Forum:TTTB/UnBOSS Bill

Forums: Index > LIKE A BOSS! >

I am just reposting this from Corai's talk. --Dan B.

UNBOSS BILL: Undo Noob Bureaucrats Or Sysops.
This is a bill from Austin8310 and Corai. We have noticed that when surfing other wikis, they prosper under ONE Bureaucrat or less. Examples? The Star Wars wiki has NO admins. Still up and running. The Redwall wiki has 3 admins. The Super Mario Wiki doesn't have many either. We, on the other hand, have more chiefs then indians. Almost EVERY SINGLE USER is a BOSS. We might as well make a democracy and use the BOSS templates as pretty hats. So, this bill prevents that. This is easy to understand and quick, so no "T.L, D.R" version.

Part One: Requirements to be a BOSS
This bill says from the moment that this passes, these are new requirements.


 * Must have 600 Mainspace Edits.
 * No Inactive or Quit bosses.
 * Must be on once per week.
 * Should have 15-20 edits a week at least. (counting userspace).

This will get rid of Inactive BOSSES. However, this has 3 amendmants.

Amendmant One: Returning Quit Bosses
If a BOSS quits and comes back, they shall recieve a postition one rank lower. Example: Let's say Flywish quits, and leaves for 4 months. Then he comes back. He would end up being a Rollback and have to work his way back up to Sysop.

Amendmant Two: Vacation/Break/Inactive
If a BOSS posts a Vacation or Break notice, they are exempt from having edits that week or for the duration of the break/vacation. They will not be demoted, PERIOD.

Part Two: Demoting Inactive BOSSES
If a BOSS does not fufil the requirements posted above, they are to be DEMOTED.

For

 * I am for... AS LONG AS the edits from my old account count toward the 600 edit minimum. I have 1000 edits on that and hope it counts on this new account. -- Dan Beronews/Anniemoose98, Talk to a BOSS here     [[File:@CPFW.PNG]]   18:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am Corai. '''MY HEADS NOT BIG! 18:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the one who wrote this bill with Corai. YES, those edits on your old account count, Dan. You're in no risk.--Austin8310 -FALCON-DOUBLE FAULT! 19:22, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you give their powers back if they contribute again --Flywish 19:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Too many admins leads to block and edit wars. Dancing Penguin  20:03, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Against

 * TurtleShroom (see arguments below)
 * Sheepman (see arguments below)

Comments

 * Absolutely not, and not ever! This horrid legislation is nothing but another attempt to curtail the right of promotion for new users! It hurts their motivitation, and with no motivation, what will keep them on the site?! This is NOT the Star Wars Wiki, this is the CPFW! Our site works differently, and you should get used to that! BOSSMASTERS are already expected to practically be on here daily or get demoted for "inactivity", and now this?! BAH!! Plus, where did you get the idea that a man demoted for inactivity, who has ALREADY PROVED THEIR WORTH, must start all over and climb the ladder all over again if they HAPPEN to do other things with their life for a few months?! If I somehow vanished for six months, and I got demoted, I'd have to start all over again as rollback! This is tupid, counterproductive, annoying, and once again, you're comparing our site to other wikis, which we are not! WE ARE NOT AVATAR WIKI, WE ARE NOT STAR WARS WIKI, WE ARE NOT EVEN THE CANONICAL CPW!! WE ARE THE CLUB PENGUIN FANON WIKI, AND WE ARE DIFFERENT!! If they don't have many sysops or bureaucrats, then to each his own! There is nothing in the Master Wikia's Terms of Use limiting Bureaucrats. Does the United States Supreme Court use rulings found in Europe to make decisions here? NO! To each his own, folks, to each his own! Just because it works in a galaxy far, far away, does not mean it has to be here! Stop making rules based on "Oh, the Avatar Wiki does this", or "Look at the Star Wars Wiki, they do it that way!", because one day, we'll be their size, too! Have I not spoken out against compromising the sovereignity and quasi-independence of this database, within reason, by basing our policies on the policies of other wikis? Just because bigger, more successful sites do it does NOT mean we should! We shall achieve success our way, on our terms, and unless the Master Staff can show me something, in their doctrine, that SETS a maximum certain number of Sysops and Bureaucrats that can exist, then I will not back down! You are destroying the motivation of new users! They all want to become Sysops, and if you make it harder, the lazy ones may give up and never get noticed! Anyone who has earned it can and should get promoted. Set the inactivity threshold to six months and burn this Bill to ashes. BAH!! -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) BULBORBS! † 18:57, May 15, 2010 (UTC)  


 * TS, I hate to argue with you, but RIGHTS AREN'T RANKS. Fine, I'll change this to a 5 month inactivity. BTW, you'd be demoted to SYSOP. You're a bureaucrat, TS. Now for my big long speech. I was the one who wrote this bill with a bunch of research. The wikis with less admins do better. Plus, see that vacation/break amendmant? EASY WAY TO LEAVE AND RETAIN POSITION. That's why I included it. We have too many sysops. When was the last vandal raid? (not counting ZoneKill) Unless you count those "Agentgenius Goons" which are really just n00b users trying to make an article, we haven't had any in a really long time. We have more chiefs than indians, more kings than knights, more Bowsers than Koopas, more Jedi than Clones, more Sith than Droids, you get the point. It's time to take action and kick the inactive ones out. How can QUIT users retain their power and still be on the BOSS page? I'm telling you, it's unreasonable. Actually, this bill is easier than I wanted to go. I wanted to make becoming a sysop harder also, but I changed my mind. Look, this bill is GOOD. It kicks out all those inactive/quit BOSSes when we can run with just 3. We don't need a bunch of leaders. Hey, that was actually a pretty good speech!
 * T.L, D.R Version: Rights aren't ranks, vacation amendmant works for taking breaks, we have more chiefs than indians, and we have too many BOSSES, and this bill demotes them.--Austin8310 -FALCON-DOUBLE FAULT! 19:30, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is PURE OPINION that wikis with less sysops do better, and just because a site is more prosporous does not mean that it has a superior governance to a lesser site. It may be a more popular topic than another, smaller wiki. You can't show me statstics "proving" your theory, because there are many more factors that determine the size and popularity of a site. If you amend this bill to allow punished inactively demoted users to jump straight back to their appropriately earned positions, I may consider backing down. Demotion by inactivity makes sense of they declare that they are quitting or don't come back after half a year (like V-Rex or Robssi), but just sitting idly without a declaration or reason and demoting them because they don't log on is like punishing someone for having a life outside of this site. What if I happen to someday get this thing called a JOB? I love this site and hopefully will continue to edit it long after I lose my hair in my twenties (if not to save my imagination). However, a JOB takes up most of my time, and I may not be able to log on for weeks on end. Then what? Why, I'd be demoted of course! When I come back on my break, I'd have to re-earn a position that I already proved worthy of. I proved worthy of BOSSMASTER/Bureaucrat, so why must I work for it again? Of course, if my boss only gave me a week off, I don't think I could earn it back. Then, you'd knock me down AGAIN, and soon, I'd be a normal user! I would never get back!! I spit upon this bill! -- † TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †    :)  :) BULBORBS! † 19:41, May 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is stupid. I agree with everything TS has already said. This "600 ms edits" thing is stupid. I have nae got that amount. What does that mean? I am a terrible user who should be demoted straight away? No! Here, editing MS is like writing a story. So what you're really saying is that anyone who is a good storywriter is automatically a good admin. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, and trust me, I've heard some really stupid stuff. As TS said, I spit upon this bill. I am determined, and stubborn as a mule with a bad headache, and I have just set myself up for an all out war on this bill. If I'm going down, I'm taking this thing down with me. I've "accidentally" blown up planets before. How hard can one bill be? --ZE SHEEP! (<span title="IT'S A WEEGEE! RUN!">That sheep is staring at me ) 19:59, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * You spit upon it? Kinda harsh. DID YOU NOT LOOK AT THE BREAK/INACTIVE/VACATION AMENDMENT?!? If you SAY you'll be inactive, no demotion whatsoever. How's this so bad? --<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">Austin8310 -<font color="darkgreen" face="Comic Sans MS">FALCON-DOUBLE FAULT! 19:44, May 15, 2010 (UTC)