work. Fuck that. --WanYao 04:05, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Grim brings up a good point about people causing drama and headaches for sysops. A quick count reveals 5 people (~24% of demoted sysops) have requested demotion citing the reason that the wiki has been causing issues for them. This count does not include the various sysops who may have became inactive because of problem users. When you consider this I would not be surprised that sysops are actually trying to avoid controversy. Personally I would like to see some of the Sysops clamp down on bad behaviour, Vandalism is "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki", we can all agree that constant trolling can not be in good faith. It's time to deal with this. - Jedaz - 04:35/11/07/2008
Out of the 5, Hag and Vista both abused their authority and were called out on it. The drama from being caught was self inflicted. Don't push that off on the userbase.
Most people on here do not know the difference between trolling and disagreeing with someone by the way. Perfect example is Tselita and the Goons. It started out as just disagreeing, but snowballed into trolling from both sides. --– Nubis NWO 06:43, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't bother to look deeper then the reasons which were stated on the demotions requests, nor do I remember the timeframes of various Misconduct cases. I certainly did not mean to imply that the wiki community created the drama in every instance. Unfortunately in most cases the drama is stimulated by unwillingless to comprimise by either side. Such is. - Jedaz - 07:34/11/07/2008
That, my gentle wikian, is exactly my point: it's time to clamp down on problem users. And that's where my frustration comes from. Everyone knows what's going on. And no one is doing anything about it. And so it just keeps going on and on and on and on.... And that's why I'd personally never be a sysop under the current conditions. Problem is, some controversy NEEDS to happen. Some shit NEEDS to hit the fan. That's how things get resolved. Avoidance does not solve stuff, it just prolongs the agony....
I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to pick on anyone in particular, or even anyone in general. I know I am being harsh on the sysops here... I don't want this to be personal, and I don't think for the most part you're bad people or incompetent or any such thing... However... There seems to be something going on, or NOT going on... And I'm going to express how it looks to me. --WanYao 05:56, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Here's the problem - this community is A/VB A/M crazy. If you look at the misconduct page and VB (DH/Dead drama aside, because ultimately that core issue needs to be decided with out all of the dick waving, but won't be for a while) the complaints are petty as fuck and no one tried to resolve them before going there. I'm still bitter about being reported on A/M for protecting images and deleting on sight Crit 1s when those are things sysops should be able to do. Boxy was reported on A/M for deleting Jorm's stupid policy policy. Grim protected a page that was being actively vandalized and it was reported because someone didn't like the version he reverted it to. (You know that The Dead wouldn't have A/Med him on that if it had gone the other way, by the way). It's the fact that every sysop act you make that isn't from the million red tape pages will more than likely land you on A/M that makes people not do anything.
We should have a new rule on VB that you have to provide the link of the vandalism AND the link where you posted on their talk page and tried to work it out before you posted on VB. If users tried talking things out THEN reported them the sysops should have more authority to deal with them harshly.--– Nubis NWO 06:34, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Well that's also part of the problem with people screaming SYSOP CABAL CONSPIRACY POWER GRABBING ELITISTS!!! N'est pas? I mean, sysops know how petty it can get, and are thus reluctant to punish one of their own for the petty shit. But certain people scream BIAS!!! every time this happens... But, still, often there is just too much fucking dick waving. Let's look at Grim's misconduct case... IMO, Grim was not guilty of misconduct, just of really bad fucking form.... almost misconduct, but not. However, Grim started fucking dick waving himself, and I don't see him ANYWHERE backing down and saying, "I'm sorry... Maybe I reverted it to the wrong edit... Even if I don't agree with you, let's put the DHPD back on the list..." It's easy to get caught up, though... I do it myself... Basically, it just gets petty... And there is not a lot of "wriggling room", and with no wriggling room, everyone props their backs up against the wall they were pushed to, and draws their guns. It's fucked up... And, relating this back to this policy suggestion: how can this policy help resolve these issues, if it can at all? That's a key question. --WanYao 07:14, 11 July 2008 (BST)
There's no way you can claim he shouldn't have done it in the manner he did and then agree with him when he claims that he can do whatever he wants as long as there is no policy to restrict it, the fact that he even made that claim just shows exactly why we don't deserve to expect the community to trust us.--Karekmaps?! 18:10, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Where did i make this claim? I am genuinely puzzled. Mixing your facts and your fictions again? --The Grimch U! E! 18:14, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Precedent is more important than policy, it's what differentiates between neutrality and bias and both must be considered when acting, how things are always done is just as important, if not more. You ignored the precedent, pointed at the policy, and then put things into your world view to claim influence of policies in ways they were never intended to be used. Mentioning your case with the other two is a deceptive and false.--Karekmaps?! 19:15, 11 July 2008 (BST)
I'm not really sure what you're talking about when you're trying to explain what I was talking about in regards to me talking about me claiming that Grimch claimed... uh... something about Grimch claiming something... Gaaah, confused now? Yeah, exactly.... Anyhoo, I am in agreement with karek that precedent is more important than the letter of the policy... Precedent actually allows for the kind of developing community consensus that it seems Grimch is always wanting more of in wiki decision making. But sometimes it's a good idea to take estabilished precedents and codify them to some degree, e.g. with NPOV. --WanYao 20:24, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Cause?

