Forum:New sysops?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New sysops?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3719 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

oh boy, dramaz???

nah seriously guys it's been over a year since anybody has been op'ed and in the interest of avoiding drama, I'd just like to say The one's that have been around and stuff, have been doing a damn fine job (especially this guy). So why new sysops? Well a few reasons:

• We have 5 "active" sysops, I'm not actually here every day (I do try) and Mhaille is missing (RIP)
• More ops = Less work per op = More time for current ops to do what this site is designed for.
• For the ones that would (In my opinion) make suitable sysops Ban Patrol and QVFD is essentially for listing tasks they are more than capable of doing themselves.

So how about it guys?

Oh and instead of VFS can we just do a simple Yes/no, new ops? vote and an equally simple Nominate and Vote here, 150,000 rules for this is what caused epic failure in this process before. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:14, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

The rules were intentionally simplified last fall. Please don't exaggerate: Rules don't cause drama, and good rules limit drama. Lack of clarity of the rules sometimes presents openings for drama. Spıke Ѧ 11:17 20-Mar-14

I don't want to add a giant vote below, so some pros and cons, in my mind:

1. VFS votes have always been at UN:VFS, and after an exhaustive process we managed to nail down the rules for this going forward. Opening a forum on if new admins are required mid-month is not part of that process. The object of opening voting there means that users who keep watch on that page (like me) are aware of changes being made, and as a result have the opportunity to cast a vote. Unless said users happen to be dropping past the village dump (like I did today), they're unaware of a vote being held.
2. At this stage I don't see an immediate need to have another admin. If there is more admin-esque work required then it would be better to ask users to step up - patrol more, add more to QVFD, welcome users, etc - rather than putting another admin into the mix. Having a user become admin does not equate to existing admins writing more - it usually means one user writes less. (Although I would like to see more Frosty created articles.)
3. While the need for the site to have more admins is a difficult one to measure, there is always an argument that those who have shown that they can become admins should be given the tools to do so.

                               • Puppy's talk page • 09:05 pm 20 Mar 2014

Yes/No new ops?

Score: -1

• For. As per what I said above. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:14, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Against. There is no need, and "it's been over a year" doesn't constitute proof of a need. I am hoping that Simsie is back to full strength after the US tax filing season ends next month. Spıke Ѧ 11:17 20-Mar-14
• For. More is better right now. And we may need someone new to counter-balance the Spike thing, someone who will try to talk to him on an equal basis about his bad stuff (it goes with saying the good that he's done). Mhaille is around but not really as active as he once was. I don't know who the new one would be though, unless Shabidoo would do it. Aleister 12:42 20-3-14

  LOL Aleister. I would rather give birth to a porcupine through my pee-hole than be an admin. lol. --ShabiDOO 05:22, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

• For. While I agree that too many administrators is not the best thing a website can have, we are not close to that situation. All of our five admins are doing a very good job and that's why this site still survives. So I think that if there are a few more people helping them, it will only be better. Also, the fact that "it's been over a year" is a valid argument: there should be a constant flow of new users and administrators, if we want the site to continue being active. Anton (talk) 13:37, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Against. The site has picked up from where it was last year but I don't see a burning need to create more admins. I think a VFS in about six months would be a good idea - after the summer. If there is an onrush of new active users then that time line could be revised. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 13:46, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Against. We should have a ratio of more active regular users than there are admins. We want the active regular users to keep on contributing in the role that they are doing now, and admin duties could take away from say, Signpost duties or writing articles. For instance, Spike used to write more before he became admin. Now that he's an admin, correcting n00b errors/vandalism in articles and banning spambots takes up much of his time. If we get more regular users, we will want more admins but I think we are ok for now. I do check on the site daily, but haven't taken time to vote lately, that will change come the end of tax season. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 20:53, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
• Against. Mainly per point 1 above, although if the vote were to be proposed at UN:VFS I'm not sure that my vote would differ.                                • Puppy's talk page • 09:05 pm 20 Mar 2014
• For.. I'd very much like to see a new admin who would be willing to speak up when another admin is going too far or biting a user or nOOb. --ShabiDOO 13:50, March 21, 2014 (UTC)
• Against. - I agree with Romartus, maybe one in a few months time. Not now. For those worried about Spike, Romartus always keeps things in check and will even stop Spike if he's going too far. I've never seen Romartus get embroiled in an argument where he turns extremist which is why he is the perfect overlord (forgotten the title!) for the site. Only suitable person I could think of for being admin is Puppy, who would find it easier to fix technical problems with the perks of adminship. Also he is sensible and a great guy. Sir ScottPat (converse) VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 19:33, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Inconveniences of VFS

VFS, as a process, has many incoveniences. It is possible that it worked fine before the separation, but I am not sure it is the right way to choose administrators now. Even if we decide to get more administrators (which is not happening right now, I presume), how many candidates will we have and what voting round will we reach?

There are some other cons. If a user wants to become a sysop, why should he necessarily wait for a new VFS to get started, considering that the odds are good the community will decide it doesn't need more opps. I think that every case should be judged individually, and if a user feels ready to bear a responsability of an administrator, he should tell this, and then it will be up to the community whether that particular candidate should be a sysop or not.

However, I am not against VFS in general. I agree that it could still be held every year just so the users can determine whether they need more administrators or no. What do you think? Anton (talk) 12:28, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

VFS is open each month, so the issue of waiting is only a fortnight on average. As for the odds being against it, we used to have votes for admins (either singly or numerous) several times a year.

What you're proposing is more along the lines of WP:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. While the rules of VFS have been discussed and voted upon in detail, whenever the proposal of moving to an RfA system has come up, it's always been voted down. Given the usernase here is minute in comparison, I can see why VFS is a better option than RfA, as it's less likely to be abused.

If somebody wants to open a vote at VFS in just under a fortnight, we can look at it then according to established process.                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:56 pm 21 Mar 2014

Regurgitated proposal - King for a month, fool for a lifetime

So far the vote seems to be fairly evenly split. So I'm thinking we bring back an experiment we tried a while ago. Rather than having someone voted in as an admin ad infinitum, we instead give some users the opportunity to be admins for a set period of a month. This gives them the chance to try being an admin, and gives the community a chance to see how that user will act as an admin.

The last time we did this we had three admins relinquish their admin powers for a month for the experiment, and three users given admin powers (for the record, Socky, Lyrithya, and myself were the three temp admins).

While I don't think we have a user base that warrants three more admins permanently, having two or three users acting as admins gives the existing admins a respite for a short time. This will allow Frosty, and others, to do the writing that he wants to do for a while.

I'd like to hold off voting on the idea until the start if the month and do it through VFS, but I figured I'd put the concept out there so that others can think on it and refine the proposal. What do you all think?                                • Puppy's talk page • 12:49 am 23 Mar 2014

I am not in the mood for an "experiment," especially proposed as a fallback when the full-blown proposal fails. Romartus states above that there is not a burning need for new Admins. I have seen no Admin begging for a "respite." Frosty himself did not claim he needed relief when he began this Forum, and it is preposterous to claim that he has spent so much time Adminning as to crowd out work on the creative side. The rules--whose recent amending Puppy supervised--should mean what they say. Spıke Ѧ 01:42 23-Mar-14

The other aspect that you've missed is that it allows non-admins to see what it means to act as an admin for a short time. This is not a "fallback" proposal - this is giving users who may become admins at some stage a chance to see what it actually means. This was actually off the back of a comment Mhaille made on the forum about retention that “admins receive no training when they become admin”. Consider this an internship, if that helps.                                • Puppy's talk page • 01:56 am 23 Mar 2014

I think this is a very good idea to help users understand administrative work better and for administrators to have some temporary helpers. This is a good way of having more understanding and compromises between the two sides, not counting the more obvious arguments, all stated by Pup. I am certainly for. Anton (talk) 13:30, March 23, 2014 (UTC)