Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Resolving issues


Hi Folks,

I'm sure many of you have seen this. It is time we all stopped working divisively, and started working inclusively towards consensus.

I'm drawing together the three main issues I think have lead us here. Please feel free to contribute to these in a constructive way. Any personal accusations or finger pointing is unwelcome and inappropriate - and that does include from myself. Please try and keep everything narrow and focused on the issue at hand.

This page is for working towards consensus that ideally everyone can support, but failing that an overwhelming proportion of the wiki user base can accept and agree to.

This is going to work a bit differently to what we've done before. If you're happy with whats written, you can say so, just pop your name in the relevant section.

If you have a minor change, put it in the relevant section - if you want to discuss a minor change (either for or against), please post under it.

If you have a suggestion for something different, pop it in the relevant section. Again the suggestion can be debated and discussed in that section.

Every so often I'll do a merge and try and take everything to come up with some merged position.

Personal comments and the like should be left outside and are not welcome. Agent c (talk) 12:31, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Follower's After Report.[]

Firstly, if I may quote Follower's After Report on Leon's ban.

For the future, here are several recommendations that I believe should help to avoid another incident such as this:
  • Conflicts of interest should be avoided when possible for the sake of posterity. Where possible, neutral admins or moderators should be consulted before action is taken.
  • Banning should be used as a last resort, not a first action, except for cases of gross abuse of the established rules.
  • Bans through the contributions page do not kick the user from chat when the ban is initiated. As such, they should only be used as a last resort.
  • Bans should be immediately upheld and enforced, unless sufficient evidence exists for them to be overturned by another chat moderator/administrator.
  • Chat logs should not be copied & pasted to relay information to another user. They should instead be linked directly to avoid confusion.

It is my suggestion that the above either be implemented as a guideline, or a derivative thereof. I think most of us are doing this anyway as a matter of best practice. There could perhaps be more detailed guidance on the 4th point, which I suggest should read

Challenging a Ban

If you feel you, or another have been inappropriately or mistakenly banned, you should contact the originator of the ban to discuss the issue. If you fail to get a response out of them in a reasonable period (60 mins or so if they are clearly online and active, 24hrs if not), you can then ask another member of the chat moderation team to look into your situation. If you think that the ban does not relate to a good faith attempt to enforce the rules, there is no need to wait.

Bans should stand in the meantime unless it is clear and obvious that the tools have been used in a way that isn't a good faith attempt to enforce the rules, or the ban has been issued as a clear and obvious mistake. Examples of these would be a Chat Moderator banning everyone who enters (non good faith attempt to enforce rules), banning the wrong person (Clear and obvious mistake). If any research or log delving is required, then it is not clear and obvious and the ban placer should be contacted to clarify what the statement that resulted in the ban was.

Where there is a mistake made (either in fact, or on the interpretation of policy) it is for the originator to whenever possible remove the ban, and ideally only after its discussed fully with them and this is established in that discussion. If the originator hasn't been in contact with either the investigator or banned person 36hrs from the initial request for review, bans may be removed without this discussion being placed if the investigator is satisfied it was placed in error.

I agree as written[]

Suggest a minor change[]

Suggest something different[]

One of the issues with our legal system in the U.S. is that frequently, we follow the 'guilty until found innocent' doctrine, which is one of the most disgusting ways of thinking imaginable to me. So here is my slight change to help avoid mistaken or flat-out wrong bans:

  • If you ban someone, you must provide an explanation on the banned user's talk-page. If you are unable to provide an explanation at the time, you must either hold off on banning until you are able to provide an explanation, or you must ask another rights holder to look into the situation in your stead.
  • If an explanation is not given, yet the evidence is clear, then the ban remains legitimized. If an explanation is not given, yet no evidence can be found by investigating parties, then the ban may be reverted by an administrator, until a time comes where both parties involved can discuss the situation. In a case where an agreement cannot be found, a mediator may step in to help diffuse the situation. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:46, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Second. The idea that an innocent person is to be jailed until proven innocent is wrong on every level. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 21:22, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
I should note that when I wrote that section, I believed I covered that possibility. Common practice dictates reasoning must be given to the banned user, and as you said, if the evidence is clear, it will stand on its own. Lack of viewable evidence and no explanation from the banning user to me is sufficient to overturn a ban, which is exactly what Limmie did regarding your ban, Leon, which incidentally was an appropriate action to take (one of the few appropriate actions within that incident, to be frank). FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  21:52, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Third. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 22:38, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
I agree fully. It is absolutely the obligation of the banning user to provide an explanation, especially when it is not a gross or scathingly obvious violation. Reverting others' actions, while it may be poor etiquette at times, is fully appropriate in some cases. --Skire (talk) 22:57, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

The US system, as all common law systems are, are actually split systems. Its innocent until proven guilty, but once judicial sentence is pronounced is taken there is a presumption that the judicial action is correct until it is shown otherwise. Agent c (talk) 23:19, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I would explain how wrong that is, from my personal experiences with juvenile courts and how they almost fucked me. But that would be irrelevant, as the point here is simply that our users should be innocent until proven guilty. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:25, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
What we're looking at at the "contest" stage though Leon is not a trial, it is an appeal. Appeals to not work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, they work on the basis of "The judge got it right, and its up to you to show that there was a mistake in fact or law", and proving a mistake in fact in an appeal even then isnt enough - you have to show its so huge that noone would have convicted you. Here's what I suggest though, a ban notice isn't enough. A snapshot of chat must also be included - it doesn't have to be a screenshot, just the statement in question (and a few around it perhaps). This way there is no confusion over what the statement is, and helps us find it in the log later. However, the ban still should be owned by the banner, and they should be talked to rather than another user just jump in and presume that it is incorrect in most cases. Agent c (talk) 23:37, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
That would be a tremendous help. And as long as reasons are given, everything should be okay in the event of a ban. If the explanation is clearly wrong, then that becomes an entirely different incident - one we already know how to handle. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:54, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 01:39, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the current consensus seems to be:

  • Followers published suggestions are taken
  • When placing a ban, a ban notice, including the statement(s) that lead to the ban are included on the users talk page. (Certain words may be obscured at the moderators discretion).
  • Otherwise the rest seems to be more or less agreed on.

Is this an accurate characterisation? Agent c (talk) 20:34, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I will still be considering the matter, but at the moment, that sounds pretty spot-on. Only clause that I think should be added as well, simply for posterity's sake, is that a ban may be reverted to instigate further discussion, should a ban notice never be given, and evidence cannot be found by informal or formal investigative parties. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:51, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
The idea of copying and pasting statements for a chat ban seems completely unnecessary to me. On this wiki we have wonderful chat logs, and now that we have Quality Control running the chat logging, the logs have never been more reliable. Adding in the statements from when someone gets banned seems silly. Listing the rules broken, should be more than sufficient as anyone is able to check the rules, and should there be any doubt look at the logs from that day to see what led up to the ban, as QC also logs kicks and bans, allowing for an even easier pin point of what led up to the ban (control F "Banned" and you're golden). People voted in as chat mods were voted in as such for a reason, because there was a trust in their abilities to do so, I don't see a clear need to second guess that trust. Richie9999 (talk) 01:40, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
We should absolutely be questioning any bans - no one should ever be offended at the thought their bans might be questioned. One of the fundamental practices that Wikia preaches is that banning should always be a last resort - not a first solution to everything. So when we rely on automated notices, or do not bother warning users before banning, then that shows they are embracing a ban first doctrine. Trust has nothing to do with it - it is the fact that our users should feel secure, without having to worry about a sudden and non-descriptive exile of sorts. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:45, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Bans are rarely a first response, and for the most part they shouldn't be. There are times when a ban first is required, such as when we have a raid that shows up. Generally speaking, in those circumstances the first thing that'll happen when rules are broken is a warning, perhaps one of the users in the raiding group is kicked and later comes back to do something bannable. The problem then arises with the rest of the people involved in the raid doing the same thing that just got their friend banned, mostly you see this in posting large walls, when kicked those users return and do the same. I'm not trying to say that bans should not be questioned. My point is that the materials are there to see why the ban was issued, there are logs to allow this, there are rules that even the automated messages include the numbers of. My issue is with the idea of posting the statements that led to the ban in the ban notice, and really only that as I feel it can be accessed easily enough.Richie9999 (talk) 02:00, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree - there are certainly degrees involved when it comes to banning. Do we immediately ban a user with no warning when they make their first edit porn? Definitely. But when we have users that have been a part of the community for years, have never been banned, and are generally known for being productive, then the extra steps should be taken, and if they are not, then the bans involved should be expected to be scrutinized, to make sure that the innocent are not having to be exiled first before it is to be proven they are innocent.. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:14, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

