UDWiki talk:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions

This has been up for a while now, and the amount of votes is absolutely pittiable. Promotions to moderator tend to get about double the amount of votes. How about we link it in the community announcement box on the front page? I feel the person promoted should have a bigger vote of confidence then the 8 to 10 people who bothered to vote.--Vista 11:57, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Community announcements are for important things. I'd say this qualifies. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:07, 22 June 2006 (BST)

What's a Bureaucrat?

I don't see it described anywhere. Is it a new position? How is it different from a moderator?Jjames 17:48, 23 June 2006 (BST)

It's virtually identical to a sysop. The only difference is that bureaucrats are able to promote users to sysops, and demote sysops. I don't know whether they can promote other bureaucrats, though. Cyberbob  Talk  17:51, 23 June 2006 (BST)

They can.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:59, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Is a sysop a moderator?Jjames 22:57, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Yes, or more precisely, moderators are sysops. we merely use the term moderator here.--Vista 23:17, 24 June 2006 (BST)

God only knows why. I prefer the term "Admin" myself. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:06, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Early accident. Moderator was used by most users to describe the sysops because most users were most familiar with Forums, not wikis, and the name kindof stuck. When we named the Moderation pages as such, it became kindof entrenched. I personally would prefer sysops, because even fewer people are familiar with IRC, and thus no non-useful baggage with the term... -- Odd Starter ^{T M W!} 09:54, 25 June 2006 (BST)

I hate the term myself as wel, but I guess it's too late to change it.--Vista 13:01, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Old candidacies

The guidelines for bureaucrat promotions state that Once the two weeks are up, the vouches will be tallied, and the against subtracted from the total. Each moderator has one week to put themselves forward as a Bureaucrat then, when the voting on all the moderators has finished, the moderator with the highest total amount of vouches will be made a Bureaucrat.. We had Vista promoted already, so we can safely say he has "won" the promotion and the other mods have "lost" it. Shouldn't the other candidacies be archived or stored in some way so when the time comes (i don't know how, as the guidelines don't state how often does the bureaucrat promotion open) the friendly competition for bureaucrat promotions can begin anew? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^Talk 09:00, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Trust Labine to not read up on the process...

• Vouch - I just love it when people don't give reasons for votes.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 04:40, 11 July 2006 (BST)
  • What, like the way you just didn't? Cyberbob  Talk  09:10, 11 July 2006 (BST)
  • Er, Labine, you do know that Kevan already promoted Vista, right? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:17, 11 July 2006 (BST)
    • Why don't we just let people keep stating their opinions? If we ever need another bureacrat then we can look at who has the next most votes.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:59, 11 July 2006 (BST)
      • Which kinda fucks it up for all the other sysops who didn't participate in this round, doesn't it? Cyberbob  Talk  13:47, 11 July 2006 (BST)
        • I agree with Cyberbob (but with less swearing). Anyway when the new round comes along (presuming it does) then the opinions would be outdated and won't give an acurate indication of what people think of the moderator at the current point in time. - Jedaz 05:38, 15 July 2006 (BST)
          • Yeah, suppose so. Anyway, i'm unlikely to be around by then.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:26, 15 July 2006 (BST)
            • How come?, are you getting sick of the Wiki and it's dramas? - Jedaz 11:19, 15 July 2006 (BST)
              • Yeah, sick of unclear and unenforced rules, sick of drama. I might just drop the moderation duties and go back the suggestions page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:48, 15 July 2006 (BST)
            • I'll be ready with the tissue box if you need it, General. Cyberbob  Talk  11:22, 15 July 2006 (BST)
              • The sarcasm is unwarrented.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:48, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                • Neither is martyrdom. If you don't like the way the wiki is, do something about it, rather than just whinging. Gin up a few policy changes, that would shape the wiki you think it should be. Cyberbob  Talk  23:29, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                  • I can't, they're already in the policy, they just aren't followed. The stuff which isn't in the policy at the moment would be shot down before i'd finised typing it. Anyway, it wasn't whinning, it's the truth and it was relevent to the previous discussion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:32, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                    • OK, then, which policies aren't being followed? Cyberbob  Talk  23:38, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                      • It's been admitted here and in the case below it by both you and xoid that we're not following Guidelines. Most of the Guidelines are open to serious interpretation. I'll dig up some more when it's not midnight and when i'm not too tired to think straight.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:43, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                        • Which guideline, exactly, wasn't followed in the second case? Cyberbob  Talk  23:48, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                          • Not in that case, but it's admitted in those cases. I'll elaborate more in the morning.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:49, 15 July 2006 (BST)
                            • I'll be very interested in your elaboration; I can't find a single admission to not following guidelines. Cyberbob  Talk  23:52, 15 July 2006 (BST)

General Discussion

• Against - This guy suggested starting a petition[1] to ban someone. That's not the sort of guy who should have power. --Ron Burgundy 02:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  • I quote you "moderator are expected to act in accordence with the wishes of the community".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:08, 31 July 2006 (BST)
    • When and in what context did I say that? --Ron Burgundy 09:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)
      • You didn't, it's in the guidelines.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:21, 31 July 2006 (BST)
        • It also says "Moderators may only ban users who consistently vandalise wiki pages." Even so, I hardly think a witch hunt is in the spirit of a wiki. --Ron Burgundy 09:29, 31 July 2006 (BST)
          • Maybe so, I admit that it wasn't my best desision.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:30, 31 July 2006 (BST)

• Against - From my talks with you off the wiki you've indicated that you are seriously considering leaving. Why should you be given bureaucratship if you aren't going to be around? Apart from that, Burgundy makes an excellent point. I'll expand upon that by saying that I remember when you railed against a similiar petition "on principle". I find it strange that you later decided a petition would be a good idea in Reptilius' case. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:49, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  • Re: If I was made a bureaucrat, I would stick around for the sake of the wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:09, 31 July 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Ok. I still think you were wrong by creating the petition. I believe that you are supposed to use your judgement and be prepared to reverse your decision should you be proven wrong. The petition is something that I find distasteful. It was not merely a statement of opinion like the other petition I referred to. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)
      • I quote you "moderator are expected to act in accordance with the wishes of the community".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:31, 31 July 2006 (BST)
        • Then why was Amazing not banned when that petition ended, with more supporting it than protesting it? I remember you threatening to ban anyone who dared to enforce the will of the community. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:43, 31 July 2006 (BST)
          • What rubbish is this? I never threatened to ban anybody, I would have been sent straight to misconduct if I had. My views have changed, following principles has done me no good.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:53, 31 July 2006 (BST)
            • Actually, I remember it too. I was the one who asked you the question. Cyberbob  Talk  08:58, 31 July 2006 (BST)
              • I recommend taking them to misconduct, I did not threaten to ban anyone. Anyway, wasn't the reason you asked at the time because you were sympathetic towards Amazing?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)
                • Yes, it was. What of it? At least I made a full recant of that belief. Cyberbob  Talk  09:02, 31 July 2006 (BST)
                  • Just making the point, I think i've answered the concerns.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:03, 31 July 2006 (BST)
                    • Not really. You have been seen still talking with Amazing and his buddies on their forum. Cyberbob  Talk  09:36, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                      • So? Is it a crime to talk to someone?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:14, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                        • No. But I'm sure you can see my point. When you try to turn someone's argument back on them, General, it's useful not to be even guiltier of the same thing. Cyberbob  Talk  10:36, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                          • I'm pointing out that you're in no position to talk or complain that someone was sympathetic towards Amazing.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:46, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                            • Yes I am. I wouldn't be raising this issue if you still didn't associate or sympathise with him. Cyberbob  Talk  11:01, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                              • Whether or not I sympathise with him is not relevent, he is banned, get it through your head.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:04, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                • Really? Wow! I never knew that. That is massive news to me. Cyberbob  Talk  11:12, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                  • The only person your mocking with that sarcasm is yourself.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:13, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                    • Er...OK... In any case, Amazing's bannage hasn't changed his personality one bit. Look at his vandalism sprees for proof of that. You're saying you support a serial vandal? For shame. Cyberbob  Talk  11:14, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                      • It's been agreed it's not his vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:16, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                        • Really? Like to point me to the conversation where it was conclusively proven either way? Cyberbob  Talk  11:21, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                          • I've been chatting to xoid, and it is noted on the vandal banning page. Amazing is gone for good, trust me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:26, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                            • Nevertheless, he's still a shit whose friends I dislike and distrust. (BTW, no conclusive proof, eh?) Cyberbob  Talk  11:28, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                              • Whatever your opinion of him is, it should not affect me. BTW, you don't have any conclusive proof either.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:31, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                • Hey, call me irrational. I just can't trust a person who enjoys spending time with a creature as repulsive as Amazing. I have more proof than you. His name is on those accounts. Which doesn't prove much, but it's more than what you've got. Cyberbob  Talk  11:36, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                  • And? There have been a lot of people impersonating others, it could quite easily be the 3pwv for all you know.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:43, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                    • So? Why does that make it impossible that none of those accounts was really Amazing? Cyberbob  Talk  11:46, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                      • We don't assume bad faith by default.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:50, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                        • I think it's safe to say that pretty much everything Amazing does related to the wiki at this point is bad faith. Cyberbob  Talk  12:15, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                          • That is not relevent to what I said.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:16, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                            • You said that we don't assume bad faith. Obviously those vandal accounts were in bad faith. At least some of those, I believe, were Amazing. How is that irrelevant? Cyberbob  Talk  12:18, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                                                              • In other words "innocent until proven guilty". Anyway, I suggest we take any furter discussion to the wiki's forum, we're clogging up the page here.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:40, 2 August 2006 (BST)

