UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Automatic Sysop Cycling

headline 1 for easier editing

Seems fair. Anyone disagree?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I give it 5 hours before it becomes a flame war. :D.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. It's a serious policy. I know other users have asked for something like it, but I figured what is good for the bureaucrat is good for the sysop. :) --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The key idea is that it is not a vote, but merely a confirmation by the community that they will continue to vouch for the sysop under review. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it so far. Mind you, most people are'nt too shy of voicing their displeasure with Sysops, so would the discussion thing not be relitively redundant? (oh, and SA, I'm reckoning 3 1/2. Usual rules for competitions apply, no invlovement from anybody betting, shiney medal awarded;))--Seventythree^Talk 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but it would give them a forum to bring it up in. We could easily add something where if enough users request a review (say fifteen), a bureaucrat could create one for a sysop. After all, the community should have sysops that they trust. If a sysop violates that trust, then it should be able to be brought up in a proper manner. The policy would give them a healthy place to bring it up instead of bringing it up anywhere and gumming up the Administration pages. This way sysops could regulate the amount of grumbling that people bring up in other places where it is not appropriate to discuss it (such as on the vandal banning page, where it stretches out for 40 or so posts). --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

3h 29.9min. You can guess only once.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not a policy that would replace the Misconduct pages. The Misconduct pages would still exist for any policy violations that a sysop might encounter. The whole idea of the policy is that sysops should be the trusted users that the General Conduct page states they are. It gives the community the way to verify or express their trust (or lack of) in a sysop, and a means of removing lame duck (inactive) sysops. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As all the others before this, this makes sysops have to survive a fucking popularity contest every time. Also, is there anty reason to drop inactive sysops? No. Sometimes there are technical difficulties that keep them away. Sometimes people take a sabbatical. This looks like the silly bureaucrat rules tossed onto sysops for no better reason than you disagree with the conduct of one or two, but cant take them to misconduct because you dont have a case. Sysops cannot and should not be made to rely on public support, which is fluid and shifts like the tide. Being a sysop is a dirty job, and not everything that we have to do will be liked by the community. Forcing us to play to the crowd for popularity to remain a sysop simply means that we cant get our job done properly, as the unpopular decisions will not be made, and those who have the balls to make them (The people we need) will keep getting punted out of the spot by a individuals who just dont get it. Also, Sysops are janitors, not moderators. We have no power outside any of the administrative pages, and a whole lot more ways to mess up. Also, with the amount of email provocation these days it would be impossible for anyone to see the whole story behind anything. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Yet, it's not a popularity contest, which you would have realized if you had actually read it. The general wiki users express their opinions on the sysop who is on review, then it's up to the bureaucrat to review the community's opinion on the sysop and make a decision on it. Unlike bureaucrats, it is not a popularity contest, as it is merely a verification of the trust of the community. As for the inactive sysops, I can point out several sysops who haven't posted one thing in over a year. That's a pretty long "break". If they want to be re-elected and plan on being active again, they can run for sysop again. As for the reasons for putting this up, Grim, I believe you should probably get an idea from reading this. Don't you agree that if the general response from the majority of users is that they no longer have trust in a sysop, that the sysop is perhaps doing a poor job and shouldn't be a sysop any longer? Do you recall Ludwig? Should the general users have just continued under his reign, because sometimes forum moderators should not be made to rely on public support, which is fluid and shifts like the tide? Or perhaps you are just worried about the general user's trust in you? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, in fact, read it. Unfortunately, pissing off the wrong clique (And there are dozens of them i am aware of) can result in your nomination being completely flooded by a considerable number of posters. While it is possible in a normal vote to sort out the spam fors and spam againsts, when so heavily flooded any person will have an automatic unconcious bias against the person being reviewed, simply from the awe at the response, which will lead into the sorting and tip the results. For example, i am apparently not on good terms with the DEM. They dont like me. If i were to go up for review now, it would probably be ok, but say there was something else on a drama scale similiar to the DEM roster, and i had to rule against them because of existing rules and precedents. That would tick them off, and they would drop by my upcoming review and heap shit on me for it. Putting sysops up for reveiw merely puts them under increased stress regarding their duties and security, is a blow to confidence and encourages indecision and buck passing rather than making the choices that need to be made. The already overbnurdened bureacracy of the wiki would essentially grind to a halt on contentious cases. Besides, with performace reviews we would probably lose the entire evil sysop franchise (Who some say are too harsh), which are an essential check to the good sysop franchise (Who some say are too lenient) and vice versa. Also, Ludwig was never a sysop. He was a member of the old CoL who stepped on the tail of SomethingAwful on ye olde proboards forum and paid the price for overestimating his own strength and underestimating theirs. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if people were against the sysop, the bureaucrat would read the content of the disagreements. If most people said: "Grim just needs to get laid." I'd hope the bureaucrat would take into consideration that it was a personal grudge and not a valid complaint against the sysop. As for my Ludwig reference, the idea is that there was no system in place on Proboards in order to get rid of someone who was abusing his position, yet technically following the rules. This policy gives the community a time and a place to voice their opinions on a sysop and the means to reaffirm or revoke their trust in a sysop. As stated, the bureaucrat has final say. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They already have one. The sysops talk page. The response by the sysop would go a long way to either proving their fears groundless or confirming them. For example, if a sysop answers them an points out the facts of the case warranted what was done, it would be good. If the sysop wiped the comment, or said something derogatory towards them, that would be bad. If you want a way to remove horrible sysops, write a policy that allows those who best know how a sysop should behave to vote them out of the office if the need arises, but throwing it up to the public just lets ther cliques have power. They are larger than you think. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sysop's talk page is under the domain and the rules set by that Sysop. It's a non-starter. Your fucking arguments about fucking users and fucking mobs with fucking torches when any fucking decent fucking human fucking being with a fucking brain should fucking understand that it is a fucking moral fucking imperative that fucking Grim be a fucking Sysop for fucking life. (It's his innate eloquence that cinches the argument, of course.) All fucking Sysop fucking elections should be fucking one and fucking done like any good fucking banana republic because Kevan hasn't fucking got the fucking balls to fucking stand your fucking worthless ass down for cussing like a fucking sailor with a fucking every fucking time some fucking fucker says some fucking thing or fucking does some fucking thing that isn't about sucking up to fucking Grim. Hey, Kevan, this is what you get when you tolerate trolls as sysops. --Dylan Mak Tyme 04:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's what we get when idiots try to make points based on their bias. < That's just me wondering what you ever added to the wiki other then harassing sysops like Grim and Boxy for doing their jobs.--Karek^maps?! 05:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, arent you a few months behind the times. The whole civility thing blew over, exactly as i said it would, because its not a problem with the wiki, but something like the tide. Given how policy explicitely states sysops are not moderators, what exactly have i done that warrants removal? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, it is not up to the general public. The general public just gives their opinion and then the bureaucrats decide. They consider the sysop's service and the public opinion of the sysop, but the decision is theirs, just like when sysops are first nominated. Besides, bureaucrats don't seem to mind a vote by the general users, but according to your opinion, sysops would fold like a cheap umbrella under the "strain". If someone has that much problem with the whole process, then perhaps they might prefer not being in a position of being a trusted user? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please dont put words in my mouth. The difference between a sysop and a bureaucrat is that when a bureaucrat loses trust, he drops down to sysop with pretty much the same status as before, a sysop drops down to user (The drops i am talking about regard power and responsibility, not height above users in any way). Now, given the size of the drops, the concept of additional stress may become apparent. It wont break sysops, but its something they dont need if they are to do their jobs. If there is a problem witha sysop, it should be decided by a majority vote of the other sysops and bureaucrats provided there is just cause (Eg, A passed misconduct case). --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the loss of trust can occur from a sysop's behavior, not just from breaking the rules. The idea is for the bureaucrats to be able to see how the general users view the sysop in an open forum, and to see if there is still enough trust to maintain the sysop's position. The misconduct pages currently are a system of punishment for breaking UDWiki policy and not a method for reviewing the general performance of sysops. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No no no, "loss of trust" means that you think that they did a bad job. If a SysOp does a bad job, they are taken to Misconduct- that is what it is there for. If a SysOp loses the trust of a user over something that is not about the use of SysOp powers, this is what we call BASSLESS OPINION. SysOps are only asked to do SysOp duties, and if they continue to do them correctly, then they are good SysOps. Taken as a whole, this Policy is DOA. --Karlsbad 06:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If they arent doing anything wrong, then there is no need to remove them. I dont like veryething other sysops do, but i dont think they deserve dismissal for it. If behaviour gets too bad it can be handled through arbitration and vandal banning. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The current system has a limited idea of what is "right" and what is "wrong". By letting the general public express their opinions on the sysops, you get a general performance evaluation. Businesses do it all the time. If someone has a poor performance evaluation it is up to their supervisors to decide if they should continue their employment or not. In this case, if the general users lose faith in a sysop and no longer trust him or her, then they should have a process to be able to express that opinion. Besides, with the number of sysops, this would mean that even with three sysops being reviewed every three months, most sysops would only have to worry about a review once every two years. That's quite a long time. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By Grimch's logic, the whole concept of Sysops is moot since they have to survive a "fucking popularity contest" to get instated in the first place. Besides, if the vote doesn't go well, the final decision still rests with the bureaucrat. It isn't a popularity contest, it's a periodic review. People can read other's estimates of other work, both pro and con. Sure some folks may try to bring out drama, they do on everything in this wiki, but this procedure is not a vote in its own explanation. The fact that this review concept comes up incessantly suggests there's some concern for sysop oversight, and this seems one of the more fair iterations.

