UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Third Bureaucrat

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


There is something to be said for a system where consensus between all bureaucrats needs to be reached before a promotion is deemed successful, given that it is a promotion to a position of some trust where forced demotions are extremely hard to achieve -- boxy talki 13:01 28 March 2008 (BST)

I agree, and am of the opinion that this policy is a stepping-stone to any such future process or policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Kevan considered to be the third bureaucrat? Nonetheless, I think this is a good idea. --ZsL 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Kevan is beyond classifying. What he says goes.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of 'crats, shouldt the march round be over a long time already ? This elections should only last 14 days, yknow. And about this policy... meh, boxy and vantar have been doing a wonderful job. We will only gain something with this policy in the advent of a sysop who antagonize with any of them be promoted to crat; --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they've been doing a wonderful job. I consider this an insurance policy - not against the current 'crats, but against accusations of there not being a consensus available for such things as sysop promotions. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

'::Turning promotions into a vote doesn't make it a consensus based system... in fact it encourages the opposite moreso than the current system -- boxy talki 14:36 28 March 2008 (BST)

I see your point, but it rather depends on the type of consensus system being operated. I was suggesting a three-delegate, unanimity minus one system, that first collects the views of the entire (participating) population, and is entrusted with making their decision based on those given views. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to see a larger Jedi Council... On paper it seems like a great idea... But I honestly see more 'crats being not so much good insurance, as actually creating the possibility for more problems! As it is, there has to be a consensus among the two 'crats. There has to be. But add a third to the mix, and you open the door for politicking and vote-whoring and all that kind of stuff... Because simple majority-rules is usually counter to consensus-driven decision-making. --WanYao 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
How about a "back-up crat" or Senate President if you want to call him that, that breaks the vote either way? He wouldn't affect regular decision making and would only be there in case of disagreement between the two bureacrats. --User:Axe27/Sig 17:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The second bureaucrat position was added as a backup already. I just don't see the need for adding yet another bureaucrat position. Bureaucrats are selected on their maturity and levelheadedness (Or in my case, a good ability to fake those qualities). Adding a 3rd bureaucrat will be useless and only increases the posibility of infighting. I don't think it'll add to the wiki. (but I'll still be available for the position of course...)-- Vista  +1  16:36, 2 April 2008 (BST)
Oh so I assume there's some form of quality control somewhere that I just can't quite see. Bureaucrats are elected only for their popularity, don't act like there's any more to it. As for having three, two does not require conversation or dispute, it does not require them to come to an agreement or consensus, there is not actual assessing of the people getting the promotions. Three makes gaining a consensus harder and thus leads to better quality control in promotions.--Karekmaps?! 18:35, 2 April 2008 (BST)
I don't think so. I wasn't all that popular really. I wasn't a meta player, didn't have a following or the backing of a large group, etc. I was just the most active sysop who wasn't involved in any drama at that time.
And that holds true for almost all the bureaucrats. People tend to chose active sysops that aren't involved in any drama for the most. Boxy, Vantar, Darth Sensitive for example. I can only think of two exceptions. Xoid did get involved in some drama but he worked 3 times as hard as anybody else. in the history of this wiki. The only one I can think of that was actually partly elected based on his popularity was Bob Hammero.
While I don't think the best candidate always won. I can't really think of somebody who wasn't qualified at all but got elected purely based on his popularity over a far more suitable candiate. But I'd like to hear if you have a different view on the past candiates. (And feel free to rip into me if that's your opinion, I won't mind.)-- Vista  +1  11:01, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Vista that's not even close to true, you and Boxy are both extremely popular because you don't get involved in the drama. And I've never hid the fact that I didn't like it when you were a 'crat, I also harbor no disillusionments that you would still be today if you hadn't stepped down yourself. Both you and Boxy have done some less than reputable stuff as bureaucrats which were why I was against Swiers, Mobious, and Matthew's promotions(aside from the other reason I was against Matthew's promotions), those are all cases where you did exactly what a 'crat shouldn't do by telling a user that they would be promoted before they even considered making a bid, in two of those cases you and boxy pushed the users into making the bid even though they didn't want to. Even with this brought up you were and are still popular enough that you'll never lose the seat because of your general inactivity in areas where drama abounds. It's rewarding avoidance, it's bad precedent, and it's overlooking double dealing because you avoid actually involving yourselves in the day to day work.--Karekmaps?! 23:21, 3 April 2008 (BST)
And don't take that as an insult, it's not intended as such. I know some people in this community get touchy over crap like that.--Karekmaps?! 23:29, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Well I asked for it, didn't I?  :) So I won't be insulted. But I do disagree with some of your points. You seem to talk about how popular I (and Boxy) was because of the way I conducted myself as a sysop. That is different from being popular as a person. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I didn't get along just fine with everybody but I certainly wasn't the social hub of the wiki the first time I became Bureaucrat. People liked the job I was doing more then me personally I think.
About the promotions, as far as I know I had nothing to with Mobius so you'll have to ask Boxy about that.
I did nominate Matthew, but I had no input in his promotion at all outside that, nor had my nomination of him the implicit promise that he would be promoted at all. I simply recognized that he had worked hard to improve those faults that in previous bids had the community divided on his suitability as a sysop and thought him ready this time. And as a great majority of the community agreed, boxy (who had nothing to with it all) promoted him, without any input from me. I was friendly with him on the wiki, but had my disagreements with him all the same, a similar situation I have with you in fact.
With Swiers I recognized somebody who did a lot of work for the UD community and had a good head on his shoulders. I thought he would be a good sysop. So I asked him if he wanted to be a sysop or not. He didn't at the time so I left it at that and didn't pursue any further. Neither me or boxy had anything to with his later nomination I believe. There certainly wasn't any favoritism as I had little involvement with him before and after. Favoritism could've been especially counterproductive as I always had a good working relation with almost all the sysops already.
I see that you have reservations against bureaucrats nominating users for sysop, and perhaps you are right. But I never pushed anybody into making bids, nor did I play favorites at all. If I created a false impression of any such action I apologize.
You also mentioned that the reason I wasn't involved in any drama was "work avoidance" While I certainly avoided a lot of work here during my two inactive periods (And I'm not sure I'm resuming active status just yet.) I never avoided the drama areas while active. In fact I tended to limit myself almost exclusively to those. When I came here I was promoted basically on the fact that I was one of the more levelheaded persons in the drama pit that was the old style suggestion page. I focused my actions mostly there (until the page calmed down and later was restyled) and those other drama areas like vandal banning, misconduct and arbitration since then. Outside of patrolling the suburb danger reports I don't see what more I could have done in such areas. I always saw myself as more of an old style moderator as a sysop actually. So while I'm not insulted, I am a bit surprised at that part of your characterization of me as I actually saw myself as the direct opposite while I was active here.-- Vista  +1  13:40, 4 April 2008 (BST)
Shame on you Vista! How could you do these EVIL things? Swiers, Mobius, even me? You're just unforgivable. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 06:43, 6 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, damn me for not liking blatant favoritism. There's obviously never been a case where a user he told to run because the people who knew better had left had been on friendly terms with him, that would be absurd.--Karekmaps?! 07:32, 6 April 2008 (BST)
I nominated people before I became a bureaucrat, and one or two afterwards... you mention Mobius and Swier (Vista wasn't even a crat when he was nominated btw), and yeah, they haven't done as much as I was hoping with the added powers. But by the same token they've done no harm either. And as to Matthew, he did no harm either. When it became clear that he wasn't suited to the job, he gave the position up. This policy isn't going to stop me nominating others... I already decided against that myself, in fact I seldom even vote now, unless I am strongly against -- boxy talki 08:11 6 April 2008 (BST)
You're positions on none of this surprises me and its a large portion of why I think having you and Vantar as the two 'crats is horribly dangerous and foolhardy. It's also why there needs to be a third 'crat, so something like "Well they don't abuse it" can't be used as justification every time someone expresses dislike for what, to me, is blatant abuse of 'crat powers. You're meant to be a filter not promote users who won't cause problems but to promote the users who will actually perform the deeds of the position you are promoting them to. You know, people like Vista who have the common sense and actual level of character that they would request demotion the moment they knew they wouldn't be able to fulfill those duties, not someone like Matthew who does nothing when promoted and asks for demotion because it was hurting his image of being a nuisance to SysOps.--Karekmaps?! 09:03, 6 April 2008 (BST)
Ok, you crossed the line there. It's ok if you mix up the advantages of having a third bureaucrat and "bureaucratic consensus" threw into the game with your very POV perceived disadvantages of having only one failable Bureaucrat make decisions at a time, because it's obvious that you're a very oppinionated, obnoxious moron and you HAVE to make they note you, but get your facts straight beforehand. Most of what you have said above is your oppinion of what role should sysops and bureaucrats fulfill and your dad's extremely biased irc-msn-inherited oppinion, but in no way the actual rules of the wiki. Done. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 19:00, 6 April 2008 (BST)
Yes, totally, I can't have opinions based off of their own statements and frequent discussions with both of them on their views related to promotions, it's not at all like they have to be shown extreme flaws in a person to decide not to promote them. And yes, I realize that I probably make my point better than most of the SysOps they have promoted because of exactly the thing you bring up through your hate-by-proxy of me. Vantar knows what I mean perfectly well(we've had lengthy discussions over exactly this), so does Boxy by now, you're the man coming late to the party without actually knowing what the hell you're talking about. --Karekmaps?! 23:32, 6 April 2008 (BST)
O.k. just for the record. Do you have a problem with me asking Matthew if he'd still wanted the position so wouldn't nominate him unnecessarily. Even though I recused myself from the promotion bid entirely?
Or you didn't think matthew was a suitable sysop and hold it against my judgment that I nominated him? I really can't make head or tails of what I supposedly did wrong.-- Vista  +1  20:01, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Instead hows about I direct you back to here or here(when I had barely even started out actually contributing to the wiki). And as far as your "involvement" goes, putting the bid in the first place is a stronger show of support than most any other show of support possible in the system, and even then those involved who spoke out against him were basically ignored even though it as obvious he would probably cause problems if he even tried to do anything back then and that he would probably take the same route he did to get to the point where he was promoted, doing nothing. Personally, I have a problem with you even putting in the bid, neutrally, I have a problem with the fact that it was let through when the end result that did occur was painfully obvious before even the promotion and the fact that he wanted it as a status symbol was just as obvious.--Karekmaps?! 06:16, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Changed to make it even less specific. Now it just says, essentially: "three 'crats allow for a 'crat majority vote, for whatever reason". --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs to address the problems it will create in 'Crat Promotions Votes. And yes, I do think this is sorely needed, if only to allow for some level of non-unanimity which is meant to come from having more than one but hasn't and doesn't.--Karekmaps?! 19:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean when you say "address the problems it will create in 'Crat Promotions Votes"? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[[User:|]] said:
# After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the bureaucrat position longest without an election.
[[User:|]] said:
# If, for any reason, an individual Bureaucrat position hasn't faced an election after 12 months, then an election is called after that period.
With those how they are it would, commonly, result in two very close 'crat bids if not on the same day, and it would result in common year long 'crats going without a promotion bid until the 12 months was reached, although 9 month bids would be more common as they would be the new minimum for a 'crat that doesn't step down. That's a bit of a problem considering the current policy is set up in a manner to make the 'crats have to go for a bid at least twice a year(which wouldn't hurt if it were doubled), that's a very significant lengthening and kinda removes the purpose of having an election every 3 months because it makes no changes really possible.--Karekmaps?! 20:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes - clearly a problem. Any suggested solutions welcome. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If the policy changes in order to also reduce the periodic elections to one every two months without one, then the problem you mention is gone and you would have Bureaucrats reapplying once every 6 months, as it works now. But if we take the change further and include your proposed change (halve the period a Bureaucrat remains uncontested) then we will have elections every month, and considering that they take at least two weeks to be resolved, then we have a very political wiki. --Starplatinum 02:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see 3 crats with a 6 month election period. Longest standing at that point steps down and is ineligable to stand for that round. Should mean a new face every 18 months, even if the old one comes back after 6 more months. I suppose it could result in a 4 crat team with one always in waiting but still. --Honestmistake 23:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Following points made above, I've altered it to include "3 crats with a 6 month election period". I'm going to leave aside the question of running for one's own seat, as that is being discussed in the separate Bureaucrat Election Tweak policy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Any more for any more?

