UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Sysop Specialization

Unneccessary

Being a sysop is hardly a difficult job. Dealing with drama is easily the toughest part, and even then most trolls can simply be ignored. --Cyberbob 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't hard at all. I love trolls like you :3 but we need more sysops so we can overcome voting blocks in A/M. While some people can't handle the VB drama they can comprehend the policies enough to know when something is wrong. With the current system of all ops being expected to post everywhere we won't get more ops because VB drama (thanks to concerned users like you! heh) will either knock them out of consideration or make them not put in in the first place. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I think you'll find I've tired of A/VB lately; it's more J3D and his fuckbuddies that have been into the ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH scene. Besides which, all it would take to greatly ease the dramaz would be for you guys to actually get serious about keeping unrelated people off the main page. I've moved an incredible volume of utter crap to the talk page recently, and for the most part it's all come from the same few people that just don't seem to take the hint. Deal with those people and you'd greatly free A/VB up. Shit, I'd be happy to do it if I thought there was a chance of getting through A/PM. --Cyberbob 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So this is a disguised policy concept, with the aim to increase sysop numbers to make A/M more... ummm... I dunno... more dangerous. Quite amusing, given your A/M past -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 11 February 2009 (BST)

It comes from my A/M history actually. The majority of the cases that were brought up against me were for PROCEDURAL RED TAPE issues in areas that I was working my ass off (templates, images etc.) These were areas that I was very familiar with but because of the All or Nothing sysop attitude that said "well, yes, Nubis you have been working very hard here, but if you do this and some random idiot sysop comes along and does it also but incorrectly well then it is YOUR fault for doing it first".--– Nubis ^NWO 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it

I think it gives people too narrow a mentality "Nubis is in charge of vandal banning, I'll let him sort this out". Surely we want our team to be able to confidently make decisions without second guessing what the lead sysop thinks.

And who decides who has what job again? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the idea that every sysop can deal with every kind of situation. It lets them get more experienced in their job as a whole, plus it gets different ideas and views put out in the open. This proposed thing could possibly wind up with severe stagnation of ideas in areas.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ross, do you read the sysop pages? It's a first come first ruling set up. So whatever the whims of that op happen to be is what happens. There is no "team". And often if a user has an issue that involves many areas and one sysop doesn't agree with him that op can shut the user down across the board.

Let's be honest. There are sysops that shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on certain matters. Period. Hag shouldn't be on VB, I shouldn't be on deletions, and Cheese shouldn't be on MR. But we are. Sometimes our actions have more of a harmful effect.

I think that you are missing that your example isn't really a bad thing. I am saying that if there is one (or 2) in charge of VB then the rulings will be more consistent as opposed to is sysop X mad at User A and looking for anything to VB him on? Look at the Iscariot/Cyberbob thing. Cheese reported him for vandalism yet let Bob get away with the same thing. Look at the Read/SA thing. Again, no consistency because it's a free for all in there.

I want the users to pick one or two sysops that they TRUST and think can be fair and uphold the policies to be in charge of VB. I don't know if I am one, I know Hag sure as hell isn't one, but I think SA might be (and Karek).

I want to de-centralize the power a little bit and make it less of an elite group. And I fucking sound like Iscariot, but between his foaming rants he was onto something. One sysop has too much authority over too many aspects of the wiki.

We need more sysops. Not because the work is too hard, but because Misconduct is a popularity contest. Not because the wiki is in ruins, but because there's no reason not to have more IF we separate VB. We have plenty of people that deserve it. WanYao, Midianian, even Iscariot to a degree have proven themselves knowledgeable and dedicated, but not wanting to deal with VB (or the crats thinking they couldn't deal with VB) has stopped them.

@Argo - There are sysops that never post on certain pages. They aren't getting experience. The idea is to get more people in the sysop slots to prevent the stagnation we have right now. And the only VB matters that need to be dealt with right away are edit wars and active vandals. I am not saying that sysops can't post or handle vandals. What I am saying is that the final decision comes down to 2 certain sysops that are expected to be fair and look at everything involved. As opposed to the sysop involved in an edit war that finally decides he's had enough and locks the page and VBs the other party. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You want more sops? nominate some. I can name at least 4 normal "users" who seem both reasonable and non coup inducing. If VB is in the hands of one sysop, and MR is in the hands of another, does the position of sysop seem more or less appealing? And surely by having a sysop nominated to oversee VB you're just moving the popularity contest, not dealing with it? And yes, in my time I did read some of the sysop pages. I still do :-) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Normal users that don't want to deal with the bullshit of A/VB. That's the problem.

It isn't that the MR sysop is ONLY ALLOWED to post on MR, it is the idea that they are the one responsible for it. They make the calls when a question or issue comes up.

You see the votes for Crat and people talking about who they would vote for. It's not a popularity contest. You are demeaning the users by saying that they can't pick someone they think would be fair and would instead pick someone they think is "cool". Look at Hag. The people that vouched for him to get his ops back aren't voting him for Crat. He's usually considered a "popular" Op.

The core of this idea isn't to hammer ops into round little peg holes, but to move toward a more "moderation" type of set up. To eventually expand beyond just the Admin pages and make ops actually maintain more of the wiki besides getting in their required monthly edit to keep them. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm...I am afraid that, sooner or later, you get the situation of different levels of quality among the different sections. And solving such an issue would cause drama. Lot's of drama...*snickers* --Thadeous Oakley 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We have that now already. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lolwut? What did Iscariot get punished for that I didn't? --Cyberbob 01:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Petty VB cases.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea to give people special privs/powers. Which, no matter how spin it, is what this does. If it doesn't do so, then what's the point? If someone wants to focus on a section, then let them. No need to formalise that... --WanYao 03:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But there is a need. Otherwise, I could go back behind everything Sysop X does and undo it. And there wouldn't be anything that could stop that since no Op has more authority than the others including Crat. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sysops could pretty much do this on their own, if all of them wanted to. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am all for Sysops being allowed (even encouraged) to ask for specialisation in an area that they are perticularly skilled/knowledgable about and being granted extra leeway if their request is accepted but this doesn't do that. Setting someone up to have greater authority over something as contentious as A/VB is just asking for trouble. Giving them authority to break deadlocks might be worth consideration (hence my suggestion that the crats do just that on misconduct) but all sysops are human (i think) and humans make mistakes... On A/VB such mistakes will not go unnoticed but if you assign 1 sysop to deal with each section of the wiki then others are less likely to go looking there without reason and could easily miss bad judgements. Also if we had this system 1 months ago Grim would almost certainly have been the sysop in charge of A/VB... how bad could that have been?--Honestmistake 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not that they are limited to that section, it is that they have more authority in that section.

Grim would not have been the sysop in charge of A/VB because he only got Crat thanks to the goons and they ditched the wiki and he was well known for harassing common users. No one would have wanted a sysop that stalked users looking for mistakes in charge of A/VB. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it at all. While I accept that individual sysops may well be better suited to "patrolling" certain admin areas, the whole concept was lost when you suggested that "sysops rotate sections every 6 months". People don't change specialisations. If a sysop is more suited to specialising in a certain admin area, what's the point in them specialising in it, if they're expected to vacate the position after settling in? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:09 11 February 2009 (BST)

The crats "could" rotate every six months. Why is that a bad thing? It was mainly to prevent burnout and also to give an "out" in case they suck at the position.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So when a syops sucks at a certain position we have to wait 6 months before we can remove them forcefully?--Thadeous Oakley 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't nail it down, but this whole idea makes me very unconfortable. I want to like, but I can't. As others have said, this seems to be a way to address the lack of sysops and/or the inactivity of those who are. Funny... b/c I actually said to Karek, after being asked a few times, "Ok, fine, I'll run for sysop...." And he said it wouldn't go through b/c I haven't been as active lately as once upon a time. Yeah, true... but isn't that a self-defeating attitude? Hmmmmmm... The lesson from all this -- this policy discussion included -- is, I think, what do you want sysops for, and to do, exactly?" That's something people don't seem clear on....

But here's an idea. Instead of giving people special powers, get people to be like the "chairperson" for the different sections. They'd have no special powers at all -- but users would have someone to contact re: that admin function. And, the person could still be considered an "expert" in that area -- just not with any special powers. Does this make sense? --WanYao 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)