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

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 00:40, 15 August 2008 by Nubis (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Current Status

Right now, users can be classified in 4 distinct classes:

Anonymous Users have no abilites beyond reading. To edit any article they need to register an account.
Registered Users can edit articles, upload files, but they can't move, delete or move articles, edit protected pages or ban vandals.
System Operators can move, delete and protect articles, they can edit protected pages and ban/unban users.
Bureaucrats can do all things a regular sysop can, and promote a registered user into a sysop, and sysops to bureaucrats.

With 2 Bureaucrats and less than 10 active sysops, all management functions of this wiki are restricted to a really small minority of this wiki userbase. Sysops/Crats are trusted users, who have displayed care for the well being of this community. The process of one user to be promoted to sysop is lengthy, and most of the times a user isn't promoted because the community don't trust him enough to give him the ban-hammer. With a new level of sysop status, which could be given to a larger number of users, this would mean that these maintenance tasks are carried out more efficiently that they are at the moment, thereby making things run much smoother.

The Idea

Create a new sub-group that would be given the ability to rollback vandalism and move pages.

  • System HalfOps (name is up for discussion)
Abilities: Move articles, rollback function, page deletion, page protection.
Promotion Type: Current system but only for a week and without the time and edit restrictions.
A HalfOp would be a sysop in all but name and the ability to ban users. They would be promoted with a community discussion for one week for users to air any problems that they have with the user or give their support. All that is needed is proof that they have been actively helping in the maintenance of the community and there are no problems with giving them the extra buttons. The attending 'crat can then make a decision and promote accordingly. The user can then help out on the admin pages as needed, increasing the turn around of requests. They will not be able to rule on Misconduct Cases or Vandal cases and will not be allowed to strike inane votes from policies, suggestions and other places.
  • System Operators
Abilities: As HalfOp but can also ban users and rule on misconduct and Vandal banning.
Promotion Type: Current system
Any user who wants be a sysop would need to request through A/PM, following the current guidelines for sysop promotion. It is recommended for a prospective sysop to have spent some time as a HalfOp, but this is not a requirement.
  • Bureaucrats
Promotion Type: Popular Election every Two Months (current system)
Abilities: Rule on Popular Votes on A/PM and A/BP
The bureaucrat are those who can promote other users for one of the above classes (even Bureaucrat). Only system operators can become bureaucrats. There is no change in the number of 'crats or the way they would be promoted.

Guidelines

All existing guidelines for sysops would apply to halfops (excepting Banning a User since that won't apply) and if they break them then they will face Misconduct similar to a sysop. HalfOps may not rule in Misconduct cases or Vandal cases.

Demotion

A HalfOp may request demotion to User status at any time, a Sysop will now be allowed to request demotion to HalfOp as well as regular User Status and a 'crat can request demotion to Sysop, HalfOp or regular user.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. It would seriously cut down the turn-about time of admin tasks, considering we're slowly starting to lose sysops like socks in a washing machine. -- Cheese 20:17, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  2. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:27, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  3. --PdeqTalk* 22:25, 24 July 2008 (BST)
  4. The more people we have to maintain the wiki, and with powers to do so, the better. --User:Axe27/Sig 00:00, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  5. Because the last time this was attempted, there was over 20 active sysops... now there are around 10. It is blatantly obvious that we could use a few extra hands to help out with the ever increasing A/SD, A/MR queues. People like Pdeq, Rooster and WanYao would really benefit from this without having to deal with things like A/VB, A/M and the drama associated with it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:26, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  6. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:50, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  7. For - I like the idea.--'BPTmz 02:25, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  8. Fo' - Would serve as a good "training/proving ground" for future SysOps. Also, as Gnome. --Kikashie Read the Dispatch! 03:33, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  9. For --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 05:22, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  10. For As Gnome, Cheese, and Kikashie. --Ottari DA PDA NW Read the Dispatch!
  11. For uhm? power to the pker?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 19:51, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  12. For Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 08:47, 26 July 2008 (BST)
  13. For. This would make the wiki's upkeep quicker and simpler. --SirArgo 21:51, 2 August 2008 (BST)
  14. For - As Ottari. --JaredTalk Aces C-Kids 18:46, 7 August 2008 (BST)
  15. For--HeliosGemini 10:47, 10 August 2008 (BST)
  16. For--Make a better name for it though. --Nimrod1 11:26, 10 August 2008 (BST)
  17. For But only just. Probably as Gnome? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:29, 10 August 2008 (BST)

Against

  1. Sadly, I have to vote against this. As much as I would like the HalfOps (as outlined above with no A/M A/VB powers) until things like Crit 1s and obvious Moves are matters Ops can deal with on sight instead of posting them on A/SD and A/MR the HalfOps would still have to go through those pages. So, giving them new powers just means giving them "more work". They would not only have to still find them but they will have to still post them. As it is now they can devote time to finding these and not dealing with the red tape. --– Nubis NWO 01:15, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  2. No. Deletion and protection abilities can be very destructive, and an absolute bitch to undo in large numbers, and for that reason ill oppose the creation of any such halfops if this policy passes. This is definately not needed. Things are getting done just fine now, so there isnt any need to create more sysops or "sub sysops" (Im not against promoting people in general, just against letting any old idiot have the reigns). This is nothing but yet another attempt to make it easier for people to get their hands on percieved "power" without really attempting to weed out the appropriate people first, and it will undoubtably be popular exactly because of that. Also, due to the complete lack of requirements, there is nothing stopping the crat workload from becoming unmanagable as newbie after newbie after newbie put themselves up for this, as well as pretty much anyone on the wiki. Repeatedly. --The Grimch U! E! 01:58, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  3. Completely pointless, we don't need more people with delete/move powers, there were never 20 active sysops the ones that are gone are gone because they weren't active and promoting new people to their places when things are finally getting done around here just passes the buck.--Karekmaps?! 02:51, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  4. As above.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 04:28, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  5. Nope. I does not like. Like it i does not.--Bullgod 04:35, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  6. Unneeded, and simply adds an extra level of bureaucracy to an already unwieldly system. What the wiki needs is more sysops -- with full sysop powers -- but specifically sysops who are proactive and willing to collectively address the profound "crisis of confidence" which many users have in the wiki and its administration. Such a minor reform will do nothing to address this issue. --WanYao 15:27, 25 July 2008 (BST)
    I might be agreeing with you, except nobody wants to be a sysop these days, which is understandable I think. We've recently lost at least 3 sysops with nothing to compensate. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:34, 25 July 2008 (BST)
    Actually, lots of people want to be sysops, but they want it for the wrong reasons (And as long as im crat they have about as much chance of getting "promoted" as a chocolate bar has of surviving at fat camp). They see it as power, and they are quite predictably unsuited for the position. Similiarly there is a rather nasty element that has been around since the second generation of elected sysops that has made life difficult for everyone involved. Individuals such as Cyberbob and Funt have actively engaged in some outright repulsive harrassment of system operators on this wiki, as have a number of others. The solution isnt to make such abilities easier to obtain for all and sundry, the solution is to make it so that such harrassment can be actively dealt with making those that are smart enough to do the job well actually feel comfortable in putting themselves forward for it without feeling like they are wading into a drama pool. Its a thorny issue, to be sure, but its one that does need to be addressed, and doing this wont change matters, if anything it will just be another level of all too easily abused bureacracy that will suck up the time of the crats (Presently myself and Boxy) without solving the real problem. I tell you right now that id promote several people here in a heartbeat would they put themselves up (WanYao is an example of a person in whom, despite our many differences, i still greatly respect and can trust to do the right thing). Several of them know this. In any event, we have quite decent coverage as it right now, and this policy is neither needed nor, as i have already explained, does it solve the problems at hand. --The Grimch U! E! 15:57, 25 July 2008 (BST)
    Grim conflicted me as I was writing this. I'll post it as it, anyway...
    This isn't the place for a big discussion... but let me quickly state this: that's exactly why we need a collective commitment amongst the sysop team to proactivity... the job has to become one that isn't so loaded down with bullshit. and the drive to clean up the bullshit is exactly what the sysop crew needs, and what the general usership I believe would like to see. And it'd make being a sysop more acceptable, as opposed to just another effen dramatic headache. --WanYao 15:58, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  7. More bureaucracy, and more paperwork for those up higher. Nuh uh. --Ocular Druuuuu 17:36, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  8. Against. Agree with above who say this does not solve any of the problems it's hoping to fix.--Sarah Silverman 17:45, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  9. No. As I've said before, rolling back pages does not prepare someone to rule on vandalism and misconduct. This policy sets up a tree of progression where it is implied that this is the case. It's not like I brought this up during the discussion phase and the champions of this policy chose to ignore it or anything.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 20:53, 25 July 2008 (BST)
  10. Not my cuppa tea.--xoxo 02:14, 26 July 2008 (BST)
  11. Is it necessarily something that is going to help? I just think giving us more power is something I don't like the sound of... I mean, within time it could calm down, but if not, monster wars could ensue and become the norm. I see a few sysops voting for the policy... Perhaps we should be getting more sysops if this is an issue? I know how naive that sounds though. DanceDanceRevolution 15:59, 27 July 2008 (BST)
  12. Unfortunately, I also vote against this. While I do believe giving users the ability to carry out common "maintenance" tasks is a good idea, I cannot support a policy which allows promotion willy-nilly with no required qualifications. I would also agree with Nubis that we do not need extra people to prance around in red tape.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:26, 27 July 2008 (BST)
  13. OBAMA FOR PREZ!!! opps.. ah. as above?----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 22:56, 31 July 2008 (BST)
  14. In general, adding more layers does exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to. Example: Congress. Subcommittee on top of subcommittee, yet slow and expensive as hell. Shooty08 08:56, 2 August 2008 (BST)
  15. As above.--MisterGame 23:36, 2 August 2008 (BST)
  16. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 01:20, 4 August 2008 (BST)
  17. - User:Whitehouse 15:10, 10 August 2008 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Sub_Groups:The_Cheesy_Version&oldid=1248129"