View source for 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|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. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::So this is a disguised <s>policy</s> 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 <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:17 11 February 2009 (BST)</small>
:::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".--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"the more acts of crafty dexterity that men possess, the more do strange contrivances appear; the more display there is of legislation, the more thieves and robbers there are." I think the thing to remember about this is that there have always been people who start red tape misconduct proceedings, but that creating policies in response is just feeding them more tape to hang you with. If anything this will just make the sysops less efficient, more confusing, and even more prone to being litigated when they overstep their new boundaries. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]<sup>Still a Mod in His Mind</sup> 05:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
:I think its more important to try to resurrect the long dead spirit of good faith. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]<sup>Still a Mod in His Mind</sup> 05:59, 13 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? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 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.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 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.    --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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 :-) --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 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.  --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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* --[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 19:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::We have that now already. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::Lolwut? What did Iscariot get punished for that I didn't? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 01:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Petty VB cases.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I've made no petty VB cases, at least not recently. If I'm going to be attacked every time I bring a case against someone I don't like just because it's them... --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 08:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Bob, it was no big deal. Really. I think I meant it was more of "not talking to the suspect"  rather than the case itself being petty. Sorry for the confusion. It's fine. You're fine. :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) 
::::::Why should I have talked to him? J3D professes to be a big boy, he knows the score. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:32, 12 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... --[[User:WanYao|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. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The sysops could pretty much do this on their own, if all of them wanted to. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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?--[[User:Honestmistake|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. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
::As you point out; Grim '''was''' voted Crat, against that I think it very unlikely that he would not have been voted as the A/VB sysop. The fact is that Grim pretty much dominated A/VB even without this (and in fairness he did do a mostly good job) opting to give 1 sysop more authority over this area is always going to risk causing as many problems as it solves. Granting extra powers/authority over mundane maintenance of specialised areas on the other hand would be a good thing if taken on a case by case basis.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:::DCC posted "If Grim gets the Crat position that would be good for LULZ." DCC was the head of the Dead. At least half of the voters were outed goons. The Grim situation was a total "fluke".  Honest, Honest.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Not so sure it was an unrepeatable fluke though. In any event I like and support the general idea but not as presented and not if it would include any power greater than being "official tie-breaker" for Misconduct and vandal cases.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:55, 12 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? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:09 11 February 2009 (BST)</small>
: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.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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?--[[User:MisterGame|Thadeous Oakley]] 17:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
:::There is a clause about removing A/VB sysops. It could be extended to all positions. Specialization is something that you won't really know how they will perform until they do it for a while.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:25, 12 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 just a couple of days ago, 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? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:Wan, I think you would make a fine sysop. Because I think that a sysop isn't someone that ''lives'' on the wiki, but someone that makes consistent quality contributions. I look at it like, "sure, you might disappear for 2-3 weeks, but when you come back you get in there and edit and everything you touch is golden." That is better than a sysop that edits a lot, but never on the sysop pages (Swiers for one). 
:I'm also very surprised at your chairperson idea since you were one of the ones against my "overly bureaucratic" misconduct review. The chairperson with out power doesn't make them a chairperson. 
:''What do you want sysops for and to do exactly?'' I want sysops to be like forum moderators in the sense that they have sections (not just admin. pages but including templates, categories, etc.) where they make sure the links are correct, where they monitor content (just for violations - porn, hate pages, etc - not as a "thought police"), where they make sure the content is up to date or useful, and so on. I want them to be seen more as "go to people" than a ruling clique. I want sysops that are actually in there editing "user created pages" rather than just waiting for something to be posted. And I think the way to get that would be to give a little more leeway with the "red tape" to worthy users. People that have shown they can make good decisions and actually contribute. 
:I would love to loosen the red tape a bit, however, it is difficult to do that because people always come up with Worst Case Scenario instead of assuming good faith. Ironic, no?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this but I can't really say why. We could end up with a heap of territorial sysops, along the lines of "X can't touch A/MR because I'm the sysop there!" And, of course, no-one really wants that. Likewise, with A/VB, sysops could have a mandate, which would be bad (not direct, more as in getting chummy with the people who voted them in.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 07:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

==I don't like it 2==
To be honest...seems to be a significant amount of rigmarole for a position that is filled by volunteers on a volunteer basis with no set time commitments to the job. But that's just my opinion. We already have an informal pecking order in most of these subject areas and I'm going to have to say that in this case...less is better. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

==What if I removed A/VB?==
Is the idea of sysop specialization without rules on A/VB and A/M more appealing? I think Honest really gets what I am going for here.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's still kind of pointless. You're trying to answer a question that hasn't been asked. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
::He was asked though. In his misconduct cases over the image/template deletions he was asked more than once to either follow the rules or try to change them. What Nubis did then was clearcut misconduct and equally clearly goodfaith wiki janitoring(???) In many cases the red tape exists for very good reasons but that should not mean we can't have sensible ways to avoid it. Giving a sysop who has proven their judgement and ability a way to work more efficiently while retaining the safety net for less experienced sysops is what i see as being good about this idea. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)