This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result was Abolish bureaucrat veto powers. —Silly Dan(talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the creation of Wookieepedia's RFU and RFRUR page, bureaucrats have had the power to veto any nomination. This was established because people feared unsuitable candidates would pass the adminship process. Essentially, the Wookieepedians of that time were worried that they themselves, as a group, could not be completely trusted with handing out power.
But I say that time has passed. The community no longer needs bureaucrats to act as "babysitters." I strongly believe that most Wookieepedians are reasonable people that are capable of making their own decisions. An unsuitable candidate for adminship would never pass the RFA process today, regardless of bureaucrat vetoes.
In light of this, I propose we abolish bureaucrat veto rights. No longer would Imperialles, jSarek, Riffyphon1024 and WhiteBoy hold an, in my opinion, unreasonable political power on Wookieepedia.
Please do not add any further vote options below. --Imperialles 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've oft thought about posing this proposal myself in the past, but once it actually came up, rather than jumping in with a vote, I found myself spending a few days weighing whether it would genuinely be to the benefit of the community to remove the veto. After those days of reflection, I ultimately think it is. The stability the veto allegedly provides to those seeking administrative duties has never really been demonstrated; but the possibility of the bureaucrats becoming a self-protecting cabal sect, insulated from the displeasure of the other editors, has been. Further, as the language of this very thread shows, it's perceived as being rather undemocratic, which on some level it is. I think these factors in its disfavor outweigh the nebulous claims to its benefits. jSarek 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
This is going to sound weird coming from me, as someone whose first RFA failed solely because of a BC veto and someone who has been loudly opposed to some actions taken by bureaucrats (and someone who has zero chance of ever becoming a bureaucrat), but I still think this is a good idea. -- Darth Culator(Talk) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, odd as it sounds, your name always floats around the old noggin whenever I wonder if another BC would be helpful. Don't knock yourself—I would be hard-pressed to find many who work on the wiki as much as you do. Graestan(Talk) 02:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The intent of having veto rights for the BC's was to attempt to have (while not cookie-cutter admins, as I'm sure you can tell) at least somewhat like-minded people in leadership positions, hopefully avoiding some of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. What I said about Riff and I retaining veto rights I liken to Jimbo still retaining authority at Wikipedia. I don't recall the specific incident, but (I believe it was this past year) Jimbo had to step in and overrule the decision-making body that was put in place. It should not be something that is used very often, but it still needs to be in place for those times when it may be needed. WhiteBoy 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And Jimbo's actions in those cases have often come under rather harsh criticism. In any event, the situations aren't very analogous, since Jimbo and the other Wikipedia higher-ups are also responsible for the legal and operational end of Wikipedia, whereas those concerns here are in the hands of Wikia staffers, not Wookieepedia bureaucrats. jSarek 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Without the veto — which I interpreted as making them equivalent to the founding bureaucrats — what was the point of making new bureaucrats to begin with? —Silly Dan(talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
To ensure there's active admins around who are trusted enough by the community to manage user rights? --Imperialles 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to become heavily involved in this argument. However, I think that one of the roles of the bureaucrat position is to keep a close eye on who's up for RFA and who's not. All of bureaucrats have shown what I see as good judgment in the use of the veto, and by and large have seen no clear evidence of a veto being used to thwart the will of the community or for personal reasons. As such, I see no reason to remove something that is not and has not been misused by the bureaucrats. Furthermore, clearly inappropriate use of this veto could be considered grounds for RFRB, so with that in mind, I clearly don't see the need. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
With two-thirds majorities required from both regular editors and admins for someone to become admin or bureaucrat, use of the veto will ALWAYS be a thwarting of the will of the community. The question is whether it's an overall good for the the community for their will to be occasionally thwarted. jSarek 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Umm, simply "removing the veto" isn't going to do much good, since the requirement is a unanimous bureaucrat vote. If you're going to reduce the percentage requirement from 100%, you have to reduce it to something. Havac 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Basically, this would mean that bureaucrat votes are counted as admin votes. --Imperialles 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that THIS should be read by any bureaucrat who thinks that having the right to make autocratic decisions in a wiki that's grown and functions largely by democratic process is somehow appropriate. Particularly the third bullet point. Graestan(Talk) 16:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a right to make autocratic decisions, it's a privilege and responsibility granted by the community through the democratic process to bureaucrats, one which, as this thread shows, can be revoked as easily as it was given. The question is whether the stability allegedly granted by the veto is more valuable than the potential disruption it can cause to the process of giving and revoking user rights. jSarek 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Even as a BC, I can't begin to think where I would lie with this issue. Granted the BCs are a higher "class" of Wookieepedian that have been with the site for a good amount of the wiki's existence, and are trusted individuals that represent the wiki and can be looked up to. In regards to voting, it has been assumed that BC votes mean just a little more. Now most times those votes with BCs involves many admins that vote along with the BCs or vice versa. There are rare instances when a BC does disagree with the community at large and shuts down a vote. But it seems to me that there still has to be some sort of thing that separates a BC from a conventional administrator, other than the fact that they can make new admins. It might really depend on the issue, and the scale of given issue if we need to keep a BC veto or not. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What separates a BC from a conventional administrator beyond the ability to make new admins is the bragging rights (and yes, I have actually impressed fellow nerds in the real world with the fact that I'm one of the four Wookieepedia admins). Anything more than that is supplemental, at the community's grace. We ain't that special. jSarek 06:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I've amazed several people in the real world that I was a founder of Wookieepedia. The bragging rights are nice. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)