RE: Sysops (March, 2012)

[jim mick]

Pardon me if this is poor form or if I cannot do this in a limited-viewing forum or medium. I thought that this issue was relatively exigent.

I see that, although there are numerous sysops (plus sysops by proxy), there are very few active sysops on the wiki.

In light of the amount of spammers on the wiki (I have checked half a year's worth of edits thus far) and the amount of work that has been done by sysops (a thankless job but I still thank them / GeoMike), I think that there could be more - some small number more - sysops.

In the interests of the wiki and the MTG Salvation name at large, as well as the sysops and users of the wiki, I feel that to add sysops may alleviate the burden on preexisting sysops as well as users, who may feel frustrated with the spam, the inability to rapidly rename or delete pages, etc., alike.

I would like to see that this be considered and perhaps two users be made sysops, not so as to be superior or first among equals or to add to these individuals' busy schedules and full-enough plates but to more equally distribute the amount of work and ... something; it's a word that's used in similar contexts to the words 'insurance', 'safety net', and 'security' and, at the moment, it's not coming to me in English.

Thanks for your time,
j.

[GeoMike]

I wholeheartedly agree that another administrator or two on the wiki would certainly help. Hunter61 would be my first nomination, Unistardust my other nomination (their wiki names)

[jim mick]

If these are indeed nominations, then I, if I have voting rights or whatever as a sysop, however absent, inactive, or lazy, second them.

I think I may have raised this in the other place.

I don't remember anymore.

[Barinellos]

Well, I must say I'm a tiny bit hurt I wasn't nominated. ((not really))

[MirrorEntity]

Figured I'd post here that I'm aiming to put work into the wiki.

With outdated sections like Clans is it OK to edit the lists of active ones etc to make them current? and for similar things like that, the same question.

[GeoMike]

I think its alright to edit outdated clan listings.

[MirrorEntity]

I updated the list of active ones, I'll go through all the retired ones and make sure that's the status in the articles, inc. closure dates.

[jim mick]

I may have pushed for Clans pages previously, but without input from the Clans themselves, are they at all worth keeping?

There's also the real issue of standardising these pages.

Short of Clans and members creating their own ad hoc wikis or sites to host their articles, perhaps Clans members should work (more closely) with staff to write these articles (and submit drafts).


Not entirely related to this but has Hannes managed to do something about the adbot situation, such as implement a ban on the addition of links or creation of articles by new users?

[MirrorEntity]

Could push for greater involvement; I know that CMB have been updating theirs.

[Barinellos]

Originally Posted by jim mick

I may have pushed for Clans pages previously, but without input from the Clans themselves, are they at all worth keeping?

Personally, I don't think so. They are vanity pages that end up just sitting around. They rarely have anything interesting to add.

[jim mick]

Originally Posted by Barinellos

Personally, I don't think so. They are vanity pages that end up just sitting around. They rarely have anything interesting to add.

To be frank, I thought and think so too and wholeheartedly concur with you.

And even if there were anything worth noting, things are seldom added in a timely fashion without being a chore. There are certain exceptions to short clans pages but these are long-gone and essentially of little importance at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by MirrorEntity

Could push for greater involvement; I know that CMB have been updating theirs.

When I was made a sysop of the wiki, I wasn't too critical with clans pages; but, looking back, I have no idea what I was doing.

What are your thoughts on clans pages, specifically of their purpose or their function (as opposed to what becomes of them or how frequently things are updated)?
To follow that up, what do you (and others) recommend someone does about the pages? How?

[MirrorEntity]

My main concern was tidying things up; if they can be used then fair enough, but otherwise they could be gotten rid of. Up to the sysops etc. I guess.

[jim mick]

Originally Posted by MirrorEntity

My main concern was tidying things up; if they can be used then fair enough, but otherwise they could be gotten rid of. Up to the sysops etc. I guess.

Well, I won't be doing anything without at least some input from the others that are active on the wiki.

Just chucking things out there. I'd like to merge clan stubs into a clans article. Some clan articles (stubs) are absolutely appalling in their state.

I don't think that it'd be doing justice to the articles if I were to delete them. I also don't like deleting things. Of course, I also don't like hoarding crap or not doing right by the wiki itself.

[GeoMike]

How many clans are there? We could just list them all on one article with any important information on them.

[MirrorEntity]

It makes sense as an idea. More easy to update as well.