User talk:Y0 ich halt/policy

feel free to comment. - Y0_ich_halt 18:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You killed my comment with an EC...Backsword 18:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking it over, I agree with most of it. But you siad there is only one bcrat. There are three, and you should include a mention of ArbComm, unless I missed it. Calor (t) 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh? He's talking about a new system. He can have as many or as few as he wants? Backsword 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry for the ec, backsword. and i wasn't thinking about only one bcrat, i just implied it sometimes by mistake. - Y0_ich_halt 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you ECed me, I'm never going to tell you about there being an inconsistency in there. Or point out this direct quote: "and one bcrat.". Backsword 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

read moar :P - Y0_ich_halt 19:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I quotes you before you fixed it, so there. And the inconsistency is still there, and rather vital. Backsword 19:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

it is? where? - Y0_ich_halt 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) 2.1§2 vs 2.2§2.Backsword 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

you mean "the position of bureaucrat" and "in which case a bureaucrat"? neither implies there's only one bcrat. - Y0_ich_halt 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where anything mentions there only being one bcrat either. Lord of all tyria 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, refering to "They can also take away administrator status at own discretion. " and "They keep their status until the community decides it to be revoked ". Backsword 20:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, you're right. i had different thoughts when i wrote those passages. ima correct it. - Y0_ich_halt 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

i changed it. but doesn't that make bcrats kinda unnecessary? - Y0_ich_halt 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the guideline-focused policy approach. --Edru viransu 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

it's actually the main reason i wrote this stuff ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 20:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good that many users (including me) are spending a lot of time in their userspace drafting versions of admin and policy policies. Calor (t) 20:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

was this sarcasm now? *rolleyes* - Y0_ich_halt 20:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spliting sysops

Dvidining them in two groups, one policy making group of leaders and one group of enforcers is easily done, you can have that in your system if you want and it would work perfectly fine. However, it wouldn't work as currently written, as you have policies being revealed rather than stated, and enforcers need a document to follow in order ot work. Backsword 12:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the document they're supposed to follow is their (hopefully) reasonable mind. my idea was to let them delete stuff such as "Image:gudpr0n.jpg" and ban ppl who obviously just wanna have fun clearing pages. - Y0_ich_halt 13:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

administrators are then kinda those people who handle more difficult conflicts, such as raptors' doing at GWW. - Y0_ich_halt 13:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, misunderstood. As you mentioned them being inspired by GWW, I assumed you wanted enforcers as on GWW. That does leave a question: what is the difference supposed to be? "difficult conflict" is a vauge delimiter. It'd be hard to make such a division in practice. Backsword 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the input, i wouldn't have noticed some flaws without you :) - Y0_ich_halt 13:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NP, I do it for fun. Pol. Sci. is an hobby of mine. Backsword 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, sysops should have the power to use their own discretion (and be allowed to actually use it) and still carry out the necessary "janitorial" roles. Bcrats should be sysops with additional power of handling the sysops, but chosen by the community for a year's term at the very least. There should be no "database janitors" as they'll just get the same problem as GWW's sysops have today. And the sysops can carry out those roles anyway. -- br12 • (talk) • 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

what problem? - Y0_ich_halt 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That they're either power or don't know what they're doing. That's not true, but judging by the discussion on some talk pages, it seems that some people think it is. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, what? "That they're either power or don't know what they're doing." - typo i suppose? - Y0_ich_halt 19:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes sorry, wrote something else after that then deleted it, and obviously deleted too much. That's supposed to be ""That they're either power hungry, or don't know what they're doing." -- br12 • (talk) • 19:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

somebody who'd be described correctly like that would never become any of the more powerful users. - Y0_ich_halt 19:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, and why I said I think it's not true. It's just that some people think that they are like that. See Aiiane's request for reconfirmation as an example of someone who thinks she doesn't know what she's doing, and is obsessed with power. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In that particular case, I suspect it's a troll. Backsword 14:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

if one of the database managers starts having fun, an admin will kick them out. - Y0_ich_halt 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Only bcrats can change userrights, it's the foundation for someone being a bcrat. You could have it set to 1st level sysops instucting 2nd level, that way the 2nd level knows what to do. But they must have something to go on. Backsword 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

and it's not possible to give admins right to make users janitors? - Y0_ich_halt 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not sure what you mean here. If by admin you mean bcrat, that would work too. Backsword 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i meant sysops. but that third class admin stuff isn't necessary. - Y0_ich_halt 13:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)