My headscratching comes from the procedure. Maybe I'm just not reading this right, but there's only 12 months in a year, and I'm sure there's more than 4 sysops. Do we really have only 4 review periods a year? I guess I'm just not clear on how this process plays out.--The Envoy 23:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could easily have three sysops under review at that time. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would probably vote keep for this if current bureaucrats were exempt (they have to face a review each year anyway) and this (If, for any reason, an individual sysop position hasn't faced a review after 12 months, then a review is called after that period.) was changed to at least 2 years before a review is mandatory -- boxy • talk • 00:29 30 October 2007 (BST)

It makes sense that current bureaucrats are not subject to this review, as the voting period that they go through should suffice for the expression of trust. We do have 28 sysops (22 if you don't count the bureaucrats and Kevan's accounts), and even if we do three sysops every three months, 2 years would be about right. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if that works for you. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot take this seriously when I see nothing more than an attempt by Akule to get his enemies demoted and create more drama. As well as to increase his fame here so he can takeover as he has stated that is his wish. --Rogue 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So you've just gone to making up my "backstory" again? Don't forget that I have a hover car and I can shoot fireballs out of my ass. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You got my vote if you use boxy's insights. Sockem 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should we settle for making this place like myspace? It could be so much more and so much better, if we'd give it a chance. --Akule School's in session. 23:33, 26 September 2007 (BST) Sounds like you are the one saying YOU know what's best for everyone. --Rogue 07:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrats shouldn't always be the end all be all, they've been known to work in their own little cliques too, elect people to sysop that they bullied into running, etc.--Karek^maps?! 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Iv'e been thinking about this, and the suggestion by Akule seems to be aimed at creating feedback for moderators, but maybe it is a little too official. However I understand that the entire "talking to the sysops on the talkpage" thing can be eisily ignored, or seeing as it's the sysop's talkpage deleted. I understand Akule's point about the need for people to question, or support of course sysop actions. Therefoe would anyone object to the creation of a new page (I'm guessing on the admin section) split into a section for each sysop where people can leave their feedback on sysop actions. This would create a spce where sysops could get an idea of how their actions are thought of by the community, without the formality of the misconduct page. (there would be no pressure on the sysops to reply to criticism).--Seventythree^Talk 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the page would very soon have more flames than hades itself!!! --Honestmistake 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, but no more so than these reveiws, I imgaine.--Seventythree^Talk 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd support an implementation page for feedback for the sysops, however, that would probably be better suited for the individual talk pages of the sysops. The ideal point about the review is that it will bring general users together at a scheduled time to either verify their trust or raise their reservations of the sysop up for review. It should reduce the general grumblings on various pages (such as the vandal banning talk page) as users know that there will be a time and a place to express any concerns. Otherwise, users can continue to discuss things with users individually or with the bureaucrats (this is assuming that it is something that doesn't apply for the misconduct pages). --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You see, while I can see your point about the need for reveiws, I've also been thinking for a while that a page where people could leave any complaints, problems, and, dare I say it congratulations to sysops in an informal manner would help everyone out no end. I see no reason this could not work in conjuction.--Seventythree^Talk 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that sort of a thing couldn't exist. You'd have to have some minor guidelines as to what is allowed and what is not. Effectively, constructive criticisms would be appreciated. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you removed the possibility of being demoted I'd vote for it. I just don't think sysops need that kind of thing hanging over their heads; it'd make them afraid to touch anything remotely controversial. Adding to the problems with a system like this is the biasedness of the bureaucrats (don't flame me, nobody can possibly claim complete impartiality). As I said below (but you handily ignored), they tend not to be able to get past their own feelings and really look at the contributions a sysop (or, indeed, a user in the case of normal promotions) has made to the community. Hell, Boxy has basically admitted to enjoying being able to knock my own promotion bids - the cliquey dislike for me going around gives him a good excuse. I feel I should remind people that I am not being sore here - it's simply a good example of the sort of bias I'm trying to point out. Bureaucrat(s) (seeing as Vista isn't really all that active lately, might as well just be Boxy) aren't the omniscient creatures you'd like them to be. Giving them this kind of power over sysops - even without any breaches of the guidelines - is a really, really bad idea. Don't forget; there is a reason for the policy specifying that sysops aren't moderators. Don't focus on the parts of the wiki's policy you like to the exclusion of those you don't, Akule. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding, bob? That is a wilful misinterpertation. This isn't me saying I enjoy knocking you back, it's me saying that if a significant majority of the community are silly enough to say they trust you, then I'll promote you. Yes, it's true I didn't like the way you handled the sysops position, that should be obvious to anyone who was around at the time, but I don't hold any personal grudge against you, or anyone here -- boxy • talk • 23:10 1 November 2007 (BST)

There you go proving me correct again. They'd be silly to say they trust me, would they? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only point that proved, bob, was that I have an opinion on the matter (ohnoes!). If the community clearly shows that it wants you as a sysops, then so be it, I'll promote you... however I will not endorse you. I can't make it any clearer -- boxy • talk • 01:25 3 November 2007 (BST)

Updated

I have updated the proposed policy accordingly to Boxy's proposal. I have also raised the number of sysops to be under review to three, in order to get all of the current sysops (sans Bureaucrats and kevan's admin accounts) reviewed every two years. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that 3 is too many to be up for review at one time. Remember that quite a few sysops will probably be demoted for inactivity. I thought it was fine as it was. Also, in this line (Any Sysop who goes inactive on the wiki for 3 full months will automatically be demoted back to regular user status, and the position put up for re-election, if a replacement is deemed necessary by the wiki community.) , the struck bit needs to be removed. There doesn't need to be an automatic vote for a replacement, any user is still free to put themselves forward at any time. There is no set number of sysops as there is with bureaucrats -- boxy • talk • 01:36 30 October 2007 (BST)

Well you could start out at 3 and lower the number of reviews at once according to how many sysops there are.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I can remove the struck bit and change it back to the way it was before for the number done at one time. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it, especially the fact that its the bureaucrats have the final say, really just like the promotions process really. Sure, you are going to get the cliques going, but that happens during the promotions anyway. The B's should be able to sort through the DEM vs Barhah Montigue/Capulet bullshit to find what the community thinks and make an educated decision. I will definitely vote in favor of this policy, especially since boxy is helping. But then again.. I'm a clique vote ;) --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote yes because Akule needs to get laid, and this will help him. Who could turn down the smexy despot of the wiki, eh? ;).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This Policy: Aimed At Grim Since 1742. Would you like to try another straw, Akule? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing is that part of this might be less problematic then all of it, like say the inactive sysops part. I'd vote for inactive removal, but putting them through popular opinion polls that do nothing wastes our time as wiki users(much like the current sysop promotions process) and making it so that bureaucrats have to decide based on popular opinion votes screws them over much cause they are a popular opinion position. --Karek^maps?! 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BUT KARECK DIS ISNT A POPPULARETY OCNTEST LOLOLOLOL --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

O RLY?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyberbob just canceled out my cliquey For vote. Seriously Bob, Pro-Tip ;) its a policy against all sysops, not just the unpopular ones. The idle people who don't do anything, like zara for example, are they really needed under the sysop banner? ane Karek, how does it waste your time? Nobody is forcing you to participate. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It wastes the communities time having them vote on something for no reason. It's a crat decision then the crats should decide it, not have a popular opinion poll before they do.--Karek^maps?! 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idle demotions (REPEAT: I agree with the idle demotions), but IMHO Akule only added that clause to make the policy more palatable to the masses: to make him sound more reasonable, if you will. He's been after Grim for months, AS. He's tried asking Kevan to demote him, and because that failed he's turning to the community. It's the standard way to get things done around here. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

'Thustra? Inactive? Lies! That makes him safe for another two years doesn't it?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

there should also be something in the policy that defines inactivity, so we just dont have sysops "bumping" their status--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But the decision is ultimately upto the B's, not the community. The B's dont have to listen to squat of what the community says--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

They may not have to, but show me a person who says they don't and I'll show you either ignorance or lies. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said they don't. I'm just saying that they can discern the popularity contest votes vs the votes that actually mean something, and contribute to the wiki.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you said, and I'm agreeing that they can. However, for whatever reasons, they don't. Might have something to do with the fact that the bureaucrat promotions are basically popularity contests as well... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think we need a mechanism for reviewing performance and this does seem reasonable. I am curious though, who are the 1st 3 up for review if this gets passed? --Honestmistake 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if I read it correctly, "'After 3 months an election is called for the three sysop positions longest without an review.'" it would be the oldest sysops who are still active. Since they have more long logged without a review than some of the newer mods. Not sure who that would be.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is now, it would be all sysops who have been in the job 2 years without a review, and were still active -- boxy • talk • 10:42 30 October 2007 (BST)

So, no one. Ive been a sysop since april 06, which is about 18 months, 6 of which i spent forcibly disconnected. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

lawl --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sysops List

1. BobHammero ‎(inactive)
2. Boxy ‎(Bureaucrat)
3. Brizth ‎(inactive)
4. Conndraka ‎
5. Daranz ‎
6. Darth Sensitive ‎
7. Dux Ducis ‎(newbie)
8. Grim s ‎
9. Hagnat ‎
10. Karlsbad‎ (inactive?)
11. Kevan‎ (bossman)
12. LeakyBocks ‎(inactive)
13. LibrarianBrent ‎(inactive)
14. Max Grivas ‎
15. Mobius187 ‎(newbie)
16. Morlock ‎(inactive)
17. Novelty ‎(inactive)
18. Nubis ‎(inactive)
19. SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel ‎(inactive?)
20. Spiro ‎(inactive)
21. Swiers ‎(newbie)
22. Thari ‎
23. The General ‎
24. Urbandead ‎(bossman)
25. Vantar ‎(newbie)
26. Vista ‎(Bureaucrat)
27. Zaruthustra ‎
28. Zombie slay3r ‎(newbie)

So by my quick reckoning, we'd loose 10 sysops due to inactivity (I didn't check their contribs, so could be way out) and have 8 up for re-evaluation as soon as this (potentially) kicks in -- boxy • talk • 10:44 30 October 2007 (BST)

Vantar has been around, mostly doing cats. --Karek^maps?! 10:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, stuff up on my part, meant to be newbie for Vantar (changed) -- boxy • talk • 11:22 30 October 2007 (BST)

I for one welcome our inactive sysops overlords. Say NO! to sysop performance review!--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh :) Who the hell is Morlock and Spiro anyway! -- boxy • talk • 11:22 30 October 2007 (BST)

I am more worried about LeakyBocks than these two. Who would choose such a nick and promote him in the first place ? It's creepy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Link, and checking the logs, Leakybocks was the first promoted sysop, beating kevan, leading me to suspect it is either a tech support person or a kevan alt. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, checked his contribs. He's tech support. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll want to ask Kevan which are just promoted users so we can avoid considering his accounts or his techs. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

uh, 'sup? How are things? If The General counts as active, then I figure I do as well. --Karlsbad 06:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion From The Cheap Seats

This policy seems like a work and drama generating device. Work, because everyone is asked to take part, and drama generating because, well, it turns the whole sysop thing into a circus. Before undertaking any project, I first ask myself "what's the problem?", and if it turns out there isn't one, then (unless there's a more esoteric or aesthetic reason) it gets shelved. What's the problem with the current system? If there isn't one, then what's this policy for, exactly? --Funt Solo 16:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. There is no current method for removing inactive sysops. Some sysops have been inactive for at least six months, and one for almost two years. Then, there has been numerous requests for some sort of performance evaluation on the sysops, as Misconduct can only do so much. You'll notice that Misconduct specifically says that it does not address issues of behavior, nor creates a method for the community as a whole to give feedback to the bureaucrats about how the sysops are doing.

This policy would mean that sysops would be subject to a review at least once every two years. Even then, the bureaucrats review the community's feedback and then makes the decision, just like in the original sysop process. The work it would create is minimal, and it would allow for a place and a time for people to express their feelings rather than tying up the administration pages with their problems with sysops. Even then, I would assume that the bureaucrats would be able to identify if someone has simply a personal grudge with someone or if there is a legitimate community concern with an individual sysop. This would also be the time and place for people to speak up if they feel that the sysop is doing a good job. It's a two-way street really. One user can't kick out a sysop and there is no vote, thus it is not a popularity contest. With the time-frame and number of sysops, most sysops wouldn't receive a review until around the two-year mark, so I fail to see how this would be a pressing issue on the sysop's minds. If you follow procedures and the guidelines for sysops, I'm sure you'll do fine. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be a popularity contest, Akule - I'm not sure how you can say it won't be when every single other promotion procedure on the wiki is. The 'crats go with the community's wishes; and why wouldn't they? Being uncontroversial guarantees them another 'crat spot next time the bids come around. It's as I've said (twice): they can disregard grudge votes, but they don't. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And the bureaucrat nomination isn't a popularity contest? The nomination of sysops isn't a popularity contest? I simply took the existing systems for both and combined them. Again, if the community doesn't want a sysop, then why should they continue to be allowed to be one? The simple fact that it was the community who nominated a user to be a sysop, should have the right to remove a sysop, but with the bureaucrat's concent. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by those rhetorical questions, seeing as I already said they were... are you trying to backflip on your assertion that it isn't a popularity contest?

As you yourself said, some people just hold irrational grudges - why should those people be listened to when their motivations are completely selfish? Why should a clash of opinions or personalities result in one party being punished simply because they're a sysop? I would be fine with this idea if I knew the bureaucrats to be secure enough in themselves to ignore those people. I know they don't, however, so I can't support this. Adding to my concerns is the likelihood that you're still after Grim (how can I not believe it, given your history and with zero evidence to the contrary?). I can't accept a policy based on an intention like that. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am simply pointing out that you aren't calling the others popularity contests, yet are pretending this is one. Sysops are considered trusted users and are nominated from the community and vouched for by members of the community. The community should be allowed the chance to either change their mind or affirm their choice. Now, I would imagine that the bureaucrats have the ability to be able to discern a grudge and an actual issue. However, I can't speak for them. Perhaps you should address your complaint to one of the bureaucrats and see what their response would be instead of addressing these statements to me (a non-bureaucrat) and demanding a response? If you feel that they would be biased, then you should bring that up with them. As for your assumption, I seriously doubt that any of the bureaucrats would demote someone simply on my word and my dislike for Grim's treatment of other users. You attribute far too much pull to me than I actually have. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If your answer to my question "what's the problem?" is that there are inactive sysops, then I say so what? Are inactive sysops damaging the wiki? No. You assert that there's no existing method for removing an existing sysop, but I disagree. Maybe I'm understanding it incorrectly, but can't a 'Crat remove a sysop? Also, you're talking about a potential situation whereby a large groundswell of wiki opinion forms against the behaviour of a particular sysop - if that were the case, then surely Kevan and the 'Crats (and the other sysops) would be inundated with complaints, not only from regular users such as myself, but also from their peers. As that hasn't actually happened, that I'm aware of, then I assert again that there is no problem to fix - except a theoretical one. To implement a system based on something that might happen seems odd. It's red tape beurocracy simply for the sake of it. A complete waste of everyone's time. If this goes to vote, of course, I may be proved wrong. I doubt it, though. --Funt Solo 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about it's basically the same system that bureaucrats follow, but for Sysops. The idea is that the bureaucrats ask: "Hey, do you still feel that this person should be a sysop?" Then people respond. It creates a process and a way for people who might "sit and take it" because they don't perceive that they have any way to do anything about it. If the bureaucrats don't have a problem with implementing the system, then why not? As for inactive sysops, the idea is that they aren't doing anything and should just be removed. We remove inactive templates, but not sysops? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if all this is already possible, through the voluntary actions of 'crats, then why suggest an enforcement policy? You might as well be offering me free insurance against the chance of the moon landing on my head. Neither of us would profit, but there'd be tons of paperwork. --Funt Solo 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If inactivity is the problem then put something that focuses solely on inactivity instead of trying to piggyback the unpopular sysop removal part on an inactivity policy. If a sysop being controversial enough it conflicts with their duties is the problem, well there's already a place to deal with that, misconduct. Sysops who are good at their job but aren't liked by people are still good at their job, they are elected for their ability to do the job, why should they be punished because some people don't like that a case didn't go their way and they were the ruling sysop?--Karek^maps?! 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone can do the job, doesn't mean that they have the confidence of the community. I am sure I can find many people who could do the job, but shouldn't. The simple fact that people have tried to put this issue forward before should indicate that there is a desire in the community to have the ability to apply standards and feedback to the sysops, much like the bureaucrats. The idea of a sysop is that they are a trusted user. If the community loses faith with their trusted users, they need to have a process to address it. A process is already in place with the bureaucrats, so why not use something like it? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And what does the fact that it's failed every time mean, that the community likes roses and pink skirts?--Karek^maps?! 23:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They failed for their own various reasons. You'll notice that people did state that this policy proposal is quite different than the previous ones. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Akule? It's very possible to dislike someone personally while respecting their work. People on here just don't know how to do that. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I don't know what that's like, at all. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Akule... you must have misread what I said, because I did in fact say that the other promotion processes are popularity contests as well. Here, I'll even point it out for you:

Cyberbob240 said:

when every single other promotion procedure on the wiki is

I fail to see why this excuses yet another one. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems that you are just upset that you put yourself up for review when you didn't have to and failed miserably to be reconfirmed, and then failed every attempt to get renominated. After all, you did mention it above when you were mentioning that you thought Boxy had a grudge against you, but you simply didn't have the votes to be renominated. Using your case as an example, it sounds to me like the system for reviews would work if this policy was implemented...--Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hay Akule: try reading what I write sometime. I used Boxy's little indiscretion as an example because it was the first one that came to mind, not out of any grudge or soreness I (don't) bear. Personal attacks don't really work as argumentative tools, you know, especially when you should be trying to come off as reasonable as possible to convince people that this policy is a Good Thing. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I read it. I also read the link you provided. He effectively stated that if the community nominated you, he would promote you, but that he didn't feel that was a good idea. As for your point about personal attacks, you did come here first with simply a mocking tone and quickly added your "conclusions". So please don't pretend that you came here to be civil. Sure, you decided to debate the policy after I declined to respond to your original statements, but it still doesn't mean that you didn't make several comments about how bureaucrats can be biased. Then when you followed it up with your case and how you felt Boxy treated you. What else are we supposed to think? Especially when you made the assumption for us. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 21:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*hronch* ... anyone else for popcorn? --Funt Solo-QT- 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it have butter on it? --Z. slay3r •  Talk  00:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Cyberbob was civil when he came here is irrelevant. A valid point has been brought up in a reasonable manner and you have chosen to ignore it. If you want an example of bias, we'll take Bob Hammero's case (an ex-bureaucrat). He created a policy to not only demote but to be able to ban any Sysop he wanted. I also know for a fact that he intended to use that policy in that way, and the development of the policy halted when the person he was targeting asked to be demoted. To claim that bureaucrats are *never* bias is ignorance. Everyone is biased in some way. - If Jedaz = 00:42, 2 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Actually, it does. Since he came in and behaved that way, I ignored his further arguments (until he composed himself better) as I assumed he would just continue on as he did. Was it the fair thing to do? Probably not, however, if he doesn't treat me in a civil way, then why should I respond to him? Regardless, lets move on. Now, if bureaucrat bias is such a huge problem, then why has there been no change to the system by which sysops have been nominated? I would think that there would be something discussed to try and curb this behavior? On top of that, Bob Hammero is no longer a bureaucrat, so it sounds like the bureaucrat cycling process worked as it should. That is even more proof that a similar sysop process could not only work, but would prove to be effective. However, taking into account this concern, we can simply change the policy to have the three bureaucrats have a small public vote on whether or not to retain the services of the sysop or demote them. Majority vote ends the review and either puts the sysop back into the queue or removes them from it. I don't see why that idea is necessary, as bureaucrats currently do not have to do that in order to affirm users as sysops, so it doesn't make sense to have them do that for this, without changing the new sysop nomination process policy. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to bother responding to people then you should at least read what they say properly, ignoring what Cyberbob said is one thing, but responding to what you think he said rather then what he actually said isn't productive at all and gives a bad impression about your intellect and comprehension abilities. Please do your homework when you claim things, the Bureaucrat cycling was introduced after Bob Hammero had left the position (he became inactive and was demoted). So in no way can that support your claim that this kind of system would work. As for the bias, I never said that it was a major issue (it rarely is), but that it's there. If this was implemented some sysops would then aim to please the 'crats so they keep the job and rarely challange the 'crats decision if a performance review was coming up. - If Jedaz = 06:34, 2 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Wiki Nazis

Heil! – Nubis ^NWO 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back Nubis the conqueror! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS Explain to me why the current system requires this fix. – Nubis ^NWO 15:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This Isn't A Discussion

Akule isn't going to remove or change any part of this policy, or even respond clearly to obvious concerns- the best response Akule has to any statement or question is to ask rhetorical questions about how "maybe" this policy could ever be needed, without providing examples or even solid reasons for its existence- such as this mythic case where a SysOp who is doing a their job isn't being enough like a Moderator, forgetting that Sysops /= Moderators. Continuing to feed a wikilawyer troll is just going to provide him entertainment. --Karlsbad 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet, when Boxy made suggestions, I made the changes. We had a brief discussion about how many should be done at once, and some actual questions. Perhaps you should look up at the rest of the comments and see how many of them are actually constructive questions instead of general statements about various assumptions of my "objectives" (much like this one that you have made) or simple nonsense statements (Nazis! yay!). If you want to make some suggestions, then do so. Otherwise, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, please stop crapping up the page. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The major criticism that this is unneeded bureaucracy which serves no useful purpose that isn't already served by the Misconduct page has been ignored. Responding with you talking about an overblown idle SysOps problem is not honest, because that would be served with a policy that does not concern current SysOps. --Karlsbad 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping me from expending any more effort on this page, Karl. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that sysop positions are for life unless they either step down or are pushed out. How much effort would it be to have people confirm their faith in them every 12 months or so? Half the sysops on the list are inactive and many of the others have been in place for over a year. I have been active in this community for a long time and voted for very few of them, many of the newer users have never had an opportunity to vote for any of them. I don't agree with many of them but that does not mean i don't appreciate the job they do. Much as i hate to agree with Akule the system does need to change. Sadly this policy is not the right way to do it and is mostly just a thinly veiled way to try and get rid of Grim. --Honestmistake 09:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this pulls through. It seems to me to be a good solution to the problem Akule says he's attempting to solve. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A New Dawn, A New Era!

Okay, the 'Crats are subject to a review process, so their existence as 'Crats is at the mercy of the community, right? Now, what if the sysops have to go through a regular (6 or 12 months, I don't know) review by the 'Crats, who either vote for them to stay, or vote to demote them (publicly). Now, if the community as a whole doesn't agree with the decision of the 'Crats, they can de-elect them later, or attempt to. (Built-in cooling off period.) In the meantime, control of who and who doesn't remain at the sysop level stays with the 'Crats, thus lessening drama associated with the day-to-day work of sysops, who shouldn't be subjected to pure (unfiltered) popularity votes at regular intervals, because it would interfere with their day to day jobs around the wiki. That's my idea of a solution to the (mostly, invented) problem that 2Kool has come up with. (Plus, this can cover the idea of an innactive sysop as well. It would be up to the voting 'Crats to decide the definition of innactive on a case-by-case basis.) --Funt Solo-QT- 12:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's just a popularity contest by proxy. --Karek^maps?! 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. System operators should be completely isolated from the effects of popularity or lack thereof. They should only be removed if there are valid compliants about their conduct as a system operator. Remember, they are not moderators. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone clear this up for me - is there already a system in place to demote a sysop? And, if there is, then what's the point of this policy suggestion? --Funt Solo-QT- 13:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there are four systems of demotion.

