View source for UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/SysOps ARE Moderators

The whole "less red tape" section is a simple tack on to an unrelated policy. GTFO and put those that arn't already covered (sysops are free to move pages and warn users in the way you describe already) up for voting, individually, on scheduled deletions/protections <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 16:03 15 October 2008 (BST)</small>

One key problem with this (although I agree that sysops should be polite) is that the current crop of sysops have not been voted in by the community. They were voted in by the community of 2-3 years ago.  Who voted in The General, for example? It wasn't me. Who voted in Nubis? Not me. Who voted in Conn? Not me. For that reason, the foundation language of this policy is untrue. They are not any kind of paragons of the wiki. They are, generally, old-hands from a bygone era who should all be re-evaluated by the current community.  Maybe then, this policy would make sense in context. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 18:07, 15 October 2008 (BST)
:Just because you didn't particularly vote in a sysop doesn't mean that everyone that did vote them in is gone. It also doesn't mean that their only contributions were prior to being voted in. You can't evaluate them by the current community (with a popularity vote) but rather by their current contributions.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:30, 16 October 2008 (BST)
Ok, I'm going to brace for some sort of comment to come along and shut me down, but here goes anyway... Is this policy even necessary? I think sysops don't have to be polite, it's all up to them. Some do a better job by being an ass and others maybe are just simply mean. As long as they are not flaming people constantly, or attacking someone personally for no reason, or breaking the rules I say let them act how they wish. 
As for the Less Red Tape part, I've never actually seen an instance where filling out the report to do those actions was such a stress. We don't have quite as much red tape as people seem to think and if we enabled those powers they could be a huge issue with causing accidental deletions/protections and general confusion between users and the sysops. 
Just my opinion on stuff.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 19:29, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Completely unnecessary. Now with Grim gone for 1.5 years at least, I can't find "Be Polite" to be necessary, no current sysops behave overly rude, impolite or are a bully. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:41, 16 October 2008 (BST)
:Just because we are done with one problem doesnt mean we cant be ready to handle possible future ones. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]]</sup> 01:13, 16 October 2008 (BST)

"A moderator with a loose tongue could be brought to misconduct by other sysops, ''but only if he keeps up this behavior for long periods of time.''" Good to see that last bit in there. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 12:59, 16 October 2008 (BST)

== On one condition... ==

A community vote to demote sysops they don't like/agree with/whatever MUST exist. Making sysops rolemodels for the community is a great idea which i fully support. But since sysops are trusted (and this trust is being extended) people have to be able to vote and demote a sysop. It shouldn't be seen as a OH NOEZ I"M GONNA HAVE A COUP AND LEAVE THE WIKI THING, sysops should come and go with a degree of regularity. Obviously policy has to exist for this but yeah, needs to be incorporated.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:30, 16 October 2008 (BST)
:So you want to trust them but are paranoid? You can't have trustless trust J3D. For that reason this policy is asking for too much too soon.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:34, 16 October 2008 (BST)
::I think this is good not because i trust/don't trust sysops but because it reduces needless bureaucracy. I also think popular vote (maybe uber popular, 70% or something) should get rid of sysops. The facts that demotion is near impossible is stupid and it severely restricts anything from happening.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:48, 16 October 2008 (BST)
:::Yes, but that's not a problem that opening it up for voting solves, that just makes sysops have to take the popular side in every conflict, that being to avoid ruling on most anything. The problem is one of the views of the sysops themselves in regards to misconduct, the only way to fix it is to change what they see to be the nature of misconduct. Also, we do need less red tape, it would really help though if proposals to remove red tape were just that, not also proposals to force us to walk on egg shells so there is a small chance the wiki can be made to work more efficiently.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:52, 16 October 2008 (BST)
::::Yes to less red tape, no to excessive power. It's hard to give one and not the other without opening them up to democratic process...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:18, 16 October 2008 (BST)
:::::The "less red tape" section is completely unnecessary and irrelevant here. If you think a different class of deletions or protections should  be done on sight by a sysop without needing to report it, there is already a mechanism for it, [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling|deletions scheduling]] and [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections#Protections_Scheduling_Queue|protection scheduling]]. A simple vote for each different type. Putting them all up together, and forcing them into a policy like this that has absolutely nothing to do with "red tape" is an abuse of the democratic process. People will vote for this as a whole, even if they have disagreements with some of the individual scheduled deletions listed <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:59 16 October 2008 (BST)</small>

==Sysops are not Moderators==
{{Quote|Xoid|The whole 'mod' thing was a misnomer. We've never had the power to moderate. The fact that arb. is a requirement to deal with people name-calling each is proof of this.}}
If we are going to call Sysops moderators then we should give them the power to moderate users behaviours, otherwise they still aren't moderators. Don't get me wrong, the policy is good and is headed in the right direction, but the name "Moderator" is misleading to the role that sysops would fill after this policy. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">06:26/16/10/2008</span>]]'''

False advertising much? This policy says absolutely nothing about making sysops into moderators, and everything about them being moderated (while no one else is). It should be be titled "Sysops ARE TO BE Moderated... oh and less red tape, FTW" <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:14 16 October 2008 (BST)</small>
:"SysOps are to be regarded as moderators, as they should always have been." - The policy makes it quite clear that the community should refer to Sysops as moderators even though it is not explicitly stated that the term Sysop should be changed to moderator. I'ld like this policy more if it removed such implications. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">01:55/17/10/2008</span>]]'''

==No.==
This is reactionary bullshit at its finest. With Grim (who was always a ''very'' extreme case) to serve as an example sysops are going to be treading lightly for some time to come without idiocy like this. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 12:25, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Also, Cunt is a tool and I don't think J3D even knows what he wants. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 12:30, 16 October 2008 (BST)

==Warning Users without going through VB page==
Requiring cases to go through the VB page puts them up for public scrutiny and filters out some of the dodgy cases. I suspect if deciding to give warnings was left to individual instead of collective sysop judgment, the system would be less fair. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 13:10, 16 October 2008 (BST)

== Reading it and typing at the same time. ==

Right

"If a disagreement between the moderation staff exists, it should be dealt with on the talk pages of these users, not on administration pages."

Now. In the above sentence are you referring to ''personal'' disputes only? Because not everyone's going to agree on a misconduct ruling, and surely some debate should happen?

"warning users (reporting this action is still obligatory)"

When warning users are we talking. "The following action is considered vandalism, continuing to do this will result in official action. stop it." '''OR''' "Please don't vandalise the wiki this is your second warning the next is a 24 ban" (recorded on A/VB)? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:54, 16 October 2008 (BST)