The Status of Multiple Votes[]

I suggest the following guideline on multiple votes:

Multiple Policy (ie- non binary) votes should be avoided where at all possible in binding votes. They can result with outcomes that do not represent the consensus or majority position by simply splitting opposing voices through different options. They do however have a place within the rules changing process.
  • Multiple Votes are ideal to be used prior to the binding vote to determine what the basis of the new policy should be. The votes can be looked at to see where the general support levels lie and create a middle, consensus ground that can then be voted on in a yes/no vote. As the goal here is to find the true consensus position, this does not have to be the most popularly selected option if there are multiple similar options that can be combined to find a middle ground.
  • There may be times where a multiple vote is unavoidable (e.g. - name and logo polls). In these cases the poll should either be run through a preferential/transferable vote method or with a binary accept/reject poll following it.

I agree as written[]

Suggest a minor change[]

I think we need to focus on whether or not we should be finalizing votes with the use of absolute majority, or simple majority. We cannot always be finding middle-grounds, as that opens up risk for argumentum ad temperantiam. And adding fallacies into our voting process is not the best route, I believe. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:53, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Second. It needs to be clearly defined, and initiating a points system as Jasper suggested, or offering a more open voting method will likely just cause confusion among average voters. It has to be absolute or first-past-the-post. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  21:59, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
I think minimising the use of these no non binding votes removes any question on what level of majority is needed. But I see the feedback looking for this vote, and some sort of preferential system will be more emphasised in the revision. Agent c (talk) 23:21, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in seeing what can be conceived. As long as the community is ultimately respected in their decisions, then I believe I can be happy with any results we come up with. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:31, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest something different[]

I think we shouldn't be avoiding multiple choice polls but instead just handle them differently. Instead of "Question? Option A, Option B, Option C" we should have "Question? Option A yes/no, Option B yes/no, Option C yes/no" and people vote "yes" on every one they support, not just the one they support the most. Alternatively we would rank our options in order of preference:

(the following is as I suggested it on the endorsements referendum forum)
"We could use a system, such as 1st choice = 3points, 2nd choice = 2 points and 3rd choice = 1 point, to calculate which option is prefered, for example i I ordered my votes A, C, B then A would get 3 points, C would get 2 and B would get 1, if chad then ordered his C, B, A then C would get 3 points, B would get 2 points and A would get 1 point, added to mine A = 4, c =5 B=3 which would mean C would be the ones we pass"

Both these options allow us to give multiple choices but find the one which is the most popular, if not the most popular as a first choice at least it would be the least unpopular choice, which would make sure we have a fair compromise. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 21:29, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I will have to fester on this for a while, but as it is right now, that makes a whole lot of sense. Consider this comment an act of support. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:34, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Support. I really liked this idea of points on the referendum, and it got ignored. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 22:41, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
The point system would be one way of operating the transferable vote/Preferencial system. However we still should be talking out all options beforehand to minimise the number that need to enter a formal vote. Agent c (talk) 23:17, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

i like this joint. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 06:48, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Revision 1[]

Before any vote is called, there should be adequate discussion within the wiki's forums on the subject. The idea of this forum is to find some consensus about the specific change that is to be taken. Where a single common position seems to have consensus or majority support this should then be taken to a vote. Although in a Binary vote a "Neutral" option may be presented, this should not be taken as a vote for, or against the proposition.

In some situations, it may not be possible for only a single proposition to be taken forward, and a "multiple vote" will instead be called. This multiple vote will work on the "Single Transferable Vote" basis.

All voters will be asked to list the presented options in their preferred order. They may order all, or only some of the options.

If a single option has 50%+1 of the first preference votes, then this option will be the winning option.

If no single option achieves this threshold, the least supported option (or options where there is a tie) will be eliminated, and the votes transfered to the next non-eliminated preference.

The leading option is then checked again for having 50%+1 of the active votes. If it has achieved this threshold, that option passes, if it has not not achieved this, the process repeats with the next lowest supported option.

This ensures that any vote that does pass will have 50%+1 of all votes when a winner is pronounced.

