Forum:TTTB/Delete the BOSS

Forums: Index > LIKE A BOSS! >

Hi there, I'm here to discuss about the BOSS.

Wikis were not designed to be run by a cabal of administrators, or for that matter, experienced editors. Policies and guidelines should achieve a consensus before they come into effect, and should be written down in project space for all to see. They should be designed to improve the wiki, but can be ignored in cases when they are not accomplishing this task. All users should be able to participate in the development of policies, and in other discussions.

There should be no power structure of any sort. Administrators are not "higher" than regular users in any way, other than having access to administrator tools. Likewise, bureaucrats are not higher than administrators, except again that they have access to bureaucrat tools. Users are not given special rights or privileges on the basis of "seniority." All editors are equal.

By having this "BOSS" propaganda, you are singling yourselves out. All things related to BOSS should be wiped from this wiki, and the titles of sysop and bureaucrat should be changed back to sysop and bureaucrat. I noticed the Bylaws as well, and I don't really see why Explorer and TS need to be singled out in the rules. Wikis aren't supposed to be a democracy, but rather based upon consensus, not polling. When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another. Once all arguments have been made and responded to, the discussion may be closed by an administrator or bureaucrat, regardless of the time elapsed since the nomination. Closing administrators (for votes for deletion) or bureaucrats (requests for adminship) are given limited discretion in determining whether a consensus has been reached in a discussion. If you feel that the decision made was poor or did not reflect consensus, you can appeal the decision on the closer's talk page, or at another community process. Decisions should never be made simply on the basis of majority vote.

Remember, all rules - be they from here or any other site, are just generalized guidelines. You don't have to follow them if you don't think it isn't improving the wiki. Common sense overrides rules.  http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png  ZoneKill    T   C   E    02:37, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
YES. THIS IS PERFECT. --Austin8310 -YOU MAGGOTS! -Private Eastshield 03:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I approve of your argument. Sounds to me like you have some new rules you want to implement into the wiki, hmm?   Bugzy Talk 07:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really go that far yet unless I was asked to draft up some rules. If I took control of the rules of this site, I'd wipe out democracy and put in a consensus system, along with several other changes that some people might like, while some people might hate. That's why I'd have the consensus system; we can all work together to reach something everyone can agree on. That way, everyone's voice is heard and it isn't just a "vote then leave" policy that democracy has.


 * An example of consensus would be that time where User:Ninjinian wasn't happy with the previous Featuredarticle template system because it was randomized. Eventually, we all reached a compromise and made two sections on the main page - one for the current featured article and one for the past featured article. You can read about it here.  http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png  ZoneKill    T   C   E    07:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know we ain't Walri but TS is given me LOLZ.-- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  20:17, July 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * One who claims they don't have to obey rules "if it helps the wiki" is calling for nullification of the rules. Rules are made to be FOLLOWED. Rules can never be nullified. If you want this "consensus" thing to work, you'd better have some method to protect core values like the decency and cleanliness mandates from ever being challenged. -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 20:55, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yes (11)

