UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Bureaucrat Election Tweak
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Discussion
hi --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- hay -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- bo-ring. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The Philosopher-'Crat-Kings rule with wisdom and the greater interests of the community in mind. Right? Right??? (That's not a jibe, just bemused sarcasm...) --WanYao 10:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Show need
If you please. --Funt Solo QT 
09:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- A system does not have to be "broken" for there to be room for improvement. I find your comment extremely facetious. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- In which case, please explain why this would be an improvement. Also, please, try to leave the personal insults to one side, as they have no place in a policy discussion. --Funt Solo QT
09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you not think that it is in the best interests of the wiki for stagnation to be prevented? Boxy is a fine bureaucrat, but I think keeping the 'crat slots rotating is a much fairer system. Remember - they're able to apply for the other slot at the next nomination round so it's not as though they're gone forever. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's no rotation of sysops, and bureaucrats are just sysops with a very specific extra power, which anyway is usually governed by a popular vote. I see no stagnation, if you're referring to Boxy's tenure, and it should also be noted that his position has come up for re-election, and he's being voted (so far) as the popular choice to retain his position. If it is stagnation, then it's popular stagnation. I'd call it stability. Anyway, that's going slightly off the topic of this policy, which I think could only fairly be considered if it included all sysop positions. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that any sysops supporting this policy, would suddenly change their minds about the need for change. I would support a third 'crat position, which would allow for a majority 'crat vote in the event of disputed decisions. In summary: no need for change, unless it's a sweeping change that also includes sysop positions. --Funt Solo QT 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sysop positions are substantially different. Don't try and compare the two, please. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, they are more or less the same. The only difference I can see is that a 'crat has the added responsibility of deciding whether or not to promote a user to sysop based on a popular vote, and the arguments made therein. Other than that, a 'crat is a sysop, and subject to all the same regulations. So, the comparison is absolutely valid, and especially relevant to this policy discussion. It is a slight aside from the subject of "stagnation", which I have argued is actually stability, and good for the wiki, but it remains a valid comparison. I think this thread is somewhat exhausted, though, and the life of the discussion seems to have moved to HonestMistake's proposals, below. If you propose to challenge the ability to remain a 'crat forever, you should also challenge the ability to remain a sysop forever. Of course, the sysop position is the stronger, as it doesn't even face a regular vote. So, the stagnation argument, if valid, must also apply to the sysop team. I think a more radical policy than this is required. --Funt Solo QT 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sysops do not face the problem of stagnation as there are no set limits on their numbers. The attitude towards them is also considerably different to that associated with bureaucrats, which are seen as Kevan's right-hand men (sort of). Having "leaders" such as these in power for too long leads to an overdominance of wiki affairs. With regards to your attempt to swing discussion towards Honest's proposal - I fail to see how that has more life than this conversation given that nobody has actually replied to it yet. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - can you demonstrate an "overdominance of wiki affairs"? It can only exist in the promotion of non-sysops to sysop status, because that is the only power that a bureaucrat wields. If there is only a perceived bureaucrat power that dominates the wiki, then the perception should be changed through advertisment of what a bureaucrat actually is. If it is simply the promotions that you're referring to, then the response of having three instead of two, and forcing a majority decision, would also be a valid solution (if there is a problem). The other thing you've failed to address is this: the community is voting (so far) for boxy to retain his position. Therefore, if there is a problem of dominance, the community is for it. (It would be interesting to see how people would vote on this proposal, given that fact.) I do worry that your supposition of there being stagnation is ill-founded. I see no concrete evidence: only opinion. --Funt Solo QT 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - can you demonstrate an "overdominance of wiki affairs"? It can only exist in the promotion of non-sysops to sysop status, because that is the only power that a bureaucrat wields. If there is only a perceived bureaucrat power that dominates the wiki, then the perception should be changed through advertisment of what a bureaucrat actually is. If it is simply the promotions that you're referring to, then the response of having three instead of two, and forcing a majority decision, would also be a valid solution (if there is a problem). The other thing you've failed to address is this: the community is voting (so far) for boxy to retain his position. Therefore, if there is a problem of dominance, the community is for it. (It would be interesting to see how people would vote on this proposal, given that fact.) I do worry that your supposition of there being stagnation is ill-founded. I see no concrete evidence: only opinion. --Funt Solo QT
- Sysops do not face the problem of stagnation as there are no set limits on their numbers. The attitude towards them is also considerably different to that associated with bureaucrats, which are seen as Kevan's right-hand men (sort of). Having "leaders" such as these in power for too long leads to an overdominance of wiki affairs. With regards to your attempt to swing discussion towards Honest's proposal - I fail to see how that has more life than this conversation given that nobody has actually replied to it yet. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, they are more or less the same. The only difference I can see is that a 'crat has the added responsibility of deciding whether or not to promote a user to sysop based on a popular vote, and the arguments made therein. Other than that, a 'crat is a sysop, and subject to all the same regulations. So, the comparison is absolutely valid, and especially relevant to this policy discussion. It is a slight aside from the subject of "stagnation", which I have argued is actually stability, and good for the wiki, but it remains a valid comparison. I think this thread is somewhat exhausted, though, and the life of the discussion seems to have moved to HonestMistake's proposals, below. If you propose to challenge the ability to remain a 'crat forever, you should also challenge the ability to remain a sysop forever. Of course, the sysop position is the stronger, as it doesn't even face a regular vote. So, the stagnation argument, if valid, must also apply to the sysop team. I think a more radical policy than this is required. --Funt Solo QT
- Sysop positions are substantially different. Don't try and compare the two, please. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's no rotation of sysops, and bureaucrats are just sysops with a very specific extra power, which anyway is usually governed by a popular vote. I see no stagnation, if you're referring to Boxy's tenure, and it should also be noted that his position has come up for re-election, and he's being voted (so far) as the popular choice to retain his position. If it is stagnation, then it's popular stagnation. I'd call it stability. Anyway, that's going slightly off the topic of this policy, which I think could only fairly be considered if it included all sysop positions. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that any sysops supporting this policy, would suddenly change their minds about the need for change. I would support a third 'crat position, which would allow for a majority 'crat vote in the event of disputed decisions. In summary: no need for change, unless it's a sweeping change that also includes sysop positions. --Funt Solo QT
- Do you not think that it is in the best interests of the wiki for stagnation to be prevented? Boxy is a fine bureaucrat, but I think keeping the 'crat slots rotating is a much fairer system. Remember - they're able to apply for the other slot at the next nomination round so it's not as though they're gone forever. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- In which case, please explain why this would be an improvement. Also, please, try to leave the personal insults to one side, as they have no place in a policy discussion. --Funt Solo QT
This seems little more than a thinly vieled attempt to ouste Boxy. Would we not be better served by promoting an extra Crat instead? --Honestmistake 10:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Three 'crats solves nothing. The problem is 'crat is a role that need switching otherwise it leads to promote all users keeping the position for ever. Not to mention a case like Boxy's shows how a user can keep the position for over a year without any significant reelection. We don't need the same person being 'crat for over a year, it leads to a seniority type situation and basically lets promote whoever they want whenever they want with little reason as long as they're "nice" for two weeks a year.--Karekmaps?! 10:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not. Nice choice of logical fallacy, by the way. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take it that you would support making Sysop positions subject to periodic review then Karek? After all it is currently a position held forever without even the need to be nice for 2 weeks a year. I would support an election every 4 months for the longest held position (and that crat being excluded as a candidate) but only if there where 3 Crats. Likewise all sysop positions should be held for public review every 12 months (at most) or should the popularity contest only apply to the highest office of wiki-caretaker? --Honestmistake 12:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we had control of something that actually determines how rules are enforced on the wiki, yes, but we don't and comparing 'crats to Sysops is a bit absurd for that exact reason. Crats determine who can see user's IPs that in and of itself is a pretty big difference. 