• Sysops can put themselves under review of their own volition (if review fails, they're demoted)
• Extreme cases of misconduct usually result in demotion
• Sysops can voluntarily retire by requesting to be demoted on the Demotions page
• Kevan can do it (never been done, and likely never going to be however)

What Akule is suggesting is for involuntary reviews to be implemented every 2 years. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Bob. So, this policy really needs split into two, right? Policy One is "what to do about inactive sysops" (and how to define "inactive") and Policy Two is "a system of sysop review". Both are separate issues, clearly. --Funt Solo-QT- 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Kevan demote Katthew (a long time ago)? I don't think I was around back then, but I remember something along those lines. Still, I agree that it's unlikely Kevan would get involved in such a political issue nowadays. --Toejam 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he did. He also demoted OddStarter from crat to sysop as a result of the amazing scandal. Its all there in the user rights log. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, memory... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Cyberbos earlier post Boxy is the only active 'Crat... so what you are suggesting appears to be "make Boxy dictator of the wiki" ;)--Honestmistake 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aha! So, really it's Senator Boxy who's planning to become Emperor and dissolve the Senate! I must pass this information onto Mon Mothma before it's too late... --Funt Solo-QT- 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'll start killing Bothans.... just tell me when to stop.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Some words about reviewing Sysops

Everyone knows that I'm a supporter of Sysop's reviewing. I can even say that I see this policy as weak compared to what I would have if I could. That said, I have always seen most of the arguments against Sysop's reviewing as utter lies, or just wrong in some instances. Let's "review" them:

• About the necessity for Sysops to be isolated from the community and its views: Last time I checked none of our Sysops was a robot, none is really isolated form the community and, if they were so, they would be really bad Sysops. A Sysops needs to be in touch with the community to know what they currently need and how the community itself is evolving, not isolate him/herself "in order to reach enlightment". The only truly "isolated" Sysops are the idle ones.
• About reviews being popularity contests: They are no more "popularity contests" than the current promotion bids themselves. No one has clearly complained about the popularity contests there when discussing reviews, like "that is something beyond this discussion's scope". It's the same!
• About reviews making Sysops want public exposition, and thus, drama: You just have to check administrational and Sysop's talk pages to rebut this: some Sysops already seek for more and more community approval, and some others just reject this concept with contempt. I try to (very bluntly) divide this into Sysops that frequent the A/VB page and those who don't, but whatever is the current state or distinction, hardly a policy like this will change it: Sysops will probably maintain the same grade of exposition they have right now.
• About good but not drama-prone Sysops getting demoted based on poor performance on their reviews because of their lack of exposition: Again, you just have to see how these "quiet and shy" guys got promoted in the first place: almost all of the guys that keep working on the wiki as Sysops on not drama-prone discussions and administrational tasks got promoted on unanimous or almost unanimous bids mostly by people that didn't ever had a chat with them, but vouched anyways based on their contributions and presentation. Why everyone would suddenly vote against a good Sysops now? Makes no sense.

That said, I find the reviews good myself because unnecessarily iddle Sysops can be reviewed out and if a Sysops is currently harming the wiki while engaging in non-misconduct vulnerable behaviour. Obviously if a Sysops isn't supported by the majority of the community because of his latest actions then there's obviously a problem and claiming that it's "the community's problem" is the easiest way out. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How is any of this needed in addition to Misconduct? Clearly if a sysop needs to go, then that can be backed up through that system. – Nubis ^NWO 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How is any of this 'popular election' stuff needed? Aren't members of parliament/congress removed by impeachment?

Now you see why we need reviews?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No. – Nubis ^NWO 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They're both (essentially) elected officials. They both must be answerable to the overarching will of the people, but immune to the day-to-day whim of the people, and answerable to the law above all. Hence performance reviews AND misconduct are both needed.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How is a performance review anything but a misconduct without the actual misconduct on the part of the sysop? – Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because a sysop can be unpopular and can push the limits without actually breaking the rules. The presidents of the past 60 years show how presidents can push the limits of constitutional law without technically breaking it. See? It's not always whether you break the rules; some sysops are so universally disliked that their decisions will always be contested and it would just be better not to have them as a sysop rather than deal with the constant trauma and drama.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No such people have gotten past promotions who are/were like that. – Nubis ^NWO 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Must I name names, or will you please just search some of the misconduct archives and see who has the longest to get the gist of who I mean? And I speak with no offense intended.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And clearly the wiki has not yet fallen apart because of it. – Nubis ^NWO 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but an overly large amount of time and energy has been vested in drama because of it. And perhaps 'universally disliked' is a bad term; 'two opposing factions which tend to conflict' might be a better explanation of why performance reviews are a good idea.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I like your sig colors. – Nubis ^NWO 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked to coordinate them.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should make them a rainbow. – Nubis ^NWO 00:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Like that?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah – Nubis ^NWO 00:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You mind if I relocate this last bit of our conversation about sigs to the Assylum? To avoid invoking the wrath of Vista, or Dux Ducis?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Shadow Lord speaks!

So many problems here. For starters, I'd just like to say TL;DR for about the last 3 pages of commentary. Bad form, I know, but I'm fairly sure it was a lot of arguing. So at the risk of being redundant I'll throw in my arguments and summarize some of the other ones. My main argument is the same as everybody else's really. Absolutely nothing good could come of this. Inactive sysops do not harm anything. Unlike unused pages or templates they do not clutter the wiki or use up space, and may occasionally return to help out. Espousing the idea that they should not be "allowed" to remain sysops despite their inactive status shows exactly what this is about. Its not a shiny tiara that they no longer deserve to wear, its a job. If it doesn't carry any rank or prestige (which is what we strive for, if not what we achieve) then there is no reason to say they're not earning it. I'm inactive, but I occasionally edit and I consult the other sysops sometimes on IRC when they're blocking people. Even if I wasn't, whats so terrible about my name showing up on a list of sysops? On to the precedence arguments. Yes we do it for bureaucrats, but that isn't analogous at all. bureaucrats must have reviews because their activity is absolutely vital to the functioning of the wiki. It would fall apart without them. Not so with sysops. I'm not sure what would be achieved by reviewing active sysops. If it isn't democracy as the proponents seem to insist then its a pointless kabuki dance. We already have plenty of places to discuss sysops, their behavior, and all the ensuing dramaz this entails. Tell me how would this play out? Certain people are saying this isn't a popularity contest, but how would it happen? If they didn't break any rules the final demotion decision would look something like this. "Lots of users don't like your attitude and we think it would be best if you stepped down". Thats not going to help the wiki or get rid of drama, and I think most reasonable people can see that. Finally, for those who actively promote this as a democratic process, or to those closet democrats who don't want to admit it, be careful when you apply democractic ideas to the internet. Democracy is not a panacea that fixes everything despite what we'd surely like to believe. Its a means to an end, and in this case a different end than ours. The wiki's purpose is first and foremost to create and preserve information, not create a democratic community. This policy creates ambiguity, paperwork, cliquishness, and perpetuates the violence of faction. Whatever meager returns it might provide would not be worth its problems. --Zaruthustra^Mod 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

TL;DR  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoisted by my own petard. Well played sir. Seriously though, a lot of that stuff was back and forth between certain people, whereas I'm trying to address the issues.--Zaruthustra^Mod 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're partially right; but democracy is the solution when properly balanced. A yearly or once every two years review of a sysop is only proper; it keeps them answerable to the will of the people- their true desires- without exposing them to the whims- their pathos, their sudden, irrational desires. So this is a good solution, and is about as strong as is appropriate; it could stand to be weakened or stengthened slightly, depending on your stand, but this is right in the middle of the appropriate zone. So I like this; it can be adjusted later, if it proves to be deficient. If I remember right... the bureaucrats still make the final decision here. So this is still immune to 'popularity contest' status, but allows the Bureaucrats to see the community's opinion; the Bureaucrats are chosen for their abilities to be objective and do their duty regardless of their emotions on the subject.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill, the whole point of this policy is a popularity request. Akule has repeatedly stated that its to test to see if sysops retain the "trust" of the community. That right there is the popularity contest, and since it is intended to test that, bureaucrats have to take that into account, cementing the popularity contest in policy. It isnt about seeing if they have done a good job, which would not be a popularity contest. It is about seeing which sysops happen to be popular at the time of the vote, and for that reason alone this policy is not only terrible, but abusable as well. You target system operator made a couple of controversial decisions. He was right, but one likes them. Theres a review period coming up, you push for him to be one of those being reviewed. You get your way, and a lot of people vote based on their bitterness at the recent cases. A few people are bitter but appreciate past work and either keep or abstain. End result is a chance to have the sysop you lined up in your crosshairs removed. An eventual result would be good sysops who are not popular sysops refraining from making decisions that need to be made for fear that some wikilawyer will abuse this policy to blow them out of the water in a couple of weeks time. I shall repeat myself: This is a policy to gauge the trust of the community for a sysop, which is just another buzzword for the sysops popularity. How, therefore, can this not be a popularity contest? Its well a disguised one, but it is there. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right; but there's got to be some way to have reviews which aren't a popularity contest; maybe a sysop review of the sysop, rather than a community review? It wouldn't be a vote, but rather sysops would offer up their opinions of the way the sysop has performed over the past year, and then the bureaucrats would decide? Would that be less of a popularity contest and more to the spirit of this policy? Combine that with the "sysops idling out" thing, and I think it would be a good policy.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As Zaruthustra said, whats the problem with idled sysops? They frequently return to help out. Examples from the recent past are Zaruthustra, Conndraka, Karlsbad, Nubis and, of course, myself. Why do there need to be reviews at all? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, why do we need bureaucrats to idle out? Can't they come back? What's applied to sysops, as far as I know, ought to be applicable to bureaucrats. Performance reviews, okay, I get the gist on that, but they exist for bureaucrats, so, again, I just don't like double standards.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but what kind of controversial decision could a Sysop make that would cause retribution from the community? The only thing i can think of would be a controversial banning... and with sufficient proof, why would anyone have enough hard feelings about it to vote against a Sysop in a review? Now my opinion: I do think that Sysops should be reviewed by the community periodically, but a free-for-all yes/no vote is not the best solution possible. Should said voting end up a popularity contest, and the Sysop in question fails the review, a random selection of general users could be called (say six or so, who would meet some kind of minimum edit/time requirements) and then they would review the Sysop themselves. This would function as a fall back to make sure that the community, and not just select individuals, thought that the Sysop was not responsible/trustworthy/whatever. Note that i didn't read everything above (I'm just your average user, heh) so this is just my take on things. --Kikashie ^ELT 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ive been making a few of them in recent months. Theres been the whole Nalikill being tossed off the wiki a few times, though that settled down because he kept foing it instead of reforming (Didnt stop me being put up for misconduct twice in the affair), then there was the whole Civility issue which was a non starter from the outset but raised both headaches and tempers. Another problem with your concept is that its impossible to select people that wont have a bias one way or the other. Why, exactly, do sysops need to be reveiewed? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know, to tell you the truth. I've been here on the wiki for a few months (say April, didn't edit at all back then) and i haven't really seen a sysop do anything that would require a community review. I do read a lot of the drama that goes on here, and (like a few others said) it seems this is just a policy to try to remove you, Grim. With no disrespect, i think that you do get harsh on people sometimes and on occasion vulgar (suggestions) but personality has no effect on what you guys do, which is basically janitorial work (no offense, of course). You delete a page here, ban a spammer there, move pages around (thanks, BTW). I would never want your job, it seems like the most boring thing ever. I guess the reason most people seek it is the prestige, and those are the Sysops that should come under review - the Sysops that aren't necessarily abusing their powers, but not making much of them (something that wouldn't qualify misconduct). Popularity contest in - communal review out, i suppose. And as for selecting un-biased fall back reviewers, how about people who didn't vote initially. How could you be biased if you didn't care enough to vote? --Kikashie ^ELT 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with your contention that most sysops are in it for the prestige (though I do agree many who apply for promotion have it in mind)... from what I've seen, the majority who make it through the process are simply in it to help out. You do get the odd bad-egg-purely-raised-on-popularity here and there, but they're mostly harmless - especially because one of the grounds for misconduct is using one's sysop status to threaten, or otherwise "lord over" people. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i said "seek" - by that i meant apply. --Kikashie ^ELT 03:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lady Misinterpretation is a fickle mistress... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