• Against - Le sigh. To much drama surrounds him. --Sirens^{T RR} 13:48, 2 August 2006 (BST)
  • And who's causing it?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:55, 2 August 2006 (BST)
    • You keep replying, ja? --Sirens^{T RR} 14:00, 2 August 2006 (BST)
      • The other option is to let them keep complaining, not my fault if it clogs up the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:02, 2 August 2006 (BST)
        • *coughs, points up* So you're saying that the best option was to keep responding up there, eh? --Sirens^{T RR} 14:05, 2 August 2006 (BST)
          • I suggested we take it elsewhere.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:18, 2 August 2006 (BST)
            • But it was still continued. Does it matter where? --Sirens^{T RR} 14:19, 2 August 2006 (BST)
              • So you're saying that people can say anything they want and it's wrong to reply to them?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:26, 2 August 2006 (BST)
                • Nope. You're free to say whatever you want. But lets take an example, shall we? Lets say I said, "The Wiki can burn, and I hope it does." Am I free to say that? Yes. Will it reflect poorly on me even if I make it perfectly clear that it's a joke? You better believe it. By the same token, the drama shown reflects poorly on you. --Sirens^{T RR} 14:35, 2 August 2006 (BST)

• IMO this drama reflects on both participants. -Dog Deever ^T•Nec 00:07, 28 August 2006 (BST)

Question on this 'process'

Why is it that only one Moderator gets promoted per round? Having not noticed this until say, just fucking now, this seems completely ridiculous and encourages sockpuppeting and epenis dickery all over the boards. Promotions works on the basis that if you get vouches you are a mod, who decided this should be any different? – Nubis ^NWO 12:24, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Who knows? Cyberbob  Talk  12:25, 10 September 2006 (BST)

The General did. He talked it over with Kevan, and Kevan agreed. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:27, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I still think it's retarded. Whatever. – Nubis ^NWO 12:28, 10 September 2006 (BST)

As do I. But, if Kevan agrees with it... Cyberbob  Talk  12:29, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I don't really think that it was discussed in any depth. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:12, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Perhaps it's time to reconsider it? Cyberbob  Talk  13:15, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I've personally considered it a rather stupid way to do it, but letting practically every mod become a 'crat is stupid too. The whole thing needs to be reworked. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:18, 10 September 2006 (BST)

Any suggestions? Cyberbob  Talk  13:20, 10 September 2006 (BST)

It's here, and no, it wasn't discussed in any depth, I was only imagining it'd be used to promote a single Bureaucrat, and that we could fire it back up again when that user went inactive and we needed another one. If anything, it should be more different from the Moderator process - I've no idea when or why the continually-repeating "rounds" came in.

