User talk:Hemlock Martinis/Retitling of positions: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:14, 2 June 2008

lol - I can't quite tell if this is supposed to be humorous or not, but it's a good idea. Think outside the box 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do like this, except for the "Bots->Centurions" - I would rather keep this as just bots guiltyspark (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution looking for a problem? Who cares?

In anticipating of a probable objection, it may appear that this proposal is a solution looking for a problem. That may be true. But then again, perhaps there is a problem. If Wikipedia is what makes the internet "not suck", then why do we have to deal with Bureaucrats and Administrators. Leave those terms for the tax officials and our real life jobs. I think this proposal would definitely make the Internet suck less, if only by decreasing the use of the word "bureaucrat".

And perhaps persons who would like to be called by the stuffy titles could keep that right, just as our Service awards have alternate ranks of cool and non-cool titles. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. This is by no means mandatory. I suspect many editors will refer to them as admins for a time if this proposal is passed, but I suspect over time people will grow more accustomed to the change after they see how genuinely harmless it is. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea?

To be honest, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea! I hate the idea!! All internet communities have admins, which is easy to remember, not whatever it is proposed. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this do more harm than good?

I am against this proposal for several reasons. Firstly, the assumption that a title in Latin should sound less pompous than one in English seems somewhat misguided. The title "Pontifex Maximus", especially, sounds far more 'pompous' than "Founder" to me. Secondly, the fact that Wikipedia uses its own hierarchy (Administrator, Bureaucrat etc.) means that new users have to learn those titles at some point and will therefore remember them. However, using titles of the Roman Empire might be rather confusing as many people - especially those, God forbid, who have not read through Cursus honorum - and people will not know or be able to remember who is responsible for what. This is especially the case, I feel, as several of the Roman titles sound similar.

Moreover, such a move is bound to divide the community, as I can guarantee that even if this proposal is implemented, it will not meet with 100% approval and will lead to an unnecessary formation of Admin clans who will be in opposition to the Quaestor clans. Indeed, you have already made absolutely certain that this will happen by not changing all aspects of Wikipedia with this proposal (e.g. the Admin pages, Stewards etc.). It Is Me Here (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear that the actual duties performed by the positions does not change. An administrator, regardless of what they're called, still will perform blocks, delete pages, close discussions and so forth. Wikipedia's "hierarchy" does not change; only the titles by which we refer to the positions in it will.

You do raise a reasonable point about people being able to tell who does what, but I am confident that a community that can write a 2 million page encyclopedia can figure out a few name changes. I do dispute, however, your theory about a division into "clans". As far as controversial decisions go (the userbox wheel war comes to mind), this is fairly low on them. Besides, how would these clans fight each other? By deleting each others articles? Wikipedia doesn't have a mechanism by which we can actually "fight" one another. I omitted the Admin pages primarily because I didn't want to cause too much of a shock to the system by renaming such a high-traffic page right off the bat. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is me here, almost every proposal ever made on wikipedia could do that, and many have (Rollback introduction by the looks of things, amoung othr proposals), but this surely won't, if it gets accepted, I'm sure people will just forget about it.--Serviam (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this serious

seriously, are you joking? :s creepy 124.169.117.161 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is serious, not a joke. I don't see how it's creepy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

This is really funny, and I actually like the idea, though it's bound not to be implemented...--Serviam (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch changing bots to Aediles, by the way! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...

If anything would ever portray Wikipedia as an Age of Empires style MMORGP...this would most definitely do it. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires isn't a MMORPG...if anything it makes us look like Rome: Total war. Anyway, forget that, I think it's about time someone stuck a {{humour}} tag on this page.--Serviam (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, hence in the style of. ;p WilliamH (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really wanna emulate the Romans...

....considering how well it ended for them? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to get involved in pederasty and gladiatorial contests, though maybe silly edit wars could be considered the latter. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could get a Tarpeian Rock and throw edit warriors and BLP violators off it...mwuhahahahhaha--Serviam (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the Romulans, something more hip and arresting like Klingons or Minbari (you know, Warrior Caste, Religious Caste, Worker Caste) or why not go the whole hog and take the titles from The Ring Triology and divide the various functions into Elves, Orcs, Dwarves and... wait a sec... oh, sorry, Romans ! Damn, back to the boring old Banhammer and not the cyber B'tleth (or whatever the Klingons call their bottle opener). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's bureaucracy has begun to take itself too seriously"

The problem is, retitling is not going to work. A spade is a spade by any other name.

What we need to do is make positions less serious. Everything is too bureaucratic.

What we should do, IMHO, is grant administrator rights like we have with rollback. That worked out pretty fine, and if something goes wrong, an admin simply revokes the rights.

And if even that is scary, separate all the admin rights, and let people earn each right by demonstrating they can use the rights they have been given properly. So, for example, to be able to earn the ability to protect pages, you must use rollback appropriately. To be able to delete, you have to protect properly first. To block, you must delete properly. And so forth. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with bureacracy? It makes things work effeciently and prevents abuses or inconsistencies, the problem is being overly bureacratic, which we aren't. An RFR like RFA would not work, there are many people who would not be good administrators but have rollback and use it properly. Also, 50 people looking over the contribs will yeild more than just 1. And sperate admin rights has been proposed before, and was rejected completely.--Serviam (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem as being what the tools are; the main difficulty I see is how editors and the community as a whole approach the tools and those who wield them. That's what I'm trying to address here. Calling oneself an "administrator" implies proactive administration of something, like the head of NASA or something. It implies a leadership role when in fact it is more similar to a policeman or, more accurately in some cases, a vigilante. Similarly, it's foolish to have an official policy titled "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" and then appoint people as "bureaucrats". Changing the titles to something less authoritative would remove the veil of leadership that the community has begun to cast over such roles. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The problem with that is that if someone misuses the rollback tool then there isn't a lot of damage done. If someone misuses the blocking tool it can cause an awful lot of damage. I can see an argument for making RfA less strict, but we do need to have some sort of community oversight rather than granting it very quickly as with rollback. --Hut 8.5 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nwwaew has it just about right. The current system of adminship simply encourages the Napoleonic delusions of the more disruptive of our admins, and tends to divide the community. Making adminship truly no big deal would tend to decrease both these tendencies. I can't see many admins accepting any dilution of their special status tho'. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more disruptive of our admins...let's see, that'd be less than 20, leaving 1,500 perfectly qualified administrators. Well, about 500 accounts are inactive, so that leaves us with 980 uncontroversial janitors. Sounds okay to me. Like most other processes on Wikipedia, it is a few bad apples that cause the whole bin to be marked "discount" for no good reason other than we're busy living in our glass house without looking outside. On another note, hell no I don't want any dilution of my status. If we remove the (admin) flag, I won't get that $1,200 (US) check from a numbered account in the Caymans every month. I depend on that disposable income, you know ;) Keegan^talk 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

Assuming this is serious (I can't quite make up my mind) it will cause a lot of confusion for new users. The current usergroup names tell an inexperienced user a lot about the usergroup - it's very clear what a bot is, and it's obvious what rollbackers, arbitrators etc do. The name of "administrator" is used a lot on other websites, forums etc and has similar rights to how it is used elsewhere, so using it also helps out new users. If we start calling administrators "quaestors" the reaction from the new user will be "what the hell is that?!" The word "administrator" doesn't imply any special authority, as it refers to someone who keeps everything running smoothly. And if "administrator" sounds pompous, "consul" sounds even more pompous. --Hut 8.5 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we start calling administrators "quaestors" the reaction from the old user will be "what the hell is that?!" Keegan^talk 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only there was some way of e.g. highlighting a word, so that when you click on it you go to a page explaining it. Then that problem wouldn't arise. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't have to add a wikilink every time we refer to admins so people have some idea what we're talking about. Plenty of new users already complain about policy discussions being filled with shortcuts, even when they're wikilinked. Hut 8.5 20:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People are smart, they'll know to look it up. And once they do, it's not like they'll forget it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to pronounce

I have no idea how to pronounce half of these, meaning I do not support the change. And if we want to go by success, the British had a bigger empire than the Romans: So why not use English terms. I suggest:

Administrators be renamed Administrators
Bureaucrats be renamed Bureaucrats
Bots be renamed Bots
Oversighters be renamed Oversighters
Checkusers be renamed Checkusers
Arbitrators be renamed Arbitrators
Rollbackers be renamed rollbackers.

People can pronounce those!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "quay-stor", "pray-tor", "ogg-ur" and "ay-dill". But seeing as how we mostly communicate on Wikipedia through text, I don't see how pronunciation is an issue. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Oversighters" is horrible, it should be "overseers". DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That implies that they oversee things, which they don't.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)They oversee content deemed unsuitable for the plebs (should we rename editors as well?). DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I like the 'overseers' idea, but I like to speak about Wikipedia (as do people on the Wikipedia Weekly etc.) and think what I write as if it is being said to me...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 20:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :We don't have to get involved in pederasty and gladiatorial contests, though maybe silly edit wars could be considered the latter. --[[User:Gimme danger|Gimme danger]] ([[User talk:Gimme danger|talk]]) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 :We could get a [[Tarpeian Rock]] and throw edit warriors and BLP violators off it...mwuhahahahhaha--[[User:Serviam|Serviam]] ([[User talk:Serviam|talk]]) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
+:::No, not the [[Romulans]], something more hip and arresting like [[Klingons]] or [[Minbari]] (you know, Warrior Caste, Religious Caste, Worker Caste) or why not go the whole hog and take the titles from [[The Ring Triology]] and divide the various functions into Elves, Orcs, Dwarves and... wait a sec... oh, sorry, '''''Romans''''' ! Damn, back to the boring old Banhammer and not the cyber B'tleth (or whatever the Klingons call their bottle opener). [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 == "Wikipedia's bureaucracy has begun to take itself too seriously" ==