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.

At the same time, these lines from the Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling policy

Any Bureaucrat who goes inactive on the wiki for 1 full month will automatically be demoted back to Sysops status, and the position put up for re-election, if a replacement is deemed necessary by the wiki community.

  • A Bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is considered as inactive and forfeits his status as bureaucrat.
  • Any Bureaucrat who goes inactive on the wiki for 1 full month will automatically be demoted back to Sysops status, and the position put up for re-election, if a replacement is deemed necessary by the wiki community.

will be struck accordingly.

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. Oooaria raio / Oba Oba Oba / Oooaria raio / Oba Oba Oba / Mas que nada / Sai da minha frente / Eu quero passar / Pois o samba está animado / O que eu quero é sambar! -- Spiderzed 11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. For: The previous proposal was good, but I like this better. It seems some of the issues people have with the other proposal (apart from those who prefer minimum edits as criterion) are addressed by this iteration. --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  3. For - Addresses all of my concerns with the previous iteration. This one ensures that things aren't brought to a standstill if members of the admin team are present, but not active enough. We'll still likely want some additional changes on top of these, but we need to hash those out still, and this change paves the way for that discussion by clearing the slate. Aichon 15:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  4. For - As someone said somewhere about this. --  AHLGTG 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  5. Make it so. ~Vsig.png 00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  6. For for the great oooglie booglie says so... --ConndrakaTAZM CFT 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


  1. Absolutely not - Bob failed his recent A/RE for being totally inactive for 3 months, he literally could have been dead but under this policy he would be eligible for bureaucrat voting, and then even be inactive for a further month as a crat before facing immediate demotion. We surely need a minimum of 1 edit per month to clarify that sysops still have access to their accounts before putting them up for voting for crat. Inactive sysops aren't harmful, inactive crats are, and bureaucrat voting is the only process where abuse of the system is easily administered. And ironically, the quieter the wiki the worse it is, as it's easier for abuse to occur. Don't allow sysops who literally can't even reply to messages on their talk page (or breath, for that matter) access to a bureaucrat spot. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I could be the one who is reading it wrong, but wouldn't this proposal just put relatively-inactive sysops up as candidates for an emptied 'crat seat, but not immediately install them as such? I see what you mean about potential abuse, but I believe if people don't want to put an already sort-of-inactive sysop up as a 'crat, they won't vote for said candidate. --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 02:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Of course you're right, they won't get immediately put in. But because of the crat election's theoretical (and historical, 1 2 3 4) connotations with voting abuse, why provide totally inactive accounts the opportunity? In the past year, not one current sysop other than Boxy (and spiderzed, for 3 days) has not made one edit in a month. In practice, that restriction seems to solve the fears of the above voters, and my own at the same time. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh dear. I can see the cause for concern given those. I'm not quite sure the wiki still has that many active users to pull similar stunts/abuse. The proposal (as I read it) does not seem to explicitly or implicitly allow for prospective candidates that would certainly never return to the wiki (it's still subject to the 4 month clause, iirc.) At least, someone is sure to still have the keys to the ship, but I fear that someone who has the keys may not be present (or alive) to pass it on further. You have a valid concern about the 1 edit minimum (especially for Bob Moncrief's case - what happened to him anyway?) Still, I think people would have the discretion not to vote for someone who they feel isn't going to be able to perform their duties as a 'crat.
    What I had in mind is, "What if a candidate who was presumed to be inactive ends up returning?" Do administrative actions (vandal banning, deletions, et c.) count as an 'edit' (as in the case of sysops/crats,) or is it limited to actual page edits? --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 04:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I believe they do count as edits, as the aim is to measure inactivity. And regarding your issue with having enough active users to pull off this abuse, the point is that they aren't active. The above examples are a demonstration of meatpuppetry in action, by users who are not contributing members of the wiki. While I have no issue with meatpuppetry in these circumstances, it's a definite possibility that an inactive account could be promoted this way. And sure, you're right there's "only" a max of 4 months that a sysop could be inactive as an op/crat at any one time, but it begs the question, why make it 4 months and fix nothing but risk more? A ZOMBIE ANT 04:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you. Now that I look at it again, why name the policy as "Reduce Minimum Edits For Bureaucrat Promotion" if it aims to remove the minimum edit qualifier? Your suggestion of actually reducing the edit requirement per month seems to fit the title more (but that's of a pedantic matter.) I wouldn't mind seeing the edit requirement decreased, but this current suggestion will prevent the election of a 'crat from being an impossibility (does that make sense in English?)
    Linkthewindow's suggestion on the discussion page comes to mind, for a "safety net" to ensure that the person installed won't be someone completely inactive, should this proposal materialize: "I wouldn't mind making a requirement that crats must post on the 'crat promotion page that they are willing to take up the position if they get voted in, so somebody completely inactive isn't voted in." --Si vis pacem, para bellum. (stalk · KT · FoD · UU) 07:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    So, just to clarify, less than 1 edit wouldn't result in a demotion from 'crat, but it would mean not being a valid 'crat candidate? Aichon 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry if I was vague, I actually do mean both of those. While I disagree mildly with both of them as separate policies, I must insist that both of them together are a terrible idea and remove any safeguard for absolutely inactive sysops to become crats for, theoretically, up to 3 months at a time, with nothing that can be done about it by anyone in the community. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    I think I'm following, but I'm unclear what you think the policy should be instead, since we clearly need to change the current policies in order to make some of these changes work. Aichon 04:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well to be honest, I don't think that is at all relevant, since one person's opinion on what makes a better policy shouldn't be the defining reason to vote against a terrible one- however, I do believe there's no reason the amendments to the Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling policy should be made. In fact, I'm kind of lost as to how that became part of this policy in the first place. I also prefer changing 12 edits/month to 1 edit/month rather than removing it completely, but that's not imperative. Do I think they are both stupid? Yes. But only removing those terms from the Automatic Bureaucrat Cycling policy is potentially wiki-breaking stupid. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools