UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Reduce Minimum Edits For Bureaucrat Promotion

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This line of text from A/BP

Rules concerning candidates
  1. All active users with the sysops status are automatically declared candidates for any vacant Bureaucrat positions.
    • Users with at least 12 edits in the 30 days before the election are considered "active" for purposes of the election.

will be changed to

Rules concerning candidates
  1. All active users with the sysops status are automatically declared candidates for any vacant Bureaucrat positions.
    • Users who are not eligible for automatic demotion by the Truly Inactive Sysops policy are considered "active" for purposes of the election.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


  1. Dafür - Dem Ersteller ist es gemäß den Richtlinien gestattet, ohne sinnvolle Begründung für seine eigenen Wikirichtlinienvorschlag zu stimmen, und er ist ferner gemäß der Wikiamtssprachenrichtlinie nicht dazu verpflichtet dies auf Englisch zu tun. Verklagt mich doch auf Administratorenfehlverhalten oder Vandalenverbannung wenn es euch nicht paßt. -- Spiderzed 13:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. yepp blah blah blah, blah. 'murica--ConndrakaTAZM CFT 14:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. ... --  AHLGTG 16:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. Makes sense to have all active sysops eleigble by default. Old "edit count" metric just doesn't apply these days. Not without sysops stepping it up, but that's not something which should be codified. ~Vsig.png 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Only people who vote on this vote should be eligible. --Rosslessness 20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. Vir - Dit is 'n broodnodige verandering. Met die ou riglyne, someone who aspires eligibility for 'crat promotion would need to perform edits, some of which may be nonconstructive, if the only goal is to meet the minimum edit requirement. --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 00:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  7. Si As Vapor and the talk page. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. 1 edit in the last month was much better. A ZOMBIE ANT 10:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Against - Sorry for not voicing this concern earlier, but it only just occurred to me that we can't use the Truly Inactive Sysops policy to determine eligibility, since it conflicts with Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling. Specifically, a 'crat's seat is automatically put up for a vote if they've been inactive for a month. Promoting someone who hasn't been active for even longer would mean that they'd be automatically ousted as soon as they got in. We need to reconcile those policies. Sorry. Aichon 14:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sigh. Voting is clunky and not fluid. I still vote for. We can have policy to rescind that.^ --  AHLGTG 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps SZ can simply tweak it and restart the vote? We've done similar in the past, including for a policy you put up once, if memory serves. Aichon 22:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    I can sure restart the vote by adding the culling of the Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling to it (for which both I and Bob would have been eligible, but which no one had enforced). I'll let it sit for another couple of days in case other loopholes are found. It's not like I am going anywhere the next six weeks. -- Spiderzed 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    It's too bad nobody brought that up during discussion *cough*. ~Vsig.png 17:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    You won't get any disagreement from me, but you obviously can't raise a concern until it occurs to you, and this one didn't occur to me until the moment I typed "For" and then realized there was a problem I hadn't noticed before. Had I realized it sooner, I would have voiced it, since the last thing I want to do is sabotage our momentum. Aichon 22:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    I forgot to use the sarcasm font Tongue :P. What I meant was that I brought up exactly this issue during discussion. I'm just giving you a hard time, though. I'm glad you brought it up because I voted for it without realizing that this pretty important part of the policy was left off. ~Vsig.png 00:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    Great work picking that up. It's great that it was found out before voting ended, even if at the last minute. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    I wish this was something raised earlier, but that's in the 'past' now. I definitely see a problem with the two policies conflicting with each other. Wouldn't one of the policies have to be revised, given this? Still keeping my for vote, per Gnome. Aaand I'm too slow, didn't see Aichon's more recent replies. Wouldn't mind restarting the vote. --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 22:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. Against. Aichon makes valid points, but even ignoring that, I think if we go ahead with a "good enough" solution, there will never be a good solution. With the associated conversation on edits, we should have plenty of qualified candidates next run, which gives us another however many months to get it sorted out. --K 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools