UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Rosslessness/2008-11-19 Promotion

Only one Bureaucrat for Ross's promotion?

Since AHLG has left the wiki, there will only be one Bureaucrat for Ross in two weeks. Assuming an election is held today, that still means only one Bureaucrat for Ross. Are there any procedures for dealing with this, or will he have to wait until that election is done? Linkthewindow  Talk  05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for two, we've done it in the past -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:57 20 November 2008 (BST)

Well if there's a lot of drama and people debating whether im sysop material, I'd have no problems waiting until after the crat elections for a decision, but, I'm hoping for a more cut and dried result than J3d. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am hoping that Cheese takes in the full extent of community support and refuses your promotion as is his right :) Go on Cheese you know you want to, I dare ya...--Honestmistake 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That would actually be the consistent thing for him to do. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like a cliffhanger at the moment, so hopefully not much drama :). Linkthewindow  Talk  06:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I reject it. =p -- Cheese 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be interesting if you did and it would set a nice thorough precedent for the Bureaucrats ability to promote purely at their own discrection. It would be miscondibration galore (and patently ridiculous).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We might as well wait til we have 2 crats after the election (meaning Ross's bid will go for 2 weeks and like 3 days). It's not like Cheese'll say no, but i don't like the precedent this sets. Two crats for promotions shouldn't be optional.--xoxo 23:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Already precedent for single Crat elections. Hell Cheese was confirmed by AHLG after Grim went nuts and there are bound to be other examples if anyone can be bothered digging them up, its only really a problem if its a contentious issue at the time... for instance if there had only been one crat for your election i think there would have been even more controversy--Honestmistake 11:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Still think we need 3 crats just for the promotion bid thing.... avoids the idea that one has a veto which as far as i know is not policy and is in fact a result of the fact that a majority opinion is not possible with just 2. --Honestmistake 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sysop promotions shouldn't be majority decisions. If a relatively clear consensus can't be reached by the community, and the crats deciding, it shouldn't happen. Bad sysops are extremely hard to remove, it is better to err on the side of caution at promotion time, rather than have to go through months of misconduct drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 26 November 2008 (BST)

lalz.--xoxo 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There was only one for my last bid. However there's a difference between a crat being AWOL and a crat not existing. I guess it doesn't matter since he's a shoe-in.--xoxo 11:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It leaves me 3 days to launch my crat bid. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some clause about being a sysop at the start of the election...perhaps not ;) --xoxo 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't found it yet. (But then I haven't looked) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's always the best way. Why look for something you don't want to find? I'm loving the contrast between our promotions bids...--xoxo 12:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're just jealous because i got more vouches in 24 hours than you did in two weeks. Right to appease you Im off to improve Power Towers --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're just jealous coz i got twice as many crats as you. *sulks* --xoxo 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. You did. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact we've not only done it before, the whole 2 bureaucrats thing was nothing but an accident due to some sloppy rules writing back in the day. It worked out for the best, but we were supposed to have only one. :D -- Vista  +1  20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the finger pointing at me here? :P.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

lol finger.--xoxo 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly ;P But to me as well. I shouldn't have just dumped the position onto Xoid without checking in more. He wasn't that familiar with the early days while odd was there so a lot of things that I thought well known wasn't...but... How are you, still going strong?-- Vista  +1  18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it that he hasn't been promoted yet, we are waiting for a second 'crat? Might want to post something on that page, if it is true. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It takes two weeks for a bid to go through completely. It hasn't been two weeks.--Karek^maps?! 05:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that explains a lot. I misread my computer clock, making me think that it was two weeks. Knew something was wrong. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And no, the amount of bureaucrats has no influence on promotions. The reason why we continued to have two 'crats after we accidentally added a position is not for deliberations but as back up to make sure we'll always have one active after a bureaucrat is indisposed, inactive or stripped from his position.-- Vista  T  05:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no, or more to the point, the purpose has evolved since then. 'Crats are now expected to discuss the issues brought up by the community and to reach a consensus as a sort of extra check. The third 'crat policy was based on that principle.--Karek^maps?! 06:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A principle which was rejected soundly. Bureaucrats have always been expected to discuss the issues brought up by the community. And when there are more bureaucrats we've alway been expected to reach a consensus and behave like adults. However the principle that a single bureaucrat is unable to do it's job on his own is just your idea and not supported by the definition of the powers of a bureaucrat.-- Vista  T  06:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the principal wasn't rejected. The policy didn't represent the principal it represented the current view of the job, what was rejected was the belief that that job wasn't being performed adequately with only two people. It certainly wasn't the first time the issue of what has become expected from the 'crats came up. The principle is shown in effect on this page itself on the last promotions bid; Since that policy discussion the veto power has been accepted as standard in the powers of the job, any one 'crat has the power to prevent any promotion for any reason. It's the de facto rule.--Karek^maps?! 08:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not really the de facto rule but it is pretty much the case at the moment (bear with me). I always understood that (officially at least) the presiding Crat/s needed to feel that on balance the promotion was a good thing, or to put it simply a majority of opinion for promotion. With one Crat its a simple yes/no, with two crats one can put his foot down and prevent the promotion thus effectively having a veto, with three the veto power vanishes if the other two are in agreement! Its not so much a veto as the ability to prevent reaching the required majority, it sounds like nittpicking but its an important distinction to make in case we ever do get a 3rd crat. --Honestmistake 13:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the principal is that the available bureaucrats must agree, and that's always been the principle. However that doesn't follow that there automatically must be two bureaucrats making that decision. Two separate guiding principles.

1. We kept an another Bureaucrat as back up.
2. We added a guideline/rule how they must come to a decision when they are both active.

Rule two doesn't automatically chance rule one. That is reversing cause and effect. What you are talking about is not that there always have to be two bureaucrats, but how those two bureaucrats must work together when there are two. A bureaucrat still has the power to promote people otherwise the whole reason we need to add another bureaucrat as back up and then yet another, and yet another. But the point is clear, a bureaucrat has the power to promote people on his own. And because when there are two bureaucrat, they both have the power to promote on their own, and thus as adults, they must agree on the same actions in order not to create a crisis of confidence in a sysop. But they must agree because they both have the identical power of promotion, not either half of a single power.-- Vista  T  15:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

So basically what this all boils down to is you've horribly misunderstood what I was saying and decided to argue without looking for the common sense explanation or asking for clarification first. The point was that it has evolved from just the first to include the second, I thought that was obvious because it was in response to you only representing the first point.--Karek^maps?! 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry karek, next time when you say "Yes and no, or more to the point, the purpose has evolved since then." I'll assume that you're actually agreeing with me and that the fact that you claim "no it's changed" as well is only about some point not germane to the question asked. stupid me.-- Vista  T  02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)