 * 1) YES. THIS IS PERFECT. --Austin8310 -YOU MAGGOTS! -Private Eastshield 03:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I approve of your argument. Sounds to me like you have some new rules you want to implement into the wiki, hmm?  [[Image:PhotoshopIcon.png|This user is a Rollback]] Bugzy Talk 07:33, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Dan. It is an awesome idea! --   Pyro     [[File:Sentryani.gif]]  Spy sappin' mah sentry!   sentry down!  10:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I LOVE YOU. Also, bylaws and this constitution crap are complex: the COC works fine, though it does need a good sort, maybe some trimming down of policies that are useless. --Zapwire (dial the waaaambulance) 11:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Finally! A decision-making system with the same "majority gets what they want" qualities of democracy and the speed and efficiency of a power structure. No more admin wars!  Yours Truly,   Explorer 767 ( OBEY YOUR PROPELLER LORD! MWAHAHA  )   View this template   12:19, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Wait till TS sees this. He'll go absolutely troppo. I reckon it's a good idea, as long as we make sure everybody gets a say and our site values stay the same.--Sir Kwiksilver of TARDIS- The Fez is now cool. 12:27, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, yes. I've always wanted to have just sysops, bureaucrats and users - no BOB. That's why I got it changed to BOSS, but I soon started to dislike the idea, but I thought that the majority of you liked it. I believe that the BOSS shall be scraped by the majority of votes we are getting for For and there will only be bureaucrats, sysops, rollbacks and users from now on! Unless there's a better compromise, I think it's sticking with this. Jai Ho! -- [[Image:N-Sig.PNG]]  ¤   (  User page! ) (  The Cookie Master, bow! ) 12:41, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete the BOSS? Well, the BOSS is a bit too complicated. Its just good to have bureaucats and sysops. We don't have to submit ideas to them anymore, and its quite complicated on how the BOSS works. A l e x 0 01  OR Alex12345a (inbox ⊛ edits ⊛ blog ⊛ hurtandheal ⊛ imagecontest) 12:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I've tried to get people to delete the BOSS and they've all said no. At least someone has some sense. BOSS = power. You have all these people who have this little title called BOSSMASTER and it shows the respect you have to give. It's a big rank thing. You have the BOSSMASTER no one cares about (me) then the websmasters leaders of the BOSSMASTER (Explorer and TurtleShroom, used to be HF). Karazachi idea of a Wiki is right: users edit, rollbacks rollack, administrators make it go smoothly, B'crats promote and Wikia watch. -- Firmato per Il Dirigente  Conversazione verso Il Dirigente  13:01, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. I want good ol' admins and bureaucrats on wikis, not some huge complicated thing that causes a bunch of wars. 13:30, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

No (1)

 * NO, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!! FOOL! INFIDEL! SITE DESTABILIZER, REVOLUTIONARY, AGENTGENIUS SYMPATHIZER, COMMUNIST! I WILL NOT LET THE MASSES BE SWAYED INTO DISSOLVING OURSELVES INTO A CPW-COPYUBG BUNCH OF COMMUNISTS! I twitch at the mere THOUGHT of this atrocity, I condemn the existance of this evil! Teary eyes, even! What next? Delete the COC? Remove the G/PG rating mandate, wipe That's Death? We long let go of the Webmaster system for the democratic BOSS. We vote and put polls, and everyone is able to contribute. ZK, if you wanted a promotion, just ask. This is EVIL, this is a CPW COPY, and we are NOT the CPW and we NEVER WILL BE. So long as I live, I will put every last effort I have as a Wikia user to fight this EVIL, including questionable means like deleting this wretched piece of foolishness and protecting the site from its collapse!
 * Irregardless of public consent, I will NOT sit back and allow the system to be dissolved and I will NOT permit anyone, even a genius, from DARING to collapse the government. I repeat, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESTABILIZE THE SITE. This is like Forum Restrictions, like the Court House, like AgentGenius under the guise of a man made of epic win! I am appalled at this and I PLEA that all of you who were swayed into voting YES turn your backs o nthis tomfoolery and save the site's current order!
 * I should not have to surrender my power simply because someone feels a bit oppressed. ANARCHY DOES NOT WORK WHEN TURTLESHROOM IS AN ACTIVE CONTRIBUTOR TO A DATABASE. I worked for years to get where I am, and I deserve some sort of respect for my position.
 * I've tried to stand by democracy, but not this time. Sometimes, the ones in charge need to put their foot down and say NO. This is a destabilizing rally and it WILL spell the end of the site as we know it. I do NOT want to go through ANOTHER organization of government or a Crisis. This is an upfront destabilizing attempt, a move by democratic fiat to wipe out the BOSS and turn this site into yet another communist cesspool of boredom and unoriginality. I wil ldo everything in my power to stop this.
 * You want a war, you've got it. I will not stand down. I have a good reason to use Ben Hun language.
 * This makes me miss the Webmaster system greatly.
 * -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) CREPE MYRTLES. † 19:58, July 25, 2010 (UTC)