Forums > Senate Hall archive > Balance of the "Force"

By the force, I mean the powers behind this wiki. It is my understanding that some people and situations are getting out of hand. Someone very wise once said,"This wiki is not a democracy." Obviously indicating tyranny or monarchy, or oligarchy, or federalism, or republicanism, or...anarchy. But that isn't my point. I believe that the wiki should be more flexible and balanced. Although I think we should all be more concerned about the encyclopedia, but this is obviously a community gone wrong. One that needs to be made right and one that to be protected. I believe a few additions or alterations of policy are in order. First I think we should have a page or system that will allow a supermajority of users to be able to undo a decision that an administrator's desicion(i.e. an unfair or unreasonable ban). Also, on the subject of banning, I believe that the community should decide who is banned. I think that administrators, if they want someone banned, should block a registered user that is doing things, and should have a vote on whether this person should be banned. Then once the vote is over the person shall have their block removed and shall either be allowed to go about their business, or be banned. Finally I think that one single person who's duty is to be fair and balanced in their descisions, should be elected as a "Mediator", to settle or negotiate disputes, such as edit wars (Note: There should only be one, so that there actions are easily followed so that we can make sure they are doing there job and not abusing power. Also the community only, should be allowed to take their power away). I want some disscusion on these matters before any action is to be taken.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you give us a specific example of an abuse of power, unreasonable ban, etc? I mean, look at any of the recent debates and how even the admins are split up on a lot of issues. I don't think there's a deliberate and organized oligarchy here with a goal of controlling whose voice we hear. And if we were to implement the kind of stuff you are talking about, it would do more to add to the chaos that vandals create than to make anything better. If you think someone needs to be banned, report them to an admin. If you think an admin unreasonably banned someone, take it up with the other admins at the noticeboard. I think our system is pretty great the way it is. And why appoint a single "Mediator" to do a job that we have 22 wonderful admins doing already? Wildyoda 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I will not be more specific. I only want to prevent unreasonable banns from occuring, and assuring that we have a voice. I am also not implying that there is an organized oligarchy at all. There is no conspiracy within my knowledge. I only want to protect the good people of this wiki, and give them more say.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No. That is simply retarded and defeats the entire point of moderators and administrators. Admins and mods need to be able to end vandalism quickly and they wouldn't be able to do that if there has to be a vote every time someone acts up. It doesn't even work that way in a democracy. There is a wide variety of admins and mods here for a reason. If one gets too arrogant, the others can tip the balances back. They all have different opinions and would be unlikely they should "form an unholy alliance" aganist the community. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • IG, I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Are you expressing a vote of no confidence in all the admins and bureaucrats, from WhiteBoy down to me? As for banning, what do you mean? There are times (move vandals, etc.) that swift action is justified and needed to protect this wiki from vandals. If you mean the banning of users, that's a different story, but the Administrator's Noticeboard is in place to serve that purpose. A banned user might just have his/her friends vote to get rid of them, leading to anarchy instead of replacing it. Are you referring to specific case? And the "Mediator" would have to be in-human and work full time on this wiki to do that. Mediation is something that I think every user should be part of, in keeping their "speech" from flaming and trolling. Only in severe cases should an admin be needed. And there is a way to remove admin power. And as Redemption implied, There Is No Cabal. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • IG remember: there is no cabal. you have nothing to worry about as long as you arent a vandal. HappyTimeHarry 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe the Mediator was a little over the top, but we need a leader, a administrtor who is gaurenteed to be unbiased and fair. I am not suggesting any conspiracy. I am only protecting the interests of the people. Plus, Redemption, I don't want a democracy here. Just a system with more power to the users, and lees to administrators. IPs can be banned with swift action. But an established User, should not, and the community should decide. The user might not have a supermajority of friends to overrule everybody elese. Efficiency can be worked in later. I am just laying out the basics.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
All admins are supposed to be unbiased though. HappyTimeHarry 23:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Too bad all of them aren't. Most of them have opinions on issues and are intent on seeing their choice of actions across. Not the right course of action.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "IPs can be banned with swift action. But an established User, should not, and the community should decide."
    • Being an established user doesn't exempt you from rules. If you break them, you get banned. I've never seen one of our admins do anything unwarranted to an established user, and not even anything warranted without first warning them. And HappyTimeHarry said it all. Wildyoda 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I know that users are not exempted from the rules, but are less prone to vandalism. I am not even suggesting that they are unfairly banning people. I only want users to have more power in the goings of this community. And if such a dreadful event happened, than we should have the power to have a say.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • What more power do you want? We already have the power to challenge them. Hell, we decide who is one and who isn't. If we have a problem with something they do, we can take it up with them. It's not like they're word is absolute and completly and utterly final. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That was how it was with the Truth and Reconciliation.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • You are going to have to elaborate on what you mean. Since I'm failing to see your point. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm not going to argue about that. But let's just say that you can bring issues up at the Admin's noticeboard or there is way to remove admin powers. Admins are not that special, they just have buttons to push marked "delete" etc. and are basically required to enforce rules, whereas users aren't necessarily required to, IMO. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
              • The R&R was an in-community project used to make sort out any conflicting information within user fanfics. Also it was used to make fanfics realistic, so that it was possible to fit into continuity. It was working fine and we kept it small, so as not to become too big and... noisy. But then Imperialles shut it down. We had no other administrators to listen to. Just him. One administrator against eight users? It was a bit unfair. It was a while ago, yet it stings as if it was yesterdays. We should have been able to keep it going. But... it died.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Good. Thats fanon and has no place here. HappyTimeHarry 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It may have been fanon, but fanfics are allowed here. Besides, it was used to make sure there was no conflicting information. Also, it was on a user subpage, not a seperate article. We were completely in the right to do it.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don’t think that this whole thing is a good idea. First off the Admins are there to share the responsibility because the idea of one all-powerful ‘leader’ is frankly imposable for a wiki of this size it couldn’t be watched over by one. With the power Admins have I couldn’t be happier, say one moron decides to go on an editing spree by the time we have voted for action it will take ages to revert damage done. And the only fanon should be on the users page if they choose to have it at all Joker1138(Mandalore) Neo-Crusader emblem
  • Only on userpages are fanfics allowed. Seems to me that you were incorporating it into actual articles. Imp was right to shut it down. Hell, I'd even argue that fanfics shouldn't be allowed on userpages even. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The fanon was only on userpages!!!!! We had the project so that our fanfics could conincide with each other. The project was even hosted on a userpage.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This will never work simply because of the facts that nobody is unbiased, and no wikis are democracies. BubTalk 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Fanfics should be allowed. Were all here because of the creative joy that Star Wars has brought to us, the reason this wiki exists is because of that creativity. If we were to loose the fanfics then what would follow? We would soon become faceless editors and wookie would loose its spark. Joker1138(Mandalore) Neo-Crusader emblem
    • Well if you have a problem with the decision, take it up with Imp or one of the others. Seems to me that you just went straight for "Revolution! Power to the workers!" without even trying to negotiate with him. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Redemption, as it was my page in the first place, all it was was an attempt to make sure several people's fanfics weren't conflicting and propose new ideas. I can show you this history. And technically, it was a user subpage talkpage, if that makes sense. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Redemption don't you think I would have tried to negotiate instead of starting this six months later!!? This is not the only thing. I want to prevent this from happening again. My ideas are not final, just a starting point that can be tweaked to everyone's satisfaction. This is not a revolution. Just a balancing of power, so that well established users and dedicated users can have semi-equal power to that of administrators. All I want is equal voice and power to users.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 00:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is undoing the entire reason we have admins. This is silly. The admins are, as a body, moderate and trustworthy, and need no "mediator" overlord nor the "community" ratifying every decision. Structures are already in place to deal with complaints about admins individually instead of a structure that seems to assume bad faith across the entire adminship. Havac 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not eliminating administrators, nor am I creating an "overlord". I stated mid way through this that that may have been over the top. However all else remains. These are not final descions, just suggestion. Things that can be tweaked and improved to to satisfy everyone's interest. I know several administrators, Ataru esapecially, and I admire the work they do. But I think that their power should have something to put it in check, should they or a single administrator make an unnecassary or unfavorable action that needs to be immediately ratified by the community. I want everyone to have an equal vote and voice. All I want is a balance of administatorial powers.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "I want some disscusion on these matters before any action is to be taken."
