eRepublik Official Wiki:Bar/Debate 6

From eRepublik Official Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New sysops requirements


Note: Please answer to every discussion independently and try not to engage in off-topic debates about which or why specific contributors should/should not be sysops. If you want to propose another question for discussion regarding this topic (requirements for "adminship"), do so by adding a number and signing it. Thank you! --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

Question 1

1. Who do you think should have a saying in the decision if a contributor becomes a sysop or not? In a earlier discussion, Teacher proposed that "the public" should have a very important role in these decisions. Who do you think "the public" should be? --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

  • Anyone could propose it, people can "vote" (There shouldn't be a minimum ratio, but all positives and negatives should be weighed), and Admin reviews it. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 01:56, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Only if they can bring legit arguments. Voting is stupid and will only advantage let's say communities like 4chan who will just bring all their friends to vote something for example. Arguments and debates are fine! --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Having just anyone be able to nominate a candidate sounds great, but rather than a popular vote a debate and admin review afterward sounds like a good idea. Pierric Bross 13:03, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • As was said before me, I think the public should have a very important role in this, but the final decision lies with Geo/Cristi/Admins and possibly other current sysops. Maybe some sort of system where current editors can vote but in the end, if the Admins veto it, it's done. -- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:05, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • I think that the people that can suggest/talk/vote about sysops should have a minimum amount of edits. I think that a person who wants to be sysop has to ask for it, expressing clearly why he/she wants to be a sysop, and being supported by at least 5 people. Then the other editors can vote, and reach a decision. After this, I think that Admin, or someone who is in the erep team should review the request before it's approved --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:25, 30 November 2008 (EET)
  • I agree with User:MiniBill Phreakazoid
  • I agree that public must be the main gauge. Every sysop and admin in administration can suggest a candidate and it would be voted. Finally admin decides the final result and chooses the new sysops. --emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:19, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • Syops, Uber Editors, and Admins should determine who should be new syops. These are some of the most active people on the wiki and are aware of the skills, quality of edits, etc of editors. I don't think the average casual wiki editor cares about syops or has the information to make a judgment if someone is fit to be one--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 23:34, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • I have to say that I agree with QJ. I really don't think it should become a popularity contest amongst editors who know little about what a Sysop, Uber Editor, and Admin do. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:34, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • I agree with QJ too. Only admins editors and sysops should decide who will gain this title as they are the ones to know the wiki better than the common users. Efthimios Pappas 06.21, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • Sysops, Uber Editors, and Admins should determine who should be new sysops --User:Hrvat
  • I think that the person who wants to become a sysop should apply for that and then the rest (sysops, uber editors, admins) should review if he will become a sysop or not --Dumoras Flag-Romania.jpg Chit-chat 22:30, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • People can vote, with administrator approval. • Mimihitam  • 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EET)
  • Have a public vote, but don't make it binding. In the end, admins and SysOps should decide, but they could use the community response as a... guideline? KristofferAG Icon-Norway.pngTALK 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question 2

2. Do you think that a minimum number of edits should be a requirement for becoming a sysop? If yes, what do you think the limit should be? --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

  • At the current size of the wiki, yes, but I'm not sure what the limit should be. Perhaps 1000? - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 01:56, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Yes. 1000 Atleast. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Agree with Agent and Aryamehr. Pierric Bross 13:04, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • I think doing such things as limiting applicants to X number of edits destroys the true value of the wiki system. Of course editing is good, but at the same time, the quality of the edits has to be taken into account. Chief, for example, edits regularly AND positively contributes by writing at length pages.. Some do not and simply get their edit count up (or there will be such people in the future). I agree some number should be placed as a minimum, but 1000 is far too high. 250 to 500 is much better, imo. -- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:12, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • I think 1000 is ok, we're not talking about being an user, we're talking about having massive power, a sysop can modify things that can produce a huge damage. An edit war is a bad thing, a war between sysops is something *really* terrific --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:27, 30 November 2008 (EET)
  • I would agree with 1000 - because it shows a commitment to editing the wiki. (minibill, do we need to have a war :)) --QJ Lincoln 20:52, 30 November 2008 (EET)
if we start warring you've already lost --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 21:21, 30 November 2008 (EET)
Of course edit quality is important, not only quantity --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:11, 2 December 2008 (EET)
  • Yes, there must be a minimum number of edits condition for becoming a sysop but i don't have any idea of what should be the limit. --emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:27, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • I agree with 1000 edits, but we should also wage edits - what's the difference between user making serious edits (like new pages, translations etc.) and an user making small changes (like fixing typos)? We shall check the want-to-be-a-sysop user's contributions and wage them.--Flag-Poland.jpg Grzechooo (his discussion) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • 1000 edits is perfect.--Icon-Indonesia.png aban (his discussion) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • I think 1000 keeps out the riff raff, but who is to say that these 1000 edits are quality? I think these people should have quality work attached to their name, not just quantity. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:36, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • Well I don't know if 1000 is what it takes. I have to agree that quality is what matters. For instance I only edit small pages and details. If I reach 1000 I don't think I can much others' work. I believe 500 or 600 would be great always considering the quality. Efthimios Pappas 06.25, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • 1000 edits sounds pretty good but in those 1000 edits there should be some interesting one's not just "u forgat a point there!" --Dumoras Dracula's Country Chit-chat 22:39, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • I think no. I think what's important is their active contributions, how active they are in the wiki. • Mimihitam  • 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EET)
  • NO. Why? Because edits can be tiny, minor, and not even necessarily good. Some people might work on larger projects, which means they write more, but edit less. I mean, look at me! I've had hundreds of edits, all because of this capitalization thing. That doesn't necessarily make me good enough to become a SysOp? They should be decided upon based on who the current stab believes deserves it. If someone thinks someone deserves it, he or she should be qualified, no matter how many edits. KristofferAG Icon-Norway.pngTALK 22:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question 3

3. Do you think that the contributor that applies for "adminship" should write an "essay" about his previous contributions/about his future contributions? If yes, what is your opinion about the content of this "essay"? --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

  • This is an interesting proposal. I think this could be requested if the staff or the other editors are having trouble deciding on whether they qualify or not. It could be an added bonus, at least. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 01:56, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • If they want; although I think mainly the staff should pick people. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Agree with Agent and Aryamehr. It should not be solely based on an essay as from experience there are very shady people who are very good with words, but if admin needs reassurance from someone it sounds okay. --Pierric Bross 13:07, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • Two pronged. If the public have a large role in deciding, then obviously yes. If it's going to be mainly the admin's decision, then no, it's not really necessary unless asked for by the admins. -- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:12, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • I think that a candidate must write at least what he needs sysop powers for, and if he wants he can write a longer essay --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:28, 30 November 2008 (EET)
  • It shouldn't be a forced activity but it would be nice to see what's his/her future contribution plans too.--emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:34, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • First, I was asked to answer here so you know if you wonder why I’m here. But an essay!? You do really want kill people because you can’t expect someone to write a good essay and deliver it to you so he can get more work as an admin. He should something simple, yes, but not an essay because that’s too long, they could write what they have done, why they should be Admins and who they are, and then it’s up to you guys to choose wisely and pick one, and remember, if they really want to be an admin they will write something long, good and special. But not an essay, No!. --GustaviusSverige 22:05, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • No. A potential syops should be judged on the merits of their edits/work on the wiki. That should say enough. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 23:38, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • I agree that an essay would be too much. Quite a few people most lkely have a busy life outside of eRep and their precious free time is better spent improving the Wiki than writing an essay that may get them nowhere.--~✭βƓЪὢ✭~ 00:50, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • Once again, I agree with QJ. They should be promoted and judged based on their work, not their ability to impress via an essay. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:38, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • Yep deffinetelly not neccessary but gives a nice perspective onto the matter of adminship. --Efthimios Pappas 06.28, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • An essay it not needed for that, the "adminship" should be like a reward for what he did till then --Dumoras Dracula's Country Chit-chat 22:43, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • Yes, they need to publish their reason, their background, their future plan, etc. • Mimihitam  • 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EET)
  • An essay is probably too much, but I think they should write a short text, 100 or 200 words, on who they are. Actually, all SysOps and admins should do that, and these texts should be compiled on an awesome page called the Gods. Or Meet Your Makers.

