UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysops are not Moderators

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Discussion

I like. Would dispel many of the misguided expectations users have of the staff. --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK, but many of the guidelines mention "Moderators" as a way to evade saying "Sysops and Bureaucrats". That should be taken into account too. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken all Bureaucrats here are also Sysops. By default if you have the Bureaucrat status on it's own you cannot delete pages, ban people ect (unless Kevans actualy changed the settings). Although people refer to Kevan, Xoid, and Bob Hammero as Bureaucrats, they are also Sysops. However if you can show me an example where it would be benifical to change it so it says both then I'ld be more then happy to change the policy to reflect this. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "admin" could be used as the new generic term then. It carries similar connotations to "sysop", and would have the added benefit of fitting in with "UDWiki:Administration". --Hubrid Nox ^{Mod WTF U! B!} 04:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. I'll go and change it (and fix some of my atrocious spelling). - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, every Bureaucrat is also a Sysop and it's just a wording issue. Nevermind. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Moderators aren't called that because they are modderit, the adjective. They're called that because they modderayt, the verb. Sorry, but that really bugs me. You shouldn't be making policies like this if you don't know what the word means.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you put your new comment in the middle of the older comments (unless you are replying to a different comment, then I'm confused as to which one you are replying to). I understand what the word means, however the implication of someone being a moderator is that they are also moderate. This policy is to change that implication. Honestly this comment takes me off guard and I don't know what else to say to you. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please get this into voting as soon as possible.--Gage 05:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why not simply call them, you know, "Sysops"? I know it's a crazy idea, but heck, worth a shot. --Sirens^{T RR} 05:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They word 'sysop' is hardly indicative of it's function. 'Admin' or 'Administrator' is much more descriptive.--Gage 05:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"System Operator" is hardly indicative of it's function? --Sirens^{T RR} 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it is to you, but not everyone has this esoteric knowledge. To be fucked I didn't know what it stood for. It is news to me.--Gage 05:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I kinda support Mia's idea. To change from "Moderator" to "Administrator" isn't that big of a difference, and we still have the problem that the Sysops don't have a title of "Administrators". Administrator sound more like Kevan himself, nobody else. With every Sysop being a "checkuser, Sysop" and Bureaucrat being "Bureaucrat, checkuser, Sysop" (look at Special:Listusers/sysop) Sysop is the common denominator, so why don't use it? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think the easiest way to solve which way we go is with a poll. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll

There are two votes, either Sysop or Admin. By the end of this month whichever has the highest votes for it will be the new title for 'Moderators' in this policy.

Voting

• Admin - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 07:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop - For the reasons stated above. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 08:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop - With generous use of "system operator" throughout policy documents so that people actually know what it's all about -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop - Perhaps with an entry in the category "Glossary" --Sirens^{T RR} 11:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop - As above. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 13:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Admin - because sysop can't easily be made into the form UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion. What would you do, UDWiki:Sysopistraion/Policy_Discussion?--Gage 14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  That's a weak argument, but I'll bite. I would argue that "Administration" is an umbrella term that includes Sysops, Bureaucrats, etc, and therefore, UDWiki:Administration would do just fine. --Sirens^{T RR} 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't care that much, call me whatever you'd like. I'm just sick and tired of being called a "moderator".--Gage 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't blame you. *understanding nod* --Sirens^{T RR} 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sysop - Sounds cewl.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop - what are we suppose to administrate again? --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor.W(M)^∞.} 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sysop --Funt Solo 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright Sysop wins. I'll alter the policy and put it up for voting. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 13:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)