'Crat is a position that needs periodic changing, Sysop is one that needs new Sysops but not removal of the old because it is a consensus position.--Karekmaps?! 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard for the "sysops for life" idea. Sysops should be under some form of periodical review process. The community voted them in through consensus - why can't they attempt to remove them through the same process? The fact that we can't dramatically weakens the argument for forcing 'crats to step down, when sysops get the job for life. It just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. --Funt Solo QT 14:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's just idiotic, Sysops are not put into position by community consensus, the fact that we can't doesn't weaken anything but you're using it as an excuse anyway, 'Crat's don't get the job for life and the fact that Sysops do is even more reason why we need 'Crat Term Limits. But of course you'll ignore that and reply to me accusing me of having a weak argument again without addressing anything in the argument and instead talking about how so many Sysops you don't like for whatever reason and aren't popular can still be Sysops because they're actually good at their job. Prove me wrong for once, I'd actually like that. --Karekmaps?! 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The community puts forward arguments each time a user asks to be made sysop. The 'crats (elected by the community) then make a consensus decision, based on the arguments, as to whether the user be made a sysop. In what way is that not community consensus? Anyway - you're already dragging this into personal territory (again), so I'll just state my position on this policy clearly and leave it at that: 'crats are already under a review process anyway, so this policy is not needed. --Funt Solo QT 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The point is the communities' consensus doesn't matter, it's completely up to the 'crat. A user who is unanimously Against'd can become a Sysop if the 'crat feels like it, hell, Amazing was a Sysop for a day(resulted in Kevan stepping in, etc. but that's a long story, the point is a 'crat can promote whoever they like pretty much whenever they like as long as the community doesn't dislike the crat their safe. Another example is Vista/Boxy who when they were the crats basically went to people[who are now some of our least active Sysops] and told them to put in a bid because they would be promoted).--Karekmaps?! 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that the community's consensus doesn't matter, and you provide no actual examples where this has been the case. I should point out that I'm regarding this as consensus decision-making (i.e. based on the arguments) and not majority decision-making (based on the number of votes For or Against). In fact, one only has to look at the case of AHLG to see where the consensus argument was listened to in opposition to the majority vote, during his bid for sysop prior to the one where he was successful. You say "if the 'crat feels like it", but if a 'crat behaved in that way then surely they wouldn't be voted back in to the position (as boxy is being at the moment). If the 'crats are "bad people", it would appear that they're the sort of bad people that the community wants. As for your Amazing-bomb (irrelevant as it clearly is to this debate, and mentioned last here because it only serves as a distraction) - that's interesting timing, considering that hagnat recently suggested that he's the udwiki version of Godwin's Law. --Funt Solo QT 09:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh so my every three words have to be a link, that's a convenient excuse to ignore what Is said? AHLG's first bid shows well enough that consensus doesn't matter as the consensus was for his promotion. Oh, and reread what I said again, you seem to have missed the point completely.(in the Amazing part too).--Karekmaps?! 04:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I say again, consensus decision making is not the same as majority decision making. Look it up on wikipedia - you'll learn the difference. --Funt Solo QT 10:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- And you give me shit about not linking. Wikipedia:Consensus_decision-making shows quite clearly how wrong you are. There is no refinement process, it's completely up to the 'crat, there are no points ever addressed but rarely and that's only in cases where a user is persistent enough to keep putting in bids, and even then nothing changes(Matthew Farenheit, Cheeseman, AHLG), There is no consensus unless you're saying everyone that doesn't agree doesn't matter in which case you make my point. Sysop position is completely controlled by the 'crat(s)--Karekmaps?! 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - completely controlled by the 'crats who are voted in by the community as the consensus decision-makers when it comes to sysop position decisions. That is consensus decision making. We could (as a community) expand on it by creating a third 'crat position, and/or by creating a policy that requires further rounds (further than the current one) of refinement in the decision-making process. Those would be ways forward, whereas either claiming that it's not consensus decision-making (when it clearly is) or that 'crats mustn't be allowed to have the position for life (when they don't) are not (ways forward): because they're not even accurate descriptions of current reality. --Funt Solo QT 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, not sure why you're saying that nothing changes and then citing the case of AHLG. In that case, boxy provided a clear description of why he hadn't allowed him the sysop position, and then on his next bid he was successful. That demonstrates both that points were addressed and that something did change - both things you say don't happen. Clearly, they do. I'm not saying there's not room for improvement, but it's not as cut and dry as you're making out. --Funt Solo QT 15:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes - completely controlled by the 'crats who are voted in by the community as the consensus decision-makers when it comes to sysop position decisions. That is consensus decision making. We could (as a community) expand on it by creating a third 'crat position, and/or by creating a policy that requires further rounds (further than the current one) of refinement in the decision-making process. Those would be ways forward, whereas either claiming that it's not consensus decision-making (when it clearly is) or that 'crats mustn't be allowed to have the position for life (when they don't) are not (ways forward): because they're not even accurate descriptions of current reality. --Funt Solo QT
- And you give me shit about not linking. Wikipedia:Consensus_decision-making shows quite clearly how wrong you are. There is no refinement process, it's completely up to the 'crat, there are no points ever addressed but rarely and that's only in cases where a user is persistent enough to keep putting in bids, and even then nothing changes(Matthew Farenheit, Cheeseman, AHLG), There is no consensus unless you're saying everyone that doesn't agree doesn't matter in which case you make my point. Sysop position is completely controlled by the 'crat(s)--Karekmaps?! 11:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I say again, consensus decision making is not the same as majority decision making. Look it up on wikipedia - you'll learn the difference. --Funt Solo QT
- Oh so my every three words have to be a link, that's a convenient excuse to ignore what Is said? AHLG's first bid shows well enough that consensus doesn't matter as the consensus was for his promotion. Oh, and reread what I said again, you seem to have missed the point completely.(in the Amazing part too).--Karekmaps?! 04:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree that the community's consensus doesn't matter, and you provide no actual examples where this has been the case. I should point out that I'm regarding this as consensus decision-making (i.e. based on the arguments) and not majority decision-making (based on the number of votes For or Against). In fact, one only has to look at the case of AHLG to see where the consensus argument was listened to in opposition to the majority vote, during his bid for sysop prior to the one where he was successful. You say "if the 'crat feels like it", but if a 'crat behaved in that way then surely they wouldn't be voted back in to the position (as boxy is being at the moment). If the 'crats are "bad people", it would appear that they're the sort of bad people that the community wants. As for your Amazing-bomb (irrelevant as it clearly is to this debate, and mentioned last here because it only serves as a distraction) - that's interesting timing, considering that hagnat recently suggested that he's the udwiki version of Godwin's Law. --Funt Solo QT
- The point is the communities' consensus doesn't matter, it's completely up to the 'crat. A user who is unanimously Against'd can become a Sysop if the 'crat feels like it, hell, Amazing was a Sysop for a day(resulted in Kevan stepping in, etc. but that's a long story, the point is a 'crat can promote whoever they like pretty much whenever they like as long as the community doesn't dislike the crat their safe. Another example is Vista/Boxy who when they were the crats basically went to people[who are now some of our least active Sysops] and told them to put in a bid because they would be promoted).--Karekmaps?! 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- The community puts forward arguments each time a user asks to be made sysop. The 'crats (elected by the community) then make a consensus decision, based on the arguments, as to whether the user be made a sysop. In what way is that not community consensus? Anyway - you're already dragging this into personal territory (again), so I'll just state my position on this policy clearly and leave it at that: 'crats are already under a review process anyway, so this policy is not needed. --Funt Solo QT
