RationalWiki:All things in moderation/Sysoprevoke

The nicest bunch of assholes on RationalWiki Moderators

Moderation

What? Where? Who?

Shills and Whores

Elections Nominations Campaigns Voting booth Results v - t - e

Sysop provoke revoke

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?--^talk 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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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 (is useful) 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. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks 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. sterile^talk 12:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we have a vote, you think?--^talk 12:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I think they can do what they want. But they ought to be public about it. sterile^talk 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.--^talk 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 (pester) 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. sterile^talk 04:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The terms of SuspectedReplicant's community-vote-sanctioned sentence include sysoprevoke. Blue (pester) 04:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It was created and used firstly by Nx against me without discussion. Ace^Moderator 04:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Even so, it has a useful function. Blue (is useful) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ace^Moderator 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. Генгис^mutating 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. sterile^talk 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sometimes, less is more." 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. 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? sterile^talk 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)