User talk:Hemlock Martinis/Retitling of positions

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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!  &bull; Talk 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

is this serious
seriously, are you joking? :s creepy 124.169.117.161 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is serious, not a joke. I don't see how it's creepy. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * I know that, hence in the style of. ;p WilliamH (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an aside, Rome Total War isn't an MMORPG either. It's a RTS/Turn-based wargame.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we really wanna emulate the Romans...
....considering how well it ended for them? -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * We could get a Tarpeian Rock and throw edit warriors and BLP violators off it...mwuhahahahhaha--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). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * The problem is, the position is now tainted. Renaming them simply changes the name- it doesn't change the position. In order to de-taint, you have to change the position. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (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)


 * Which is why I suggested the "step" program. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * This could be for new admins, while leaving all the old admins intact. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And have to go through all the RfA trouble for a paltry $500 per month? Forget it... :-D
 * Seriously, though, I do agree with Keegan. Instead of making sweeping changes and creating new problems, we should focus on unseating the problematic administrators. Personally, I disagree with the section's heading: theoretically, at least, the bureaucracy does not take itself seriously, if one considers that Bureaucrat is probably a humorous title for a person who has relatively little more authority than administrators (they regulate the user names and status—they don't run the place). And saying that this is more than a theoretical issue would make little sense in the context of this proposal, which is simply about changing the names of the positions, an arguably purely theoretical alteration of the current system. Waltham, The Duke of 04:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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: People can pronounce those! ...... Dendodge  .. Talk Help 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Administrators be renamed Administrators
 * 2) Bureaucrats be renamed Bureaucrats
 * 3) Bots be renamed Bots
 * 4) Oversighters be renamed Oversighters
 * 5) Checkusers be renamed Checkusers
 * 6) Arbitrators be renamed Arbitrators
 * 7) Rollbackers be renamed rollbackers.
 * 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)
 * "Oversighters" is horrible, it should be "overseers". DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That implies that they oversee things, which they don't.--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)They oversee content deemed unsuitable for the plebs (should we rename editors as well?). DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. We can only take the Roman comparison so far. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (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)

Serviam's additions
Serviam, I really don't think changes for autoconfirmed users and IPs are necessary. While I admire the desire to "flesh out" a Roman "theme", it goes outside of the proposal's spirit. This is intended to change positions. Being an autoconfirmed editor or an IP is not a position gained through the community. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, I also would like to have Bots removed from the list as well. It doesn't really make sense in hindsight to rename them. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the extraneous entries for now, pending further discussion. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah kk--Serviam (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No
Really, Latin names? What advantage would this give us? Okay, a feeling of change and less pompousness exuded by the various names of administrative posts (Doesn't that sound more natural than quaestor posts?), but this would cause more problems than it would solve.

The names are fine as they are (with some minor reservations regarding “bureaucrat”); renaming all of them would make things much more confusing. The root word of "administrator" is "administer," which, as defined by Webster (2a), means to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of, which is precisely what our administrators do, with respect to our articles, site, and users. "Bureaucracy" means (1b) an administrative policy-making group; our bureaucrats don't do that, but they do have some degree of control over what goes on as they promote users to sysops. "Oversight" means (1a) watchful and responsible care, which is exactly what our oversights exert over our users and articles. "CheckUser" obviously doesn't have a Webster entry, but they do exactly it sounds like they do &mdash; check a user's IP for administrative purposes.

The names are perfectly acceptable in their current state &mdash; they make sense, they're easy to remember, and they're familiar. Sorry if this sounds brazen, but we want this website to feel homely and professional, not like a online gaming website. —Animum (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But we could also require that user names should be in Latin too. Since September is a latin based word (Septem = seven, September was originally the seventh month), I merely need to change my name to NullusSeptember. We could start a project similar to User:Radiant!/Classification of admins. What better way to use our time? ;) NoSeptember  17:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It would be educational as well; Latin is simply not taught as well as it used to be in the good old times. I think I need to consult an expert as far as my name is concerned, given that my case is much trickier than yours. I wonder how close Dux Valtamus (an educated guess on my part) is to the closest equivalent... Waltham, The Duke of 00:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my boldness
You forgot a title change for Jimbo: Caesar! Ironically, the article states that the word is "simply a use of the Latin word caesar meaning hairy." :) -- Simple  Paradox   22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Founders
Surely Remus and Romulus? DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! Even better! "Romulus slew Remus over a dispute..." -- Simple  Paradox   22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And then Remus founded his own city, with a Latin-sounding name, eh? :-) Waltham, The Duke of 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales = Romulus, Larry Sanger = Remus?--Serviam (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Three points. Firstly, it makes admins/beauracrats sound incredible pompous. Praetor? come on. Is that really the impression we want to give? Secondly, Jimbo's said adminship is NOT A BIG DEAL. This sounds like admins are beginning to take themselves too seriously. Admins are here to do things others cant because they're trusted responsible users, not to increase their own self-importance. Thirdly and most simply; try explaining to 7 million users what the hell praetor means? the majority will have no idea. Ironho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is starting to sound pompous. I don't have anything with the term "administrator," since it has a neutral connotation (to me, at least) and it's most well-known in the internet. I do have a slight problem with the term "bureaucrat" though.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Bureaucrat" does have a slightly bombastic connotation. Perhaps "Promoter" or something like that would be better? (Of course, I highly doubt any nomenclature changes will be made soon.) —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair bureaucrat sounds boring and dusty, it's offensive in the opposite direction. Another almost-point: wikipedia should be about editing, improving, creating knowledge for people to learn. We get millions of hits from people looking to learn (well, about 200 from people looking to learn, the rest are here to vandalise the featured article). We should focus more on that and less on inflated ego's. I note this proposal may actually be a joke, but putting that much effort into a bit of wikihumour kind of proves my point anyway. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so sensitive
Really, people think the word "administrator" is to threating and bold? Is the community that soft, I don't think so. The names are fine. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks doomed
I'm seeing some agreement with the proposal in spirit, but not the one written (and certainly not the Roman titles). I do think we've hit upon something here with the "Bureaucrat" title though, so unless anyone has any objections I'm going to move this into my userspace and draft a new proposal focusing on Bureaucrat specifically with some different titles. Many of you indicated that the Roman ones sounded "pompous", so a replacement title for Bureaucrat will not be one based on historical positions. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot understand why people take bureaucrat so seriously; I have always thought of it as a subtle joke. I mean, think of it: are bureaucrats really that? Managing a bureaucracy? Not in the least. They are admins who can control user status. Granted, the ability can cause some chaos in the wrong hands—which is why there is only a handful of them—but it doesn't mean that they have formed a secret cabal, meeting sub rosa in order to lay out their nefarious schemes about how to circumvent the community's will and influence the encyclopaedia in dark and sinister ways by mobilising an extensive network of high-place connections and various paid officials, who will in turn manipulate, mislead, or simply ignore the powerless lower classes. If some people think that, this is very bad indeed, but this notion would be based on facts, or at least rumours, and not the name, changing which would hardly bring about any noticeable difference. Policy itself declares that we are not a bureaucracy, so for what other reason would this post be officially called what it is if not for humorous purposes?
 * On the other hand, administrator might be considered slightly more offensive, because some people do find the verb administrate rather strong, especially given the active role and often prominent position of sysops in Wikipedia. There are, however, other arguments against this assertion, which I shall not discuss in depth as this is not what we are discussing here.
 * Personally, I find no reason whatsoever for a change of any of the current names. Waltham, The Duke of 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)