- That's just idiotic, Sysops are not put into position by community consensus, the fact that we can't doesn't weaken anything but you're using it as an excuse anyway, 'Crat's don't get the job for life and the fact that Sysops do is even more reason why we need 'Crat Term Limits. But of course you'll ignore that and reply to me accusing me of having a weak argument again without addressing anything in the argument and instead talking about how so many Sysops you don't like for whatever reason and aren't popular can still be Sysops because they're actually good at their job. Prove me wrong for once, I'd actually like that. --Karekmaps?! 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's got to be the weakest argument I've ever heard for the "sysops for life" idea. Sysops should be under some form of periodical review process. The community voted them in through consensus - why can't they attempt to remove them through the same process? The fact that we can't dramatically weakens the argument for forcing 'crats to step down, when sysops get the job for life. It just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. --Funt Solo QT
- If we had control of something that actually determines how rules are enforced on the wiki, yes, but we don't and comparing 'crats to Sysops is a bit absurd for that exact reason. Crats determine who can see user's IPs that in and of itself is a pretty big difference. 'Crat is a position that needs periodic changing, Sysop is one that needs new Sysops but not removal of the old because it is a consensus position.--Karekmaps?! 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I take it that you would support making Sysop positions subject to periodic review then Karek? After all it is currently a position held forever without even the need to be nice for 2 weeks a year. I would support an election every 4 months for the longest held position (and that crat being excluded as a candidate) but only if there where 3 Crats. Likewise all sysop positions should be held for public review every 12 months (at most) or should the popularity contest only apply to the highest office of wiki-caretaker? --Honestmistake 12:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Wooo wooo! Drama drama! Can i join in ? Who are we flaming now ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's fairly straightforward, Captain Flamebait: it's an attempt to crowbar boxy out of the 'crat position in order to shoehorn you in. Because, you know, it would be great to have a 'crat who makes "wooo wooo" noises in place of any sensible discussion. Apparently, it's just what this wiki needs. --Funt Solo QT 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, i am not that interested in the crat position anymore. If elected it will be great, but it's not like i am expecting it to happen. Most of the users supporting this policy know about this fact for a long time already, so it's not to shoehorn me that they are doing it. As for me, i am neutral about this... the urban dead wiki gains nothing by having a user keeping his position as crat for long periods of time, neither by forbidding the same crat to attempt for a re-election. If there is something that should be changed here is the mentality of our userbase in this matter, not a change on the rules. And if i am not allowed to "woo woo" whenever i want, i think there is something wrong here in the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- And, BTW, if such policy were to pass, it would only apply to the next election... thus forbidding Vantar from re-electing and shoehorning me in his place. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, i am not that interested in the crat position anymore. If elected it will be great, but it's not like i am expecting it to happen. Most of the users supporting this policy know about this fact for a long time already, so it's not to shoehorn me that they are doing it. As for me, i am neutral about this... the urban dead wiki gains nothing by having a user keeping his position as crat for long periods of time, neither by forbidding the same crat to attempt for a re-election. If there is something that should be changed here is the mentality of our userbase in this matter, not a change on the rules. And if i am not allowed to "woo woo" whenever i want, i think there is something wrong here in the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is totally unnecessary. If you think there's stagnation, just vote against the incumbent. If most people agree with you, then the position rotates. What does this policy accomplish that popular voting misses? Oh, one more thing: This user supports the right to Wooo Wooo whenever he feels like it, and encourages others to do the same. - Headshot Hal Talk +1 Casting Call 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Woo Hoo--Thekooks 19:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yoo-hoo wooty woo, woo hoo [If you can't beat 'em, join 'em protocol engaged.] --Funt Solo QT 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Key difference is that when we do it, we are fun and original... you are just a copy-cat ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't care either way, a new crat, anti-stagnation or a mix of both is fine with me. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A waste of time and a bag of hot air. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The rule of 3
What happened to the idea of 3 crats? And do you mean that you can only be a crat for 2 terms, or not 2 terms in succession?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
