UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Sub-Group

From The Urban Dead Wiki
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 and the eraser-stick.

The Idea

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

  • Trusted User
Abilities: Move articles, rollback function.
Promotion Type: Request
A Trusted User is one trusted enough to handle the less critical queue of the administrations pages, such as A/MR and using the rollback function. 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.
There are no minimum number of edits or time in the community for one to be able to be promoted for this group, but the more and better one contribute to the community, the better the chances for one to be promoted.
  • System Operators
Abilities: Ban Users, delete, move and protect pages. Rule on Misconduct Cases
Promotion Type: Current system
Any user (even those who are not part of the Trusted User group) who wants be a sysop would need to request through A/PM, following the current guidelines for sysop promotion.
  • 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.

Rollback

The rollback action is a simple feature available to all sysop that allows multiple edits by a user to be reverted in a single click. Giving this action to more users would help revert multiple vandalism edits much quicker and easier. The rollback action should not, however be used in edit conflicts or revert wars, reverting good faith edits or otherwise any edit that would require a summary for clarification. Bureaucrats should not grant rollback/move actions to users with a history of edit warring.

Move

The move action was once available to all users before it was revoked due to move-vandalism. Giving this action to the majority of (trusted) users would be useful a feature addition for those who are granted the rollback action. Moves can be done without a request just like current sysops do, although it is encouraged to make a note of your move on A/MR.

Misconduct

As more users would have system operator abilities, more users would end up falling in misconduct. The same rules that apply to sysops with misconduct cases would apply to Trusted Users.

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 or she abused. No user can have their powers removed for more than a month without at least five sysops supporting the ruling.

Example

Hi, I'd like to be granted the rollback and move abilites to help revert vandalism and move things around. Thanks. --Bob 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • You haven't been in any edit warring and you've been here a while, so granted. --Bureaucrat 04:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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. For - There is no reason why we can't trust our community with harmless tools. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Against - why am i saying Against in the for section ? Guess i missed the right section >_> --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. For - Yes, I like it. Also, confused by Hagnat's vote. --PdeqTalk* 02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. For Hagnat voted? Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. For Very Yes. Jordan Salafack 10:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    That vote can't possibly be a selfish one. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. For Yes, this would help to provide more support throughout the wiki.--MikhailA 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. For - there are some issues that need a much larger class of "trusted" users than sysops only. this would distribute duties more evenly through the community --~~~~ [talk] 12:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. For - As Gnome. Nothing wrong with giving them Rollback and Move functions. :) Would save us a hell of a lot of time with misplaced user pages. -- Cheese 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. For - This is a sound policy. As thus, I support it. - Dawgas 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. For - I like the mechanics, and dislike the flavour text. --Toejam 15:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Against

  1. Against - Pick your poison: (1)Move was removed for a reason. (2)Bureaucrats do not need more power. (3)This would be a user class system, those are bad.--Karekmaps?! 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Against – Unnecessary. Rollback is just a handy function for those performing mass vandalism reverts, and does nothing that can't be done manually with a little more time. If people find themselves reverting a lot of vandalism, maybe they should be putting in for a sysop position. As for page movement, I would either have this open to all users or limited to sysops. The current A/MR system works fine, no need to change it. Edit: If we want useful tools for advanced users, I think enabling User scripts would be a lot more useful. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Against - As I said on the talk page: pointless. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Against - My insticts tell me this just overcomplicates things... I say demote the inactive sysops, promote more of the active users to the position. But.. ooooh.. the horror that results in proposing that. Meh. --WanYao 08:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Against - I agree with WanYao. Simply replace the inactive sysops with more active ones. That would be a more sensible solution.--Dr Doom86Phoenix2.gif T PSS 10:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. against - as WanYao, creating a new sub group does not solve the problem with inactive sysop. get rid of them first and then if there is still a problem, then bring this back. and whats the deal with Hagnat's vote? --Scotw 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Unnecessary.--ShadowScope 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. NO A few reasons, not least is that I don't like the elitist title, why should i have to apply for powers i don't want just so i can be recognized as trusted? Also I think the promotion method is too short, it needs to be a week so everyone gets chance to notice. Last, I still don't see any need for this.... make more sysops instead but only give a higher level of sysop the hammer and stick! --Honestmistake 17:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Show need.--Thekooks 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. For I am for against.--MisterGame 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. As WanYao. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Against - I really don't think that this policy is necessary. --ZsL 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Against - I thought I'd be for, but then time intervened, and so did HonestMistake. Calling the new level "trusted" does rather assume that all non-promoted users are untrustworthy, and also implies that sysops and 'crats are somehow uber-trustworthy - when I think we all know they're as foible-ridden as anyone else. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Against - I'm not going to bother re-stating why. I've always been against anything as stupid as this. The system seems to work fine for Wikipedia, it's highly scaleable. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Against - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Against agree with wanyoo--Airborne88Zzz1.JPGT|Z.Quiz|PSS 09:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Against - Less red tape and pointless rules, please.--Jorm 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Against - I agree with WanYao's position. --Starplatinum 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    Against- I like the idea in theory but I thinke there will be complications that will negate the benefits - Vantar 08:10, 4 April 2008 (BST) Vote struck as placed after two week voting period. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:49, 12 April 2008 (BST)

Voting closed. Policy fails: 10 For to 18 Against; 36% in favour: did not meet minimum two thirds in favour. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:49, 12 April 2008 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Sub-Group&oldid=1106476"