UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/3rd Crat

I've always been strongly in favour of this decision. There's never really been a case when it's been required before, but I see no harm being done by this. (Crats would have longer terms as a result, but that could be solved by making elections every 3 months rather than every 4 if necessary).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:10, 30 July 2011 (BST)

i have no problems maintaining it at 4. --hagnat 22:19, 30 July 2011 (BST)

The only thing I see being a problem with that is that a crat term is then a year long.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)

So ? Dont you trust the promoted users for that long? --hagnat 22:29, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Nah, and I wouldn't vote against it because of that. I'm just wary about such an enormous period of time passing without crats facing public opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:32, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Meh. Won't they face a/re before that time ? --hagnat 22:41, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah and then there will only be 2 ops able to rule on it! The system works! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:43, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Um

Its not a tie situation, either crat can veto a promotion. Unless there is consensus, no one gets promoted. Adding another crat makes that harder. --Rosslessness 22:43, 30 July 2011 (BST)

^^^^ this--User:Sexualharrison22:45, 30 July 2011 (bst)

Ah shutdup, there is a tie. Dont argue with my dumb and bored logic... herp derp whatever --hagnat 22:47, 30 July 2011 (BST)

out of touch huh hagz?--User:Sexualharrison22:51, 30 July 2011 (bst)

I'm going to miss this in two weeks. --Rosslessness 22:53, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Just bored and too lazy to think... whut ya gonna do in two weeks ross ? vacutiun ? --hagnat 22:56, 30 July 2011 (BST)

His crat term ends and he isn't re-running.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:00, 30 July 2011 (BST)

he shouldnt. Ross and boxy are the ones i trust the most for the job of promoting the most retarded of the flock of this wiki --hagnat 23:06, 30 July 2011 (BST)

AFAIK, Boxy will be running, so you could always vote for him. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:08, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Echoing Ross. Tie situations in A/PM mean no promotion, ties in A/RE mean no re-promotion. Simples. 23:21, 30 July 2011 (BST)

I still think its a good idea having a 3rd crat... discuss --hagnat 23:24, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Crats have one job, to oversee the (re)promotions process. Thats it. The workload is nothing. why do you think its a good idea to expand the workforce? --Rosslessness 23:28, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Just chiming in to agree with everyone else saying it's unnecessary. 'Crats have veto power, not voting power, when it comes to their buttons, so there's no such thing as a tie. Adding a third 'crat would just mean it'd take longer to approve of worthy candidates. —Aichon— 23:40, 30 July 2011 (BST)

Technically, they have also the job to notify inactive sys-ops: "A sysop that hasn't made any edit in four months will be warned, on their talk page, by a Bureaucrat, that they face demotion of their sysop powers in one week, if they remain inactive." Not that the unimaginable workload of this high-turnover high-octane job requires a third set of hands. -- Spiderzed█ 11:49, 31 July 2011 (BST)

I'd vote for this if the 3rd crat would permanently be boxy :P On a more serious note, I agree with everyone else here. -- †  talk ? f.u. 00:56, 31 July 2011 (BST)

I'd vouch for that --hagnat 05:50, 31 July 2011 (BST)

Nooooooooooooooo, we've already had policy discussion like this, I was never there for the original convo but I was never really convinced a third crat would be the way to go. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:01, 31 July 2011 (BST)

At first i liked the idea of a 3rd crat to prevent ties but since I learned here that without a unanimous agreement nothing happens lets leave it at two. If it anit broke don't fix it.       03:01, 1 August 2011 (BST)

As above. Less bureaucracy please. --Uroguy^TMZ 21:25, 1 August 2011 (BST)

Why?

Has there been a problem that the general populous hasn't noticed? Asheets 23:34, 31 July 2011 (BST)

yeah, i didnt got promoted --hagnat 01:36, 1 August 2011 (BST)

Adding a third 'crat would mean adding one more person who could veto your promotion. ;) —Aichon— 07:03, 1 August 2011 (BST)

Yeah, but if the Third Crat was Boxy, he would have talked the other two around.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:11, 1 August 2011 (BST)

An interesting fact

There was only ever supposed to be one 'crat and the reason that we ended up with 2 is that I screwed up when writing the guidelines. Just an interesting sidenote...--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:16, 4 August 2011 (BST)

Probably a good screw up none the less.        16:26, 4 August 2011 (BST)

The Romans had two consuls needing to agree with each other for a reason. Four-eyes principle does usually more good than harm. -- Spiderzed█ 23:16, 7 August 2011 (BST)

Déjà Vu-Vu?

Third Bureaucrat didn't work last time. What's changed? --Funt Solo ^QT 00:17, 9 August 2011 (BST)

what's changed? hagnat being an idio- oh -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:07, 9 August 2011 (BST)

three years have passed, that much has changed --hagnat 03:20, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Three years has passed and no issue arisen. when it ain't broke, make a policy discussion! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:22, 9 August 2011 (BST)

It *can* be broken, but now its just too late for any potential good for this policy to prevent it --hagnat 03:27, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Poetic. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:49, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Jed and thad? I mean in theory this could make it harder to promote new users which is never a bad thing. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:04, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Hmmm. Personally, I'd argue that we've had more sysops come good from fence-sitting promotion bids than ones that have gone bad. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:51, 9 August 2011 (BST)

Heh. That was entertaining to read.       20:38, 9 August 2011 (BST)