The reason only one Bureaucrat got promoted was that we only needed one. As Xoid says (and as history sadly shows), giving every mod Bureaucrat powers isn't such a great idea - I don't think we gain very much by having four Bureaucrats instead of three, or three instead of two. They don't do anything other than process completed Moderation bids, which are fairly infrequent; something's wrong somewhere if people feel Bureaucrat status is the inevitable "next step up" from Moderator. --Kevan 15:29, 10 September 2006 (BST)

One reason I think it might be beneficial to have more than one Bureaucrat (but not more than a handful) is having just one Bureaucrat makes you completely reliant on them. As it is now, for example, if Xoid goes out of town, I'm here to fill his place. If I'm too busy to check the wiki, Xoid can do the job for me. And perhaps even more importantly, in the case of a moderator bid that is in the gray area about whether or not the user should be promoted (or other similar situations), we can confer and then make a decision together, as "the Bureaucrat team," instead of having just one person to try to make the calls. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 18:25, 10 September 2006 (BST)

I suppose this comes down to your definition of "a handful". Two seems plenty for covering one another while the other's out of town; a worst case of both Bureaucrats (and me) being unavailable just means a delay on processing any promotion bids that happen to expire during that exact period, which isn't the end of the world. And aren't genuinely contentious moderator bids generally rejected with the suggestion that the bidder tries again later? --Kevan 10:25, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Correct, moderator bids that aren't clearly strong are usually thrown out, but I was saying that it's still nice to have another person with whom to consult. As for how many a "handful" is, two seems to be working fine right now, although I could foresee perhaps three as being acceptable as well, but not more than that. After a certain point, having more than a small number of Bureaucrats defeats the purpose of having the different position entirely. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 17:09, 13 September 2006 (BST)

The continually-repeating rounds was partly my doing, I wanted to archive the whole page as a whole so people could see how the person got promoted. I archived it as a "round" in case I went inactive and a new bureaucrat election had to be held and archived. When that happened and Xoid replaced me, the resulting way of archiving and the way the general set the process up must have made it look like it was similar to a promotion to sysop for the people who didn't know that there was only supposed to be one user-bureaucrat. I thought that it was both common knowledge and reinforced by the language used in the promotions and the fact that I demoted myself immidiatly. Looking back I see I probably should have made it more clear.--Vista 00:54, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Who ever decided that there was supposed to be only one Bureaucrat? Frankly, that doesn't make any sense. Read the reasons that I gave regarding why having more than one Bureaucrat is a good thing. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:17, 13 September 2006 (BST)

First, congratulations, I think you're more then up for the job...

And it was part convention as there always had been only 1 to start with & Kevan stated quite a lot that he thought that there was only one necessersary. And just for the record. I don't disagree with you. This wasn't an attempt to throw in a monkey wrench or as an attack or something, the last I want to do is come here after a couple of months and be a backseat driver.--Vista 00:11, 14 September 2006 (BST)

Hey, thank you. :) It's nice to hear a fellow moderator congratulate me instead of making me feel as though I have something to feel guilty about by running for Bureaucrat. I'm glad to have your input on this issue, because you have experience and hindsight, and enough distance from the recent promotions to comment without personal involvement. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 01:10, 14 September 2006 (BST)

It was not common knowledge, and the page was (still is?) a poorly written mess. I did ask The General over IM to not set the page up until we had a chance to word it right the first time, but he either ignored me or didn't get my message. (This was months back.) I forgot about that until the first round started, a little late to do anything.

About you relinquishing your 'crat status before you left; I thought that was because since you were leaving, you didn't need it any more. (Frankly, it's what I'd do if I was quitting.) Kevan had stated his stance as "1 or 2" bureaucrats in the past, IIRC, so I didn't think there was a problem with letting the previous round go through. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:46, 13 September 2006 (BST)

I didn't get the message about not setting up the page, otherwise I would have waited. I assumed that the moderators would know enough about what's going on that they would realise that it was a once of event. It was never meant to have continuous rounds of promoting, that's why I didn't put myself up for it during this latest round.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:54, 13 September 2006 (BST)

Well now that we've agreed that the wording needs to be fixed, (which I've only been trying to push into your heads for the past week) can we maybe do something about it? – Nubis ^NWO 15:24, 13 September 2006 (BST)

No, as kevan has already said that the point was for it to be a one off thing. Currently, the wording is preventing us having about 6 bureaucrats.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:33, 13 September 2006 (BST)

The wording isn't preventing shit. Any mod can request status at any time, and there is nothing preventing that 'horrible atrocity' of having multiple bureaucrats that you all are so afraid to have happen from happening, as we have seen. Seriously, read the bloody page. – Nubis ^NWO 20:26, 13 September 2006 (BST)

I have read the page, I wrote it! The wording might not be working, but changing it to allow more than on bureaucrat to be promoted per a round is only going to make things worse.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:52, 14 September 2006 (BST)

THE PROBLEM IS NOT A PER ROUND PROBLEM, IT'S THAT THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS ON HOW MANY ROUNDS THERE CAN BE. OR DO I REALLY NEED TO START PUTTING PEOPLE BACK UP ON THE PAGE EVERY TWO WEEKS TO PROVE MY POINT? – Nubis ^NWO 15:17, 14 September 2006 (BST)

You've just changed you're point, look at what you just said now and what you said at the beggining of this section, they're different.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:24, 14 September 2006 (BST)

Way to ignore my point. Which I haven't changed. I just realised that since you and Xoid and Bob can just respond to anything I say with "KEVANS SAID SO LOLS" and beat any arguments I give, there's no point in making an effort to continue. But I sure as hell am not letting this page stay in it's failed format it's in now. – Nubis ^NWO 15:33, 14 September 2006 (BST)

Drop the agressive stance, you're making yourself look like a fool. You forget it's kevan's wiki.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:42, 14 September 2006 (BST)

Yes, it's his Wiki. So why don't you finally get around to making this page reflect that? – Nubis ^NWO 16:46, 14 September 2006 (BST)

It does, if you didn't abuse the system. We shouldn't have to make sure that there are absolutely no loopholes in it, because we should be able to expect moderators to be sensible.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:30, 17 September 2006 (BST)

Some of us are in the process of hammering it out, y'know. I'd like it if you kindly backed the fuck off saying I'm slacking off when I am working on it. FYI, the same sort of problem already exists with M/PM, so why aren't you doing something about it? Because you're too busy bitching here? You started this the wrong way, and are now continuing it in the same fashion. You could have brought it up politely, without causing a dramafest, but you decided to disrupt the wiki to prove a point. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 04:24, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I did bring it up politely. To the response of 'Fuck off, Kevan doesn't want this. Thanks. – Nubis ^NWO 09:35, 15 September 2006 (BST)

I'm quite sure he only mentioned having one promoted bureaucrat at the same time ever. But as I said looking back I shouldn't have thought that it common knowledge because it was mostly based on loose statements ranging back from Odd Starter demotion to the generals request. all of which are either archived or purged. It's basically the same old story as ever. we end up doing things without remembering why or how precisely.

And for the demotion my rationele went, I'm currently not able to do it properly so I have to retire to let somebody else do it. So i didn't think about it at all. But, you're right, if I'd felt I had a choice I still would've resigned too avoid confusion mostly because I was intending to pop by every so often and having the bureaucrat status whould made people think that I was something I wasn't. Like I said looking back I can easily see that it wasn't common knowledge and easy it was to logically interpretate every action in different ways. I dropped the ball a bit there, sorry. I do hope that the net result is positive. --Vista 00:11, 14 September 2006 (BST)

Another round?