People can easily be biased if they didnt vote. All that needs to happen is them to either conciously decide not to participate to screw the guy later, they could just decide that adding their voidce to the chor would have no effect and wander off to do other things, or they could be on a vacation for the voting and miss their chance. The chances of these going up increases as the person in questions popularity decreases. There have been a number of prestige seeking sysops in the past, but these are almost always "voted" down and fail to become sysops, the last one i recall who appeared to treat it in this was was Matthew Farenheit, who had himself demoted shortly after i returned. Its a job, and while it can be enjoyable at times, the amount of public scrutiny wears on you, especially if you make a controversial decision. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let my silence be a proof of my absolute loath to your infunded accusations. I was more loathed than you most of the time, not popular at all, and you call me "prestige seeking sysop"... --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill, as Zaruthustra said "Yes we do it for bureaucrats, but that isn't analogous at all. bureaucrats must have reviews because their activity is absolutely vital to the functioning of the wiki. It would fall apart without them. Not so with sysops." It isnt a double standard. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's me CNR, but still... I don't buy that explanation. Sysops are just as vital to the day-to-day operations of the wiki; the number of userpages out of place and potential for vandal sprees alone, not to mention all else sysops do, means that the wiki needs sysops.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  02:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysops are not as vital. A sysop can bugger off and vanish for a year and it wont affect the wiki one bit. There are always more around to take up the slack. As we have limited ourselves to two crats, theres no real safety net where they are concerned. The reviews are for gauging activity as much as anything else. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

71 Kilobytes already?

Frankly, in my opinion, I think that the discussion growing to such a mass shows that this is too controversial to ever pass. Would the author do us the courtesy of withdrawing this? Saving us further wasting of kilobytes making the same points over and over?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? there is only a small handful of people actually making the conversations here. No way does it mean what the wiki general populice feels. At least its actually discussing something and taking up space, rather than a spamgun which worthlessly takes up space.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 09:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, that's a burn on me. Point taken.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  13:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Problems, Two Solutions

Problem #1: Idled sysops.

• Solution: alongside the list of sysops, place the date of their last edit (or provide information on that page about how a user can find out that information). Now you know when they were last active. (The solution is not to remove their sysop status, as they may have idled, but that doesn't mean they'll never come back, or that they're not involved on a meta level and available for duty if called upon.)

Problem #2: Sysops are elected for life.

• Solution: misconduct. By definition, a sysop can be considered to be doing their job well as long as they do not fall foul of the (comprehensive) misconduct regulations, which also include "excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki". If they're not guilty of misconduct, then (by logical definition) they're doing their job correctly, so there's no need to review them.

(Secret Problem #3: Akule doesn't like Grim and has tried and failed to get Kevan to demote him, so has created this policy in order to try to force a vote on Grim's sysop status.)

• (Secret solution: get down off your cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it. Or, charge him with misconduct.)

I think we should remember, in all of this, that the position of sysop is a voluntary one. And that this is a wiki for a relatively small game, which is supposed to be fun to take part in. Serious governmental regulations are perhaps a little out of place, if of interest to a select few users.

--Funt Solo ^QT 11:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

May I add that "Idled" sysops (could be for any reason, lets face it if your computer melts or soemthing, and it's a while before you can get the cash together for a new one, harldy your fault) are'nt realy a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no real limit on the amount of sysops that can be promoted, right? If there was an upward limit of 20 sysops and 10 went idle, then, sure there might be a problem. If anyone thinks there is somehow too few sysops to properly maintain the wiki, then go ahead and run for sysop, or get someone else to. You could even use that as an argument--Seventythree^Talk 13:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki" criterion is that most of the times you make a hollow case by using it, because if the Sysop in question has avoided to use certain words and/or failed to meet certain requirements then your case becomes mostly what the Sysop in question can argue against or not. Sysops that engage in these "bullying" actions generally have a great dexterity at debating, and the "evidence" you can gather depends so much on the eyes of the beholder that this Misconduct criterion is as good as dead. Not even users that obviously bullied their share in their own time, such as Cyberbob, have been prosecuted through that criterion. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So your problem is with bullying? I can understand that, and I think I speak for most users on the wiki when I say that If a misconduct case was bought where it was shown that a sysop was constantly using his powers to bully another user, constantly sought to demean that user and insult them that I would call for them to be demoted. Oh, and we're not talking about a row between two users here, we're talking about bullying. --Seventythree^Talk 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the effectiveness of the Misconduct regulations, then they should be reviewed, rather than an entire new policy formed to replace or usurp them. Also, Matthew, you don't cite any references, so I have to take what you're saying as hearsay. Also, I don't think it's helpful to accuse Cyberbob of bullying. Unless I've misunderstood, he voluntarily stepped down from the position of sysop, and thereafter failed to get voted back in. None of that proves any case of bullying. Again, it seems like hearsay and hyperbole in place of a cogent argument. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically it wasn't "voluntary demotion", though I knew what the outcome would be. I had a wikication coming up due to school, and I wanted to go out with a bang. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that. Damned edit conflicts. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FS, I'm not going to dig any of the 1 year old links where Cyberbob specifially mentions me not being a mod and thus, not having a say on the A/VB page. It's boring and I'm not a wikilawyer, neither my life is all about debunking arguments. Cyberbob didn't "voluntarily step down" his Sysop status, but started a review imitating Vista's, backfired it, tried to withdrawn it when it was already too late and got demoted against his own will. All of wich you should know if you had the slightiest idea what are you talking about, so I'll have to take you as clueless.

SA, now I really don't want to bring any personal issues into discussion. While I accept that the "idled out sysops" case is something to debate, I don't see how the reviewing active sysops part is a problem, and I'm talking of all Sysops not just the ones I care for, would like to see demoted or anything like that. And I don't specifically talk about "bullying a specifical user with a badge of authority" but the bullying the community in general giving the illusion that you have more of a say than they have. If it was only for Sysops-to-single-user bullying then it wouldn't be a problem after an arby's case or something like that. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind about withdrawing it precisely because I wanted to go out, FYI. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, before you call me clueless, you might like to note the part of my post where I say "unless I've misunderstood". So, you see, I was permitting for not knowing all of the facts. Rather than start up with the name calling, as you have both against Cyberbob and myself now, for no apparent reason, why don't you try to act like an adult and just stick to discussing the policy. I was absent from the wiki when Cyberbod "accidentally demoted himself" (or whatever it was), so of course I'm not going to know the details of it. It's not as if I spend my spare time looking over the history of this wiki. You do seem to have a talent for turning what's supposed to be a policy discussion into a slanging match between users. Please, try to focus a little less on your ego. I note that you haven't bothered to provide any evidence of any bullying, instead just attacking people. Honestly, if you can't debate the actual point in hand, there's no need to reply. Save up your words for when you have something worth saying. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted that part, and I noted as well that you called my arguments "hearsay and hyperbole" without much fundation. And now you accuse me of making this discussion personal myself and focusing on my ego: I wish not such a thing, but I'm being dragged towards that position and, if you wanted to, you would know that I'm usually the first one to drop a discussion when it's become personal (as I'm planning to do if this discussion get any more personal as well). If you want evidence (I hate to dig up in cases so OLD) you can have some on the Misconduct cases here. In the first case there Cyberbob clearly states that Gage's and my opinion have no weight and in the final ruling Karlsbad debunks this. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what you're trying to achieve here, Matt... I believe I've already admitted to the inappropriateness of much of my past conduct, have I not? Why do you keep trying to grind your heel in? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew - hearsay and hyperbole aren't insults unless you want to take them as such. They are criticisms, which I think are part of any debating process. Honestly, I've got nothing to gain here from having a personal name-calling match with you. If you present opinion without proof, then it's hearsay. If you say that there is a lot of bullying, without any evidence that anyone's been found guilty of bullying through the Misconduct procedure, then that's hyperbole. Calling me "clueless" in response is to divert attention away from your own argument's shortcomings by name-calling. And that's not an insult. It's just what you did. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Matthew, I followed your link to Cyberbob's 3 Misconduct cases, to find that one was declared "not proven", one was "not guilty" and one was a "gentle warning". Hardly a litany of heinous misconduct and bullying, I'm sure we can all agree. In particular, where you say "Karlsbad debunks this", he actually sarcastically thanks both you and Gage, essentially slapping both of you on the wrist for demonstrating a lack of "depth and veracity". That you've twisted this into his support for you is rather odd, to say the least. I think I'll stick by my "hearsay and hyperbole" judgement for now, given the evidence. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, Funt. Let us not forget that a user attacking someone and them responding in kind is not bullying. Bullying is much nastier, and insidous, something which, I am glad to say I have never seen on here. I've seen plenty of arguments, debates and full-on slagging matches though. What sort of revival of the misconduct procedure did you have in mind? Maybe a set scale, like Minor Misconduct, misconduct, serious misconduct and major misconduct? With the last two ending in a forced vote on the sysop in question? Don't shoot me for saying this, Just an idea!--Seventythree^Talk 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, actually... though defining what exactly falls under each category would be difficult, to say the least (intention is key here IMO). Another point of contention is whether the vote would be automatic or dependent on a guilty verdict. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that I don't know, 73. My only real point is that I don't think this policy is needed. (Frankly, I don't see a need for any change regarding either idled sysops or reviewing them - but that's not to say I wouldn't accept a different policy.) --Funt Solo ^QT 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess there would have to be five possible votes on the misconduct section. Not misconduct, Minor M, M, Serious M and Major M. Total the votes up, and whichever category has the most votes in it is the winner! In case of a tie, the verdict is reckoned to be one step down from the most major misconduct level in the tie. Would that satisfactoraly re-vamp the misconduct section, do you reckon?--Seventythree^Talk 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I can figure what he's going to say already. I'm not taking sides; but that would allow conflict a lot more, and would lead to a lot more misconduct convictions, as there would be fewer people who would sit on the fence now that they could vote 'minor misconduct', rather than having to go black or white.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  16:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes but Minor misconduct would be basicly "you slipped up, though it was in good faith. Don't do it again". No punishment would be leveled, unless the person under the misconduct case wanted to take one on.--Seventythree^Talk 16:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually really like that idea, 73. It removes somewhat the black & white of guilty vs. non-guilty and introduces a "yes, they're guilty, but c'mon, it wasn't that big a deal" option. Far more humane. If it's just yea vs. nay there's the danger of polarising the voters. Hurrah! An idea on this page that I like. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you inspired and added to it, Feel free to use it yourself as a proposal, If not, then I could. Up to you mate.--Seventythree^Talk 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've only just realised that Misconduct proceedings don't seem to involve any vote - it's just the (seemingly) collective judgement of the sysop team. Seems to work pretty well. I don't see any need for change. Maybe we should just send a free cookie and some milk to whoever feels really hard done by when they fail to get a sysop kicked off the 'net for a minor slight? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The words "salt" "rub" and "wound" spring to mind :)--Seventythree^Talk 20:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If they are unable to come to a consensus, then a vote is generally called. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the current system is that it is closed... only other sysops may make an opinion and that opens them to accusations of "closing ranks" to defend one another. I can think of a few recent decisions where a significant portion of users felt that their views were being ignored. I happen to agree that there was no technical misconduct but the cases should never have gotten to that point in the first place and did so because of poor handling. It is possible to do a job badly without breaking rules and without breaking rules or standing for voluntary review the sysop position is safe for ever! --Honestmistake 09:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I love it when people leave things out and purposefully try to misrepresent things. You know, I can't help but notice that the majority of the people who grumble about the inactive sysops clause are people who this would affect. Even if this doesn't pass, at least it brought some of the lame duck sysops back in order to do something even if it is for a few weeks. I also can't help but notice that some of the sysops who are against the review portion are more than likely the people who probably couldn't pass if they did what Cyberbob did and voluntarily go up for review. You disagree with that statement? Put your money where your mouth is and try it. Say what you will about him, but Cyberbob had the courage to do it.

