UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Guidelines Review

See here for discussion leading up to this policy change

---

Please let me know what you, the community, thinks is an acceptable timeframe and edit count for an average ideal sysop application. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 05:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the amount of edits is less important than the content. 250 should be adequate like with the de-escalations, but could also be hard to rack up purely in the adminstrative edits. I think Bob said 150, that seems like a fine amount too if the content is considered. (Im focused on your edits DDR, as you work in areas that perhaps are forgotten, making your work more important than updating a dangerlevel) -- The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bob indeed offered a thought of 150 edits, but said either 150 edits per 6 months or per 2 months could work for him, depending on the 2 month user lifespan change... He offered that data afterwards that showed that several users on the wiki do have enough edits in the past month that would average out to 500+ over 6 months, so I don't think 250 (what I have suggested so far) to be too much personally. I think if we stuck to a 2-month period like Bob considered, 150 edits would be quite suitable. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 06:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think 6 months is fair, since that gives enough time for regular wiki users (or even not-so-regular wiki users) to be able to see what contributions are made. However, two months and 150 edits for a long-time wiki user could possibly be fair as well. And while 500 edits is still possible, I think halving it is fair also. Six months is plenty of time to make 250 edits, and considering there are plenty of projects around the wiki that can be done, it's not an entirely unachievable amount. Has there ever been a distinction from long-time users and new users in terms of criteria? stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 12:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in terms of the guidelines- the decision a community makes on whether someone is ready has usually fallen on more qualitative attributes, but these guidelines have usually been a good way to give newer users a gauge on the criteria we should generally look for. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 23:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Question. Does anyone actually seriously consider the number of edits over however many months when determining whether to vouch for someone? (And I mean, apart from obviously joke bids.) I certainly don't; so why include this criteria as written? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, something about this didn't quite sit well with me, but I couldn't put a finger on it until you asked that question. Why not drop the restriction altogether? Nobody that I can think of who was otherwise going to succeed in their bid ever waited to hit X edits before submitting their bid. They either already had the edits or they weren't going to succeed anyway for other reasons. Really, the only reason I can see to keep the restriction is for its educational value: it lets unqualified people know that they're unqualified. But we're already happy to tell them that as it is, and we're not really drowning in earnest-but-unqualified candidates last we checked, so I don't see the harm.

If we do keep the restriction, perhaps consider rephrasing it in relative terms, e.g. a sufficient number of edits to understand who they are or determine their character or something else of that sort? 50 edits or 5000 edits, it really doesn't matter much to me these days. It's more about who the person is and what they do when they are forced to interact with other people. —Aichon— 19:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps let the user provide xx amount (10ish) edits that tell something about what kind of work has been done, when they apply? - would make it easier for non regulars to see what type of person they are to vote for or against. Having 5000 edits is not worth much if they are trolling and/or danger updates.. -- The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's all a very good question, I think the main function of these guidelines was to really work as a barrier to essentially keep the blatantly unqualified from considering themselves from promotion based on the standard minimum expectations. Simply, it's main practical use became a method of stopping silly promotion attempts from clogging up the page and news bar, and taking the time of the community.

That issue no longer really exists, though I think the secondary benefit of the guidelines is to ensure that we have a standard, even if token, for what our candidates should be as users before they even consider applying.

The question is; will removing them affect that standard? I think there's an argument that it may, and I think one of the best things about the sysop team over the wiki's lifespan (but especially since the A/RE knocked out those who came in before the guidelines even existed) was that the standard of sysop candidacy has never been lowered to an especially dire level. I think the team's general quality for 10 years has been well above what I would have expected of a community this size. Does anything else think that may be risked by removing one of the two stopgaps (the other being A/RE) to keeping bad sysops at bay? THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't tempt me, I'd might just consider. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in favor of having an explicit minimum, if only for the sake of not having to update the wiki news/hold a two week comment period for those with, say, five edits in six months, two of which are setting up the bid. To me the barrier isn't to keep the unqualified out, it's to reduce the workload of the sop team when that work is obviously pointless (someone with that low an edit rate is never going to get selected). Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I don't give two fucks about the amount of time or edits - but what has been contributed. I think Im the only person here that remember how bad things go when people have access to personal information such as IP etc. The reason I want to keep the current team is that there has never been any doubt that they/you are above abusing the powers. For those wanting to take a trip down bad memory lane have a look here user:Amazing/Myths. With the current toxic state of the wiki I can without a doubt say that 90% of the people here should not be able to get near the sysop tools, myself included. That is to me, at least, the most important part to consider. It will be crazy difficult to tell something about a user that is 2 weeks old, or one with few edits, so a "minimum" would have to be a bit more than minimal to prove that.-- The Artist Formerly Known As AudioAttack (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Interesting you should remember that far back but not remember Jed being demoted in part because misused checkuser, including checking Boxy's IP for no reason, and that the sysop team chose not to escalate SuicidalAngel's absolutely inappropriate use of checkuser to find out who User:Maps was (and yonnua too? I can't remember). Of all reasons, I don't think checkuser is the best example of how good our sysop team has been. The reason I think this has been the most poorly reported department (in my opinion) is that it's the one task with the least transparency (regular users have no log of who's IP has been checked) THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 13:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

But, of course, I agree with the sentiment 100%. There needs to be a standard by which we class sysops other than other users, and I think the barrier shouldn't be so low that bad sysops could get in- but I feel that the current one is too high to accurately reflect what it actually is. We don't want to scare decent users away from even considering aspiring to be that kind of model user. Hence, the change proposal. Hopefully you agree with the change. THE CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER 13:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)