RationalWiki talk:Sysop guide

From RationalWiki

[edit] Please?

I wonder, if it isn't judged too inhumane, perhaps some don't recognize the word, and therefore it really isn't il-liberal to use absolutes at times? --TK_/MyTalk 04:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)

To what do you refer? I am guessing a place in the guide where an "order" should be phrased as a "request"? human ^{indefensible turds on the cheap!} 15:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

It looks as if someone else changed it, from the more general and not mandatory please to the more specific don't and do not. Of course I am partial to guides for idiots, not being able to know the capacities of future management to understand, and that is why it sometimes pays, like in the example I sent to you, and posted on my page, to state the obvious. Sometimes what is obvious to us, here and know, isn't so much in a matter of months to those who have not been here from the start. ;-) -- --TK_/MyTalk 16:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

OK... what section, or where? Or what's the difflink of the edit so I can see what you mean? Thanks... human ^{be in} 18:32, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I guess you found the difs (BobM's and Researcher's), as you have "softened" the tone once again. No biggie. Just was giving my observations, which I don't expect anyone to agree with. --TK_/MyTalk 18:39, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I thought I might have. I just kind of proofread it some more, keeping what you were saying in mind. I, at least, agreed with your observations, apparently. human ^clues 19:55, 22 December 2007 (EST)

"Softening" the language is the complete opposite of my observation. Some rules, procedures should not be softened, but be absolutes. After all, regulations are not conversation, and are the precise spot for exactness and being blunt to a fault, IMO. --TK_/MyTalk 20:50, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Ah, ok, I got you backwards then. One of the founding principles of RW, is to have "guidelines", not absolute, blunt, exact regulations. Anyway, thanks for pointing out where this guide departed from that tradition. human^{e society} 21:44, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Well, maybe you didn't, as one of the very few areas where the general guideline shouldn't apply is in setting rules for those who rule, eh? --TK_/MyTalk 21:47, 22 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Removed line

I have removed the line: There are three things you will see now that are different. from the introduction section as I couldn't quite figure out what it meant.--Bob^{bing up} 03:44, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, Bob...it made "sense" before I inserted the bulleted parts, and I didn't know quite what to do with it....... --TK_/MyTalk 03:46, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I've also changed the bit which says that a sysop must spend more time editing. I think the only extra thing our sysops do is knock back vandals.--Bob^{bing up} 03:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I've also removed: A good skill in a Sysop is the ability to combine the strengths of others in a single coherent task, to motivate and include users, draw them out. While this might well be something which we might wish to suggest to our sysops, there has not been - as far as I am aware - any suggestion that this is a usual part of an RW sysop's duties. Are they team managers?--Bob^{bing up} 13:02, 23 December 2007 (EST)

I'm putting that "three" line back in by rearranging slightly. The first section tells the new sysop what those exclamation marks are and describes the two new "powerz". human ^sap 15:01, 23 December 2007 (EST)

And I changed it to "four". I forgot about page protection. human ^{- over 12 edits!} 15:11, 23 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Update

This should be updated to reflect changes in block policy and the "vandal" user group. tmtoulouse ^oppress 00:25, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

Yup, and it should also be automated ;) so anyone who is sysopped gets a talk page link to this file. Hehe. ħuman^culous 02:04, 28 August 2008 (EDT)