This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed Concensus Track. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the talk page or in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the discussion was The Galactic Alliance. WhiteBoy 04:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This was the topic of some discussion on the Senate Hall, so here's the consensus track for it. I'm sure it will be full of discussion. Feel free to set up a new proposal or idea, that's what it's here for.
A new plan for nominating admins was proposed:
Note that there are really two plans advocated are shown:
1 version (Galactic Alliance one) would be to have a 2/3rds supermajority of admin votes, separate from either a majority or supermajority of all user votes.
The other version would be to have only one vote, but a 2/3rds supermajority of all users. This is the version depicted below, although perhaps a better vote procedure would be to vote to A) change the policy or B) Not change the policy and then go from there.
But you know, as soon as I vote a "no", any adminship vote would still fail to succeed. I am listening to the other admins' concerns, and SparqMan does have a point about making more admins but not structuring things to make them more efficient to begin with. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As you are one of the co-founders of Wookieepedia and a bureaucrat, we of course undestand that you would have veto power- that's the fourth part of this policy. However, I wasn't aware of a way for other users to see the admin-only discussions, so I created this page as a way to let users express their preferences to the higher-ups. I really don't know what point Sparqman has as I have not seen it. Thanks. Atarumaster88 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want something clarified before I vote. Not all admins vote on RFAs, so when you say "all admins", does that mean all admins who have voted, or all 16 admins? StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
He probably feels that 2/3rds of all admins that participate must agree. Getting Imp and Aidje to come back for this is impossible. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm torn on this. I think that the last two people should've gotten through, but I feel that the opposing concerns are certainly valid. -- Ozzel 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Call me an egalitarian, but I honestly don't see the need to elevate admin/bureaucrat votes over those of registered users, especially considering this is only done on RfAs. For better or for worse, most of our decision-making on the CT (and elsewhere) is based on simple majorities; a sort of democracy. Elevating sysops to a higher status (as has been done a bit around here) is essentially a type of oligarchy, which has some benefits but also a number of drawbacks. My personal opinion is that a democratic model is more fitting to a community-driven site such as this one. Sysops are (or at least should be, IMHO) regular users with some extra maintenance/security tools, not site decision-makers or arbiters. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm bitter because of my RfA... I'm truly not (in fact, it was probably fortuitous that it failed, a number of RL things have come up that have cut back on my time here drastically; the last thing we need is another MIA admin :-) This has just been something I've noticed that has bothered me a bit. RMF 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would be best to allow some sort of restraint, as well as the fact that it would be good for them be on the same page, since both of them are the only ones who can grant admin powers on this site. -- SFH 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry RMF, but I disagree. Many of the users who vote on such pages are fairly new and may not know a nominee's past history. The admins have usually been around for a while and have worked with those who are nominated. Since we voted to make them admins, we might as well trust their good judgement and allow them more say in the matter; especially since it is they who must work closely with the new admin. I am reluctant to vote to loosen the rules because I fear the wiki might be overrun with admins who are popular, but lack the maturity required to make a good sysop.–SentryTalk 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's a point, but I would argue that the community on the whole is experienced enough to make the right decision – if a user has some sort of past history that would cast doubt on their RfA, all it takes is for someone to bring it up in their objection and other users previously unfamiliar with the situation could look into it (via checking edits/actions). Don't get me wrong, I think the policy above is an improvement over our current one, I'm just not convinced we need both a 'admin supermajority' rule as well as a bureaucratic veto ability. If some level of restriction is necessary, surely one or other is sufficient? RMF 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Both of you guys have good points. Perhaps the best solution then is to require a 2/3 supermajority of admins AND regular users. That would make admin votes comparable to regular user votes, but would keep the bar high (raising it, in fact). jSarek 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That is a great compromise, but it does not address our bureaucrats Riffsyphon1024 and WhiteBoy. Would they retain their veto powers? And to RMF, I apologize if my response was somewhat abrupt. I respect your views and happily voted for your admin nomination… I was simply troubled by the first sentence of your comment which seemed to imply that you were pushing for a purely popular democratic voting process. Unfortunately, egalitarianism, when applied to the Internet, has a sad tendency to degenerate into outright anarchism.–SentryTalk 00:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sort of a neutral party here, aside from voting for a new policy. I just changed the policy to 2/3rds overall supermajority of users and admins. I still believe our two bureaucrats should have veto powers. Atarumaster88 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the bureaucrats should keep their power. If it ever seems like WhiteBoy, Riffs, or someone later chosen to be a bureaucrat is abusing their powers, we can revisit this decision, but as it stands I don't think requiring their approval (or at least not their disapproval, if they choose not to actively vote). However, Atarumaster, I don't think you should've changed the policy after people have started voting; that's not the policy they voted for. It should be provided as a new, seperate option. jSarek 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sentry, there's absolutely no need for you to apologize... I completely understand where you're coming from – a complete democracy can sometimes equate to mob rule. I guess my stance is that for a site such as this a quasi-democracy with some oversight (such as retaining bureaucrat vetos) is better than a quasi-oligarchy. RMF 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with RMF. Kuralyov 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the criteria has now significantly changed since the vote began (from 2/3 majority admin votes to 2/3 majority admin and user votes). What happens now? Kinda throws the whole thing out of whack. --Azizlight 13:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Should I change it back? I'm sorry- at the time it seemed the consensus was to make it 2/3rds majority over all. This is the first consensus track I've ever started, so I'm probably screwing it up and someone else might want to take it over. Apologies. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 14:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This all should have been thought up sooner. That's what I say. Whatever turns out of this, better be better than the old order. either way something's gonna change. --Jabbathehuttgartogg 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be 2/3 admins + 2/3 users + all bureaucrats (count seperately). I was how it took it at first when it was changed from what it was at first (majority of users + 2/3 admins + all burea's). -Finlayson 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who made the track, but since I screwed it up by changing it (which was bad), I'm just not going to touch it again. I've asked User:Whiteboy to take it over, because it's stressing me out and I don't know what to do now. If one of you wants to change it back, make a new consensus track, whatever, that's fine with me. I'm outta here. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Added this new option below. People can change their votes if they want. It'll be there for reference if this dies at the least. -Finlayson 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting my vote on this way of voting because it seems to me that it is the fairest and simplest way of voting. SecondSight 20:50, 1 September 2006
This is THE WAY. This way, we all are equil. Admins. are just like us, just with the title "Administartor" on them. Outside is the real world. Nothing's fair. This is OUR world, the Wookie. Things ARE fair. --Jabbathehuttgartogg 05:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Jabba, this particular option requires that there be a separate vote of users and admins, as opposed to one big vote where everyone is "equal."