Anything obvious anyone thinks this policy needs (apart from a headshot) before it goes to vote in approx. 24 hours? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:17, 30 March 2008 (BST)

I don't think so. You could change the 6 months line to a longer period in order to avoid elections coming in pairs in case of the resignation of a Bureaucrat, but this is a non-issue and I don't think someone will bother if we hold 2 elections simultaneously. Ensuring that any Bureaucrat can't avoid being reviewed every 6 months seems more important. --Starplatinum 16:19, 30 March 2008 (BST)
Don't see a real need for elections every 2 months, keep it as 3 months between elections (unless someone steps down) but disallow the current crats from standing. New election as soon as this passes with the other 2 cycled in 3 and 6 months time. A 9 month term may seem a long time but given how few people have a problem with how the crats have been working this is more about spreading the load rather than anything else! --Honestmistake 12:11, 2 April 2008 (BST)
Who are those few people, I know many of the active wiki users don't like how the crat system works but don't vote certain users out because they don't think there is anyone else they want doing the job. That in and of itself is a perfect reason why a 'crat shouldn't be able to go that long without a promotion, they are the ones who determine who can challenge them for the position.--Karekmaps?! 18:37, 2 April 2008 (BST)
I suspect you will find more active users who dislike the fact that they have no say over who holds the sysop position, a fair number of the current team have been in place for well over 12 months which is longer than a lot of the community have been here. Even those of us that have been here longer than that would (i suspect) like a method other than misconduct to remove sysop power. I personally do not like the tendency to scream about Crats being untouchable while a good number of those people resist any change to the sysop position claiming that it would become a popularity contest.... how would making crat elections reduce the element of popularity that it already needs? --Honestmistake 01:31, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Most of the sysops that are currently active, and are the ones doing most all of the work, have not been promoted for more than 4 months, myself and AHLG being the too longest seated. Boxy just came back from a short stint of nothingness and Vantar tends to stick solely to categorizing things, a completely non-sysop task. Conndraka was doing stuff for a bit but seems to have vanished again.--Karekmaps?! 03:13, 3 April 2008 (BST)
And the reason, in a democracy, you enforce term limits, along with regular and common promotions is to prevent one popular group from holding control for too long, to prevent the system from becoming one party or forcibly dominated by one candidate. Just look into how presidential term limits came about in America. The point isn't to oust people who are doing a good job, it's to keep people from having absolute incontestable control because that in and of itself leads to problems.--Karekmaps?! 03:17, 3 April 2008 (BST)
Just because the President of the US has a term limit, doesn't mean it's a necessity for democracy to work. Australia doesn't limit the term of their prime minister, and it works well enough. I'd suspect that the great majority of successful, democratically elected positions arn't term limited -- boxy talki 04:06 13 April 2008 (BST)
Yes, lets talk about countries instead of the point I was making. --Karekmaps?! 10:01, 13 April 2008 (BST)
You don't have a point. Democracy doesn't rely on limited terms, and I (because it is about me and how long I've held the position) don't have absolutely incontestable control... exactly the opposite in fact. Every bureaucrat position is contested at least every 12 months (usually more often) -- boxy talki 11:10 13 April 2008 (BST)
Oh I have a point, you're just too close to see it. Democracy does not rely on term limits, no, but in a real democracy the closest thing possible to a 'Crat is a President/Primer who can completely control everyone in every office of government including those responsible for his own punishment if he violets the rules he's bound too. And you seem to be taking this more personally than it is intended to be.--Karekmaps?! 16:14, 13 April 2008 (BST)
ahah, Well, why shouldn't he take it personally? You've accused him of abusing his position several times on this page. You've claim to act on basis of an idea that seems a complete caricature bureaucrat. What kind of power would the bureaucrat use to punish a sysop that ruled him a vandal? I guess the bureaucrat could promote him again, but I doubt that would inspire much dread...
A bureaucrat has no power over other sysops. Every important policy is voted upon by the entire community. He can't punish anybody anymore then a regular sysop can. He's not allowed to demote without consent. Seriously, how would a bureaucrat control everyone in every office of this wiki?
Pray tell, evil people want to know... (You never know, I might one day be bureaucrat for the third time, and while I got the evil laughter down pat it would be so still won't know how to evilly control my empire the wiki.)-- Vista  +1  19:48, 13 April 2008 (BST)
Through promotion, through filling the list with useless users who are only notable for two things, not actually doing anything, and liking said 'crat. I can think of about a half dozen that really serve no purpose other than commenting on misconduct cases right now off the top of my head. As for the other, I expect more from Boxy than that I expect him to be able to take criticism and responsibility for his own actions, just like I expect the same from you, it's what makes a good SysOp. However promoting users except when you're shown before hand that they will probably abuse their powers, that's worse 'crating then most 'crats, its ignorance of why you were put in the role in the first place with the trade off that it's probably popular, you're there to filter out the people that aren't going to help, not just the people that will only cause problems, and you're there to keep every schmoes from having access to personal information that could be used, with a slight bit of knowledge, to seriously harm the wiki's users. That's your job, in my opinion certain choices the 'Crat team has been making are contrary to those tasks, just because Boxy might take it personally doesn't mean I'm not going to tell him when I think he screwed up, and I expect him to take that because it comes with the position, if he doesn't like it he should ask for demotion(this is the same stance I have taken again and again regarding sysops as well just so you all know it's not unique to now or Boxy).--Karekmaps?! 05:56, 14 April 2008 (BST)
Karek, I'll say this gently. Your opinion about the role of the bureaucrats and the sysops not based on the function they have on this wiki. Your belief how people function and should function has shown no relation to actual fact.

In this discussion with me you kept asserting serveral highly insulting falsehoods as truths. I can only hope that you are over stating your case accidently. I've been very patient with you, but I have to put the record straight a bit here. Please read the following carefully. It was certainly written without rancour.

First. please don't ever claim again in a discussion with me that you have special knowledge of what motivates me. You don't. And your assertions are highly arrogant and extremely insulting. Don't insinuate that I've ever been motived by popularity here ever again. Don't insult me by claiming that I have ever been less then honest in my motivations. Seeing from our disucssions your grasp of what motivates me is simply non-existant. You didn't even know where and how I was active on this wiki.
You may have read that as if I was angry, but I assure you it wasn't. It was merely laying some ground rules to continue our discussion. I haven't placed your motivations in doubt. And it is no more then polite to grant me the same curtesy, isn't it?
Second. We differ from opinion on the role of sysops and bureaucrats. That is o.k. we can argue about that, without problem. However several times you claimed that I acted in bad faith based on your perception of my actions without even checking the facts with me or accounting for the possibility that I acted in good faith, just based in my view what the role of sysops and bureaucrats are. A view based in almost two years of on and off sysopship, about half a year of bureaucratship or something like that and actually being around when the wiki was being shaped in the beginning, sysops given their roles, and quite instrumental in the shaping of the bureaucrat position as the first chosen bureaucrat after Odd starter and contributer to a large part of the rules about that postion and the wiki in general that are around. So just humour this old geezer and assume that his view of those positions is roughly as valid as yours, shall we?.
So let us continue our discussion with me stating unequivilantly that I never used my position to promote somebody who I didn't think completely suited to the task. That I did not gave anybody any preferencial treatment because I thought that it would benefit me instead of the wiki. With everybody I vouched for, nominated, or promoted I did so because I believed they would add to the health of the wiki in general. I've been out of highschool for quite a while now and the fun of forming cliques and little gangs lost it flavor after the first decade of working. A good working relation with my colleques is far more important to me then if people think I'm cool. I'm not here to be a popular leader of a group users. I'm here to enjoy myself and relax while doing something that I like. Plenty of times I've taken impopular positions and argued quite vehemently with people. Grim S and Hagnat are probably the persons I have had both the most fun with on this wiki while both their views and style of sysoping are diamatricallly opposed to mine. Why should I play favorites with people if I like a good well reasoned argument better then somebody agreeing with me?
Good. I have a very different view of what the role of a sysop actually is. as far I gather you fault me for allowing people to be promoted that didn't use their powers as much as you'd like. For you it seems it only counts if a sysop is constantly using his or her powers to better the wiki. Promoting people that are suitable but unneeded is a waste. For people that are unqualified a sin. If I'm wrong please correct me.
I disagree. I remember the early days that there was only one sysop active at all. When Librianbrent was forced to rule on his own misconduct case after a week as he was the only one left with the authority to ban himself. Or when zaruthustra wanted to take a holiday it was a real problem as nobody was there to replace him. Because of that I think having a quite a few sysops in reserve is actually a good thing. If you look at the actual workload that requires sysop powers 3 dedicated sysops might be enough. But I'd rather have about a dozen active. And I know this because I also have had my time as the sole active sysop a week here and there back in the day, just like all the older sysops. Even as that means that some of them won't use that power either because they don't feel like it, or because all the work has already been done. All that is required in my view is a good responsible head on their shoulders, a good working knowledge of the wiki and it's rules and a decent activity level.
Unlike what you said inactive users don't get promoted. An edit count in the high thousands is rather normal.
With swiers case I can be rather quickly. I had little involvement with him. He and I weren't especially close. I just thought him suited and objective, unbeholded to anybody. I asked him if I could nominate him because I thought he would do well. He said he had no interest in being a sysop, not even a back up one. So I forgot all about it and was quite surprised when he later changed his mind. At no point was there any garantee that he would become a sysop automatically. None at all. Both before and after wards swiers and I were no more friendly then I was wih any user on this wiki. When he was nominated I had nothing to do with his bid, did nothing special that I didn't do every bid. I did give my statement as to make clear how I thought and to avoid any perception of duplicity. If you find any fault with my conduct there please tel me as I completely fail to see any conflict of interest.
Unfortuneatly I'll have to leave Matthew's nomination to tomorrow and my motivation as it's rather late here. Please excuse my lenghty comment as I'm interested in explaining my position clearly. I certainly value your input, but want to clear up any misunderstanding you have about me and my honesty. As I actually value my integrity quite highly.-- Vista  +1  22:30, 14 April 2008 (BST)
I'll be sure to reply to you in more detail later but I'll point out that I think you are misunderstanding my use of the word you in the above comment, it wasn't directed at you it was a general usage.--Karekmaps?! 04:00, 15 April 2008 (BST)
Vista said:
Promoting people that are suitable but unneeded is a waste. For people that are unqualified a sin. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Yes, actually, that does somewhat some up my position on the matter but, I should probably point out I have an extremely loose definition of unneeded and useless, specifically Dux Ducis and Mobious are perfect examples of unneeded and useless SysOps who are only in the role because it's being used as a status position and they are very much inactive, neither one having contributed pretty much anything since they were promoted and neither one having used the "powers" they were given for anything aside from ruling on misconduct cases every once in a while and, when pushed by Grim, deleting revision spam from his own personal pet project. It's not easy to get termed useless in the position where there is always something needing doing and promoting users that due the kind of thing those two do and telling them they don't need to do anything just to be a name on a list, that is negligence it's just as much negligence as them refusing to do anything and not putting in for demotion.
Second, I don't care what motivates you it's the actual result of your actions that concerns me but, I have little doubts on the matter of your trustworthiness/honesty, see the portion where I said I believed you were a good SysOp. I actually do divide that line along users I think have shown the ability to be neutral and reasoning when the position calls for it and If I thought you were just here because you like your name in the lights I would not consider you a good SysOp, It's part of the reason I personally dislike MatthewFarenheit's time as a SysOp because he made it exceedingly clear that's why he wanted it, right down to the reason for his own demotion request.
And now for the other thing, the role of 'Crat/SysOp, and I will point out that if I seem annoyed it's because you seem to be insinuating you know better because you've been around longer something that is hardly true in regards to that position, and hardly true in regards to the available knowledge base(I may not have been there but I've seen most everything that happened then). The position of 'Crats and SysOps are those of trusted users who have proven they can and will perform the duties of the job, the job description may have changed some with time but, right down to the first 5-6 promoted users when User:Katthew was a Moderator, this was the case, they were put into the position because someone was needed who could perform those tasks and, at that time, before CheckUser was added, there was less needed to do the task, less trust placed in the user but, there was still the requirement of trust that they would perform their job, Katthew's demotion shows that very well. Amazing's promotion and Odd Starter's demotions do the exact same thing again, after the position had changed into pretty much what it is today. The position of a 'Crat is one of quality control the purpose of the job is to make sure users that can't be trusted don't get into the position where they can abuse the powers we are given and that is more important now than ever simply because of the extensions currently installed and in use on this wiki. I don't think this is a position anyone can debate without claiming that SysOps don't have access to personally identifying information that can be used in an extremely malicious manner to cause real harm, there's a reason it's information usually only provided to the administration of the site and trusted users. But, of course, this requires the belief, the one I base on the actual fact of what we can do instead of what other SysOps say that we are more than just "Janitors", we are "Janitors with the keys to the safe containing all the companies money" would be a more exact characterization of that if you want the "Civil Servants" theme. All the claim that we are "Janitors" does is serve as an excuse to ignore the actual responsibility that came with the promotion, it's community ass kissery that says to the little guy "Well, I'm stealing your lunch now but some day you can be like me too" it's crap, crap CRAP CRAP It does not mean what you want it to mean, what it means is not "We're here to pick up after the community" it means "I think everyone without a highschool education should be allowed to do my job" it means "It's ok, what we do doesn't matter anyway." It belittles us, it belittles the community, and it belittles the people who get punished because we're too busy playing catch with shotguns. There can be no trust in the Administration team when earning it is not a requirement in them getting promoted. And second, if the big criteria is them being dedicated to helping the running of the wiki, what kind of dedicated user is so dedicated they don't do anything?
And last thing for the last thing, I never said you were making actions to be popular I said you were popular because of certain actions you made, I said said popularity influenced certain other actions, like MatthewFarenheit's promotion bid, even though you claim you chose to recuse yourself from involvement in it you're being the one to put him forward effected it far more than I think you know. When I say having an opinion about something or taking inaction will make you more popular I'm not saying your doing it because you want to be more popular, why you're doing it doesn't matter the point is you're getting more power from being less worthy of it, less informed, less involved, and most importantly less discriminating in a role based largely off of your ability to promote users based on your judgment. Promoting useless users may not be the intended purpose, not even creating what is essentially a tyranny of your opinion above all others, doesn't change that it's the end result of the actions taken, it doesn't change that if you(Vista) are on the table for 'Crat you're highly likely to get it, it doesn't change that Boxy will never get taken out of the position regardless of how bad of a judgement call he makes without either going idol, causing some drama on the level of a wikigate, or promoting someone Kevan himself decides is so dangerous that a user willing to promote them should no longer hold that position. You(the current and recent[year+] 'Crats) have gotten the position not because you have better judgement but because other people are the ones that are making most of the judgement calls, because you have less name association with actions some users don't like, because you pretty much keep to things that either no one sees or can never actually require you to take a stance on something, WelcomeNewbie, Categorization, etc. You get the position because someone else takes the blame and that's the extremely simplified version of the matter, not that your opinion is more respected, not that you have more of the communities trust, not because you're more competent, and not because you have a better grasp on what the position requires or who should be a SysOp. And the quickest way to prove you actually do deserve the position is to realize when your('crat) own personal beliefs would come at the expense of the community, to know, not only, when to step down but when to do what you would prefer not to, and that includes not treating promotions like a damn community vote where the people who actively refuse to do anything on the wiki have as much say as the people who actually know the user up for promotion's history.--Karekmaps?! 05:23, 15 April 2008 (BST)

I'll be voting no. This isn't the policy discussion to limit terms (there's another one active for that), this is simply to add another 'crat, and make the election frequency shorter. Having a third 'crat doesn't improve the wiki enough to warrant the added navel gazing that elections are. It doesn't make it any less a "popularity contest" as is often complained about... and I don't see any way to fix that "problem" and still remain essentially democratic -- boxy talki 06:46 3 April 2008 (BST)

I do agree that "term durations" should subject to a different discussion but as long as this is merely a vote for a third crat I will be willing to vote yes. I believe it would go a long way towards balancing any percieved bias in Boxy (currently the only Crat we ever hear from!) as well as providing a tie breaker in the event of Crats disagreeing on something. As for Kareks point... I mostly agree about why we have elections but our current system for sysops does exactly what you say. Popularity rather than fitness are often the measure that people become sysops by and then, provided they do not break the rules, they are unassailable even if people do not like how they perform the job. --Honestmistake 09:58, 3 April 2008 (BST)

I'll be voting... wait, you'll find that out when you actually send the policy to vote. Please do it already. --Starplatinum 07:00, 4 April 2008 (BST)

More voting rounds?

No! Absolutely not! If people want to add a third 'crat, fine! but dont make it so that we have MORE promotion rounds. The current guidelines already says that if a crat didnt faced a review in 12 monts his position will be reviewed in the next round. With 3 crats, that means nine months with the power stick unless another crat ask for his own demotion before... which would then lead to a possible 12 months period. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:40, 4 April 2008 (BST)

Voting Discussion.

  1. There hasn't ever been any disagreement between bureaucrats as to whether to promote or not, that I know of, so a tie breaker just isn't needed. As far as I'm concerned, either of the 'crats has veto power, adding another is unneeded bureaucracy -- boxy talki 04:02 13 April 2008 (BST)
    I agree with what you said here, and believe that three are required to make a decision in the case of conflict. If both the current two have opposing veto, then stalemate is the result. (I'm thinking of future policy alterations, such as allowing for sysop demotion through Misconduct, on a scaled punishment system similar to A/VB, for example.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:49, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    And guess what? Let's say there was disagreement, or some kind of stand-off? Well, we already have a third crat. His name is Kevan. And Kevan can do whatever he wants, promote, demote, emote, cremate... including axe crats. --WanYao 17:10, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Well, indeed. He doesn't tend to step into wiki affairs, though, does he? In fact, whenever confronted with a request to enforce some police action, my memory is that he tends to suggest a policy be enacted for whatever action is being promoted to him. That attitude, I assume, leaves him free to concentrate his efforts elswhere and allow the wiki to run itself. Not that I mind if this policy passes or fails: I don't. The only effect I can think of (if it passes) is that accusations of a hive-mind 'crat team of two would be altered to accusations of a hive-mind 'crat team of three, in the matter of sysop creation (which is the only matter where a 'crat has exclusive powers). Thinking optimistically, such accusations might be lessened. I see no negative effect. Anyway, vote as you will. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:32, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Kevan can not count as a 'Crat, not only because he goes out of his way to remain uninvolved in all promotions but also because he is the end all be all here, he is not held responsible by any of the communities standards and if he suddenly decided to change the way things are done it's his to change. He's above the 'crats but they are in no way answerable to him.--Karekmaps?! 18:16, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Simple Answer: Point.--Karekmaps?! 18:18, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    I don't think you understand what I mean by veto. As far as I'm concerned, if either (any) bureaucrat disagrees with a promotion enough to insist on stopping the promotion, then the promotion is not successful. There is no deadlock, no vote, just an unsuccessful bid. I think this is the best way, meaning that only sysops with the total confidence of both (all) crats gets promoted -- boxy talki 10:28 14 April 2008 (BST)
    I don't know about anyone else but that's a massively huge reason why I am for this policy, consensus shouldn't be easy to get in the case of SysOp promotions.--Karekmaps?! 10:35, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    The whole basis of this policy to add another crat seems to be that it will allow a vote that can negate the disagreement of a single crat wishing to veto a promotion... it will make it easier to get in, IMO -- boxy talki 11:04 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Not with the current promotions policy it won't, and even though it's mentioned in the starting of this policy this policy can't, and shouldn't, make that change in it's current form, however if the wiki's polocies are changed to allow for majority muscling then that would be a problem and would result in a more popular users get easy promotions system. Promotions are still for consensus all this policy is pertaining to is a Third Bureaucrat otherwise it's being purposely misleading and is not a valid communal vote if it's used as an excuse for anything else.--Karekmaps?! 11:26, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    This policy can, and will make that change, because it's exactly what is spelled out, and what people are voting on. A third crat to break deadlocks. If it conflicts with current policy, those policies will be changed... that's the whole point of these votes, the community gets what the community wants, and it seems that the community wants bureaucrats to vote -- boxy talki 11:31 14 April 2008 (BST)
    I chose the wording of the policy very carefully indeed. It says: "in the event of disagreement, there can be a majority decision reached amongst the bureaucrat team." I've enboldened the relevant word. It does not say "will", only "can". Further policies would be required to force the bureaucrat team to take majority votes on any given decision. All this policy actually does is create a third 'crat. That's it. End of story. I assumed that the voters would be able to read and cogitate to reach a similar conclusion. It may be considered a stepping-stone policy, but that's a potential only. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:17, 14 April 2008 (BST)
  1. I was for it since the beginning. It's curious that the third, "tie-breaker" bureaucrat that will be elected will probably be a Sysop that claimed he will break any rule as long as he considers it's for the best of us all. It just adds awesomeness to this policy effects IMHO. --Starplatinum 04:29, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Yeah, hopefully a number of people will have realised how dangerous he'd be if he had the job. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:34, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    More awesomeness then! Yum-Yum! --Starplatinum 04:37, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Couldn't you guys say my name directly ? It's not like anyone who follows the wiki drama don't know about who you are talking about. Anyway, if this policy gets approved (and it seems it will be) i don't plan to run for crat. I dont seek that promotion that much as i did in the past, and I'd rather get promoted in a regular election than a "forced", so that no one can say i only got promoted because of this policy, if i even would have been promoted with it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:06, 14 April 2008 (BST)

  1. I fail to see why we even need two. It's not a demanding position. Why not scale it down to a single position again?-- Vista  +1  19:14, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    remember when hammero was the only crat, and he then went idle ? That's why we have two positions now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:19, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    well not really. Hammero was already the second bureaucrat long before xoid idled out. That we had no active bureaucrat was because he and Xoid both idled out without demoting themselves. But that's already fixed in the current rules that calls for a new Bureaucrat election after a single month without edits from one. A second or third bureaucrat just isn't needed anymore.-- Vista  +1  20:08, 13 April 2008 (BST)
    Darth Sensitive.--Karekmaps?! 05:33, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Xoid was all but idled out, but to his credit he did hang around long enough to organise the promotion process for his replacement, and to promote them, and demote himself. I don't think we've ever been left without a crat that at least answers emails when needed (at least not in my time) -- boxy talki 10:41 14 April 2008 (BST)
    OK, Ok, it was the wrong name, but the point was made: somewhere in this wiki past we had only one crat and he went idle, leaving Kevan to promote regular users. To avoid this kind of situation, we promoted two crats. That's why we can't go back to only one, as vista asked in his vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:50, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Actually, the only time we were without a bureaucrat and Kevan had top promote users himself was when Kevan demoted Odd Starter over the Amazing sysop scandal without promoting anybody in his place for several months. And back then we didn't have a bureaucrat promotion system. As soon as we had a bureaucrat selection system we've never been without a bureaucrat again. Back then we might have needed more crats, but since part of the changes in the system were especially designed to eliminate and replagainace idled out Bureaucrats I simply don't see how we could end up in the same situation again.-- Vista  +1  12:51, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Simple question: who would demote the inactive crat ? Kevan ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:01, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    We can easily have a 1 crat or no crat system for 6 months or more, the only thing that limits it at current is the inactive demotion policy except, then there's the same problem Hagnat just pointed out.--Karekmaps?! 14:14, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Why not Kevan? It's his wiki after all. If we look at the history truly idled out crats happend only twice. that would make it it's five to fifteen minutes work for him every year or so. He's not the most involved of all people but I doubt he would object to that. Mheh, People think the bureaucrat powers have far more effect on the wiki then they really have. The "prestige" of the position mainly flows from the bureaucrats ability to argue his or her position. And it's clear I'm arguing a losing postion here...
    People like the idea. And it's not like I think the wiki will go under with another bureaucrat added. I mean in all likelyhood hagnat will be chosen this time around. And he's one of the original good guys who certianly deserves the position as much as I or any user for all the hard work he has done for the wiki. But just adding a bureaucrat position so that somebody I like can win a nice honerific isn't really a proper justification to me. It's just adding extra bureaucracy fluff for no real purpose.
    Oh well, all that's left for me to do is look forward to my just and imminent demise by hagnat in good WCDZ tradition. ;) -- Vista  +1  17:36, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Actually, i already said i dont plan to run for crat if this policy gets approved. so i think you might get re-elected one more time :) And all hail the conspirancy! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:49, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Given boxy's sort-of-suggestion of making sysop promotion a 'crat-consensus decision (i.e. all 'crats hold power of veto not to promote) then a third position does makes a difference. Or rather it could, by making it harder by one brain to become a sysop. As I understand it, whichever 'crat makes the decision first to promote or not is the winner! Of course, no 'crat promotion decision (as far as memory serves) has been contested, so that's not been tested (can my rhymes be bested?). --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:17, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Funt just said exactly what I was going to, another Crat makes as much difference as one less does, it's the difference of how easy it is to get promoted and right now it is a cake walk unless you're an extremely unpopular user. And as far as contested promotions go, depends who counts as contention but, the fact that we've essentially had only 1 active 'Crat for an exceptionally long time kinda goes to the point of a large portion of why the second seat exists is largely absent from actual promotions.--Karekmaps?! 18:22, 14 April 2008 (BST)
    Well Funt is trying to have it both ways, isn't he. The whole policy is "A third bureaucrat position will be created, in order that, in the event of disagreement, there can be a majority decision reached amongst the bureaucrat team". He cant go making a policy with the only stated reason being that it's so that majority decisions can be made, and then say over here that that isn't an integral part of the policy that people are voting on. Numerous voters have stated it as their reason for voting yes. There is just no way you can argue now that this policy (if successful) doesn't make majority decisions on promotions legitimate -- boxy talki 14:12 15 April 2008 (BST)
    Dear Zombie Lord! It's plain English, boxy. Sometimes you're a real conspiracy theorist, you know that? If this policy passes (which is by no means certain) then it would allow the 'crat team to have majority votes amongst themselves, but it doesn't force it upon them. The policy is called "Third Bureaucrat", the introduction mentions one reason, as an example, of why one might find a third 'crat useful. The detail of the policy then says, pretty much: "there'll be a third 'crat". End of story. That's all it f*cking well SAYS. It's all it was ever meant to say. Unless this is all some scam you're trying to cook up to declare this policy vote null & void over some ridiculous, made-up grammatical technicality? But then, wait - that would be a mad conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? Come on back down to planet Earth, boxy - it's sunny, and the birds are tweeting merrily in the spring air. (You know, you're beginning to look a little bit pale over the idea of a third 'crat, although I'm not sure why. You never struck me as the "clinging desperately to power" type, or one to cave-in to "it's the end of the wiki" paranoid hyperbole. What's the problem?) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:53, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    You're the conspiracy theorist here, Funt, while we are the members of the conspiracy... oops. said too much. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:11, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    Damn your cloned <3, Haggis! I will uncover the truth! (etc.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:14, 15 April 2008 (BST)
    I hate people who use hyperbole... they're worse than Hitler!!!!11one -- boxy talki 10:19 16 April 2008 (BST)
    Dude, they're worse than Amazing, driving a car into a bus queue of mentally-challenged nuns. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:07, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Suddenly I'm wishing I voted for the Bob Hammero proposal, years ago, that would have stopped this policy from being kiboshed by an organised group of newcomers. Ah well. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:20, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Single purpose account votes will be struck for the same reason we strike Sock Puppet votes.--Karekmaps?! 02:20, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Final Hurrah

  • A total of 26 votes for to 25 against. Policy failed. -- Cheese 20:46, 28 April 2008 (BST)
    Shouldn't we remove the meat-puppets before tallying this voting ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:54, 28 April 2008 (BST)
Regarding this policy, I don't really care whether it passes or not. What does bother me is there's an obvious block vote that's been used over a single 24-hour period by a single group that didn't involve itself in any way at all in the policy discussion and have effectively stopped it from being passed. It looks very much like either meatpuppetry or antagonistic bad faith control of this wiki. It's a shite state of affairs, frankly, and there's not much I can do about it, because if I suggest a policy along the lines of "only valid contributers get a vote", or "consensus over pure democracy", they can just vote it down. It's mob rule which, if allowed to continue, could ruin this wiki. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:17, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Move this from main, some meatpuppetry(more specifically single purpose accounts) has been struck, probably not all.--Karekmaps?! 16:08, 29 April 2008 (BST)
How the hell are some of those votes meatpuppetry when those users comment on other things elsewhere on a regular basis yet idiotic shit votes like *taunts the dead* don't get struck. Good job continuing to do a fucking bullshit job idiot. --Riseabove 20:50, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Perhaps because the taunt the dead guy is a user that is part of this community longer than, what?, 1 month? that some of the meatupuppets from the dead has ? And with almost 1000 edits made, his opinion cares a lot more than yours. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:13, 29 April 2008 (BST)
So number of edits means more than any reasoning in arguments? I wonder if you look at the number of edits before you determine good faith, that would explain a lot you goddamn moron. Right when I think y'all are stepping your game up just a little bit to appear competent. Fuck you and your stupid number of edits drivel. --Riseabove 22:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)
By doing a few contributive edits, discussing the policy (not required, but opinion is welcome) you can easily avoid being labeled as a sockpuppet. There's is a reason why yours, DCC's, and Kid's weren't struck. It's disgusting that a few of the Dead feel like they need to mess with the wiki in this way. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:41, 29 April 2008 (BST)
I can agree with about half of them on that basis although I feel like some of those users have been more active than karek gives them credit for. Nevertheless it seems a question of quantity of strikes and since the actual outcome isn't affected it's less of an issue unless massive vote striking in this fashion continues in the future. Thank you for the reasonable nonflamebait response. --Riseabove 23:11, 29 April 2008 (BST)
"Some animals are more equal than others" ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:05, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Us: Pigs. You: Worthless animals. Muwhahaha! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:06, 29 April 2008 (BST)
That's a very clearcut example of sheer elitism if I ever saw it. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 22:16, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah, right... like your opinion still matters for this wiki... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:50, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Do you honestly believe what you're saying? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 08:19, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Even by removing six meatpuppets from the vote, it still fails to achieve the 2/3 majority it takes to approve the policy. Policy Voting fails? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)

Yes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:41, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Yeah. Even with another two or three that I think could be removed it still doesn't get there. We need a policy on policy voting I think. Stop users who've been here less than a couple of weeks deciding the fate of the wiki. -- Cheese 23:02, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Or, perhaps a requirement to discuss it on the talk page first. Meh. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:03, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Or simply getting rid of this voting crap and moving to consensus... wasn't it grim who pointed out how flawed this was ? why no one listened to him ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:07, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Because he's a meanie... where's his solution? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:09, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Nah, its cos when Grim said consensus we (I) suspected he meant a consensus of those who agreed with him and we couldn't come to a consensus as to whether or not it was a good idea to sign overlordship to him :)--Honestmistake 23:27, 29 April 2008 (BST)
It was.... all praise the hypnoGrim...... --Honestmistake 23:27, 29 April 2008 (BST)
link --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:42, 29 April 2008 (BST)
I think I'm going to resurrect that and give Grim a poke, if he wants to help out. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Meat puppets?

Way to go. I like how the votes that were struck for meat Puppetry were from | Money, | Jaster, | Black N Deckard, and | TagUrit when they all have actual edits and contributions, but since they are goons I guess that doesn't matter. Did any of you bother to check on them before the voting ended? Or were you in just such a damn hurry to strike votes that you didn't look at them? Just when I thought Karek was getting better, here he goes and abuses his powers again. Dammit.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 02:34, 30 April 2008 (BST)

Look at what all their last edits were then at what all of their edits are, what's going on is/was obvious. The only one that's even questionable on the matter is Money.--Karekmaps?! 03:06, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Did you look at their overall edits? Jaster has some on Monroeville, Black N Deckard has some on Cosens Auto Repair, and TagUrit added to the discussion on Katthew's zombie page. It shouldn't matter what their last edits were. Their overall edits should be factored in if you are going on about this community bullshit. They have contributed to things other than that vote. --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 03:16, 30 April 2008 (BST)

:::Also, you are penalizing people for contributing to the talk page of their group by saying that isn't a valid edit? Unless it was ruled as vandalism (which these weren't) they should be considered valid edits. Unless there is a new policy that only edits the sysops like count as good edits. --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 03:18, 30 April 2008 (BST)

I would think you'd know me better than this by now. I do very few things without checking first, least of all something like what I did here.--Karekmaps?! 10:25, 30 April 2008 (BST)
For the wiki record, I really don't have a problem with you overall. I agree with a lot of what you say, too. (and that is damn hard to admit I'm sure you know! My issues have always been on abuse of power and nothing personal) but I think you might be wrong on this. If not, what about their edits don't qualify as non puppet? (I don't know the difference between sock and meat yet) Those edits in their histories while not as extensive as mine (by the way, I am almost to 250 "good edits" and will be after you to take a warning level off me soon :D) they are still edits on pages that aren't vandalism. They were made before voting was closed to be tallied, too. I'd like to believe you checked, but I'm lost on why they didn't count. --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 13:11, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Fuck me - stop playing the innocent, DCC! It's not going to wash. How about this scenario - you put up a policy, you discuss it with half the community that spends half their life here, and it goes to vote. Suddenly a bunch of people (all related closely to one in-game group of players) that don't spend much time on the wiki and haven't bothered to involve themselves in any of the pre-vote discussion turn up out of the blue - having not edited the wiki in ages - all vote within the same 24-hour period against (or for - it doesn't matter) the policy and then disappear into the ether without trace again. Where did they come from? What prompted them to come? I mean - if I was to post on a message board and get all my pals to come and back up my vote - wouldn't that mean that my vote, which should count just as one voice, is getting unfairly overloaded? Yes, that's right - it would. This is the definition of meatpuppetry. Which part of this obvious bullshit are you trying to say you don't understand? Does ooze ikkle brain not comprehend English, widdums? Stop pretending - please - because it's embaressing. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:20, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Look here you motherfucking cuntrag. Stop thinking that this wiki is so fucking important to Urban Dead. It's not. It's nothing but a circle jerk of furry pedophile faggots like yourself that has nothing better to do with their time than to get boners over making some half assed bureaucracy and exercising "power" over other retards. Why would they have to "add to the pre vote discussion"? Is every vote on that page that isn't cut someone that added to the prevote talk? No. So what if we are all from one group? Is there a 1 vote per group policy that you asshats are having some fucking moronic talk page debate on? And so what if they voted within the same 24 hours? These things are on a time limit you know. You only have so long to vote. So are you saying that if we discussed this idea somewhere OUTSIDE OF THE HOLY FUCKING WIKI that our votes don't count? These people have contributed to the wiki, but since they belong to a group you all don't like I guess that makes it ok to not count them because they have ideas that disagree with your perfect fucking world. In case you haven't noticed we are the largest fucking group in the game and chances are OH FUCKING FORBID that we will share similar opinions on things and vote like that. And what I didn't understand is that goddamn habit of you wiki fags to make up phrases and labels for shit. "Meat puppet" "Sock Puppet" the only label that you need is fuckheads because that is clearly what you all are. You can see why we would be rabidly against another one of you douchebags and any other fuckstick that wants to join your ass orgy of authority. I try to be nice and civil and where the fuck does it get me? Shit on by some small minded cocksucker like you.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 23:17, 30 April 2008 (BST)
This is you being civil? I note that when you can't come up with a cogent argument (to defend your miserable behaviour) you just lay in there with the rabid abuse. You can swear all you like - it doesn't mean that we don't know that you're a meatpuppeteer, and that you were caught out, and now you're crying about it and using all your swear words to make yourself feel better. Child. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:01, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Uhm, Funt, you started the belligerence about two indents up. He was actually being relatively civil before that.--Karekmaps?! 11:04, 1 May 2008 (BST)
He's treating everyone else like an idiot - he should expect the same in return. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:23, 1 May 2008 (BST)
I asked why their edits didn't count as "valid" and you replied all RAWR RAWR ! BAD WORDS LOUD NOISES!. Then Hagnut goes and says something retarded about "if the policy doesn't affect them they shouldn't vote on it" and all of you are spouting this wiki elitism crap expecting people to join the circle jerk but only make edits you all like, but make lots of them because only a few edits means you aren't valid. And you still wonder why we don't want another one of you running around. I had several "cogent arguments" and you decided to ignore them. Who is the child now? --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:31, 2 May 2008 (BST)
You just seriously called someone a "meatpuppeteer" like it was a sick burn or meant anything at all. Maybe you should take a minute and reexamine the choices in your life that led you to this point. Or you could keep crying because your policy didn't pass and OH GOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ THE WIKI 24/7 VOTED LIKE THEY DISCUSSED IT SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN MY SANCTIONED TALK PAGE FUCKING MEATPUPPETEERS RUINING MY PRECIOUS WIKI SUGGESTION I BET THEY DON'T EVEN SPEND HALF THEIR LIVES HERE THIS IS BULLSHIT. Whatever. --Riseabove 14:29, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Honestly, I don't care that much about this particular policy. A bunch of turds playing "rool the wiki from our leet forum" turns my stomach, though. Shouting doesn't make you right, or morally superior. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:23, 1 May 2008 (BST)
"spends half their life here" ? WTF ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:45, 30 April 2008 (BST)
C'mon, some of you do. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:51, 30 April 2008 (BST)
So now if you don't spend half your life here your vote is invalid? Cool. -Grarr 18:18, 30 April 2008 (BST)
The difference between a sock puppet and a meat puppet is that the first is a single user creating several accounts and using them to block-vote the same in a voting, while a meat puppet is a single user which is part of a virtual community (forum, irc, wiki, facebook, you name it) and asking them to create an account and vote the same way in a voting.
You can easily see how yours, kid's, katthew's and risdeabove opinions were taken into account, but most of the other goons just voted the same way you guys did. These users did just a few contributions to the wiki, and mostly are just editing dead's and dunel hills related pages, with one or two notable exceptions to a locations page. That's why most of their votes were struck as meat puppets. If they had contributed further to the maintenance of this community, them their opinions could be considered as valid as those whose vote weren't struck. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:45, 30 April 2008 (BST)
We are in Dunell Hills. It makes sense that we would edit the DH page since THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. Why would they edit pages of suburbs that they aren't in? Come on - that's a retarded excuse. Are we not allowed to share the same opinion? That seems to be the main sticking point with most of you. They have contributed to the wiki beyond the vote. There was one user that has the vote as his only edit and that one I did not include, but the others have other edits that you seem to be overlooking. --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 23:21, 30 April 2008 (BST)
And that's why they are considered meat-puppets. they only edit pags up to the scope of influence of the deads, and with the few edits they have, it's not like whatever other changes are made to the wiki will influence them. If this was a policy that would impact dunel hills or the deads, then their opinions could care even more than mine or gnome's, for example, sine we are not that involved with these pages. For now, unless they contribute to other pages of the wiki (like voting on suggestions, for example), they will still be labeled as meat-puppets.--People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:21, 1 May 2008 (BST)
I think the Vandalism Policy shouldn't affect the goons then. We are very involved in that page, so that means our opinions matter more. Thank you for that precendent, Hagnut.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:31, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Could you link me to the policy where it was decided that a mod could strike votes on the basis that the policy wouldn't affect them? Does that mean all the votes on zombie suggestions by survivors, and vice versa, should now be striken too? In fact, this policy will only really affect sysops, since they're the only ones that can become bureaucrats, so we'd probably better just strike all the non-sysop votes. -Grarr 18:47, 1 May 2008 (BST)
To tell you the truth, there is no policy on this, but it's something that has been worked out since the beginning of the wiki. We tried to vote the guidelines on this in the past, but it was felt it wasnt needed to fix things as this is clearly common sense: you either is part of the community and your opinion is then valid, or your vote can be struck by the administration staff when deciding if the voting was succesful or not. This doesnt happens in suggestion because there is where most users begun to take part of the community as a whole. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:24, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Ignoring your ESL ranting there are you saying that you don't look for meat puppets in suggestion voting but you do in wiki policy voting? So, things that can affect the Urban Dead game itself aren't that important but policy and things that threaten your little authority are? So now we see where your real motives lie. You want to protect what meager power you have here. Pathetic. --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Well, since suggestions have one final ruler on things, i assume it's not needed to filter it AGAIN when it reaches a final decision... and unlike suggestions that get filtered by the boss and eventually implemented into the game, policies are implemented right after they come out of voting, and with the exact text that got voted on. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:19, 2 May 2008 (BST)
And these people are part of the community, having edited the wiki a few times. Beyond that, if you try and claim that low or not wide-ranging editcount means not part of the community, you're on very dodgy ground and potentially knocking out a large part of the userbase from voting -Grarr 19:38, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Yes, we know that. But since policies are prolly going to affect the active users more than those with just a few edits, it's a risk worth taken. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:42, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Do you want more Dead here? I think we can arrange that.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Think about what you just said carefully. The Dead are hardly going to ignore such an interesting precedent. --Grarr 19:57, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Out of interest what do you think counts as wide ranging enough to count as part of the community? I imagine there are a whole lot of users who only ever edit location pages and suggestions, is that enough? How about users who rarely or even never edit stuff but check the wiki on an almost daily basis for danger reports/maps etc... I don't think there is anyway this sort of thing can be justified without a hard and fast rule and not being able to justify it just means people can attack the decision...--Honestmistake 21:13, 1 May 2008 (BST)
This is why we need to get rid of voting. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:18, 1 May 2008 (BST)
EIN VOLK! EIN WIKI! EIN FUHRER! --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 01:02, 2 May 2008 (BST)
This isn't exactly helping your case... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:03, 2 May 2008 (BST)
"Since the beginning of the wiki"? I was here at the beginning of the wiki. I was a mod at the beginning of the wiki. What you're saying is utter bullshit and why I've always hated pretty much every single wiki admin who wasn't me. When you say that people's votes can be discounted if the admins think they're not "affected" by the issues at hand, then basically you're setting back democracy to its fucking roots. Let's not let slaves, nor women, nor unlanded peons have a say in the running of our glorious city state! Either every vote counts or none of them do. You and every other power-tripping, egotistical douchebag needs to remove head from ass and stop acting like you're the fucking Star Chamber. A wiki mod's job is to stop said wiki from becoming a morass of useless pages and to ensure that the democratic process goes smoothly. That's what a wiki is, fuckface, it's a heady mix of communism and democracy that means that the majority's consensus is what passes - not to be tampered with just because you have a raging hate boner for goons. Stop being such a cockfuck about everything. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 01:11, 2 May 2008 (BST)
ensure that the democratic process goes smoothly - d'uh, that's exactly what we are trying to do... we are making sure that the democratic proccess goes smooth without people with an agenda trying to ridge things their way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:23, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Like Karek voting FOR and only striking the AGAINST votes? That is pretty dangerous. Better nip that in the bud.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:01, 2 May 2008 (BST)
No, you are - to put it in historical context - trying to ensure that the democratic process don't let them uppity niggers mess with decent white folk. You have the agenda, you are manipulating the ballot, you are a fucking bigot. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) ;x You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild! @ 02:02, 2 May 2008 (BST)
or to put it in simple terms:
  • sock puppet = multiple accounts registered by a single user
  • meat puppet = real people creating accounts to support a view that otherwise would not affect them (ie not normally part of the community)
Its a pretty fine line sometimes but in this case I do believe a fair number of your guys crossed it. If this had been an issue affecting the game itself then those votes would not be meat puppets... assuming they play the game of course :) As it is, their activity on the wiki suggests that they are not actually members of this community and were only voting because they were asked to!--Honestmistake 20:15, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Newsflash - nothing on the wiki affects the game itself. But thank you for the definition. And how can you say they aren't actually members of the community when they have edits on pages? Or is there a secret page you have to edit before you can join in the reindeer games of the wiki ? --דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 23:17, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Actually a fair bit directly impacts the game.... Maps, Suburb Reports and Suggestions being the most obvious. As for not being members of the community, time will tell on that one, if they are still here in a month they will have proved whoever removed their votes wrong (bit late then tho :D)--Honestmistake 00:25, 1 May 2008 (BST)
Don't get me started on the suggestions page! -DCC
If you plummet to your death then you weren't a witch and you will get a proper Christian Burial. If you do use your witchy powers to save yourself then you are to report back here to be stoned to death.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Oh, now I get it. You don't know of our super secret page. Here it is: Special:SUPER SEKRET Pagelol!. ;D --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:34, 30 April 2008 (BST)
Ahh tis me favourite page!--xoxo 02:32, 1 May 2008 (BST)

I think I can sum up the administration's practices here quite easily:
--Kid sinister 01:03, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Too late, i already quoted animal farm in here and it was a lot more funnier than thou. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:08, 2 May 2008 (BST)
It's "too late" and "less funny" that it completely applies to you and that you're the pigs? That's not funny, it's downright tragic. I have a question about your precedent though. If we ask another 500 or so goons to sign up for this wiki and they all make an undisclosed number of edits, will they all be immediately dismissed because they are goons too? --Kid sinister 01:33, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Is there any way i can answer your question that wouldn't prompt you to ask other goons to join the wiki and start spamming any kind of voting we have in here ? :) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:38, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Stop assuming it is a "Spamming". We don't all vote alike to score cool points*. We see how you treat users and we talk about the policies. * to be honest, we don't all vote the same way SHHHH! and I have "proof", but I won't out a goon that is passing as a pubbie. You Go GOON! Run for that freedom train, boy!--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:12, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Dudddee....if you're going to quote animal farm get the quote right...--xoxo 14:15, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to be quite frank here. I didn't read most of the discussion here, so go ahead and stop reading me here if you think the issue is completely settled. I joined the wiki because DCC said that there was a lot of funny stuff that goes on here, but also some legitimate discussion about improving the game. I've read the wiki quite a bit since I started playing UD a month or two ago. I don't do many edits since I'm still getting used to the community here. I don't want to edit a page and have it ruled vandalism or something and I end up banned. ((While we are on the topic, is it cool to give some kind of silly "purpose" to location stubs, like "Factory X was a primary producers of Furby toys before the apocalypse"?)) Anyways, I read over the topic, and I don't see how another Bureaucrat would benefit the community. If they are supposed to be finding a consensus, adding a third just increases the time it takes to get a response, and also increases the chances of them disagreeing. Now, I won't say that an ideal situation would have only one Bureaucrat, but I can say that adding more is not a good idea in my opinion. If there were a dozen bureaucrats, it would take forever to get things settled by consensus. Even worse, would be the possibility of 7 of them forming a "bloc" of sorts and all voting the same, regardless of the issue itself. More Bureaucrats mean a higher chance for dirty play, at least in my mind. Unless I'm mistaken, accusing me of being DCC's meat puppet is quite an insult. Thank you very much for your hospitality on this wiki, Karek. It seems like a great way to introduce a member to a community is to say they don't belong from the beginning. --TagUrIt 05:00, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't read the discussion either, it's a lot of people on both sides making a lot of noise. I don't agree with some of the reasons why they claim I did it, I do with some others but, it really comes down to this. I don't like doing it but I think that it would have been irresponsible for me not to have, I don't believe we should look the other way when a group tries to strongarm a community because they have a lot of people when they chose to remain apart from it and all votes I struck were because they seemed to be users that have only participated in group think and little more. I'm always willing to reconsider on a case by case basis though and will be more than happy to un-strike your vote TagUrIt.--Karekmaps?! 09:04, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Holy Fuck Karek. users that have only participated in group think and little more. JASTER EDITED A MONROEVILLE PAGE (The Dead aren't in Monroeville) this is hardly a "group think" project. Killbottom has updated suburb news. Money made edits on an NT Status page (that's contributing to the community), Black N Deckard has 7 different location/status edits! Seriously, what the FUCK were you thinking striking his vote? You should be brought up on misconduct or incompetency on that action alone. Every vote should count, but if nothing else SOMEONE THAT VOTED is hardly an impartial judge and probably shouldn't remove votes. You just showed us that. In an effort to remove votes it seems you only check the ones against your views.
I'm ignoring the absurdity that even if you aren't deemed a vandal you must "prove" yourself worthy to be in the wiki community. Seems the goons that aren't on the shit list are in some type of wiki purgatory. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 21:16, 2 May 2008 (BST)
You realize that's the exact opposite of what would actually help get me to change my mind right? The group persecution thing is a group delusion brought about by the existence of the group delusion. As a group you choose to remain apart from the community unless called upon by other members of the group for fear that you will be persecuted for being members of the group, you are making a self fulfilling prophecy and when ever one of you gets punished the rest of you rabble rouse until another one of you crosses a line then call that persecution for being goons or from something awful.--Karekmaps?! 14:09, 3 May 2008 (BST)
Who did you strike that wasn't an obvious goon? And who didn't you strike that is probably a sleeper goon? You struck the goon votes that disagreed with you and left the one(s) that didn't. And with the whole Black N Deckard situation, I would hate to have to go through all of this again because you decided on a whim to abuse your authority against a goon. Seriously, if you had honestly looked at his contributions like you claim you did there would be no way you could strike his vote based on meat puppetry. What kind of brain fart was that?--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 16:03, 3 May 2008 (BST)
The only reason I un-struck the vote was that I can no longer remember why I struck it in the first place. That does not mean there wasn't one, it means that I think that if I can't recall the final deciding factor then I can't justify not undoing it, I could still very well make a case for leaving the vote struck based on his contributions but I would despise myself for it. --Karekmaps?! 16:29, 3 May 2008 (BST)
That all being said, on looking back over it Black N Deckard's vote being struck definitely is questionable to say the least and as I can't remember what it was that led me to make the final decision to do it in the first place. I will be un-striking it.--Karekmaps?! 14:09, 3 May 2008 (BST)