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)

The problem with excess sysops is more one of Misconduct, last time we had sysops that didn't do anything but rule Not Misconduct every time a popular sysop got put up for misconduct, regardless of the fact that they had been misconducted for the same exact thing before. That might just be me still annoyed about a particular case but the whole problem is they don't bother getting informed when the case is going on, before ruling, or after ruling because they rule and leave and that's all they contribute. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:10, 17 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)

Both of those come off as somewhat wrong to me. J3D, you got demoted for protecting your friend in a clear cut case among other things, stop acting like that was surprising considering how you got promoted in the first place and what was the major concerns in your bid. Nubis, if someone can't remember the last major thing we did we aren't doing enough work, being a sysop doesn't mean you stop maintaining the wiki. And J3D again, when you get people like Iscariot and the 2c group every decision is controversial simply because neither of them will admit to being wrong even though everyone knows they are, because they think the wiki is just for them to screw around, harass users, and that any disagreement with that is automatically against the community and the rules. It's an issue that anywhere else that behavior would have had them banned years ago but we have to put up with because of the limitations on sysops here. Limitations I'd gladly give up my position to see away with, they only serve to spread the cancer and the strange views of the people who get "abused" for not succeeding in abusing those limitations. --Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 03:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Karek, I haven't stopped maintaining the wiki but what I am doing is mostly background stuff. That was my point. How often do the regular users look at the uncategorized images page, or the Category:Templates, or the merged locations? These are all tasks that need to be done and I do them, but they aren't "high profile". And Karek, the only reason people would remember all the work you did to make the A/VB etc. pages automatically archive is because Grim brought a Misconduct case against you for protecting the page.

J3D, Karek and I did vote Not Vandalism on Conn. You do realize that the "book" you are saying we should go by was written by the same users that voted us in? So what does staying relevant to the "new crowd" have to do with that if the new crowd is still using the old rules? You want a change in the attitudes of the sysop team? Then force it. Make fucking policies that reflect the current community and get them passed. Until you start changing the policies then the old way is going to be the only way. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

YOU? following the book? pur-lease. Take a look at your misconduct archive, the proof you don't give a fuck about the book unless it suits you to will literally engulf you. Well, not literally, but you get the point.--xoxo 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the open discussion about which sysops are trusted Nubis refereed too. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The section on grim is particularly amusing. Question. If a Crat demotes you through this policy, what are the chances that your immediate promotion request will be successful, giving that the crats have the final say. Personally I'd say give it a year, but ignore me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not very, so yeah, I'd wait six months minimum (but the user can do whatever he wants, including rebidding immediately.) --Pestolence^(talk) 01:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Putting an abratary limit doesn't make much sense, as the same 'crats will still be around in three (and in many cases, six,) month's time, and they will block any attempt (unless we have serious reason, etc.) Linkthewindow  Talk  00:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a limit, it's just advice. The user can do whatever he wants, icluding never bidding again or bidding right away. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Also, where did this whole "faith from the community" bullshit come from? The sysop is a janitor" I will tell you where the faith of the community bullshit comes from, it comes from the assertion that sysops are "trusted users" that gets bandied around whenever someone complains about something they have done. The community needs faith in the judgement of its sysops and the sysops need to be in touch with the mood of the userbase because it is the sysops who judge us and each other in misconduct and A/VB cases not to mention a fair few other areas. Also consider that by signing up to this wiki you have no choice but to "trust" all members of the sysop team with some fairly personal data, given that sysops tend (rightly) to be pretty skilled with computers/programming they are also the users most likely to be able to abuse that data making it a very valid concern that people you don't know and who may not like you have access to this without your wanting them too. J3D was demoted for breaching "check user" and only the sysops can know the details for obvious reasons, the rest of us have to have faith that his actions warranted the demotion because we have to trust the sysop teams judgement. I voted for J3D and am disapointed to have my trust thrown back at me by his actions because i do trust that the sysops demoted him for serious abuse rather than a technicality... surely though you can see that trust should be earned rather than demanded and that while i have been here long enough to trust that the team wouldn't abuse the system in this way others have not?--Honestmistake 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above example (to do with checkuser) is very true. Checkuser is possibly the most powerful tool on this wiki, perhaps more so then the banhammer. Using checkuser, I can find where someone lives, their ISP, as well as other personal information. It should really only be given to a few sysops who really need it and are very trustworthy, not just to everyone who gets a promotion. The other tools can be undone by another sysop. A checkuser cannot. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)