UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Limited Sysop Sub-Classes

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

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 8 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 and the eraser-stick.

The Idea

Split the Sysop powers in N different sub-classes of users. It is possible with the mediawiki software to assign different management powers to different classes of users.

  • Advanced User
Abilities: Move Articles, rollback function and protection.
Promotion Type: Request
An Advanced User is one trusted enough to handle the less critical queue of the administrations pages, such as A/MR and using the rollback function. They would also be able to protect against vandalism much like a sysop would in accordance with brief protection for high visibility pages. A user wanting these tools would request it through A/PM for a duration of three days. Any user who is opposed to giving the requester new tools may voice their opinion, but should otherwise say nothing. At the end of those three days, a bureaucrat will make a decision.
  • System Operators
Abilities: Permanently Ban Users, Rule on Misconduct Cases
Promotion Type: Current system
A user who wants be a sysop would need to request through A/PM, and must have already been an Advanced User.
  • 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. With this policy, the current number of crats (two) would increase to three, as more users would be able to achieve the above status.

Protection

Although Advanced Users are able to edit protected pages, significant changes to protected administrative pages must go through a request. Pages that the user has ownership rights, such as user and group pages, may be edited without a request.

Misconduct

As more users would have system operator abilities, more users would end up falling in misconduct. The same rules applied to A/VB would apply to A/M then: only the reporting user; the user being reported; users directly involved in the case; and users with system operator privilege or above; would be eligible to comment in a case. Users who are found abusing the system will be punished as vandals.

A user who abuses it's own powers will be punished accordingly with the decision of the sysop team, and that might include the removal of the privilege he abused. No user can have their powers removed for more than a month without at least five sysops supporting the ruling.

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. There is no reason why we can't trust our community. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. To protect kill voters: There are different levels of protection, or rather, there would be under this. It would create several levels; adv. user protected, and sysop protected; a few more levels if need be, but you get the gist. This would not create protect wars as a higher rank can just come in and protect it from the protectors.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Cake please... what yer out of cake? noo.. I dont want death. I asked for cake!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. As AHLG. --PdeqTalk* 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. The ability to give real users the right to edit their group pages, even when protected, will save us from having to worry about banning a lot of those blow in (often proxied up) vandals because they simply wont be able to edit the pages that "offend" them. The majority of long term members here can be trusted with further powers, and if they show that they arn't worthy of trust, it's easy enough to demote them if they abuse it, or vandalise with the added abilities -- boxy talk • i 09:32 1 February 2008 (BST)
  6. Trust in the community should be our starting point. Safeguards are in place, should that trust prove ill-judged. There is nothing to lose, and much to gain. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. I like it. :D Just purely because I want to be a semi-sysop. Also rewards genuine trustworthy members of the community. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Yep Jonny12 talk 20:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. *votes yes*--CorndogheroT-S-Z 02:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. I believe Boxy and AHLG stated it best in this situation. Let us have more trust in the good faith of our community. -Ottari NW DA PDA 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. There's been a number of times when I've wanted to edit a protected page to fix spelling mistakes and the like, and this would be useful. I think in general people can be trusted not to abuse it if there are clear guidelines for proper use. --Toejam 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. For --Heretic144 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. For +1 --Kikashie ELT 10:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. For --Catman03 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC) I think this would aid the beurocrats and sysops, and through them the community in general, i'm for it. Only one thing i can think of that i dissagree with: if promotion to "advanced user" or whatever is done by request, what's to stop requests from pouring in by the hundreds?
  17. Improving the wiki is always a good thing. --Tumu 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. helping users help the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. I completely agree that the wiki should be run by many people of various levels.--MikhailA 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  20. Yes I'd like to think we can trust the majority of our community. --Amanu Jaku 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against Don't include protection and I'm with you... Protection although useful in teh hands of volunteers would be great, it also has teh potential to be a pain in the ass as you could actually get into protect wars and then try to figure out why the bloody hell it was protected in the first place...and lets be honest this would happen... Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Against - I just don't quite like the idea in its entirety.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Against - Nothing good can come of this.--Karekmaps?! 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Karek --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Against - I can't stand the thought of levels-upon-levels of positions and ranks. Let's be done with just regular users and sysops thanks. It seems to work fine as it is. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's not levels-upon-levels, it's just three (sorta three and a half), up from two. The original version had loads, but it's been changed down several notches since then. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Against - No protection, and i dont like the concept at all. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Against I support giving trusted users the right to edit protected pages but I don't see any real benefit from the rest! --Honestmistake 10:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The weakest of weak Againsts - I support a lot of what this policy seems to be aiming for, more equality between users' powers, sysops not being viewed an elite class, and the belief that almost all members of the community can (and should) be trusted provided there are measures to keep any potential damage small. The only bit I dislike is the misconduct section - I really don't like whether or not a comment is permitted is decided based not on whether the comment is insightful or has merit, but rather on who the commenter is. To say that if a normal user comments on the page it's vandalism, but if a sysop comments it's fine does not sit well with me. (This policy does not clearly demand that normal user comments be seen as vandalism, but it could easily be interpreted that way.) (I know people could still comment on the talk page, but it's as much symbolic as anything.) --Toejam 11:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Changing vote to for - I don't like the misconduct bit, but it's outweighed by the good in the rest of the policy. --Toejam 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Conndraka-Yes, he's right. The ability to protect needs to remain in the hands of sysops. If you rewrite this policy and put it up to vote agian, you'd get my vote. --User:Axe27/Sig 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Against There are enough levels of bureaucracy already, and enough people to cover it all. Needless addition.--Actingupagain 16:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Against - I don't think that this policy is necessary. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Against - I really want to vote keep, but the incredible amount of abuse that could come from this is too much. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Against As Zombie Slayer. Omega 02:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Against-As Zombie Slayer--ShadowScope 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Against - so who's going to do all the maintaining of user lists? – Nubis 15:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Against - Because I know who'll be cleaning the mess up. As I thought, this is largely supported because people want power.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Against No need for more power-levels. The "real" game should not be taking place within wiki-hierarchies. Go fight zombies instead. --Sixten 08:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting closed. Policy fails: 20 For to 16 Against; 56% in favour: did not meet minimum two thirds in favour. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Limited_Sysop_Sub-Classes&oldid=1028378"