(I leave open the question to debate as to what should happen if a user's preferences are exhasted. Should we instead mandate that all options are placed in order? Should a vote that has exahusted preferences be taken as a vote for "no change", or should it simply no longer be counted at all Agent c (talk) 23:33, June 15, 2014 (UTC)).

Accept Revision 1 as written[]

I'm not 100% on the idea of an elimination vote, to me it should be done in a single vote and whatever gets the most points would pass, however I would not be apposed to this system. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:50, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Propose changes[]

Why is this the only revision offered? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:00, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

This is an exercise in doing something different. Not creating a multitude of options to divide, but unite in consensus writing - just like we do on the article pages. To write a single common outcome that, whilst not making everyone 100% happy, satisifies as many as possible. Its not the only revision there will be (and given the holes deliberately left in it, it cannot be the final revision), its just the lastest draft to try to address concerns. If you feel an element has been missed, please bring it to the forefront, and we'll try to include those elements in (subject to support, etc). Agent c (talk) 20:25, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you had me worried for a bit. It is just that this was a problem, because we have almost always embraced plurality here, and this issue came into being when absolute majority was proposed instead. You brought your solution in as the main argument, which was fine, as we have to have some sort of foundation to work off of. So it did frustrate me a bit that neither plurality nor Jasper's point system have been proposed as revisions, and only a slight compromise that still favours your absolute majority solution - which, frankly, is the least supported solution at this point in the game, with only 2 known supporters. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:33, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
Its intended to remove the "What is a majority" question entirely, and uses the system used in elections in Places like Australia. At the end of the day, the guy who wins had more support than the other guy without question. Agent c (talk) 20:37, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
But at what cost? How long are we willing to drag out certain forums, especially when we have multiple forums going on, just because we are trying our hardest to finally achieve absolute majority? Or are you suggesting a change for how long votes take, as well? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:44, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Leon says here. I'm not going to be arrogant and say that my solution is the best, however I would like it see it as a revision to the rules to see who else supports it as a change and also can't help but feel that the current revision will be too drawn out of a solution. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:04, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Theres none at all leon. You simply put a number in every box, or rank every option, just like Jasper suggested. The vote time is exactly the same. It takes maybe an extra 10 mins to calculate the votes as the losing options are removed one by one and preferences distributed. No cost, no drag out. Agent c (talk) 02:08, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Special status of Bureaucrat in votes[]

I hope the following will find consensus acceptance:

Inclusive in the role of Bureaucrat are every other special rights, and non special rights position. They are administrators, patrollers, chat moderators, as well as general users.
However, to reflect their special status as poll scrutinisers and the final decision maker in many cases, Bureaucrats should avoid being the "judge in their own case". This specifically means Bureaucrats should not act as a bureaucrat on votes that they have called, or for candidates that they have directly endorsed.

I agree as written[]

Suggest a minor change[]

  • Lachlan's chat moderator request proved that an endorsement is not a yes vote. Even on all of the other chat moderator requests we've had, the endorser still separately voted yes instead of bureaucrats counting the endorsement as a vote. I'll quote Danny (Skire) here: "For any applicant that stands a chance, an endorsement is not a difficult thing to obtain." To use Danny's words, an endorsement is a way for the endorser to say, "this person stands a chance, so I'll give him that chance." The change: I don't think the restriction stating bureaucrats must not be a part of the final consensus after providing an endorsement is needed. Other than that, all ahead full with what's written. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 17:57, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Suggest something different[]

I believe this needs a different discussion entirely. Ever since our autocracy ended, we have followed the doctrine that our special rights users are not above any other user, which suggests we are more as janitors than anything else - which makes sense. But in reality, most users here see the special rights positions as ladder rungs, in which to increase their wiki influence. What really needs to be discussed is just how much power each position holds, and what the community feels comfortable with. A few good examples: Is the community comfortable with chat-moderators getting their friends to run for a similar position? How about administrators having the ability to delete blog/fora comments, and delete entire pages? Or even if they are comfortable with the thought that no matter what they say, the bureaucrats can overturn their consensus.

We have not really spoken about the power levels of each rights position since the split, and it is easy to see that the wiki does not work the same anymore as when Ausir/Porter/Goth were in charge, making decisions without community input - and that worked, at the time. Maybe it is time to re-establish what leadership means on this wiki. Because we are still following a pre-split mindset regarding leadership, and that simply is not the way our wiki works anymore. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:03, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

It was pretty obvious on that referendum that the community was in favor of chat moderators being able to endorse other potential chat moderators. Assuming that everyone is just going to endorse their buddies is paranoia. We can't change an administrator's ability to delete pages/comments/etc., so why would that matter? Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 22:43, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Not the underlying point. The point is that we have not addressed our leadership since the split. And in that time, I have seen numerous transgressions that only should have been done when we were under an Autocracy, and multiple users on this wiki have either begun questioning what it means to hold a rights position here, or have no clue - just seeing it as a way to move up within the wiki ecosystem here. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:47, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

I think the question of Chat moderators having this ability is a settled matter, and do not think it is appropriate to reraise it. Agent c (talk) 23:15, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Again - an example, not the underlying point. I am not reviving the chat moderator deal even in the least. Please see my response to Toci. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:17, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'll paraphrase you on the original blog. Your concerns are too vague. What specifically do you want to see happen? What are the steps you feel we need to take? Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 01:47, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Supposed to be vague. We are in a dated mindset, and it might do our wiki good for the entire community to talk about what role our leadership should be filling in our current generation. Whether anything changes is an unknown. But at least discussing it should be a healthy exercise. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:05, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that, but a lot of the community is shying away from this because they feel like they're picking sides in some kind of conflict. Perhaps this should be posted on the community message board with a few lines explaining what this forum really is. As of right now, it's only about 5 users including you and me. We need to do something to encourage everyone to participate in this because this forum is FOR the community. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 04:26, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Even if a message was put up, a lot of the community just doesn't care. Many aren't involved in the politics on how this place is actually ran. Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 07:08, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
It is true; I would be naive to think otherwise. Most editors are gone, and the other users are primarily interested in chat or our blogs. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 07:11, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So how do you propose "the entire community talk about what role our leadership should be filling" if we can all agree that they simply don't care? Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 19:34, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that assuming the worst and never trying was an acceptable way of thinking. If I just gave up all of the time, just because there were obstacles, then I would have missed out on a lot in my life. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:37, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly not a healthy way to think, but it seemed to be the way your posts were going. I had to ask just to make sure. So if you don't think posting it in the community messages is an effective idea, what else do you think would spark interest? That never got answered. Plus, I never said we weren't going to try. I asked you what other solutions you had in mind since we agreed (and you did agree to this) that a lot of the community doesn't care. By asking a question, I was expressing my curiosity at you acknowledging the problem, and assumed that you had some idea of how to begin working through that. Navy athletics Don't give up the ship! Bill the goat 20:15, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
There are no easy solutions, and there is no perfect solution - none of these should be expected at this point. We have what we have to work with, and that will have to be enough. If our community has become jaded towards most forums, then that is not something we can expect to amend immediately, and will take time for this rift to heal. Until then, the best we can do is try our best to make the community feel important and involved, so that they can start getting motivated to vote and comment again. I have personally been told by multiple users since.. 2012? that the reason why they do not get involved much, is because they feel that their thoughts mean little once the Administrators and such get involved. This circles back to why a discussion like this might be beneficial to the entire wiki, even if it simply remains as a discussion forum. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:29, June 17, 2014 (UTC)


Whilst the status of leaders and leadership on the wiki is an interesting one, I think its a little off the point in trying to write a policy that deals with this specific situation. How much support is there for Toci's suggestion that the restriction on Bureaucrats endorsing being removed, but remaining that if a bureaucrat votes they do not act as bureaucrat later on? Agent c (talk) 20:30, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, I am not necessarily endorsing a policy change at this time. Simply that a discussion about the subject would be greatly beneficial to the wiki. As for Toci's suggestion, I do not support it even in the least. On one hand, I agree with Limmie that we cannot keep throwing community decisions into question every time a user has a problem with the results. On the other hand, I only support Bureaucrats having the right to bot endorse and vote, because every other special rights position except Patroller also has that right. I do not want to compromise on that position, as I have seen the folly of my decisions to compromise on matters in the past. In the end, I choose to respect the community's decision. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:39, June 17, 2014 (UTC)
To be blunt Leon. If you're not the mind to discuss, negociate, and compromise you're in the wrong place. This is the place to build consensus and unity, not to divide between winners and losers. I hope you choose to be a part of it, but the choice is yours. Agent c (talk) 00:36, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
I am always willing to discuss, and I am always willing to negotiate. But I have learned that settling for the lesser evil is a good way to both compromise my own personal integrity, and watch as my indecision helps lead to a bad conclusion, such as with the inactivity policy. Just because that opinion does not sit right with yours, does not give you the right to throw your weight around and lord your opinion over mine with odd suggestions. I am starting to agree with Skire, here, that you are adopting quite a bit of a 'holier-than-thou' attitude, where we can either be with you, or else you consider us against the entire wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:41, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

And I have no intention of doing that, and would appreciate it if you stop assigning me motives. When you walk into a discussion on building consensus and saying "No, I'm not going to compromise", you close off any discussion. Your opinion is welcome. We've seen success in building something I think int he first point. You can either work with the community to build something, or insist on your way. The only one trying to divide between an "us" and them" here is you. Choice is yours - be a part of the consensus, or don't. Agent c (talk) 00:47, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Then stop assigning me motives, and respect the fact that other people have opinions that differ from yours. I am my own person, and I have my own opinions on how to better this wiki. And I did not say I am not going to compromise in general - I specifically said I do not agree with Toci, and I am not willing to compromise there, because I whole-heartedly believe in only option 3, where Bureaucrats have the option to vote and endorse. I do not believe in the other 2 positions, so for me, I am not willing to compromise there, as that would mean settling with a choice I do not like (aka, a lesser evil). If I liked any of the other two options, then I would not be settling with a lesser evil - thus, setting up a scenario in which I am comfortable with compromising.
In any case, compromise is not always a good thing. I once again refer you to the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:52, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

I'm assigning you no motive at all Leon. his is a place to build a consensus, and lets get that back on track. Does anyone else have any views about Toci's suggestion? Agent c (talk) 00:56, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Howdy folks. First of all I'd like to point out that this forum is to help resolve issues, it says that in the name, not to start up new ones or rekindle old ones. The goal is solutions, not problems. And, it would only be intuitive that with such wide ranging thoughts and ideas, the best way to do this would likely be through compromise as it brings things closer to consensus. We cannot approach this forum with an all or nothing mentality for everything, it doesn't work, it prohibits further discussion and creates problems. Throwing around insults or rude remarks at each other doesn't help matters in the least. As a wiki we must be united, consensus on this wiki has always been important and I do not see it being any less so now. I have been reading through this bit of the forum trying to wrap my head completely around what exactly is going on here, and frankly it seems to have derailed in some ways. There was an initial suggestion in this bit from you, Leon, that this discussion being presented is not the one that we should be having. I am curious as to what that discussion is, perhaps through that I can grasp the central concept of the back and forth I've been watching here that I have apparently been missing. Richie9999 (talk) 01:31, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
The original proposition is to elaborate on the Bureaucratic position, and my suggestion is that maybe we should be elaborating on every special rights position since we have never discussed what the community wants from our leadership now that we no longer follow the Autocracy we were under before the split. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:38, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
So your idea is that we need to figure out who the leaders are and what each type of special rights actually means? Cause the way I see it, anyone with special rights MUST be a leader of this wiki, an example for others to look up to, that goes for everyone from B-crats on down to patrollers. If you have special rights you're a leader, and to some extent or another an expert, whether you're a chat mod who should be someone who demonstrates proper chat behavior and leads the chat community that way, or a patroller who exhibits good editing practices and leads the editors. The way I see it, admins and b-crats are leaders in both areas who have the ability to punish/ban those who would violate the rules and grant special rights as needed. Richie9999 (talk) 01:45, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Leadership is subjective, and can be either a small or large position in any community. What I do know, is that our community still follows a pre-split mindset as to the positions our special rights holders follow, when that mindset has been obsolete ever since we stopped being under an Autocracy. The reason why Bureaucrats today are regarded to as the de-facto leaders, is because before the split, users such as Ausir, Porter and Goth made decisions without the need to consult the community, and that behaviour has stuck with us to even today. But our wiki does not work like that anymore, and I think it would be best if we got together and discussed what leadership means now, and not relying on an outdated perspective of leadership we used back when Ausir was in complete control of the wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:50, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not particularly seeing the point in discussing a non-issue, especially when discussing leadership of the wiki. There hasn't been any brought forward case to suggest that the leadership requires discussion; given that a common mentality is that people perceive moderators, administrators and bureaucrats as nothing more than typical users with special rights- regardless of whether right or wrong this mentality is -it is hard to define what that "leadership" is, so discussing something that is not even defined may as well be existential. However, this is fairly off topic, as the very title of the forum states "Resolving Issues" not "Expanding Issues". A discussion on the overall leadership and management of the wiki must be made in a separate forum, as it only dilutes the already essay-like proportions of this forum (I myself having to take some time to finally draw some conclusions on what, I believe, is even being discussed by the forum speakers).
To return, on the states of Bureaucrats in votes I stand by what I previously stated in the endorsement of Chat Moderators meta-vote: A bureaucrat holds the position of determining the final call on the vote with other bureaucrats, this does mean that allowing them to vote, endorse or declare the results of a vote they have setup unjustly places them in a seat of superiority over other voters; they have both the influence of the vote through standard voting, and also the influence over the final call of the vote. It is in my opinion that a bureaucrat may never vote, reserving themselves for the final call on the vote's conclusion, for if we allowed them to vote it would cause an unjust amount of power being granted to them (as previously stated) and for them to be given the right to excuse themselves from influencing the final call of the vote also damages the consensus of the bureaucrats. User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 01:54, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
I specifically made my suggestion under the 'Suggest something different' for a reason. Anyways, this is a problem, and it is why I am bringing it up. Not only do many users see special rights as a way to increase their influence, but much of the community enables this behaviour by seeing the special rights users as having more influence around the wiki. What really seals this in for me is that since 2012, I have noticed many behaviours that were only appropriate when we were under an Autocracy, such as the unilateral decisions to remove or modify bans without ever contacting the original banner.
So since Chad wants to elaborate more on the Bureaucrat position, I feel it might be in our best interests to expand that a bit more and have a proper discussion on what the community considers a modern leadership for us - not a leadership following an outdated mindset that is obsolete, that the community simply follows because that is all they have ever known. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:08, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
You seemed to have patently ignored what I've said about what this forum is discussing, and what you're wanting to discuss. If you're wanting to discuss the mentality of the wiki in regards to leadership, then I, and probably many others, would be quite happy to contribute to a seperate forum specifically discussing such a broad matter. But, I again, feel the need to state that this section is discussing specifically the Bureaucrat position, and only that. If you're willing to ignore what I've just said about the nature of this forum, then I'm quite as happy to willingly ignore your opinions of the forum; I can play this child's playground game for a while, but not everyone here wants to partake in that, and after possibly pages of discussion with absolutely no content or goal, this off-topic discussion (and since it is only you who wishes to "expand" the topic, it really is the definitive off-topic) simply needs to end. User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 02:22, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
That is because part 2 of what you said belongs in the prior header. Drawing it out here is just discussing that topic in the wrong place. What this section is for, is about relevant topics pertaining the original topic, while discussing it in an entirely different manner. Anyways, your ad hominem there at the end is duly noted, and I will leave it at that. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:26, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

The "Something different" is directly related to the level 2 heading, the special status of the Bureaucrat in votes, and is intended to be a suggestion for completely alternatives to the written proposal, not for new topics (hence the mirror to the 3 sections above). Agent c (talk) 02:15, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

This is not a new topic. It is an expansion of your original proposition, except instead of talking about just Bureaucrats, we also talk about the other special rights positions. Although, I digress in that in my solution, I am not pushing for policy changes - just discussion. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:18, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
I dont understand leon. The proposal is specifically about the special status that Burecrats get in accepting and adjudicating votes. No other position has this role, so I dont see how any other position is relevant at all. Agent c (talk) 02:28, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that depends. The reason I brought this up, is because Bureaucrats do not have jurisdiction to finalize every vote on this wiki, but are allowed to because the community is used to the wiki being ran that way because of before the split. If that is the discussion, then we might as well and discuss the other rights positions as well. If we are just talking about user rights requests, then I will admit that what I have brought up is irrelevant. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:33, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

The proposed wording is intended to make it clear that Bureaucrats can either be bureaucrats for the purpose of any vote and not vote, or choose not to be and vote and have no further involvement. That simple. Agent c (talk) 02:37, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I still believe my topic to be relevant, but if we are sticking to those parameters, then it probably would be best to remand my suggestion. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:40, June 18, 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement