RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

RationalWiki:All things in moderation/Sysoprevoke

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The nicest bunch of assholes on RationalWiki

Moderators

Future.gif
Moderation
Shills & Whores

Sysop provoke revoke[edit]

This is a power added by Trent after user suggestion, that allows mods to put sysops in a group that removes their powers - i.e. a way to promote that a sysop can't undo, only another mod. It was added without a community vote. I think it's obviously necessary, but others seem to disagree. Clearly, this needs a community vote. Thoughts? Problems? Suggested wording?--ADtalkModerator 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bump this issue. Discussion has been a bit fragmented. To reiterate what I've said in a few places, I don't see this as necessary & would be happy to see it scrapped. I would also be happy to see it kept if there are some clear guidelines (i.e. temporary response to ongoing wheel-warring/HCM, or result of community decision only). I'm not happy to see it used arbitrarily as Nx did to Ace & Bbmaj7. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it should only be used to enforce a community decision, but it is useful for that purpose. Blue Talk 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with this. It shouldn't need to be used for temporary action, as desysoping alone should work for those situations. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll say this needs to be discussed. When this was put into place last year, it was done by a minority of moderators under the radar. As someone who has been here from the beginning when much was decided as a group decision, I find it disturbing it was done that way. steriletalk 12:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Should we have a vote, you think?--ADtalkModerator 12:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily; I think they can do what they want. But they ought to be public about it. steriletalk 04:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As I recall, it was pretty much just Trent implementing it on the suggestion of a couple of folks. No mods did or could set it up. I have since added a bit to the ATIM page about it, for reference on its intended use. Hopefully we won't have to use it at all.--ADtalkModerator 04:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
If used only in emergencies temporarily or after a community vote, the sysoprevoke group serves a vital function. I think a greater cause for concern is lack of redress for errant moderator behavior, not the number of technical tools they have at their disposal. Blue Talk 04:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it was ever used in an emergency (or at least it's an interpretation) or after a vote. But whatever. steriletalk 04:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The terms of SuspectedReplicant's community-vote-sanctioned sentence include sysoprevoke. Blue Talk 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It was created and used firstly by Nx against me without discussion. AceModerator 04:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Even so, it has a useful function. Blue Talk 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. AceModerator 04:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't put it to a vote because the power that it gives is implied within the office of Moderator. Without it, the moderators will have no way of enforcing any of their decisions. You fellas need to have some ability to enforce decisions made. Without Sysoprevoke anyone can overturn a decision whenever they feel like it. --Damo

If the community decides to impose a sanction and somebody can overturn it with impunity then there has to be some ultimate deterrent. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 08:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess I find it ironic that we spend so much time to dismantle the beaurocrat system (overseers who could remove sysop rights) to get back sysoprevoke in the hands of moderators (overseers who can de facto remove sysop rights). Except there are far fewer of them. Maybe that's why a lot of people left. I'll stop poking the beast now. steriletalk 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
"Sometimes, less is more." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Give it time, Sterile. This election was a referendum on a number of things. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My recommendation for sysoprevoke is to have a page RationalWiki:Sysoprevoke not unlike RationalWiki:Moderators and RationalWiki:Sysops. That is, really define what it is (and maybe give it another name; WTF is sysoprevoke?). It would have less the feel and appearance of an ad hoc designation given in an ad hoc way if there were something really to it. Right now the only thing to it is a "community vote" on a page about moderators and what it is. Pretending we have new members and one of them were sysoprevoked, how would they know what's going on? steriletalk 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)