|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Frequently asked questions
|
I strongly object to "Policy-based demands or threats" being something that the sheriff can redact or comment on. If it's "Policy-based" and appropriate, it should remain, regardless of incivility in the statement or the belief of the sheriff that it's inappropriate. I don't see the benefit of the proposal in most cases, as I've commented before; but if that clause remains, it's harmful to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll split this off as a substantive policy issue. In Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff/Archive 4#Fixed appointment we discussed the issue and agreed on setting a relatively short fixed term, two or three months. Of course it's possible to get to know editors well in a short amount of time, especially if the Sheriff reviews old talk page archives. Should we rethink that issue? Will Beback talk 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I do like the idea of a fixed appointment, but I don't like the following sequence:
Appointed --> Town Sheriff --> end of appointment --> Not a Town Sheriff.
I prefer
Appointed --> Town Sheriff who is appointed to a page --> end of appointment --> Town Sheriff not currently appointed to a page
Same effect on the pages, but avoids having to vet the Town Sheriff again.
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following flowchart seems right:
Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the flowchart - my only reservation on it would be the 5000 edits thing - but I always have ths reservation, as it doesn't distinguish between 'real-editor' edits and twinkle/huggle-type edits at all. It's like the 'number of articles created' type of 'artificialised' qualifier - are 50 poorly-referenced stubs 50 X as valuable as one GA, for example? Are 5000 twinkle/huggle edits more 'valuable' in terms of assessing an editor than (for example) 2000 article or project-space edits / contributions? That's always going to be a stumblng block for me (and I suspect for some others, too). Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: Decide on a name. Add name to list if you like it. There is also a longer list of names to consider (including joke names - they can be the source of new serious names) below.
BIG BROTHERS or BIG SISTERS
JEDI
METER MAIDS
TOW TRUCK OPERATORS/TRAFFIC COPS
MINDERS
MODERATOR
*
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) "Moderator" is a familiar term from other online forums. [EDIT: Jedi is better] "Sheriff" sounds like someone who is going to arrest you. "Town" makes no sense at all.
PAGE FACILITATOR
PEACEKEEPER
PREFECT
TOWN SHERIFF
WATCHDOG
(OTHER) (May be moved to new subheading if non-joke proposal is posted)
COMMENTS
Other names that might be considered:
Attendant
Babysitter
Blue helmet
Deputy
Hall Monitor
Mall Cop
Obergruppenführer
Officer
Orderly
Playground Monitor
Parole Officer
Proctor
Regulator
Riot police
Security Guard
Sheriff
Social worker
Staff Sargent
Traffic Cop
Volunteer (plus any of the above)
Guy Macon ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just no. Most of this can already be done with existing roles, and about the only thing that can't be done is changing others comments except in a few special cases. Frankly, I don't want anyone to have the power to change mine or another person's comments except in the currently existing cases (egregious personal attacks and outing being the two main ones). This has just as much potential to cause disruption as people get pissed off when some "sheriff" comes in and starts altering what they wrote. The last 3 "powers" are already available to administrators. The first power is already covered under " WP:RPA". While not official policy, if you think it's necessary lobby to have it made official policy. The idea has been around a long time and never been made official policy and now you want to give that power to someone else? No, this is an utterly unnecessary and potentially very disruptive role.-- Crossmr ( talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Frequently asked questions
|
I strongly object to "Policy-based demands or threats" being something that the sheriff can redact or comment on. If it's "Policy-based" and appropriate, it should remain, regardless of incivility in the statement or the belief of the sheriff that it's inappropriate. I don't see the benefit of the proposal in most cases, as I've commented before; but if that clause remains, it's harmful to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll split this off as a substantive policy issue. In Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff/Archive 4#Fixed appointment we discussed the issue and agreed on setting a relatively short fixed term, two or three months. Of course it's possible to get to know editors well in a short amount of time, especially if the Sheriff reviews old talk page archives. Should we rethink that issue? Will Beback talk 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I do like the idea of a fixed appointment, but I don't like the following sequence:
Appointed --> Town Sheriff --> end of appointment --> Not a Town Sheriff.
I prefer
Appointed --> Town Sheriff who is appointed to a page --> end of appointment --> Town Sheriff not currently appointed to a page
Same effect on the pages, but avoids having to vet the Town Sheriff again.
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The following flowchart seems right:
Guy Macon ( talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the flowchart - my only reservation on it would be the 5000 edits thing - but I always have ths reservation, as it doesn't distinguish between 'real-editor' edits and twinkle/huggle-type edits at all. It's like the 'number of articles created' type of 'artificialised' qualifier - are 50 poorly-referenced stubs 50 X as valuable as one GA, for example? Are 5000 twinkle/huggle edits more 'valuable' in terms of assessing an editor than (for example) 2000 article or project-space edits / contributions? That's always going to be a stumblng block for me (and I suspect for some others, too). Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: Decide on a name. Add name to list if you like it. There is also a longer list of names to consider (including joke names - they can be the source of new serious names) below.
BIG BROTHERS or BIG SISTERS
JEDI
METER MAIDS
TOW TRUCK OPERATORS/TRAFFIC COPS
MINDERS
MODERATOR
*
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) "Moderator" is a familiar term from other online forums. [EDIT: Jedi is better] "Sheriff" sounds like someone who is going to arrest you. "Town" makes no sense at all.
PAGE FACILITATOR
PEACEKEEPER
PREFECT
TOWN SHERIFF
WATCHDOG
(OTHER) (May be moved to new subheading if non-joke proposal is posted)
COMMENTS
Other names that might be considered:
Attendant
Babysitter
Blue helmet
Deputy
Hall Monitor
Mall Cop
Obergruppenführer
Officer
Orderly
Playground Monitor
Parole Officer
Proctor
Regulator
Riot police
Security Guard
Sheriff
Social worker
Staff Sargent
Traffic Cop
Volunteer (plus any of the above)
Guy Macon ( talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just no. Most of this can already be done with existing roles, and about the only thing that can't be done is changing others comments except in a few special cases. Frankly, I don't want anyone to have the power to change mine or another person's comments except in the currently existing cases (egregious personal attacks and outing being the two main ones). This has just as much potential to cause disruption as people get pissed off when some "sheriff" comes in and starts altering what they wrote. The last 3 "powers" are already available to administrators. The first power is already covered under " WP:RPA". While not official policy, if you think it's necessary lobby to have it made official policy. The idea has been around a long time and never been made official policy and now you want to give that power to someone else? No, this is an utterly unnecessary and potentially very disruptive role.-- Crossmr ( talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)