Am I understanding correctly that bureaucrats are included in the 2/3 admin vote, but if it's a "no" vote then it's a veto? WhiteBoy 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That's supposed to be 3 seperate groups on votes; users, admins and bureaucrats. A No bureaucrat vote would serve as a veto. -Finlayson 15:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
What about having a 3/4 admin majority instead of 2/3? WhiteBoy 03:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, as would a continuation of the current policy where administrator votes must be unanimous. I have a slight preference towards this 2/3rds|2/3rds|100% proposal, though. —Silly Dan(talk) 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should also come up with a procedure for revoking adminship, in the event that an admin goes crazy or becomes a Sith lord all of a sudden ;-) --Azizlight 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be a separate and incredibly thorny issue (though of course this type of proposal means that a single admin, crazy or not, couldn't stop other users from becoming admins any more.) It's part of the reason this version of the proposal still requires that the bureaucrats agree, since the community trusts them not to do something completely irrational. (Then there's the issue of whether new bureaucrats would ever need to be appointed, which I don't think we need worry about for some time.) —Silly Dan(talk) 00:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's think about this: 66.6% versus 75%. In the first case, over 7 of 10 admins would need to vote for it. In the case of 75%, an additional admin to make 8. That doesn't work as well unless we had 100 admins, which we do not. As it won't make much of a difference, I would stick to 2/3rds. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Per RMF. I think 2/3rds proposal is perfectly suitable. But looking at the poll, I'd say the consensus is clear. Should we consider it official now? —Mirlen 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason for this is quite simple...users can be very popular with other users, yet admins can have had numerous fallings out with them...I don't mean over personal issues, but things that most users probably won't have noticed. Besides the fact that we don't actually currently need any more admins (we cope with vandalism excellently, and quickly (especially compared to many other Wiki's), I also don't want all popular users to become admins, as that's not the point of the site. I'd go into more detail, but it's currently 3am and I'm quite tired. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If admins have had falling outs, then they won't get the required two-thirds admin votes. jSarek 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, for archival's sake, here's my opinion stated again: Personally, I still prefer the unanimous-among-administrators rule.
The main reason is that adminship on Wookieepedia means more than it does on other wikis. It is not simply for someone to have easier tools to revert and be able to ban someone quicker. It is a leadership role. An admin is someone that the community can respect and trust, and especially the other leaders of the community.
I think it helps ensure unity among the leadership, which will result in a better site.
I don't think it should necessarily be an easy thing to become an admin because of the leadership role that it is. As Jaymach said, I don't think we are in any great need of new admins, which might warrant the relaxing of the current criteria. The current method has worked well, and has produced a good group of admins for the site. I say we stick with it because it has been and is working well. WhiteBoy 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
My main problem was that the first option to vote for here is 2/3 admin and user votes...not 2/3 admin votes. So every single admin could vote against someone, bar the beaurocrats, and they could still get in if they get a mass of user votes. Additionally, we've recently been having problems with admins "falling out", and some users have been denied adminship for this very reason...does it really help bring unity to adminship when we have new admin's that haven't had full admin support? —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit the 2/3 admin and user votes is just plain unreasonable. So then what I get a group of my friends to vote for me and push me into adminship? Since there is no hierarchy of users (users who have been here longer don't get more votes) that could easily happen. The 2/3 admin vote is also too low of a percentage for me, so I support the 100% admin support. However, when WhiteBoy steps in and says, "I just don't know you that well", it seems like an unfair challenge, and if the rest of the admins agree to the appointment, why shouldn't that person be an admin? Don't get me wrong, WhiteBoy is a great administrator, (he started this kriffing site!) but that type of reasoning just seems flawed. Maybe if there were requirements for objections (beyond the person being a newbie)? Also, it seems that there should be someway for a regular user to do something to stop an appointment. Like Jaymach said, Administrators are the face of this site, and the regular user's should be able to help develop how that face appears. For example, I think the admins are notoriously friendly with people who frequently talk on ITC and are wiki-savvy (creating new templates and managing site appearance). Not that that's bad, but I think a rose-colored lens can befall those admins who are dazzled by those users. I probably have more to say on this, but I probably already repeated myself a couple of times. Cull Tremayne 22:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's true that several of us are more likely to support people who are on the IRC channel frequently, and who know a lot of wiki tricks: though the RfA requirements do point out that things like useful article edits, length of time on the wiki, and relationship with other users should be the main considerations. Whatever the outcome of this CT, the admins should bear that in mind. —Silly Dan(talk) 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)