UDWiki talk:Administration

Assumptions

Once again, I've decided to write up a draft of a possible new implementation of the various Moderator Services pages. For the benefit of those attempting to critique the system, here are the assumptions I've used in it's creation.

1. Moderators should be accountable to the regular users of the wiki
2. Moderator actions should be entirely transparent - No moderation service should "sneak under the radar" of regular users.
3. Further, the use of moderator privileges should be subject to clear, open guidelines, to assist moderators in knowing where the line of abuse is, and letting users understand what constitutes a moderation abuse. Moderators should have as little carte blanche as possible. I trust my fellow moderators, but I'd muchly like it if the User base had guarantees as to what we can be pinged for.
4. Most if not all services should come at the request of users. The Wiki Way is supposed to be one of democracy, not aristocracy.
5. As such, use of Moderation services should be built to be as open and simple as possible, so that any user can request these services in a timely and efficient manner.
6. The various services should be under a more-or-less united system. This is a purely aesthetic reason, but assists in fulfilling #5. A united system, with more-or-less consistent procedures through the system, should help users in generalising their usage of one service to another, and encourage them to take an active interest in their wiki.
7. The systems currently in place are not working because these assumptions are not being met.

I am aware that some of these assumptions may be idealistic given the reality of this wiki. I suspect that a well-built, clear system will go quite a long way towards the goal of an efficient wiki administration.

I welcome comments and questions.

What do we have going in the way of guidelines for moderation? The current consensus seems to be that moderators will intervene in cases of vandalism only, but I've noticed a lot of insult-battles, userpage attacks, etc. lately... --LibrarianBrent 06:02, 31 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Not our job, so far as I can tell. We're here specifically to prevent vandalism, to lock down pages in the event of protracted edit wars, and to delete pages if the community decides that it doesn't need them. Oh, and possibly assist in arbitration should two feuding parties decide that they want it. Anything else is up to individual users -- Odd Starter 09:23, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Would anyone on the wiki object if I began implementing this system? It's been a long time coming, and I don't think there's anything majorly different here - most of the services already exist, and those that don't are supposed to be our job anyway. -- Odd Starter 09:23, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I'd say go for it, if any objections are going to spring up they're more likely to do it after you make some changes. --Raelin 09:52, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Right, the system is now up and functional. -- Odd Starter 02:33, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Question

This is just a question to the moderation team in general and I don't believe there's anywhere else to put this. Perhaps there should be a messages page or something.

I just got checked the wiki after all the exams (and a power failure) that I've had over the past week to find that I had been banned, or at least that a moderator had posted on my user and user talk page that I was banned. Since I was able to edit pages (namely removing the tag) I presumed that my ban was only short and it had expired. I'd like to know why I was banned and what it was that I did wrong, because I have no idea; that's all.

Thanks for your help. --Daxx 00:27, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That would be due to this. People get annoyed at that sort of thing.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:56, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Moderation/Arbitration decision? I wasn't informed about that. What's going on there? Surely a user must be told about a moderator judgement? Obviously this is not standard practice, but it certainly should be. I can't be expected to comply with a Mod decision I don't know about, can I? I don't know about anyone else, but being banned for something I have no idea about strikes me as a little unfair. Note: I don't want this decision overturned or anything like that - it certainly doesn't bother me any more - but I would like to make sure no other user encounters the same thing. As you may well appreciate it was a bit of a shock to discover that I had been banned for an arbitration decision of which I had no knowledge. I'm sure other users would feel the same.--Daxx 02:32, 19 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Changing Namespaces?

I'm very seriously considering moving the Moderation pages to the Project namespace (since they're more to do with the running of the wiki rather than being wiki content itself. We'd keep the redirects of course, but the main pages would be in the Project namespace. Any objections? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 00:42, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

It's the way that six other wikis I've worked on have ran it. Whether that's a good thing or not is open to interpretation. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:34, 1 June 2006 (BST)

possible userless user space.

Users:Ahote I do not think that person excists. If he does not, wouldn't that make the page open tod eleition and merging or vise versa or whatever? --ramby T--W! - SGP 16:33, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Yup, that's right. And I've moved it to his correct userspace, and am now nominating it for speedy. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:31, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Bureaucrat Promotions

I am starting a Bureaucrat promotions page for kevan, feel free to look over it and disscuss any changes on the talk page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:39, 1 June 2006 (BST)

After the last debacle, is Kevan really going to trust another sysop again? We may need a bureaucrat, but that doesn't mean he would be willing to risk it again. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:44, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I have contacted him on his talk page, and he agreed to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:48, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I think debacle is a rather strong word. If we had more than one active user bureaucrat, they could police each other, meaning something like that probably wouldn't happen again, and if it did it would be remedied just as fast, if not faster than the last one. – Nubis ^NWO 15:46, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I would say debacle was an appropriate choice of word; it wasn't exactly a minor infraction. That being said, I'm not trying to offend Odd, IMO it's simply a matter of fact. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:52, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I have contacted him on his talk page, and he agreed to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:54, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I noticed that, General, I was simply saying that I thought it an appropriate choice of word. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:58, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry, I was just making sure.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:00, 1 June 2006 (BST)

I know one thing, being able to do some shit like banning those fuggin' adbots is a blessing, but I do not want the responsibility of being a bureaucrat. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:07, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Ok, then you don't need to nominate yourself.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:39, 1 June 2006 (BST)

"No duh.". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:49, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Losing mods?

Is it me or are we loosing moderators? I was just checking out the list of moderators on the new NexusWar site. And surprisingly there are about 2 Sysops with the same name as the ones on our list, also about 2 other of our Sysops have gone over to it. Any way, if that is the case that we are loosing moderators we need to do something about that. And for anyone wondering, yes I made an account on there however I only did so I could leave messages for some of the people. - Jedaz 11:00, 2 June 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

Losing my friend. Losing. If we are losing moderators, I'm unsuprised. The attrition rate for MMORPG's player bases is quite high — few people stay in the one community forever, and many users jump ship quite often. This being said; UD's player base has been in steady decline for a long time. It's sad really, I quite enjoy this game. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:09, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Hmm... yeah I enjoy it as well. I wonder just from a curiosity stand point if Kevan will release the source code if UD ends up with little to no players. It's just something that I'ld like to see as a programer. But I hope it doesn't come to that point. It'ld realy be a shame... - Jedaz 11:24, 2 June 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

There is a high turnover rate of moderators simply because of the nature of the wiki. There's so much drama that they get sick of it and leave. Plus, people simply become bored of the qame and move on.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:45, 2 June 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

Ah fair enough then. That makes sense I geuss. Well I geuss I haven't realy been in any of the dramas so I don't realy know what it's like. Oh well thats life for you though. - Jedaz 12:02, 2 June 2006 (BST)

	SPELING LOL
	Yuo fayl Englesh? That's unpossablle!

--A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 12:06, 2 June 2006 (BST)

lol, fine I retract my statement about not being in any dramas now. - Jedaz 12:25, 2 June 2006 (BST)

If I just felt it was unfair for Bob to pick only one spelling error out. Particularly since The General made one himself. So I thought I'd go overboard and make it ridiculous. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:27, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I picked Jedaz's because he made the error twice - suggesting not just a typo but a genuine spelling mishap. And Jedaz: this isn't really drama - merely a joke that applies to all who slip on their keyboards. If this is the most serious drama you ever get into, count yourself very lucky. Seriously. Oh, a small tip for avoiding drama: avoid Scinfaxi, Amazing, Rueful, Rasher, Lucero Capell & Banana Bear like THE PLAGUE. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 12:30, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Yeah, my error was a typos. Also, has anyone noticed that the template call for the spelling template is spelt incorrectly?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:35, 2 June 2006 (BST)

So it never ocurred to you that that might be deliberate? --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 12:36, 2 June 2006 (BST)

It occured to me, but I just thought I would point it out.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:42, 2 June 2006 (BST)

It occured to me, but I just thought I would point it out.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:43, 2 June 2006 (BST)

It occured to me, but I just thought I would point it out.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:43, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Uh... not quite sure how to reply to that... --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 13:47, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Oops! It duplicated my message 3 times!--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:52, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I was just waiting for the fourth one. One for each template, and here I thought you were just joining in on the inane banter I started? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:59, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Oh, (a bit late back to the conversation) hmm... I really should keep a check on my spelling of that word, lol. And yeah I know this isn't a real drama Bob, but with my relatively low profile I should be fine for the most part on avoiding real ones, lol (heres hopeing). - Jedaz 14:12, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I wish you luck. Truly. --A Bothan Spy ^{Mod WTF U!} 14:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Hey guys! New template: {{adbot}}

--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:17, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I noticed, I'm still trying to find that picture of a robot that some tool uploaded. That and I'm desperately trying to convert the UGLY older style templates into the similiar, but infinitely better versions I made. (Yes, I am biased. :p) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 14:27, 2 June 2006 (BST)

I have a question.

With advice from a mod, I created the early draft of the Urban Dead Timeline. I would like to put it somewhere where everyone can see it. Could you tell me where to put this? --Apex 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure. You could ask for it to be linked off the main page, I guess. Major problem with it at the moment is how it is not written from a NPOV perspective. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What's an NPOV? and where would I ask to put it on the main page? --Apex 11:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV — Neutral Point of View. Also, try Talk:Main Page or Template talk:Navigation. If you can make it NPOV and slightly more complete, it's almost a certainty to get on the front page. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been offline for a pretty long time, but now that I've come back my group, the Malton Postal Service is gone, and our guild leader doesn't answer when I try to contact him. The talk page is still there. If there is no 'history' which I should be aware of, could a moderator please revert to the last version of the page? If there is one, would someone kindly fill me in?

Thanks much. Jenny D'Arc^{T MPS} 12:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll have more luck in the undeletions page (although don't count on it, they're getting heavy on groups that arn't updated regularly). You group was speedy deleted on Nov 30. It's a policy that is being reconsidered ATM -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 13:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Boxy. It's worth a try. Jenny D'Arc^{T MPS} 16:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Maintenance Requests

Is it possible to add Move Requests to the list of Page Maintenance Requests. It should fall under there and I have a hunch that the only reason why it isn't there already is because it wasn't always a moderators job. Vantar 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out Vantar.--Gage 04:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo for 'Bureaucrat Promotions'. Currently it says "Bureaucrat Promotions- A place for sysops can request Bureaucrat status." but it should either say "Bureaucrat Promotions- A place where sysops can request Bureaucrat status." or "Bureaucrat Promotions- A place for sysops to request Bureaucrat status." I'd do it myself, but the page is protected. Jonny12 ^{talk . w(m)^∞} 00:02, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Thanks for pointing that out. I changed it to "A place for sysops to request Bureaucrat status". --^T 00:08, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Template expand size

Hi all,

I'm currently working on improving a NecroWatch feature: Scout reports. Our new design, see for instance here, uses quite a lot of templates (mostly copied from the suburb maps and similar).

On the NecroWatch overview page however, this causes the page size before parsing of the templates to become too big, see an example here. (Make sure to check the HTML source for that page)

For more information on this problem, see this Wikipedia talk page.

My question: Is there a solution to this, or is will it simply not be possible to have all scout reports on a single overview page? The maximum size is currently rather small (300kb) (note, this is the pre-parse size, not the complete page size!), would it be possible to enlarge this to for example the Wikipedia setting of 2MB, or even to a more modest 1MB?

Regards, --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 13:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

DHPD/The Dead Antagonism

Not sure where is the best place to put this note but I just wanted to draw the attention of the sysops. Last time The Dead and the DHPD had a big fight there was a lot of bad behaviour on the wiki. We (the DHPD) are very anxious to avoid this, this time around and DHPD members have instructions not to rush around editing NPOV suburb pages and the like. We are aware that someone with the handle of DHPD Officer 666 is doing this and that there has been some minor trolling of other wiki users. None of it seems particularly serious at the moment but I'm assuming no one wants to see it escalate. We are as sure as we can reasonably be that DHPD Officer 666 isn't a DHPD member though if evidence comes to light to the contrary please pass it on. Similarly if you do have any problems with the behaviour of DHPD members on the wiki please pass it on to me and I'll see what we can do to deal with it. Purple Cat ~ DHPD 09:36, 5 April 2011 (BST)

possibly update?

could this page be updated whenever any of you have time? →Son of Sin← 06:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

ust Thad and YoKo, right? Updated. -- Spiderzed█ 18:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DDR, too. This request should be on A/PT. I'll go ahead and move it over. ~ _{18:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)}

Mediawiki:Common.css and Mediawiki:Common.js

A user reported to me on IRC trouble with collapsible tables. Investigating, I saw that our Mediawiki:Common.css and Mediawiki:Common.js aren't configured to handle them. In fact, they are in a woeful state, and in dire need of an update.

My proposal is to just steal the code of wikipedia (WP Common.css and WP Common.js), as they are well-tested, stable and provide all the important features. Would anyone see an issue in that? -- Spiderzed█ 21:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god please do. I wanted collapsible tables years ago and was dev'd but then forgot about them :( D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. We had to do some tweaking after the wiki update and added some code into commons but I think we only dealt with sortable tables and some class specific stuff at the time. If you have a handle on the technical side, by all means. ~ _{23:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)}

Add to them, do not overwrite them as these classes are in use in various parts of the wiki and, iirc, are not standard to mediawiki anymore if they ever were. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This. We don't need to be running round the wiki fixing all sorts of horrific errors for the next 6 months.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Will compare the existing code with WP's during the week and post the result for double-checking before actually employing it. -- Spiderzed█ 16:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Overhauling the CSS has been on my to-do list since before I ran for sysop. Dooo eeet. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

certainly but it should be added to not straight up replaced.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

doiong something i never ended up doing cause it was simply a promise so i could get the buttons... was a priority "since before I ran for sysop" D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I get the odd feeling there's something that you want to say to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not have something to do with your tendency to not deliver on your majestic plans, hint hint. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're really not one to talk about not delivering Thad. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And I got virtually burned at the stake for it by some people. Certain other sysops (Conn, General back in the day) have also repeately been called out for similiar issues. Rev at this point has passed the buck plenty of times, and I dare say more than myself at this point. I don't think I'm the only one being a hypocrite here.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing of value to add to this conversation. Just saying. --Ross^lessness 21:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The to-do list is ridiculously long, and there are a number of things which have interrupt priority. (Which is why I am happy to step back from Bureaucrat responsibilities). For now, as it concerns you, I would see it as a good sign that I have more time/energy/headspace to be contributing to the wiki again, shall we? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As, this is my doing, I guess I should voice my support for the update. I want collapsing tables dammit!! --Kirsty _{Org XIII} ^Alts 21:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I want buttons. Press-able buttons. I saw them on the Uncyclopedia one day. They were really cool. Buttons! Please give me buttons, I want the buttons. Text-boxes would be cool too. You know, type stuff in, hit enter, you go someplace, maybe it's cool. I think Kevan needs to install that. Oh well. That's all I've ever wanted, buttons and boxes in which text may be placed. Sigh... I am exasperated. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked for your requests. Text-boxes require Extension:InputBox. If used with the parameter "hidden=", it would also allow to just create buttons without an input box. Sadly, it is an extension, so we sys-ops can't install it. Kevan would need to. As the necessary HTML isn't permitted on Mediawiki, I also don't see how a workaround could be created. -- Spiderzed█ 17:15, 25 March 2012 (BST)

I looked at my request too. This is the code in the MediaWiki:Common.css for the Uncyclopedia (search the text for mentions of 'button' and you'll see it). And the code looks like this (which indeed works on the Uncyclopedia).
<span class="nounderlinelink">[[Main_Page|<span class="buttonlink" style="border-width: 2px; border-color: #999999;background-color:#bbbbbb;padding:1px 5px 1px 5px;color:black;font-size:110%">Main Page</span>]]</span>
It replicates the Urban Dead buttons in-game a lot better than what I have in my pseudo-Urban Dead, since it looks like the button is actually being clicked. Of course, though, it doesn't work over here. I'm not sure if it requires anything to be installed; I don't have much of a clue about this stuff. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:56, 25 March 2012 (BST)

Hm. Looking at the code, it is just an outset/inset effect, rather than an actual HTML button. Adding something like that should be possible. After the current draft has been implemented, tested and found out to need no fiddling for a couple weeks, I will give an outset/inset effect pseudo-button a try. -- Spiderzed█ 23:31, 25 March 2012 (BST)

The Draft

Here it comes my draft:

• User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/CSS
• User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/JS

For the CSS, do a browser-search for "XXXNEWADDITIONSXXX" to find the parts where I have added code. With the CSS, I tried to stay conservative with the CSS, and rather to exclude a bit of code than to risk clashing with our existing CSS.

The JS is a 1:1 swipe from Wikipedia, but for removed unnecessary parts that don't concern us, as tracked in this diff. (In the case of the IE6 fix, it only serves to properly display transparency in PNG files - don't see the point in cluttering everyone's Javascript for something of such little effect.)

As badly done CSS and JS could heavily whack the page, I ask everyone knowledgeable to double-check my code. I will wait for a week to give everyone the time to look over it before I actually implement the code. -- Spiderzed█ 20:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think those PDF icons will work here as the images are stored at wikipedia's server and not here. Not sure that they're entirely necessary to be honest. How often are externally linked pdfs added to udwiki? ~ _{21:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)}

And just when I thought I had caught every part referring to the Wikipedia/Wikimedia server... PDF code eliminated. -- Spiderzed█ 11:41, 25 March 2012 (BST)

Poke, Poke, Poke. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:24, 31 March 2012 (BST)

Will put it online tonight. -- Spiderzed█ 14:24, 1 April 2012 (BST)

Turned out to be a good bit later than "tonight", but at least now no one can claim that I have rushed things. Expect the wiki to break in two minutes from now. -- Spiderzed█ 19:03, 2 April 2012 (BST)

Done. Enjoy your collapsible tables. -- Spiderzed█ 19:09, 2 April 2012 (BST)

Does it work? I was trying to collapse things in show preview, but they wouldn't collapse. Or uncollapse. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:11, 3 April 2012 (BST)

Sadly, it still doesn't work. Heck, I think Spidey was going through the codes last night to see if he did anything wrong. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:43, 3 April 2012 (BST)

I tried different browsers, flushing, hard refreshes... Doesn't work for me either. And as far as I looked around, it should work in 1.16.4 (which we run). Things only change from 1.17 on (when collapsible tables are automatically supported by jQuery.makeCollapsible). Maybe I will spot something when I get around to dig deeper on the week-end, but for now, I am completely clueless. -- Spiderzed█ 20:37, 3 April 2012 (BST)

I goofed around with different skins, since the wiki update borked the default skin. Didn't change spit but reminds me that the urbandead skin is in need of unborking. Good luck fixing the tables, Spidey. ~ _{00:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)}

A few problems here, jQuery is one of them, the resource loader doesn't exist before 1.17, which this wiki is. On top of that I'm pretty sure it's something that Kevin would have to enable but I've never actually worked with it before. It also looks like this may be otherwise built in functionality for mediawiki versions past that point. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:00, 5 April 2012 (BST)

Sigh

--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:28, 22 July 2012 (BST)

*is totally lost* —Aichon— 00:14, 23 July 2012 (BST)

I want inputbox so bad. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:08, 23 July 2012 (BST)

InputBox? If so, you'd need to talk to Kevan about installing it, since the sysops can't help. —Aichon— 19:35, 23 July 2012 (BST)

Yeah. I thought so. I'll have to work up the courage for that. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:52, 23 July 2012 (BST)

Oh woe, I am so distressed by want! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:38, 23 July 2012 (BST)

Do you want it, or do you need it? 'Cause you can live without it if you just want it. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 17:44, 23 July 2012 (BST)

I want it because I need it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:52, 23 July 2012 (BST)

I'm guessing you want it for your game? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:57, 28 July 2012 (BST)

Yes. I need it to do some puzzle-e things. I need it so that the player can't simply click through all the available options until they get it right. With InputBox I can make it like Zork, where you type in actions to do stuff. (Not for every action, but some... so a like a lesser Zork.)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:42, 28 July 2012 (BST)

You could always challenge them to just enter the correct article name in the address bar of their browser. I've played a number of other games that relied on that sort of mechanic. —Aichon— 00:40, 29 July 2012 (BST)

I thought about doing that but it seems too awkward. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:16, 29 July 2012 (BST)

Paradigm shift...

That seems to be at the heart of the recent dramas. It used to be one way and now it's a different. What if any obligation do sysops have to follow policies/precedents when they disagree? How should the sysop team make their collective feelings known? Why don't the sysops argue more amongst themselves (do they really agree or is it considered bad form to question another sysop's judgment)? Do crats have more say in the direction the sysop team takes than normal sysops, or do they just get a few extra buttons? I know new policies aren't popular, but how should sysops (or crats, if they are super-sysops) inform users of changing sysop opinions? Do they need to search rules before they are needed just to give a heads up to new users in advance or would a simple summary of sysop opinion be enough (are either needed)? Karek has mentioned that sysops can make small notes/clarification to policies (if there is general agreement) should this be used more? These are things I wonder, but don't know where to ask so I picked here. Thoughts? --_K 22:40, 10 April 2013 (BST)

• What if any obligation do sysops have to follow policies/precedents when they disagree?

  A lot of what you have asked can be found on the guidelines page. For example, "Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." applies here. Sysops should try to follow policy/precedent, except where they feel it is clearly goes against the good faith use of the wiki.

• How should the sysop team make their collective feelings known?

  Usually it is discussed (or fought out, if necessary) on the admin pages concerned, where all involved parties can see it, and contribute.If consensus can't be reached, or any other user thinks that the sysops are getting it wrong, then the policy discussion page. It's not only sysops that get a say in how this wiki is run.

• Why don't the sysops argue more amongst themselves (do they really agree or is it considered bad form to question another sysop's judgment)?

  The current policy/precedent situation has evolved over years of, often heated, debate. Compared to the disagreements of the past, the current discussions are on smallish things. Also, the current sysops are a relatively good crop overall, IMO, who work well with others and don't need everything to go their own way.

• Do crats have more say in the direction the sysop team takes than normal sysops, or do they just get a few extra buttons?

  Not officially, or because of the added title. However, it is usually the most respected sysops, with the best understanding of the wiki and it's community who get elected to the crat role, and users are more likely to take notice of their thoughts on such things.

• I know new policies aren't popular, but how should sysops (or crats, if they are super-sysops) inform users of changing sysop opinions?
  Do they need to search rules before they are needed just to give a heads up to new users in advance or would a simple summary of sysop opinion be enough (are either needed)?

  I don't find the rules themselves to be all that important. Most of them are just long winded justifications for "contribute in good faith, and she'll be jake, mate".

• Karek has mentioned that sysops can make small notes/clarification to policies (if there is general agreement) should this be used more?

  If it can be shown to be a problem, I guess. Some policies arn't all that clear, because at the time, the context would have been obvious (because of all the drama surrounding a lot of what drove early policy proposals).

• These are things I wonder, but don't know where to ask so I picked here.

  As good a place as any -- boxy 04:25, 11 April 2013 (BST)

Thank you boxy. With the recent issue, I don't think spirit of the policy was the issue, it was just the sysops (or the ones discussing it most) don't think they should moderate. I can understand that. Hell, it makes sense. Striking inane votes when 40 people vote is probably needed, when it's 10... not so necessary. As for changing opinions, it seems (I may be wrong) we have entered into a time of less sysop "interference." The sysop don't act just because they can, they decide if it's really needed. But since we have holdover policies/precedents from a more strict time, it can look like the sysops aren't doing their job. Is there an easy fix for that? --_K 12:48, 11 April 2013 (BST)

The recent issue is a molehill. A couple of people being jerks, and sysops being asked to step between them and make a ruling. Frankly, it could have gone either way, and I would have been happy, even if it didn't go the way I thought it should have.
Because both parties were being jerks. I think harrison had justified his vote, and later changed it to be less obviously so (when he change to the kill section), but still there was a reason for his vote. If a majority of sysops had decided to force him to comply with the letter (as opposed to the spirit) of the suggestion page rules, I wouldn't have agreed, but I would have respected the decision, and helped to enforce it. It's a line ball call, which is why we need a sysop group that represents a wide cross-section of the community.
I don't think the current "low sysop interference" period is because of a conscious decision by sysops not to interfere, rather it's because the community has changed (and the sysop team with it). Some of the rules may seem harsh, but they have shaped the community. For example, it has become clear to all that you can't get away with attacking an in game enemy by vandalising their wiki pages. If you come here to do that, you lose that fight, period. That is because of harsh ownership protocols that were introduced early, and enforce ruthlessly, month after month, year after year. Although the game has diminished markedly in the same time, vandalism reports have dropped to almost zero. Basically, the rules we have, have lead to a society where the sysops don't need to interfere except in extreme cases.
It's not perfect, it takes constant vigilance, but it seems to work, even if there is still the occasional bit of drama -- boxy 16:10, 11 April 2013 (BST)

This.--Rosslessness 16:15, 11 April 2013 (BST)

Pretty much agree, though I do think that the desire to not interfere is a conscious one on my part. It's not that I'm lazy or seeking to get out of having to do work. Rather, it's my stance that when users come to count on sysops to solve all of their problems, things get needlessly litigious. There's a healthy balance to be had between allowing them to fend for themselves so they can learn how to be productive members of the community and protecting them from others who are clearly misbehaving. As such, if there's a disagreement between folks where neither of them has really broken the wiki or acted in bad faith, I'll try to put the onus on them to solve it themselves, rather than teaching them that they can act like idiots but come away scot-free, so long as they find a technicality to back them up.

That ties back in with arguing among ourselves. If we're already involved, then that damage has been done, so the only reason I'll argue at that point is if there's clearly a choice that I think is more right. But if it's a minor thing that's open to some discretion or interpretation and could honestly go either way feasibly, like this current situation with Lpha's suggestion, I probably wouldn't argue at all if another sysop acted. I might have started up a discussion afterwards to talk about the "sysops are not moderators" topic, but I think that'd have been it. Otherwise, I honestly tend to try and stay out of these sorts of disagreements, as I said, and I would have gladly done so in this case, except that Lpha involved me in it early on. —Aichon— 17:48, 11 April 2013 (BST)

I guess my previous question, taking into account the further discussion. Would it be worthwhile to add a few lines to the sysop guidance explaining, that stricter use of policy was once needed and due to changes in the community and the previous successful use of those policies, many policies will only be use for serious offenses. I think we can agree that some of those policies had the intention of being applied to many cases, some of which due to the changes in community are no longer needed or are enforced far less to avoid needless bureaucracy. Then next time some "small" issue comes up and makes people want to quit, the sysops can point to that and say, "we told you, discuss it there". This might sound stupid, since I've done it too, but it seems to be less the decision and more the discussion that causes the problems and perhaps with that added clarification, we could direct complaints to potentially useful discussion regarding guidelines rather than the attacks on the sysops who are attempting to explain just that. This was what I meant by "sysop collective feelings." Rather than all the "can"s, "may"s, etc., just a "probably not, but you are welcome to ask." I have no idea if that makes sense, it does in my head, but I can't really find the wording I want. --_K 01:36, 12 April 2013 (BST)

We actually have a whole administrative page dedicated to those questions and past clarity requests and what not. It just doesn't see much use these days. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:47, 12 April 2013 (BST)

Well, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what you're asking. If the community's desires have changed, the Guidelines actually say near the top that, "Those wishing to modify any part of this document should discuss the changes on this page's talk page. Consensus of the community is required in order to change these guidelines." So, there's a built-in way to change the way that sysops behave without having to pass a policy. But when it comes to discussing this sort of stuff, as Karek said, there's already a page to discuss those sorts of questions, though it doesn't get used nearly as often as it should. —Aichon— 06:22, 12 April 2013 (BST)