User talk:Pestolence/001

Just some thoughts:

• A problem with a "review" policy is that it disadvantages the more "janitorial" sysops that aren't active around A/VB, or A/M (where they get "noticed,") but still empty out the request list at A/MR, A/SD, etc. To be honest, it won't disadvantage them that much, but users might vote "never see 'em" when they are still doing important tasks.
• Likewise, "controversial" sysops could find it hard to get a fair review, especially if there was a bout of drama that involved them days before. People having that fresh in their mind could make an honest review impossible.
• The "will of the community" is a hard thing to define, best shown by J3D's bid. What about where we have a situation were a lot of lurking/semi active users vote "no" and a lot of active users vote "yes." The final decision resting with the 'crats fixes this to an extent.

At the end of the day though, I personally think that having irrelevant/excess sysops isn't really a bad thing. It helps to get rid of the "sysop elitism" stigma, and having a backlog is useful for when sysops go inactive. Most sysops do their job, and putting this up (as Karek said,) leads to factionalism, and politicization of sysops. Sadly, we have taken steps in that direction already, but sysops shouldn't have to appeal to the masses to get there job done, and this could even just cause sysops to appeal to the masses-not a good thing. Anyway, sorry if this is rambling a bit. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I recognized less than half of the names that vouched for him, many of whom appear to have been inactive for months. This is not a valid reason to demand a review of a sysop. Just because you don't know these people it doesn't make the contributions of a sysop any less valid. Do you know what Karek and I have been contributing to the wiki since our promotions? Don't you think that the actual work we have done should matter more than if we are "popular" or the users that supported us are still around? What about Swiers? What sysop functions does he perform? None involving A/VB or A/M if any at all. And yet, he still gets Crat votes every election before he withdraws. Is that fair?

Also, where did this whole "faith from the community" bullshit come from? The sysop is a janitor. They are the ones that volunteer their time to do all the stupid menial tasks that other users don't. The only "faith" they need is that they won't go insane and ban users without cause or delete tons of pages. That's the only "trust" that sysops need.

Can you tell me any of the last 3 major projects or contributions Karek or I have made to the wiki? If not, do you still think you are in a position to really judge us?

My point is you can't review someone just based on popularity. If I can find it I will link Grim's "Which Sysops do you trust page?" That right there is a perfect example of why leaving a sysop review solely to the community is a bad idea.

J3D's bid is a perfect example, Link. The "community" wanted him and then he goes and shows how getting a "little" power proved to be too much of a temptation for him. The majority was wrong. Instead of a sysop review policy you really need a sysop demotion policy. But one that isn't relying on a popular vote so that it is actually fair to the sysops. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is so many flaws in what you just said it's almost impossible to begin. Let's start with "Do you know what Karek and I have been contributing to the wiki since our promotions?", firstly, get over yourself. Secondly, as soon as crat elections, A/M and A/VB come into the equation the idea that sysops don't need to be liked and trusted by the current community and merely honest people who won't abuse checkuser goes out the window. You feel people that have been around since 06 are more value, which of course is your prerogative but if you can't stay relevant to a new crowd then you should go. Swiers gets crat votes because the people yearn for a better candidate. I withdrew my vote and don't think i replaced it in the last crat election because you, karek and boxy are one extreme i don't want and hagnat is another and all of you are horrible choices for crat.

"The only "faith" they need is that they won't go insane and ban users without cause or delete tons of pages." As i've said, wrong, wrong, wrong. We don't get a vote on a/vb and a/m which is why sysops need to be people that actually represent the value systems of the people rather than just do janitorial work. If you don't like that, then stop making controversial a/vb and a/m decisions. Instead of (and this is directed at the team in general and not just you) voting not misconduct because there's no point, call it misconduct because by the book it is. Instead of ruling vandalism on Conn, Iscariot and SLR for making jokes or being pedantry recognise htey haven't actually broken any rules and don't rule them. You do whatever you god damn please, which for an elected official is fine, but for someone who considering the turnover of membership on the wiki is basically in a hereditary position is rediculous.

That's pretty much the end of my rant, no need to thank me.--xoxo 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)