UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Discussion

The periods between elections, and of inactivity are negotiable, of course, but I think we need some formal method of change in the position of bureaucrat, as the BobHammero case has illustrated.

I think it's a good idea and I support it, but as it is now it presents some problems:
  • If Bureaucrat becomes inactive in the 3 months span, who will be chosen to be demoted in place of the new candidate?
  • If the Bureaucrat to be demoted is "the least active", then how we evade these filthy cheaters 'crats such as you (=P) to make trash contributions only to seem "more active"?
  • "If a replacement is deemed necessary by the community". There will be two votes: one for gauging the necessity of one and another to choose the Bureaucrat? If not, how is this "necessity" interpreted? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:32, 2 April 2007 (BST)
Also, you should explicitly say that Kevan and Urbandead are excluded of this process, just to remind people. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:35, 2 April 2007 (BST)
  • Either the other 'crat, or Kevan -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:46, 5 April 2007 (BST)
  • Cheater 'crats won't be re-elected after their 3 months is up... that's one of the reasons why such positions shouldn't be, effectively, infinite.
  • As I see it, the communities views can be gauged via the talk page with an informal discussion. If a Bureaucrat unilaterally decides to not replace an idled out counterpart, then any user can force the issue with a poll on the Bureaucrat elections talk page to formally gauge opinion on the matter.
And point taken about Kevan's accounts, will do -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:46, 5 April 2007 (BST)

I think the second point is valid (on the project page, I'm not referring to Matt's points), but could you state your reasons why you think the b'crats should be cycled every three months? --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 16:40, 2 April 2007 (BST)

I think it's more of a dynamic solution: It has been proven every time that a Bureaucrat that keeps his position for too long becomes stagnant, tired and then fades away (OddStarter, Bob, Xoid...), in the best case quietly and the worst commiting Misconduct and being blamed by everyone for this wiki's "deplorable" state. This policy solves the policy void we have when some Bureaucrat dissappears that way, and can agilize things when we need to do something that requires a Bureaucrat and the current one is tired of everything, wants the wiki to be nuked, etc, etc, etc... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 17:08, 2 April 2007 (BST)
I would shorten the inactivity period to a single month without any editing. A month is a long time on this wiki, You miss out on a lot of info in that period. And history tells us. It's a good cut-off period. After one month of absence is reached, most users do not come back or take longer then 3 months anyway.
I would also make every bureaucrat spot come up after three months, If the bureaucrat is still active he will get rechosen anyway. You don't get the spot if people don't think you're qualified. And having the renewed legitimacy will help him in his tasks.
Trash contributions are fine, A bureaucrat should be around enough to end disputes and being able to have well founded opinions on users asking for promotion to sysop-status. The bureaucrat has no other technical role on this wiki.
"If a replacement is deemed necessary by the community" I'd drop that, it's asking for drama. If a bureaucrat isn't functioning well the regular election after 3 months will take care of it.

my proposition;

  • Every bureaucrat comes up for reelection every 3 months.
  • Every bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is counted as idle and an election is called to replace him.

--Vista 21:11, 2 April 2007 (BST)

i think that would be a nice way to implement this policy. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:39, 3 April 2007 (BST)
I agree that Vista's way looks like the more agreeable. The only objection I make is that we may have elections in a disordely manner like this. Should we include a rule that the elections are always to begin a set day of every month, let's say the 1st? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:07, 3 April 2007 (BST)
I really don't see how an election would be more disorderly for beginning on the 12th then it would be beginning on the 1st. if the same mechanics are used how does the date matter?--Vista 06:38, 3 April 2007 (BST)
If you want to have some order, we could say that elections starts at 0h01 fn the first sunday after a crat is deposed, and ends at 23h59 on the third saturday (thus making elections last two weeks). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:04, 3 April 2007 (BST)
Actually I thought "deposing" happend when somebody else won the election instead of the "incumbent"--Vista 13:13, 3 April 2007 (BST)
Deposing a mod would happen if he doesnt make an edit in a month, remember ? Anyway, to keep things in order, we could say that the elections are to be taken in the months divisible by three (march, june, september and december), beginning in the first sunday of the month and ending in 2 weeks. If any mod is promoted to crat because someone lost his powers due to inactivity, it would be consired a temporary promotion, and that the mod would lose its powers in the official election process in march/june/september/december. To ellect a temporary crat, it would take two weeks, or at least 15 votes in a nominated and active mod. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:23, 3 April 2007 (BST)

Well Matt, I was looking for boxy's opinion not your interpretation, but it answers my questions. :P On the other hand, the one month edit thing that Vista mentions sounds better, because the b'crats really need to be on top of what is happening on the wiki. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 22:48, 2 April 2007 (BST)

Oh my, soooooooorry :P --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:28, 3 April 2007 (BST)
Sorry about that, I've been away most of the week. Why 3 month terms? Well the length of time was just a random figure... perhaps 6 months would be better. I don't mind either way... 3 months does seem like a lot of elections per year I guess, especially if (in the future) sysops positions also come up for election. On the whole concept of set terms, well I just think it's healthier for the wiki itself to have a process in place to replace their admin, and this place seems to have a relatively high turnover rate of members. Also there is no set procedure to get rid of "bad" 'crats... I mean... that's drama in the making, having to make up rules to replace someone when they're already entrenched in a position. Do it now. Oh, and I just like democracy (up to the point where I'm voted out ;)) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:55, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I think the 3 months per election, 6 months per bureaucrat condition is genius. I've got no problems with the policy in this incarnation. I don't think a clause for removal of bad 'crats is neccessary - if they were untrustworthy, they wouldn't be elected, would they? --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 14:27, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I'm a bit hazy on the misconduct procedure, and if it can force a demotion of any admin. As far as I can tell all the demotions in wiki history have been due to the admin in question volunteering to be demoted. It'll get messy if someone doesn't want to go in the future -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:46, 5 April 2007 (BST)
They can be forcefully demoted for misconduct. Bureaucrats as well. Kevan demoted Odd after people complained over his amazing misconduct. And Odd toook it gracefully. But there isn't that much danger. The person becomming a bureaucrat whould have had two vettings. one to become a sysop and one to get promoted to bureaucrat. Due to the limited amount of slots the choice of the voters tends to go to an active person who they know well and who's has proved himself to be pretty trustworthy in general.--Vista 14:59, 5 April 2007 (BST)
It takes some serious misconduct - deliberate, destructive misconduct - to get a sysop/bureaucrat demoted. I honestly don't think we really have anyone with that kind of personality left. Sure, some may fantasise about banning some annoying user or another, but nobody's really that stupid, are they? --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 15:06, 5 April 2007 (BST)

Latest proposal

Would the same rules used in the march '07 round be used ? like, all active mods running and 12 edits in a 30 days period before the beginning of round counting as activity ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:04, 3 April 2007 (BST)

That would seem the best choice to me.--Vista 13:13, 3 April 2007 (BST)

Further refinement:

  • Every bureaucrat comes up for reelection every 3 months.
  • Every bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is counted as idle and an election is called to replace him.
  • An election is called on the day a bureaucrat has had his status for 3 months or counts as idle. The election runs for 2 weeks and uses the rules of the march '07 round. Any change of status happens after the election has ended.

Anything I missed?