Reading the policy it gives me no reason why a change like this is needed. The only reasoning is in the last paragraph of "Current Status", it is that currently being a sysop is restricted to a minority of the wiki. So what? I feel this could be improved upon by demonstrating how it would improve the wiki. For example move requests taking upto 9 days to complete (the same can be shown in speedy deletions). The argument then can be made that upon implementation of this would reduce the turn-around time on requests, thus showing need. - Jedaz - 03:20/11/07/2008

No

Typical reaction to a broken system: build more system. The new system will be broken for the same reasons the old system was broken but now, with more system, there will be more broken stuff to get in the way. Correct solution: Fix current system. Do not build more. Xiong 05:12, 11 July 2008 (BST)

then what is the solution? Thats what we need a discussion on. What about the regular review of Sysops? Making them work hard for their place.--CyberRead240 05:17, 11 July 2008 (BST)
I seem to recall the sysopy types being oh so vehemently opposed to being, like, held accountable... and to non-permenant terms, etc. etc. Last time we tried to implement such an idea, it got shot to hell... Fascinating stuffz... --WanYao 17:14, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Been against that idea since ever, which happens to include days of yore before my promotion. It essentially boils down to this, Sysops promoted by previous 'crat groups would be at the mercy of the current 'crats thus giving them more power and creating a keep the crat on your side requirement to being a sysop that has nothing to do with accountability or doing your job right. --Karekmaps?! 01:54, 14 July 2008 (BST)

Easier hoops

Right at the moment the policy allows people to apply under the same criteria as full sysop status. In order to attract these halfies shouldn't a less lenient set of criteria exist? Look at the roosters bid. Im sure he's a good example of a halfling, so relaxing a few of the guidelines could be a good idea? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:16, 11 July 2008 (BST)


UPDATE

I've made a few changes. Let me know what you think. -- Cheese 01:57, 12 July 2008 (BST)

So you have to become a halfop before a full sysop? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:35, 12 July 2008 (BST)
Yeah. I think it would work better that way. That way you can get a feel for all the maintenance buttons before you get trusted with the ban hammer. -- Cheese 14:00, 12 July 2008 (BST)
Make it a recommendation, not required. --  AHLGTG 01:46, 14 July 2008 (BST)

This won't work.....

....for one simple reason. This presupposes that those who can effectively roll back pages and make templates can accurately rule on vandalism cases according to policy and precedent. History shows this to be woefully wrong. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:53, 14 July 2008 (BST)

Put to vote

Before this is archived, but change what I said above and restrict the ability to strike inane votes. --  AHLGTG 22:43, 21 July 2008 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements