UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Bureaucrat Promotions
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Comments
Awesome. Simply awesome. You've plainly thought your arguments all the way through here, Nubis. Cyberbob Talk 14:54, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Why not just keep the current system but restrict the timing to only allowing it once another bureaucrat (or even only Kevan himself) calls for a round of promotions? It keeps the current well accepted way of promoting moderators while staying felxible depending on the needs of the leadership at the time. --YbborT 22:33, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Nope
Kevan already said no. If you can't convince him otherwise, this policy is pointless. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:53, 10 September 2006 (BST)
- Which was made clear to me after I made this. Funny how that works. This stays here until you or him, with your obvious superiority over me, update the page so that it's crystal clear how you actually expect the Promotions to work. – Nubis NWO 21:33, 10 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm from the old school (no, the other one), and I reckon that if you want Bureaucrat status enough to forumulate and push forward a policy that gets you Bureaucrat status, then you don't deserve Bureaucrat status. --Funt Solo 20:06, 11 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm not trying to get the status. I'm trying to get a current Bureaucrat or Kevan off their asses to fix the page, as the wording is not congruent with how they feel it is run. Can't be bothered to change it themselves though. – Nubis NWO 20:19, 11 September 2006 (BST)
- Nubis, Xoid and I really aren't better than you and are no more immune to the effects of changing the rules without community approval than you are. Sorry, but I'm not going to "get off my ass" and be held accountable for moderator misconduct. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:51, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- Considering Kevan and Xoid and presumably The General all have in mind a certain way the page is supposed to be run, I don't think it's too much to ask for one of them to, you know, actually fix the page so that it fits this Criteria. Unless every time someone uses it you want to runnoft to Kevan and get him to tell someone to shut down the voting. – Nubis NWO 01:18, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- Why do I get the feeling that you're pouting? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:47, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm more pissed off that everyone with Bureaucrat powers has certain expectations about that page, but won't actually make them clear to everyone. – Nubis NWO 09:24, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- The mere fact that you think being a Bureaucrat would potentially be enough to make someone pout over missing out speaks volumes about your attitude towards it. Cyberbob Talk 09:54, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Thanks Cyberbob. I'll be sure to mention that the next time you complain that no one's vouching for you. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 17:14, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Since Xoid gave you the wrong impression there (and admits it), I'll let that one slide. My dog had died less than a week ago, you insensitive prick. Cyberbob Talk 22:21, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Are you aware of the fact that you've been anything but friendly or congratulatory of me? You've come awfully close to saying that you're more competent than me and have done more work than me, and that I was elected because I'm well-known. Or have you forgotten bitching to me online that you have to ask people to vote for you at all? Look, I'm sorry that your dog died. I know how that sucks. But you're acting like a prick to me. Or did you forget that in your vouch of me, you accused me of being power hungry? Have you forgotten that the majority of your Againsts were because of your supposedly-ended tendency to dramatize and antagonize other users? Tell me with a straight face that you aren't proving those people right. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:16, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm perfectly aware of the fact that I haven't been congratulatory, but you're giving yourself too much credit by saying it was out of bitterness from losing. It was because I don't think you deserve it. Sure, I think I probably deserve it more. But I'm not whinging about me not being promoted. I'm annoyed at you being promoted. If Nubis had been, I'd be fine with that. So, do I think you were elected because you are well-known? Absolutely. By the way? Those Againsts were because I told the honest truth to people, and some (not all) couldn't take it. Which was recognised by other users in their Vouches. Cyberbob Talk 07:28, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Cyberbob, get over it. Bob was promoted and thats it. If you really don't like you can do one of three things. 1. Learn to live with it, 2. Change it, or 3. Leave so it doesn't matter any more. Seeing as #2 isn't going to happen because the community isn't going to support you, you'll just have to learn to live with it. - JedazΣT ΞD 07:56, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Jedaz, Jedaz, Jedaz. Can you just point out to me where your opinion was called for? No? Cyberbob Talk 07:59, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- No one asked me, and they don't have to either. It's not like you haven't joined a conversation that doesn't need you. I'm just following your example ;) Don't like me joining into this conversation? See my previous response. - Jedaz - 05:27/5/11/2024 08:04, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Jedaz, Jedaz, Jedaz. Can you just point out to me where your opinion was called for? No? Cyberbob Talk 07:59, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Cyberbob, get over it. Bob was promoted and thats it. If you really don't like you can do one of three things. 1. Learn to live with it, 2. Change it, or 3. Leave so it doesn't matter any more. Seeing as #2 isn't going to happen because the community isn't going to support you, you'll just have to learn to live with it. - JedazΣT ΞD 07:56, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm perfectly aware of the fact that I haven't been congratulatory, but you're giving yourself too much credit by saying it was out of bitterness from losing. It was because I don't think you deserve it. Sure, I think I probably deserve it more. But I'm not whinging about me not being promoted. I'm annoyed at you being promoted. If Nubis had been, I'd be fine with that. So, do I think you were elected because you are well-known? Absolutely. By the way? Those Againsts were because I told the honest truth to people, and some (not all) couldn't take it. Which was recognised by other users in their Vouches. Cyberbob Talk 07:28, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Are you aware of the fact that you've been anything but friendly or congratulatory of me? You've come awfully close to saying that you're more competent than me and have done more work than me, and that I was elected because I'm well-known. Or have you forgotten bitching to me online that you have to ask people to vote for you at all? Look, I'm sorry that your dog died. I know how that sucks. But you're acting like a prick to me. Or did you forget that in your vouch of me, you accused me of being power hungry? Have you forgotten that the majority of your Againsts were because of your supposedly-ended tendency to dramatize and antagonize other users? Tell me with a straight face that you aren't proving those people right. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:16, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Since Xoid gave you the wrong impression there (and admits it), I'll let that one slide. My dog had died less than a week ago, you insensitive prick. Cyberbob Talk 22:21, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Thanks Cyberbob. I'll be sure to mention that the next time you complain that no one's vouching for you. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 17:14, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Why do I get the feeling that you're pouting? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:47, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- Considering Kevan and Xoid and presumably The General all have in mind a certain way the page is supposed to be run, I don't think it's too much to ask for one of them to, you know, actually fix the page so that it fits this Criteria. Unless every time someone uses it you want to runnoft to Kevan and get him to tell someone to shut down the voting. – Nubis NWO 01:18, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- Nubis, Xoid and I really aren't better than you and are no more immune to the effects of changing the rules without community approval than you are. Sorry, but I'm not going to "get off my ass" and be held accountable for moderator misconduct. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 00:51, 12 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm not trying to get the status. I'm trying to get a current Bureaucrat or Kevan off their asses to fix the page, as the wording is not congruent with how they feel it is run. Can't be bothered to change it themselves though. – Nubis NWO 20:19, 11 September 2006 (BST)
- I'm from the old school (no, the other one), and I reckon that if you want Bureaucrat status enough to forumulate and push forward a policy that gets you Bureaucrat status, then you don't deserve Bureaucrat status. --Funt Solo 20:06, 11 September 2006 (BST)
Two things
Okay, first of all, I am going to be completely honest here. I've been concerned ever since it looked as though I was getting most of the vouches that you and Cyberbob would hold a grudge against me. So let me say: please don't take it personally. I'm sorry if you feel as though you've been pushed aside, or as though I pushed people into voting (my "campaign," by the way, was supposed to be a sarcastic joke about the ridiculous claims that politicians make when running for office — I never intended for anyone else to do the same as I did, and it wasn't supposed to be serious), or as though I "bested" you guys. Please don't hold it against me.
The second thing is just what Xoid said, plus this: I can see there being a need for two Bureaucrats, or even perhaps three or four (at most). But to give every Moderator a chance at being a Bureaucrat takes away the whole point of having an extra trusted level with more responsibility. Why not just make all Moderators Bureaucrats by default if everyone can get there? A better solution in my mind would be to say "at any time, there can be X Bureaucrats," and then let other people run when one of them leaves. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:31, 10 September 2006 (BST)
| BobHammero said: |
| I've been concerned ever since it looked as though I was getting most of the vouches that you and Cyberbob would hold a grudge against me. |
Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a little resentful of the fact that I do just as much (if not more) work as you, yet because your work is "flashier" you get the publicity. Not your fault at all, though. If anything, it's the voters' for not looking deeper than the most frequently used pages to the underworks of the wiki, which is where most of my work takes place. Cyberbob Talk 09:48, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- Right, 'cause it's not like I'm competent or anything, just more publicly known. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 17:15, 13 September 2006 (BST)
- What is your problem? I'm trying to fucking calm things down, not flare you up. Go have a glass of water or something. Cyberbob Talk 22:22, 13 September 2006 (BST)
Question
What is the real concern with this? Of popularity being a means of promotion to Bureaucrat or...?
I think Wikipedia does this with some moderator level, so...
Why not hold "elections" to Bureaucrat every 6 or 12 months? If someone is good for the job and deserves to stay, they'd be put back into the position until the next time it opens up, and perhaps again ad infinitum.
I'm only throwing this out there because it seems you're afraid that once Bureaucrats are chosen, it's the end of the world, perhaps? Sorry if I'm missing the point... - Bango Skank T W! M! 05:53, 12 September 2006 (BST)