1. You'll notice that some users will state something like: "we already have a ton of sysops. We don't need any more." When, in reality, we only have a few active sysops, some semi-active sysops, and then several people who do nothing for the wiki. We delete pictures, templates, and groups who are not actively used, so why do we keep sysops who are not in use? It just doesn't make any sense. However, sure. They could be summoned in order to do something (say come in special for a vandalism report, rule, and then go off into la-la land yet again), but they don't stick around. We require people signing up for sysops to have a large amount of edits under their belt and ask them: "So what have you done for us?", yet don't ask inactive sysops: "So, what have you done for us, lately?"
2. Ah, performance reviews. Mostly the arguments state that this is already addressed in misconduct. Peruse the guidelines for misconduct cases and the administrative abilities list. You'll note that "If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning." So no. Misconduct is not the fix. Under general conduct guidelines for sysops, it states: "System operators are merely especially trusted wiki users, and are beholden to the community just as any other user is." It's right there in the guidelines. Sysops are especially trusted users who are beholden (Owing something, such as gratitude, to another; indebted.) to the community. Thus, the community should get a chance to either verify their trust or be able to retract their trust for the sysops that are currently elected, just like they can for users who want to become sysops and for aspiring and current bureaucrats.
3. What did Kevan say in response to that statement I made about Grim?

Kevan said:

I agree that his attitude is needlessly unhealthy for the wiki, but I think you're misunderstanding what the word "trusted" means, in the context of sysops. If you're unhappy with the criteria under which sysops currently operate, you should put forward a proposed policy change, and bring up official misconduct charges for any breach of those criteria. (I'd support this, I just wouldn't unilaterally force it onto everyone.)

Right. What I am saying is: One person would not be able to "bring down" a sysop. Should I say that again? One person would not be able to "bring down" a sysop. It is the exact same system for nominating a sysop, with the general renewal rules for bureaucrats applied. Which means that the weight of one user is the same as every other user. If there is anything that can almost be universally agreed upon, is that there is no way in hell that any of the bureaucrats or sysops would say: "Golly gee. Akule disagrees with Grim's general attitude for being a sysop and compares him to Ludwig and the Desensitized mods. I'd best ignore what everyone else says kick him right out then!" Sound stupid? Then you have an idea of how the argument that I am trying to pull down Grim from being a sysop sounds to me.

Effectively, the bureaucrats would look at what the community as a whole said about the sysop and then make their determination. To say otherwise is calling the bureaucrats credibility into suspicion. What, they were elected into office and yet couldn't make any decisions because of their overwhelming bias and their constant penchant for following exactly what the community wants no matter who in the community asks? How is the misconduct page functioning as it is now, if this is such a problem? If your arguments are correct, then the misconduct page is even more ineffective at dealing with this situation than I have stated already. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No-ones slating what you're saying Akule, we would just rather make sure that this is firstly required, and if it is required wheter it could be solved by a simpler change. No point in adding something that could be solved with a much simpler change.--Seventythree^Talk 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No you are not slanting what I am saying, however, I know a few people who are. Regardless, I don't see how a requirement for a review once every two years would be so bad. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what worries me about you, Akule - you're incredibly preachy and you'd seemingly rather have your teeth pulled out than reach any kind of compromise of your ultimate goal - which is to punish the sysops of this community. You seem keen on evidence, so look to yourself first:

• "lame duck sysops":

• why should someone who watches and acts when necessary, instead of editing needlessly, be a lame-duck? You have a very black & white view of (partially) innactive sysops. You still haven't indicated any harm that a supposedly innactive sysop is doing to the community. No actual, concrete reason for removing them. It just seems that you've taken a dislike to them existing. Well, I must be honest - I rather dislike your high-handed, word-of-the-almighty attitude. How about you leave the wiki? No? Then why should the people you take a personal dislike to leave? Think about it, if you're capable of rational thought.

• "beholden to the community just as any other user is":

• just as any other user - are you suggesting, then, that we should all be put up for review as users, once a year? Okay, then - how about you go first? I'd just love to vote on whether or not you get to stay around.

"bring up official misconduct charges"

• What's that? "Misconduct". That's exactly what I suggested as a potential solution to your made-up problem. But no, you'd like it all your way - a purge! A purge of the sysops!

You've probably figured it out already - and I see no need to hide it - I think you're mouth is full of wrong, and I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and put this policy up for vote. With any luck, it'll get roundly f*cked and you'll crawl back under whatever rock you slithered from. Yes, I am slating you.

--Funt Solo ^QT 09:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said that sysops should leave the wiki. Just to have those sysops who have pretty much left be removed from their position, as they aren't using it. Next, I don't recall reading that regular users are beholden to the community, however sysops are. Finally, Kevan stated to basically define how a sysop should behave. I'm not doing that in this policy. This policy states that sysops should have to simply check to see if they have the community's continued support. Oh, and I figured you were, Funt. Hence why I usually ignored most of your comments, as you are simply trolling. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"beholden to the community just as any other user is". Which bit of that are you missing? And, yeah, an accusation of trolling is a great way to avoid the points of a discussion you can't answer. Neat trick, but an old one. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, too much text for me to read after coming back from my holiday

So much hubub! I think we need to just get a paragraph statement from all of the current active sysops and see what they think, under their own heading.

Another idea, maybe only have say 12 places for sysops, and no more? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps a term limit of one year for every sysop. Reapply at the end of your term to remain a sysop. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more for the 'no edits in the last 3 months = goodbye sysop' idea. Gets rid of the truely inactive faster than 1 year terms. I mean, UD has only been around for 2 years.--_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 01:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True. That's why I was saying that by the 4 year mark, we are going to have a lot of new users coming into play during that time, and those new people should be able to get a say about who is and who is not a sysop. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is I've noticed is that a lot of sysops coming back, conviently after you posted this after weeks or months of no activity just to bump their status by doing a few deletions or comments--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. So that's at least one side benefit of this policy. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is one a large number pal? – Nubis ^NWO 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

And actually I came back before this. Nice effort though.--Zaruthustra^Mod 07:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. For a very similar policy. Oh, and a vote on the suggestions page. The last time you did anything remotely close to using your sysop functions was June 9th, 2006. So, why are you a sysop again? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! It's because he was voted in as one and since then hasn't been demoted. Next question? --Funt Solo ^QT 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, that just proves that they never left. Making few contributions doesn't mean that they arn't checking on things making sure they are being done correctly. People don't need to make edits to be active. - If Jedaz = 08:41, 6 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

A term limit is a nice idea. It would mean that the community would still have the same amount of say in who would be a sysop as in the current proposal, but sysops would be spared from the potential embarrassment of failing a performance review. This feels more kind. The other advantage of a fixed term system is it's more similar to what people are already familiar with. That means people can more easily get a feel for the system, and more accurately see the good and bad bits in it. --Toejam 22:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Horrible idea, just means will be stuck with only popular and inactive sysops.--Karek^maps?! 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, take a look at how sysop promotions have gone in the past. [1] I don't think those were determined by who had the most friends, and I don't see why that should suddenly change. I'm sure there's an element of popularity there, but as flaws go, I don't think it's a huge one, and depending on a lot of other factors, it may be a price worth paying. --Toejam 18:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like this

That this policy is to get a large amount of sysops demoted so Akule can try and become a sysop? --Rogue 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its more a transparent attempt by him to get rid of the less popular sysops such as myself who have, through some dint of fate, managed to somehow annoy him at one time or another. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Sysop is supposed to be popular. It'd make their job a whole lot harder if they had to ban someone (well within their rights) who had a lot of friends. Thats one of the flaws with this, I can see it making the jobs of a sysop harder. There may be a way round it, and, while I agree that Akule may have a point when it comes to sysops being ore accountable, I can just see the policy hampering not only sysops but people who are getting hassled by petty vandals with no real sysop backup. Basicly this could lead to the more popular users getting away with whatever they want, becuase the sysop doesn't want to make enemies with them becasue their reveiw's coming up. I don't know, at the moment it just seems to be bringing in the worst parts (in my opininon) of democracy in the form of popularity contests. In conclusion: My opinion, Akule may be right in his underlying argument, but I'm not sure that this is the way to go about it.--Seventythree^Talk 07:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spot on, Seventythree - you summed up my thoughts exactly. IMO your idea above is a good starting point for an alternative to this. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you say that the current system is effectively the same thing, 73? The only difference is that the sysops are a part of the popular users who can get away with whatever they want. Look at how Jorm held the wiki hostage lest they remove criterion 12 of the speedy deletions pages. No repercussions for effectively saying: "If you don't vote for it, I will make your jobs a living hell on the deletion pages, sysops." --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rogue, I agree that there is an ulterior motive at work here, but I don't think Akule is after promotion. He's content to try (emphasis on try) to work the strings from the background - in essence getting things done the way he wants without the responsibility and scrutiny sysops have to endure. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what we all want ;) --Honestmistake 09:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