    • I think you've had it and nobody in here yet has agreed with you on pretty much a single real point you've made. Not to be rude, but let's just stop this before it degenerates further. Wildyoda 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "I will not difer!" Although I won't follow the rest of that scene(since it leads to "new leadership" which I am not suggesting). Wildyoda, no one seems to even get what I am saying, so just re-read over the first section over again--carefully. Maybe, just maybe, you'll understand. But I know that some people agree with me. Two at least, who haven't made any comments yet on this page, but I am sure there are more that will come and side with me. Considering you don't understand my push for the balance of power and equality for all users, you don't have much room to criticize me, on something you, yourself have refused to understand. You wont listen to reason or logic, so I am just going to wait until I gain support. This will continue, and maybe even become a vote. Not to go too far ahead, but at this point I've held my own against all of you, and I will not stop until something is done.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the fairest, most moderate, and most polite thing I can say about all this: You sound like a total lunatic. Just because people won't agree with you doesn't mean they "wont (sic) listen to reason," it means they think your idea is bad. You're acting like a petulant child. Saying that you "will not stop until something is done" means that you won't accept consensus. Consensus is a core principle of wiki operation. In the absence of consensus, we can sometimes accept supermajority. So far, your ideas are supported by neither. If you can't accept that, you can leave. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 05:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are already processes in place to check their power. You're proposing an additional, unneeded, and unnecessarily restrictive layer of oversight to administrators who have so far demonstrated no need for that sort of oversight. I don't get why we would want this. Havac 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, let me see if I've got this straight. You don't have a specific grievance with any of the administrators. You don't want to be more specific on the abuse of power by the admins. You don't want a change of the administrators right now. So...what is the problem? (PS, usually when we say this isn't a democracy, we're just joking). A very concerned admin who is fearing revolution 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, speaking from experience as the sole admin of the SW Fanon wiki (which is where ALL fanon belongs, but that's another topic...) for about four months, I can tell you that having a mediator is next to impossible, mainly due to the size of this community and the fact that (as pointed out earlier) they would have to be here 24/7 due to all the demands on their time. I also don't see the point of this topic. All us admins are just regular users with a few extra buttons and a buttload of policies to uphold. I also think that having the community vote to ban vandals is a waste of time that could be used to contribute to the wiki constructively, and users have enough power as it is. They decide who can be an admin, and they can petition for de-adminship if they feel that a certain admin is lacking in their duties/judgement (provided there is enough evidence to back up their claim). I see nothing wrong with our current system as it is, and although we admins have the pretty buttons, the policies to uphold, and vandals to ban, we are also human, and we can (and will) make mistakes. If you feel that you have been wronged, discuss the situation with the admin in question or bring it up over at the Admin's Noticeboard. That IS what it's there for. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 05:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You know what, I'll agree with IG on one point - the people here are not concerned with the encyclopedia. Or at least, trying to make this look and feel like a professional, and classy operation. But it's not because of lack of freedom or any of that bollux. It's because we have the freedom, we have consensus tracks allowing people to elect to not use grammar and such. If anything, we should have tighter regulations. .... 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Finally, someone has a good idea...--RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • No, we don't have freedom. rue freedom is having power to automatically overdo someone who has power that could somehow be abused. I have said several times that these ideas are not final, suggestions only. I admitted that the mediator idea was unnecassary. I am getting sick and tired of you people putting words into my mouth.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

CountDooku13 (or is it IG-Prime?), you seem to be overlooking some important practical considerations:

  1. Admins are humans and we make mistakes. We are also volunteers that have real lives to attend to. We do not exist merely to serve this wiki 24 hours a day. Therefore, your proposal of choosing a single perfectly impartial and ever-present moderator to oversee disputes is a pipe dream at best.
  2. Since the community chose us to serve as administrators, should we not be allowed to work without constant input from the community? After all, most of the tedious admin-related tasks we perform involve carrying out policies that have been refined through consensus. When confronted with matters that have not yet been defined by policy, we should (and usually do) get the community involved by starting a Consensus Track discussion thread.
  3. Adding additional layers of bureaucracy to a preexisting hierarchy almost never solves problems. If the community is going to audit all of our decisions and force us to justify every block we hand out to vandals, nothing is going to get done.
  4. Remember that if a user believes that they have been wronged by an Administrator or suspects that an Admin is acting outside the bounds of established policy, it is their responsibility to call attention to the matter. We are not omniscient and we rarely keep close tabs on each other. If you wish to resolve a problem with an Admin, there are plenty of lines of communication that are open to you: the Administrators' noticeboard, IRC, E-mail, and user talk pages.

Lastly, using phrases like "It is my understanding that some people and situations are getting out of hand" and "this is obviously a community gone wrong. One that needs to be made right and one that to be protected" without supporting evidence is tantamount to shouting "fire" in a crowded room just to get people's attention. It is a pointless disruption which will not be taken seriously.–SentryTalk 21:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You...are tight I suppose. I apologize for making such a disturbance.--IG-Prime(IG-2000) 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is alright, you don't have to apologize. There is nothing wrong with advocating changes to the wiki. I realize that my comments above were somewhat cold and I apologize, but you must realize that it is unfair to demand broad and sweeping changes to the wiki while also pointedly refusing to adequately explain why you think such changes are needed.
      Anyway, if you have any specific complaints or unresolved issues concerning any of the Admins (or all of us), this would be a good time to address them.–SentryTalk 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)