In a previous discussion, one or more users suggested that one of the wiki's sysops, Snapper2, has habitually used his sysop privileges inappropriately. If you are aware of such incidents, please share and discuss them in this topic.
In a previous discussion, one or more users suggested that one of the wiki's sysops, Snapper2, has habitually used his sysop privileges inappropriately. If you are aware of such incidents, please share and discuss them in this topic.
Agreed with Cloudtheavenger. I do indeed ask Snapper for his opinion on things, and he does give good advice in terms of improvement.
Another notable trait is that while Wikia may allegedly allow sysops to "do whatever they want" in their community wikis, Snapper doesn't operate on that mindset with his use of his tools.
To respond to the original post, I do not think he's "habitually used his sysop privileges inappropriately." I mean sure, everyone has made a mistake a couple times with their privileges, but Snapper does not, to my knowledge, have an bad habit of doing so. He undoubtedly does what he can with what he has to improve the wiki.
Well Super, since Dantman isn't very active on the wikia and he is the sole bureaucrat (last I checked), that usually means the next rank (I am assuming sysops) should act like the bureaucrat. Besides it probably works out best that way since Dantman doesn't let others have Bureaucrat ranking and is inactive a lot, it's probably best to have a bunch of sysops acting as a bureaucrat so you can check and balance each other.
Cloudtheavenger wrote: Well Super, since Dantman isn't very active on the wikia and he is the sole bureaucrat (last I checked), that usually means the next rank (I am assuming sysops) should act like the bureaucrat. Besides it probably works out best that way since Dantman doesn't let others have Bureaucrat ranking and is inactive a lot, it's probably best to have a bunch of sysops acting as a bureaucrat so you can check and balance each other.
The only thing a bureaucrat is needed for is promoting/demoting users after community consensus for it has been gathered. The notifications/messages I get and respond to are enough for that.
More sysops wouldn't be an improvement, ops don't balance each other out. All we would have is a number of new sysops that aren't as suited to it and are even more likely to misuse their tools or behave unfitting of a sysop.
Dantman wrote:
Cloudtheavenger wrote: Well Super, since Dantman isn't very active on the wikia and he is the sole bureaucrat (last I checked), that usually means the next rank (I am assuming sysops) should act like the bureaucrat. Besides it probably works out best that way since Dantman doesn't let others have Bureaucrat ranking and is inactive a lot, it's probably best to have a bunch of sysops acting as a bureaucrat so you can check and balance each other.
The only thing a bureaucrat is needed for is promoting/demoting users after community consensus for it has been gathered. The notifications/messages I get and respond to are enough for that.
More sysops wouldn't be an improvement, ops don't balance each other out. All we would have is a number of new sysops that aren't as suited to it and are even more likely to misuse their tools or behave unfitting of a sysop.
Like you, I'm not good with wording my thoughts properly either. So let me rephrase. They obviously have to earn the tools, prove themselves capable of running the wikia is a non-abusive way. So it is a big responsibility. When I said a bunch I meant 3-4 (capable) at least so they can discuss when one has gone a bit too far in using their sysop power. And if they go too far and continuously ignore the warnings of other sysops, we have you handle the situation.
Cloudtheavenger wrote: Like you, I'm not good with wording my thoughts properly either. So let me rephrase. They obviously have to earn the tools, prove themselves capable of running the wikia is a non-abusive way. So it is a big responsibility. When I said a bunch I meant 3-4 (capable) at least so they can discuss when one has gone a bit too far in using their sysop power. And if they go too far and continuously ignore the warnings of other sysops, we have you handle the situation.
Right. Unfortunately while we're close to that number, there's a lack of good candidates. Just about anyone we promote now would likely only be as capable as the least capable of our current sysops.
Dantman wrote: Right. Unfortunately while we're close to that number, there's a lack of good candidates. Just about anyone we promote now would likely only be as capable as the least capable of our current sysops.
And unfortunately, any decent candidates for sysop are either scared away or have no interest being a sysop here. Although, I think you may be underestimating some of the users here with a statement like that...
SuperSajuuk wrote: Although, I think you may be underestimating some of the users here with a statement like that...
True. But we already tried gathering candidates for sysop once before. And we ended up with you and Seelentau. Resulting in arguments between a pair of ops that have never happened with any other op in the past. Changes in the overall competence of users as opts since then will be limited.
Dantman wrote: True. But we already tried gathering candidates for sysop once before. And we ended up with you and Seelentau. Resulting in arguments between a pair of ops that have never happened with any other op in the past. Changes in the overall competence of users as opts since then will be limited.
Of course, but I'm not going to drag up unnecessary discussion as to how this is not going to lead to any changes to the wiki in the long run.
Maybe a bit late, but here it goes. This applies for both Snapper2 and TheUltimate3
I never witnessed violations of the sysop tools, nor do I have any personal problems with both sysops. One thing I want to criticise though (even if it is not completely related to a sysop's roles) is the sometimes innapropriate amount of snark used by both sysops when dealing with a situation. I am usually a big fan of snark (I even like the word's sound), but I would still like it for both to tone it down a bit in some situations, as it (especially for new users) comes off as a bit haughty and disdainfully. Just my opinion.