To varying degrees. Akule is just that much more malicious about it than most. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No Rogue, Akule has never wanted to be sysop, and that is usually the reason people bring up when he does policies, or brings up things for deletion that under against the wiki's copyright policy, especially when they aren't the popular thing to do. It's a shame that people like you, or others on this page will just come out and bash Akule rather than try to make this a better policy like others have done.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 14:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, when people try to compromise on the policy, he throws his toys out of the pram and falls back on "most words is right" tactics of debate, ending with some variation of "let's review all the sysops". If he's serious about democracy on the wiki, he's got a funny way of debating policies. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cyberbob, I have seen several of Akule's battles against Sysops, especially when he brings up misconduct cases which have very little merit or are outright misleading, this policy is a way for Akule to try and demote the Sysops that he has personal feuds with. The fact of the matter is, because he cannot go through the existing channels, because absolutely no rules are being broken by the Sysops, he is trying to get this policy passed in retaliation to the Sysops, even after this failed. He simply further exemplifies the attributes, which the arbitration case accuses him of. -- BKM 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I've seen, Akule has some good points to make, but occasionaly acts like an arse and gets into conflicts with sysops. Meh. Everyone acts like an arse sometimes, it doesn't influence my veiws on a suggestion or comment by Akule, and it shouldn't influence anyone elses. Like I said, Akule's got a point, but I don't think that aping the kind of "personality contest" Liberal Laisez-faire democracy found in my country and America is a good idea, because other systems work better.--Seventythree^Talk 17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to be a little helpful here, but I'm just placing a link to the current discussion on democracy on the wiki here, the two discussions seem to be overlapping a fair bit, and I thought I might make it easier for people! Delete it if it's a pain!--Seventythree^Talk 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a popularity contest? Bullshit

Your very claimed motivation for this undermines the argument you have tried to ram home (And failed). You claim this is not a popularity contest while at the same time trying to claim that the whole thing is about checking to see if they are "trusted" users, with the implication that, combined with the sysop promotion guidelines, would result in demotion if they didnt get a positive vote in their favour. Due to the fact that you have, deliberately in my opinion, failed to define trusted user, this means that it can only be a popularity contest, which not only contradicts your earlier claims that it isnt a vote, but is bad for oh so many reasons already brought up in this discussion as well as the others that came before it both on the policy discussion pages and elsewhere in the admin talk pages, not least of which is that sysops who are required to pander to the whims of the community have their hands tied when dealing with controversial matters. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Grim on this one. Sysops aren't supposed to be popular, well, they don't have to be poular, but courting popularity shouldn't be part of the job. While I don't deny the fact that there may be a problem with the system as it stands, this particular way you have suggested to deal with it will create way more problems than it will solve. (for detais, see some of the edits in the above section). I'm afraid I do not beleive that this policy in its current or a similar form will help at all with the problems you have outlined, merely create a whole load of new ones, and as such I would have to vote kill if this was bought up for voting. Just thought I'd make my position known.--Seventythree^Talk 18:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So, then the method for electing sysops is a popularity contest? If so, and that's so bad, then why do we have it that way? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was not just a vote on sysop promotion, but a Beurocrat descision--Seventythree^Talk 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

which is what this is.. its ultimately a crat decision.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. A few people that don't particularly like the user won't make a much of an impact, since it's the 'crat's decision in the end. Of course, if they're valid points...--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I still don't think this is the way to proceed. Seems to be a whole lot of hassle for something that could very well be sorted out on Misconduct.... --Seventythree^Talk 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The least that can be done is a policy to remove inactive sysops.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but does there need to be such a wide-reaching and complicated policy? With this sort of thing, simplicity is often the best policy, or simple as possible.--Seventythree^Talk 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So essentially a new policy that states "Sysops inactive for over blah blah months will be removed." Possible exceptions could be if the sysop told he/she was leaving for X months and would be back?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no. I am asking if the current method for electing sysops is a popularity contest or not. The guidelines I listed for the review are the exact same for election. If this policy would "make the sysop position a popularity contest", then it's been that way from the beginning. If it's been that way from the beginning then why are we still electing people that way if it's so bad? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because promotion bids aren't compulsory. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly not what you said above. So they are voluntary popularity contests? What happens with the newer users who had no part in electing a sysop? Are they just SOL for not signing up sooner? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant as in not compulsory for the people who undergo them. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if we were to create a term limit, much like politicians, this would be bad, why? It's already a popularity contest, by your own admission, so one would assume that the sysops should be beholden to their constituents lest they get put up for misconduct and removed for "failing their users". --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Except promotion bids shouldn't be popularity contests. Like I said - the main reason they haven't been changed is because people have to choose to undergo them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed, only that it isn't as big a problem. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that logic makes no sense. If the popularity contests are "bad", but shouldn't be changed, then why is a review once every two years so bad? Even then, according to the people who state that the misconduct page is currently the place to "go" for this sort of thing, then a group of wiki users should be able to theoretically go and put up a sysop for misconduct if they feel that the sysop no longer has their trust. Right? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

lrn2readkthx - Check out my last sentence. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So if it's "not a big problem" then sysops going up for review shouldn't be a big problem. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading what I'm writing? I don't think you are, because I quite clearly said that promotion bids aren't as big a problem because they aren't compulsory. The reviews are, which makes a substantial difference. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

... promotion bids aren't popularity contests, although popularity may affect the "votes" it's up to the few valid points and the 'crat.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes they are. Some users are able to vote objectively, but the vast majority are not. I've seen many a bid defeated on purely subjective reasons. It's like I said (distantly) above - 'crats have had to pass two popularity contests to reach their position. They're the cliquiest of the cliquey, so they're always going to go with the crowd. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your right. Would it be possible to have a group of neutrals not swayed by popularity regulating the decision? Or am I speaking foolishness?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically that should be the 'crats. The current mentality of the wiki populace, however, makes it virtually impossible to get someone truly unbiased into the position. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And technically, I'm the most unbiased one here, but thats due to the pure insanity of my mind! :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Akule, it says right on the Misconduct page "excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki", so you could have answered your own question by reading it. This was covered above, but you've chosen to ignore it. We're going around in circles here. I presume (should you reply to this at all) that we'll get straight back to the beginning with all this ah-ah-but-it-is-popularity-two-wrongs-make-a-right bullshit that you've been repeating ad nauseum. Is this some kind of advanced debating tactic? Bore the opposition senseless till they agree with you? --Funt Solo ^QT 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Basicly, yes, I understand that the user who whishes to go through to become a sysop has a poulartiy contest of sorts to face, however, I don't feel that further popularity contests are neccisary or helpfull. If anything, they're damaging. Read my argument above.--Seventythree^Talk 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Popularity contest or not I don't think that any role should be for life (or until proven guilty) people change and if the things that got them voted for are the things that change then people should be allowed to retract their support. A sysop who does not have the support of the community is going to find his every disicion questioned/scrutinized which just leads to meritless misconduct cases or bad will and drama. A decision does not need to break the rules to be a bad one but their is no way to check a sysop who repeatedly makes bad calls. This policy is totally tainted by Akules obvious bias but at least in principle he does have a point. Simply put the sysop role should be an annual (or bi-annual) appointment, at the end of their term they should be free to stand for re-election which is not the same as a review. Sure people like Grim will attract idiots like Akule trying to get spoil their chance of re-election but for everyone of them their are a lot more of us who will judge on whether the job gets done and done competently. I can think of few things I have agreed on with Grim or for that matter a few of the other sysops/ex-sysops... I would still vote for him (and them) again though as he can and does do the job well. Liking a person is not the same as respecting them and aknowledging their skills and commitment... I for one would like to think that enough of us can do this that the 'crat with the final call can see where reasoned opinion lies!--Honestmistake 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestmistake - I understand your perspective, but you're talking about theoretical, not actual, circumstances. Since a small pack of moderators (in the days before the Psyops) stopped playing ring-a-rosies and backing each other up willy-nilly, where's the need for this review process? Which sysop is so high-handed as to require any review? I'm all for things being fair and above board, but there's a counter-argument about there being too much red tape. Why go through a review process if the result is predetermined? Still, nobody has been able to point to the example of a sysop (active or inactive) that is actually doing harm to this wiki. There is no great call from the community for this proposal to be passed, that I can see. All we'd be doing, in creating this policy, is adding to the drama and red tape of this place. If we ever need a policy such as this, the community would call for it, and we could vote it in and implement it. Until then - what's the point? Can anyone just answer that simple question? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are advantages in getting policies sorted out ahead of time, and one of the main ones is that the discussions tend to be less about personalities and more about the policy. There's a lot of potential for damaging emotional conflict when one tries to use a policy to fix a wiki war that's already started. By implementing a policy in advance of when it's needed, it helps reduce the drama. --Toejam 23:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestmistake said:

I for one would like to think that enough of us can do this that the 'crat with the final call can see where reasoned opinion lies!

Seriously, Honest - this is just simply not the case. C'mon... you've been on the wiki long enough to know that. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i prove the point; I even voted for you...TWICE :) --Honestmistake 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that, and thanks... I'm not saying that nobody votes like that, only that those who do are but a tiny minority of the population. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 05:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough

This is long overdue for a vote. Please either send this to voting or allow it to be archived. --Zaruthustra^Mod 08:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the rules: Any policy should remain at least 3 days under discussion before it goes for voting. Any discussion which doesn't go to voting in 2 weeks will be archived. Im just hesitant to move it myself because theres enough fucking drama about me doing stuff already. But you feel free. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second...

Wasn't this archived, due to the fact that, as Grim pointed out, it had been under discussion for more than two weeks? How is it legal to resurrect it? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell. Lets just let it go, and see who can stuff the votes faster. I need some thing to watch while I work on this report.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To hell with that... if Akule can wikilawyer his way around every little loophole in the book, so can I. This vote is blatantly illegal - even more so when you look at the complete absence of discussion surrounding its retrieval from the archives! --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Aw, fine then. Archive it or whatever. And here I was with popcorn and everything. Want some SourPatch?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests#Automatic_Sysop_Cycling For future misconduct/vandal banning pleasure. – Nubis 03:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone like to archive this, or what? The vote is invalid. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you care so much if this was moved from the archives and put to vote? He could have easily made another page, placed the policy onto it, and then sent it to vote, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Just let the policy run it's course, and fail on it's own account. - If Jedaz = 07:50, 16 November 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

I care because it makes him look like a dick I'm being petty there's the potential for a repeat to be called down as a dupe. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule is to allow abandoned policies to be archived if the original author just forgets about them. This one wasn't abandoned. Perhaps if it was resurrected weeks later, you may be justified in your outrage, but as it is, it's just wikilawyering. Leave it alone to fail under it's own merits so we don't have to go over it again for a while -- boxy • talk • 08:54 16 November 2007 (BST)

Discussion from Voting

Discussion from Atticus Rex vote

That's one word.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's three and a half, if just to point the obvious. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 05:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Denis Leary reference. I guess to be clear I should have said, "Two words: Accounta fuckin' bility, OK?". -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 16:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I always loved that song.--Karek^maps?! 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from Wooty's vote

Wait- its not a vote? You killed a perfectly good policy...--Wooty 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from Cyberbob's vote

