The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page. A summary of the conclusions reached follows:
The policy proposed below will not be implemented.
I would like to propose this guideline for any bureaucrat demotion votings: At least half the bureaucrats must agree to the demotion before it can be passed, even if it has the majority vote. As stated in my recent blog, the bureaucrats have the most experience in such matters, and while we do not wish to, in any terms, make this anything like an autocracy, the bureaucrats' opinions should be more weighted in some indefinite way, especially when a fellow bureaucrat may be demoted.
Implementing this makes us an autocracy, in some aspects. So why would we do it? Bryans1008
I'm leaning against. Being a bureaucrat does not automatically make you the smartest. This wiki is a democracy, not an autocracy for the bureaucrats, as Bryans said. Allowing this vote to go through would really mean that the bureaucrats are really the only ones voting. The bureaucrats are the heads of the adminitrative team. That means all users should be given the chance to demote if they find that bureaucrat unfit to help lead. Weirdo Guy (talk) 21:48, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if we were talking using bcrats a tie breaker, that would be understandable, but the way this is worded heavily implies that regardless of what the majority of the wiki votes for, if majority bcrats disagree, they can override what the majority of the wiki wishes. Having the title of bcrat doesn't always mean someone with the most experience or maturity. It could just as easily mean someone who very well liked and popular got enough votes. BachLynn23Send me an Owl!Today is the first day of the rest of your life. 19:55,5/16/2012
No. Because in Zan's case, I was For, so was bryans. Zan and Bond were against, Echo neither. The community vote was really high in terms of for demotion, your telling me because 2 people disagree, VS like 10, it couldn't pass? I've had an autocracy experience, if your gonna make DA one, I'm leaving. Head ofRavenclaw | Send me an Owl! 20:07, May 16, 2012 (UTC)
I think the bureaucrats deserve this right when other bureaucrats risk demotion because they are the most experienced, knowledgeable users. They've probably worked with the at-risk b-crat a lot and understand the situation better than a fair amount of others. Just my thoughts...Mistelmhelloooo... 00:11, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
Just thinking about our current situation...the policy says at least half...so if we have 5 B-crats, we would need at least 3, or 2 since either can be considered half depending on how you round? Just want to make sure it's clear before a bunch of people vote. Bond_em7 (Owl Me) 01:12, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
If there are 5 b-crats, at least 3 would have to vote for it. As there are currently 4, however, this is a non-issue at this time. Echostar 19:51, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
Well, with all due respect, you could have a user who has A) Spent more time on wikia as a 'crat, but is not one on this wiki, or B) Someone with fair judgement and impartial sidelined views, which would result in a fairer vote. I know you're not trying to create an autocracy, and, in theory, this works, but don't you think it could potentially make things unfair? For example, (I don't expect something like this to happen here, but anything is posible), friends will sometimes vote in favour of friends, and that could result in a bad 'crat not being demoted.
This is just my personal view, and you've got the right to disagree, but I just think it's an edgy thing. Obviously, I don't know echo or bond too well, and I'm in no position to judge their ability to run a wiki.
No offense to the bureaucrats. I just think voting for positions of power should be allowed by all. Saying that half bureaucrats have to agree or disagree is basically giving the bureaucrats all the power in the situation. I am not saying that the bureaucrats have poor judgement. I just think all users should have the right to vote for this kind of stuff. Weirdo Guy (talk) 21:55, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this makes the bureaucrats make the ultimate decision. Even if half the bureaucrats agree, it still needs a majority vote. I'm also not trying to say that b-crats are smarter than everyone else, just that they have the most experience with what to look for in a b-crat on our wiki, since they are b-crats themselves. Everyone would still be allowed to vote, of course. This wouldn't give the b-crats all the power at all. It would be a completely different story if, say, I had proposed that b-crat votes count for 2, or if all the b-crats had to agree for a vote to be passed. Echostar 15:27, May 16, 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I wasn't actually aware of the vote for Zan's demotion till it was over. Even if I knew about it, I probably wouldn't have voted because I didn't know Zan that well. If I needed to vote to decide demotion, I would have voted for Zan's demotion. Echostar 20:50, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.