Btw, I don't think waiting for a particular day to start or end the promotion round adds much. Every election round the winners became pretty clear after a few days and all were quite undisputed. Over regulation tends to create more uncertiancy then it solves. in the first round we added a couple of weeks to the deadline mid-voting because we felt the response rate was to low. Nobody had any problems.--Vista 13:35, 3 April 2007 (BST)

I agree, 1 month for idled 'crats, and your over-regulation comments. However I didn't mean that "every bureaucrat comes up for reelection every 3 months", I meant that only one of them would come up at each election, so that if there are 2 bureaucrats, then each have a term of 6 months, but one is up for re-election after 3 months, then the other 3 months later. Each position takes it turn about (unless there is an un-scheduled vacancy). And is an election every 3 months too much? Perhaps 6 months? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:01, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I don't think Elections and nominations have that much infleunce on the wiki as a whole. In the last 14 months there have been 35 complete moderator nomination requests, 22 incomplete, and 5 elections for bureaucrat status. Only 3 of all those gave any real problems. One time Amazings bid for moderatorship because Oddstarter lost his patience and twice the elections for bureaucrat because there was no rule for the upper amount of bureaucrats. For a regular user it's five minutes per vote per election. Most spend more per suggestion.
I'd say an election per 3 months isn't that much. Having a long tour without voting would mean a lot of people wouldn't have a change to vote on a person at all. We got a very high churn rate on this wiki. Al whole lot of the people who voted a half ago aren't around anymore. I can definitly see that for the person under vote it would be not all tho pleasant to have too many elections right after each other but both limiting the time for voting to two weeks and the power of incumbancy would remove much of that unpleasentness.--Vista 14:49, 5 April 2007 (BST)
OK then, it seems that 3 monthly elections, with 6 month individual terms is the go -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:33, 6 April 2007 (BST)
I don't think a schedule of alternating elections would work because as soon as one bureaucrat would idle out you'd have to move around with elections, You will end up either prolonging terms or shortening them to keep them in the middle of the others term. It's easier to have elections at the end of the term, maybe that'll mean two elections in short time but I doubt that will give as much problems as having to tinker with the term times.
Last time I'll mention it, but the reasons for my preference is for a 3 month term is twofold. about half of the active user base seems to refresh every 3 months and out of the 4 former bureaucrats the record holder is Xoid with about a half year as bureaucrat. Setting a regular term at the longest time somebody stayed in that job feels superfluous to me. --Vista 18:08, 6 April 2007 (BST)
I don't see it as a problem. If someone idles out or resigns mid term, then so be it, an election is held immediately, and the next election comes up 3 months later. Simple. I just think that the advantage of having an experienced 'crat there for at least the first 3 months outweighs the fact that some terms may be extended for a few months -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 11:17, 7 April 2007 (BST)
Personally I don't believe that lack of experience is much of a problem myself. The technical aspects aren't that hard. And you either already have good judgement or not. Your call though. New version below.--Vista 17:15, 7 April 2007 (BST)

New version of the proposed change.

I've taken the liberty to include a small rewrite of the rules of the march 07 round so we can substitute all rules. As far as I can see your proposal right now is:

Rules for starting an election.

  1. When a Bureaucrat loses his status due to resigning, demotion or inactivaty an election is started immediately.
    • A Bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is considered as inactive and forfeits his status as bureaucrat.
  2. After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the buraucrat position longest without an election.
  3. The election ends after two weeks wiki time counting from the when the election is started.
  4. The candidate with the most votes votes wins the election.

Rules concerning candidates

  1. All active users with the sysops status are automatically declared candidates for Bureaucrat.
    • Users with at least 12 edits in the 30 days before the election are considered active for purposes of the election
  2. The Bureaucrat whose position comes up for election if said election is started under rule 2 of Rules for starting an election is automatically declared a candidate.
  3. A candidate can retract his own candidacy at any time.

Rules concerning voting.

  1. All users have only one vote per election.
  2. Users vote for a candidate by signing under the prefered candidates name.
  3. Users may change their votes for a candidate as long as the election has not ended.
    • Multiple votes at the same time will be struck.
  4. Sockpuppetry is considered vandalism.

(spell checking to come later) Any thought?--Vista 17:15, 7 April 2007 (BST)

That looks pretty good. I've put it on the policy page with a few minor changes (in italics), and the addition of the following clause "in the event of a tied vote, the election is extended for 24hrs, if still tied, the remaining bureaucrats will decide between the tied candidates". Is that acceptable? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:51, 8 April 2007 (BST)
For the sake of simplicity you could eliminate the part about the extended period of voting, as if there's a tie I'm sure it will be solved in the last (non extra) 24hs or not be solved at all. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:00, 8 April 2007 (BST)
I changed a number in the overview, it still listed 3 months as inactive instead of the 1 month in the rules. Seems good to go now, I say you put it under vote now.--Vista 13:03, 8 April 2007 (BST)
But perhaps you can also put in the overview,
"This policy confirms and streamlines the majority of the march 2007 round rules as the formal rules for choosing bureaucrats
And introduces two new additions:
One Bureaucrat position will come up for re-election by the wiki community every 3 months, in rotation.
Any Bureaucrat who goes inactive on the wiki for 1 full month will automatically be demoted back to Sysops status, and the position put up for re-election, if a replacement is deemed necessary by the wiki community."
That way it is more clear that most of it is already in effect. And what the new bits are.--Vista 13:11, 8 April 2007 (BST)
I've put it in the summary section at the end. Also added a bit making it clear that Kevan (and any other accounts he may have) won't be affect by this policy -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:19, 8 April 2007 (BST)

Keep the Bureaucrat?

It just have these doubts. Should people be able to vote for keeping the same Bureaucrat if he's going to be voted off for idleness? Should a Bureaucrat be able to post his reelection bid after his 3 months period is over? If not, could the Bureaucrat do that the next period? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 16:22, 5 April 2007 (BST)

If people could do that, then there what would be the point of this whole concept? The idea is to keep the positions cycling, not stagnating. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 16:33, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I think that's what Matt is suggesting, an increase in the rotation. I think what he's suggesting is that a 'crat shouldn't be able to re-nominate for the position that they just vacated. Rather, they wait until the next position comes up (3 months later), meaning that each election gets a fresh 'crat -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 16:49, 5 April 2007 (BST) Nope, got it wrong. And no, I agree, if you idle out, you can't "re-up" straight away -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 16:51, 5 April 2007 (BST)
Err, guys, what I expressed above was a doubt and in no way did I say that I was inclined to take party on any of the given choices. Anyways, I agree with you that the purpose of the policy is cycling and it would be better for that purpose for Bureaucrats to not being able to reposition themselves to reelection after the period they just completed. However, one doubt is still standing: how many periods should an ex-Bureaucrat wait until he can present his bid for that position again, if he can at all? I assume that he is just forbidden to present himself as candidate in the same bid that is going to have him replaced, but is that correct? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 17:55, 5 April 2007 (BST)
That's an interesting question, and one I can't really answer. Too few rounds, and you'll see the same people in the positions over and over again. Too many, and there'll be a set order in which the rotation proceeds. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 18:00, 5 April 2007 (BST)
  • Actually Í'm having problems getting what you mean. Are you suggesting that idled-out Bureaucrats that are replaced under the "one month no edit rule"should get their status back as soon as they return?
  • or that active bureaucrats should not be able to get re-elected after their 3 month period as bureaucrat?
    • I think that if you idled out and returned, You should simply wait until you qualify for the next election just like any other user without any special perks.
    • And that Active Bureaucrats should always be able to get re-elected. No term limits. We want to make sure that people vote for the user they believe most qualified, not the sysop whose turn it is.--Vista 18:09, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I was meaning the Bureaucrats whose period is over. I think that your "no term limits" can't really work towards our objective, that is changing the Bureaucrats before they become stagnant. If we're supposed to elect a Bureaucrat as much as we want as long as we perceive he's not tired of the position, then we should call for reelection as soon as we perceive that tiredness, and that is a really subjective thing to judge. If we, in turn, force the cycle, we may have some sort of "second tier Bureaucrats" (or "second choice" ones) once in a while, but at least we won't have selfdestructive ones. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:21, 5 April 2007 (BST)
I don't know about "changing the Bureaucrats before they become stagnant" being our objective, My objective was, making sure that there is a working system to replace idled out bureaucrats and to make sure that the bureaucrats have continued popular legitimacy by making the position up for election at regular intervals instead of a permanent position. And recall politics are too difficult to organise without drama nor particular needed. If you believe a bureaucrat gets tired you are free to chose somebody else next round. I find it highly strange to disallow re-elections on basis that the user needs to be protected from himself lest he becomes "tired"--Vista 18:35, 5 April 2007 (BST)
IMHO, "popular legitimacy" as you call it was being held by all but maybe one of our Bureaucrats (OddStarter), yet they all went off, by inactivity, tiredness of the wiki and its users in general or whatever reason they (and you) had. I'm sorry that "our point" isn't yours, but the insultive way to remark it maybe was adequate to feed your ego but not for a public debate where me and a lot of other people are just trying to present their concerns, not accepting anyone's word as law. It's Boxy's policy anyways, so I'm looking forward for his input on the issue. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:42, 5 April 2007 (BST)
It was a long day at work yesterday and perhaps I sounded terser then I meant to. But in no way did I put my words forth as law, or did I insult you. I did take issue with your claim that "changing the Bureaucrats before they become stagnant" was the general objective. You made a statement that was presented by you and cyberbob and made it sound like you spoke for all of us. I wanted to make clear I though different as might other people. I thought I made clear that it was just saying my personal opinion. Rereading it I can understand that somebody might have read a more dictoral statement if he was so inclined, but you should know me better then that.
You are right on popular legitimacy, and I personally believe Odd had it as well as most people liked him as bureaucrat right up to him promoting Amazing, and even then most people wouldn't have objected to him staying on. And even though I was elected with a lot of support I doubt that if had held on to my bureaucrat status through my idle period I would have popular legitimacy as almost nobody who voted for me is still around. Yet it would be legitimate as it was according to the rules. It's also still possible to get promoted to bureaucrat, stay on for ever even though you lost everybodies trust. Thats why I want continued popular legitimacy. About half of the active user base seems to refresh every 3 months so thats why I think that is a good number to use for elections. I think that the elections are there to make sure the users are content with the bureaucrat not to motivate the bureaucrat. Allmost all users get inactive or tired, Bureaucrats are no different. And I don't see how forced demotion at a set time would help them stay motivated, if you look at the time they time out it's pretty random. You'd still get as many idled out bureaucrats without ensuring that the users have their first choice candidate.--Vista 13:29, 6 April 2007 (BST)
I wasn't looking for a random cycling of bureaucrats, but a controlled one, when they show that they've either had enough, or someone better comes along. I see no reason to cycle bureaucrats just because "their term is up". So, no, I don't think I'll insert a clause barring an outgoing bureaucrat from "re-upping", unless the vacancy was caused by their going idle -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:31, 6 April 2007 (BST)

Moving this over from the policy page -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 06:39, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Matthewfarenheit said:
Just one question: does this mean we will have a third Bureaucrat replacing BobHammero? I think three are too many... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:13, 9 April 2007 (BST)

No, not unless the community wants a third bureaucrat. That's why I put "and the position put up for re-election, if a replacement is deemed necessary by the wiki community" in the introduction to the policy. Bob was replaced by Darth or I, we just haven't got around to demoting him -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 06:39, 9 April 2007 (BST)

why hammero is still a crat ? it was said during the march '07 round that he would lose his powers because of his inactivity... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:24, 10 April 2007 (BST)
I see. It's allright then, but keep in mind that all these "if the community wants" or "according to the wishes of the community" are very subjective and are better either included as a vote or not mentioned on the rules at all, as it's implicit that all rules are written in order to follow the wishes of the community. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:25, 10 April 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Automatic_Bureaucrat_Cycling&oldid=638754"