Akule said: I have proposed a policy concerning Performance Reviews for sysops on the Urban Dead wiki. If people wouldn't mind giving it a look, I'd appreciate it. If you do look, please read over the policy and decide for yourself if it would be a good thing or not and vote under the appropriate category. Thank you. It's inviting people to decide for themselves, much unlike any sort of meatpupettery I have ever seen on the past, most on Jorm's hosted IRC channels. If it's meatpupettery at all... it sucks at it. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also aimed at Brainstock, whose population Akule knows to be one of the most likely to support his position in all of UD. He couldn't have picked a better place to advertise. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of potentially bad mods so that perhaps more people will be active on the wiki? God forbid.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why hello thar, Mr. Meatpuppet. Your presence here proves my point, for would you have even noticed this policy otherwise? Given your absence these past few months, I think not. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I still check the wiki periodically for MHG purposes, I would have either noticed it on Brainstock or the next day.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This encourages sysops to not do their jobs, but of course you decided not too pay attention to that part right?--Karek^maps?! 03:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Come now, lets keep the accusations on the talk page. Along with long discussions and "personal attacks" that we know will soon start.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahah this is awesome. Neither Celsius or Akule will ever be able to say shit about calling for votes to me again, ever. Such wondrous, candy-like hypocrisy! Delicious!--Jorm 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Return to the hole you crawled on the last time Jorm, it was nice and quiet while you were out. I can't even figure out why you say that I can't object your wrongdoings anymore when I'm in no way associated with Akule, with any kind of meatpuppettery or with the hypocrisy you talk about. If you want to talk your ass out, at least do it with some fundaments, don't just present your deranged conclussions as facts out of the blue. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's hypocrisy or not, or meat puppetry or not, I'ms till gonna say it's a zombie conspiracy. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can't figure out why saying it's okay for Akule to call for voters while having repeatedly tried to get me cooked on a fire for it (whether or not I did) makes you into a raging hypocrite, then I'm sorry, because I don't know that it can be explained in any simpler terms than that.--Jorm 17:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right Jorm. I clearly failed at meatpuppetry. I asked people at the most popular board in UD to look at the policy and make their own decision. I should have followed your advice and do what you did on your forum. You have suggestion thread on Barhah to tell people what to vote for and how to vote. Now, before Cyberbob comes in with some tweenie-speak, here's the screenshots: page 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Jorm's Meatpuppetry.

1. Plague Bite - Jorm says keep screenshot.
2. Hm, this 'Necro Net' has some useful information after all - Jorm says kill screenshot.
3. Hagnat for Bureacrat Promotion September 2007 - Jorm says for screenshot.
4. Eliminate Criterion 12 - Jorm says for screenshot.
5. Battle of Blackmore Historical Event - Jorm says against screenshot.
6. Mayor of Malton - Jorm says vote for Murray screenshot.

Grim's Meatpuppetry. (Didn't he have a rant denouncing that?)

1. Axe Headshot - Grim says keep screenshot.
2. Hold the Door - Grim says keep screenshot.
3. Cellular Necrosis - Grim says keep screenshot.
4. Syringe Reworking - Grim says keep screenshot.
5. People-Reinforced Barricades - Grim says kill screenshot.
6. Dart Rifle - Grim says kill screenshot.
7. Lab Expertise - Grim says kill screenshot.
8. Lab Expertise Revisited - Grim says kill screenshot.
9. Dart Rifle 1.5 - Grim says keep screenshot.

Karek's Meatpuppetry (He might have his own opinions, but he has some for you too)

1. Trench Coats - Karek says keep screenshot.
2. Zombies-specific items to be held - Karek says keep screenshot.
3. Zombie Skills categories : Body and Brain - Karek says keep screenshot.
4. Headshot Change - Karek says keep screenshot.
5. Scanner Fix - Karek says kill screenshot.

Sonny's Meatpuppetry (Looks like Cyberbob had a hand, but still failed)

1. User:Saromu/DEM Roster - Sonny says keep screenshot.
2. User:Cyberbob/DEM Roster - Sonny says keep screenshot.
3. Leighton Kru/Cut You - Sonny says keep screenshot.
4. Hagnat Bureacrat Promotion September 2007 - Sonny also says for screenshot.
5. Axe27 Sysop Promotion Bid - Sonny says for screenshot.
6. Cyberbob's 4th Sysop Promotion Bid - Sonny says for screenshot.
7. McZeds Historical Group Voting - Sonny says against screenshot.
8. Petition Stop Real Gamer - Sonny says kill screenshot.
9. Salt The Metagame Policy - Sonny says kill screenshot.

Of course, don't listen to me. Sonny explains his and Jorm's intent by using meatpuppetry very clearly. Why, yes, there are screenshots. Now I know why your nickname is Jorpetto (and surprisingly it's not due to the big nose). --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OH NOES I'VE BEEN FOUND OUT, I shall never inform people of things that directly effect them again, evar!--Karek^maps?! 01:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you had to dig back almost two years for mine. I think i should inform you that in those day, the suggestions section was so ludicrously pro-survivor pro-trenchie it was absurd. That time was the great movement i led to get zombie players involved in that page. It wasnt like today, where such things are balanced out by roughly equal quantities of each. We fucking had to do it to crush that shit. You will also notice i havent done that in almost two years. Yet you still dig up 9. Nice attempted to smear campaign though. People could almost trust you if they dont click the links. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, how often do you have people vote in #rrf-ud? Just because you don't have any posts in public forums (as there are private boards), doesn't mean anything. You have a previous pattern of doing this. Simple as that. Let's not also look at your voting pattern concerning Jorm's meatpuppetry, shall we? ;) --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Where is my topic asking people to keep the C4NT ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you didn't make the list. It's not you, it's me. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Because i did it TWO FUCKING YEARS AGO (With a valid cause, i might add) i must be doing it now. I can only imagine how much loose wiring you have up there to have made that amazing leap. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it's okay as long as it was involving you and your goals, but when other people do it now (who aren't Jorm, Hagnat, Karek, or Sonny), that's unacceptable? I see that opinion mirrors your sysop style of moderation...--Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadnt noticed... no, im sorry, that assumes you even bothered to check, i almost credited you with too much intelligence, i havent posted on barhah.com for fucking ages, i havent contributed regularly there since i left the RRF over a year ago. I was only breifly back there in my short lived stint with the MOB, and havent checked anything outside the MOB hidden forums since then. But, please continue stroking your ego qith this off topic weak as piss personal attack, whatever floats your boat. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I also noticed that you are on IRC a lot as well. Then suddenly Hagnat, Cyberbob, and Nubis come online right after you. "My what a cooincidence. No, no one is talking on IRC." --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck? That's simply too stupid, even for you. I have never been on IRC in the same channel as Hagnat or Nubis, and I've rarely done anything other than argue with Grim when we have spoken (we dicussed Stargate one time). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nubis is on IRC? I must be a busy man indeed. Apparently im trying to take over the wiki, im wrapped up in some obscure and vastly overcomplicated conspiracy to meatpuppet by proxy, and on top of that im eating a pie. Where will i ever find the time to do my grocery shopping? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of meatpuppetry involving Sonny? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahem. As I was saying, that is ridiculous. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry that just happens to benefit you and from your friend? Regardless, I see something is being discussed on IRC. All we need now is jorm. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

O noes! Two people have the same opinion on a matter? No wai! FYI, I don't frequent IRC - and I haven't spoken to Sonny in months. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, does it matter really? Kevan takes into consideration both peer reviewed, undecided and rejected. Does it actually matter?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Gnome. It doesn't. That's not gonna stop this though. The only people who can stop this are involved in the discussion.--Seventythree^Talk 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If meatpupetry was isolated to suggestions only, it wouldnt be a problem. But meatpupetry happens in all votings. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah whatever. They'll tire eachother out.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I want a meatpuppet list >:( – Nubis 02:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Start telling people what to vote for! :D --Akule ^{School's in session.} 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to say on this; I've never denied calling my crew into vote on things. I think there's even a big discussion about voting blocs and the like where I described my philosophy; I don't think there's anything wrong with it (I do think that people saying it's wrong and then doing it themselves - or saying that it's okay for other people - is kind of fucked up).
I think it's totally awesome that Akule felt he needed to waste what looks like at least an hour scouring barhah.com for evidence of . . . something that has never been denied. Too right, dude! You're totally committed to your dumbassery! A++++ WOULD DO BUSINESS AGAIN!
Additionally, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by posting a photo of me and saying I had a "big nose", but wtf ever little man. If you want to play a game where someone's personal life and personal appearance are on the table, I can do that. Just lemme know.--Jorm 18:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you gave me a pretty hard time when I mentioned your meatpuppetry before this. This is really the first time I've seen you say on here: "I utilize meatpuppetry in order to sway votes my way." Yes. The picture is too far. I'll apologize for that. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeesus. I didn't even notice that. I've refrained from getting involved in this so far, but that's way too much. You don't drag people's personal lives into it, especialy not if you're gonna be insulting. Akule, you're a Jerk--Seventythree^Talk 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm an asshole. Slightly different, but bad enough. True though, dragging personal life into it was a tad bit too far, and I got carried away with it. I guess my personal life (or fictionalized versions of it) gets dragged up often enough, so this time I struck first. Should I go down to Rogue or Sonny's level? Probably not. It's a case of: what seems like a good idea the night before...--Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Jorm's picture was a bit overboard.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on this behavior. Feel free to contribute meaningfully.--Jorm 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See, I'd prefer it if more people were involved with the decisions on the policies and the administration of the wiki. Do I feel that telling people how to vote is a good thing? No, I don't. I'd prefer to just get people to look at things like the bureaucrat promotions or policy discussions and then provide their input, and not just the referrer's input. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And now, I actually have made a call for voting on barhah.com.--Jorm 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I expected it days ago, actually. Back when people were trying to get it removed for "being under discussion for too long" and other BS. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, I have to say, I don't know why people are worried about this being a popularity contest. If Sysop A bans a lot of people, there are probably going to be a lot of grateful wiki users who want to thank him/her for that should the chance ever come up. If Sysop B is being an idiot and everybody hates him/her... Probably not the best person to put in charge of running the wiki, is (s)he?--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 07:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If some of those bannages just happen to be controversial (despite being correct), people are going to hold a grudge. This would prevent sysops from ever making a risky decision; thus hamstringing the system. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving discussion to talk page

I'm sorry, but since when discussion has to go on the talk page? I know some of it is OOT (it always happens) but it's the second time I see you doing this on cases that don't really warrant such a move. And this page is policy discussion! Zero discussion on administrational pages was discussed and I think it was obviously implied that it couldn't be implemented without a policy. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not a policy discussion anymore. Its a policy vote. That said, we have discussion (talk) pages on which to have our discussions. I disagree with the moving of Wooty's followup comment though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the rules. Thanks. – Nubis 14:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dearie me...

Akule just can't stop himself from bringing in outside help, can he? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 06:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rules for starting a review

Just made some grammatical editing, no substance changes.--Ram Charger 04:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit rolled back. Once its up for voting, its finished. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's painful to read lol. I didn't even get down to the vote section. I guess it can be revised at an appropriate time (if it carries).--Ram Charger 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)