(No but really, a short text should do. KristofferAG Icon-Norway.pngTALK 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question 4

4. Do you think that the applicants must answer some basic questions (besides the questions that will be asked by "the public")? If yes, which are those questions? --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

  • Yes, it would be an easy way for their abilities and goals to be determined.. However, the questions from Admin and the questions from other editors should be separate. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 01:56, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Of course. How to use wiki, how wiki is supposed to be used for example. --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Agree with Agent and Aryamehr.Pierric Bross 13:07, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • I would focus mainly on issues such as what is/isn't vandalism, how to protect pages, how to resolve disputes, and general moderator/sysop duties to help the flow of discussion in the wiki and, more importantly, on talk pages. -- ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:12, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • Something like "how would you solve [generic problem]", not only to "test" him, but also to share ideas on how adminship should be done --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:30, 30 November 2008 (EET)
  • Yes, this's a job that needs responsibility, justice and ingenuity. Maybe the adminship can ask for the applicants past experience (e.g. board moderator or admin etc.)... --emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:40, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • Of course yes, about questions I agree with Emredo.--Flag-Poland.jpg Grzechooo (his discussion) 20:27, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • No. A potential syops should be judged on the merits of their edits/work on the wiki. A potential syops would be an experienced person who has dealt with neutrality issues, has helped other users, edited well. Having guidelines for a syops is a better idea and the syops agreeing to those guidelines makes more sense.--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 23:40, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • No. See my third question response for a reason. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:39, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • NO. If someone deserves to be a sysop or so should be question only in case of doughts about his work. Efthimios Pappas 06.30, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • No, like i said in my previous question there should be like a reward for all the work he put into editing wiki --Dumoras Dracula's Country Chit-chat 22:45, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • Yes, like reason to be a sysop, etc. • Mimihitam  • 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EET)

Question 5

5. Do you consider that the applicants must have a wide range of contributions or do you think that contributors that are focused on certain pages/topics can become respected sysops? --Belea2008 01:39, 26 November 2008 (EET)

  • Both ranges of contributions should be respected. There are as many advantages to having a jack-of-all-trades as there are to having many experts. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 01:56, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • Wide range of contribuitons. What good is it having a sysop who only works on a page releated to lets say his country all the time without having an idea about rest of the wiki? --Aryamehr Flag of Iran talk 17:01, 26 November 2008 (EET)
  • I think a wide range of contributions should be expected. There is no point in giving someone such powers if they are only ever looking at one part of the wiki and then expect them to suddenly have to watch over most of it or become even more proactive is unfair on them as well as you and the wiki. Pierric Bross 13:09, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • A quality edit is a quality edit. Limiting someone because they choose to focus more on what they enjoy as opposed to something else is wrong, imo.
    - ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:12, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • ThisGenMedia, I think that a person doesn't need sysop powers if he only focus on a certain "area" --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:32, 30 November 2008 (EET)
I guess it'd be a case by case basis. If, like QJ, that "area" was country pages and subordinate pages (which is a huge, huge area of the wiki), then that's fine. If it's something like only editing your company pages, then no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisGenMedia (talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 December 2008
  • She or he must work for a spesific range mainly but also the applicant must have a wide information about e-Republik World and when the general contributors need him/her, he/she may help them. --emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:46, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • Wide range of edits. A syops should have a good reputation. I think that comes through in being an active user in a lot of different areas. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 23:42, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • To me what matters is that they are willing and able to work with the vast majority of the wiki. If their love of niche wiki editing makes that nearly impossible, then they shouldn't be a candidate in the first place. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:47, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • I think that the range is not important as a certain editor is not neccessarilly a user that shows interest in all pages. He could edit only party pages or pages from a certain country etc. --Efthimios Pappas 06.32, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • I believe that someone who is usually focused on certain pages/topics with the sysop powers he will surely start to focus on other topic. --Dumoras Dracula's Country Chit-chat 22:52, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • I think that range is not important, what's important is their active contribution, how active they are in the wiki. • Mimihitam  • 14:44, 13 January 2009 (EET)
  • Range shouldn't be important. If one editor mainly edit, say, articles regarding Scandinavia (who, me? No way!), and these edits are of high standard, the fact that he doesn't edit a wider range of articles shouldn't ruin his/her chances of becoming a SysOp. KristofferAG Icon-Norway.pngTALK 22:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question 6

6. Do you think someone should be able to become a sysop if they have been (A) banned from eRepublik in game whether temporarily or permanently and/or (B) banned from the eRepublik Wiki whether temporarily or permanently? --Pierric Bross 00:05, 27 November 2008 (EET)

  • I believe that if someone has been banned in game they have shown that they are shady and untrustworthy, and if they have been banned from the wiki they have shown bias in some form which is not something a sysop should ever be. A ban of whatever length from the wiki and a permanent ban from the game should bar someone from becoming a sysop. Pierric Bross 13:14, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • Absolutely not in 99% of the cases. However, there are quality editors who have been banned from the Wiki for an insignificant reason. Therefore, it shouldn't automatically disqualify them, but on a case by case basis I would prefer the admins say no to a large majority of those who do break the rules.
    - ThisGenMedia aka Franco aka Teacher Amerikkka/The Party Hey girl, can I hit you back? 21:12, 27 November 2008 (EET)
  • We've already discussed this point thoroughly above, but the consensus is in agreement with Teacher in that the bans should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and not an immediate disqualification. - –Dr. AgentChieftain Flag of the Crescent and Star “PPP!” B / C / D / F / P / S 03:28, 28 November 2008 (EET)
  • Wiki: Case-by-case, for example there may be temporary blocks for minor "mistakes". EREP: again Case-by-case, because if someone has been banned for multiaccounting 6 months ago it's different from one being banned 2-3 times for attempted hacking --Mini "Template boy" Bill Italian in the deep core have a biscuit 20:34, 30 November 2008 (EET)
  • No on A, case by case on B. There's a clear difference between the game and this wiki, and the rules in-game have been very hit 'n miss. --TheSupernatural Me, on a good day Who wants to be a Supernatural?The SaNdBoX 02:35, 2 December 2008 (EET)
  • I agree with Supernatural, when the case of A it would be a wrong step to ban a clever editor. But at the case of B, yes the ban of a wiki account must be evaluate case by case. --emredo aka equilibrium1907 || Turkish Citizen || Fenerbahçe Supporter || 18:54, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • There is no way for banned erepublik user to be sysops. Though, I agree with Emredo, it should be evaluated case by case --aban || proud to be Indonesian Citizen || 00:15, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • No way should a user who has been banned in the game should be a syops. Being banned from the wiki should be dealt with on a case by case basis. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 23:43, 9 January 2009 (EET)
  • I have a hard time with in-game temporary bans. Half of the time, I kept waiting to wake up with one for saying something too sexual because they were given out like candy once upon a time. However, with permanent bans, that seems to be a clear cut no to me. Same goes for the wiki. -- PrincessMedyPi 13:50, 10 January 2009 (EET)
  • I agree with PrincessMedyPi, temporary bans should be dealt on a case by case basis but permanent... no. Clear no. --Efthimios Pappas 06.35, 11 January 2009 (EET)
  • In-game temporary bans are handed out for silly mistakes and should have no relevance whatsoever when deciding who should be Sysop. --Hrvat 03:50, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • in-game doesn't have anything to do with the edits on wiki so no to A, and to B depends why he was banned --Dumoras Dracula's Country Chit-chat 22:54, 12 January 2009 (EET)
  • I think they still can edit in wiki, but not to become a sysop. • Mimihitam  • 14:41, 13 January 2009 (EET)
  • I'll just be repeating what's already been said: (A) Case-by-case. I've been temp banned for calling the Russians bad names when they Politically TOd our country. If someone did something serious (hack, multi-accounting multiple times etc.) they should be disqualified. It depends on the seriousness. (B) also case-by-case. Depends on the seriousness, repetitions etc. KristofferAG Icon-Norway.pngTALK 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.erepublik.com/index.php?title=eRepublik_Official_Wiki:Bar/Debate_6&oldid=192674"