I thought I would open up discussion about another round and get clarification on whats happening. After Xoids comment about needing a new Bureaucrat I would like to nominate someone who I belive is worthy. However the question that I want to know is, when are we going to start the new round, if at all? I belive that agreeing on a starting and ending date will be most beneficial. So, lets discuss! - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 12:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Of course, we'd need Kevan's seal of approval. But if we can get that, I see no reason why we shouldn't have another bid. --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. We should ask kevan.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this last night. Then instead of asking about it, I did my math homework. But - lets run it by Kevan. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 21:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the dates to you lot, but yes, consider my approval sealed on running another promotion round. --Kevan 10:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Excelent, well I'm thinking that we run the rounds for 3 weeks, so thats 1 week for people to nominate themselves or someone else, and 2 weeks for voting. I think the best time to start is soon after we've agreed on a set period of length. Does anyone else have any other suggestions? - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S!} 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That time limit seems good to me... I also personally think that people running should be nominated by another sysop. Does anyone else share that opinion? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 01:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should get new crats by the end of march... this means 3 weeks starting this Sat. We could simply ask the community to vote on one of the active sysops to become a crat... the two that get the mosts votes get promoted them. Then, all active sysops are alreay 'nominated', and can simply say that they dont want to run for cratmanship before the voting process begins. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, two bureaucrat positions should be given again? As of lately Kevan seems active enough for me to fill the non-resident bureaucrat role, we just need another one IMHO. Also, Bob and Xoid would be "de-bureaucrated"? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you meant to type one to fill, rather then me to fill... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat, you know that I didn't mean me... I meant "Kevan seems to me active enough to fill the non-resident bureaucrat role". I have a good understanding of the rules and I never bypass them, just to remind you. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat - you're suggesting that each user gets a single vote to give to any single sysop? I think that I like that idea better than mine. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, that is probably one of the best voting ideas I've ever heard. So does this mean all mods will be up or just the ones that want that promotion. Pillsy ^FT 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All mods are up for voting, those who dont want or are inactive for more than a month will be excluded from voting (inactivity based on edit counts, less than 15 edits in a month is inactivity). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going away over this weekend (plus Monday)... can someone put me down or something and I'll fill in my opening statement when I get back? --Hubrid Nox ^{Sys WTF U! B!} 05:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i just wrote some basic rules for this round voting process. Thari is an active sysop, but he already said he wouldnt like to run for crat so i didnt listed his name on the list of active sops. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As MF asks above, does this mean demotions for the inactive 'crats (BH and X)? Or is that a separate process? I seem to recall a demotions process for sysops was recently set-up... Also, regarding the same comment by MF, why is it that two will be promoted automatically? The only reason I can think two instead of one is that you are anticipating BH and X will both be replaced--which circles back to the first q. --Barbecue Barbecue 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Both BobHammero and Xoid are going to be demoted to sysop only status, thats why we will have 2 new crats. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point that it could be considered poor form to vote on self during this voting process. Well, atleast i would consider :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

June '07 Round ?

i think we could work on some time period for how long two usera can stay as crats in the wiki. I'd say that after march '07 round we take another one, in june, and every 3 months after it. There all sysops once again run for cratification, including the active crats. At the end of the round we promote new sysops to crats, or renew the position of the current for more 3 months. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:53, 26 March 2007 (BST)

I prefer a system that means that only one 'crat would come up for re-election at a time. Say a regular election of one of the 2 (or 3, or whatever) Bureaucrats, the term to be decided by consensus. Such a system ensures that an experienced bureaucrat remains in place while a new one "learns the ropes", as it were. Using your 3 month term... in three months one Bureaucrat puts his position up for grabs, and 3 months later, the other does... if someone has to resign "mid-term", then and election is held, and the next election is reset for 3 months after that -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:02, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Actually I rather like that suggestion and I think It's worth considering for sysops as well. I don't think permanent positions are a particular good thing in a wiki. Although I liked the fact that I could automatically start again as a sysop it’s rather strange. The large majority of people who gave their confidence left the wiki in my absence and got replaced by other users who never had a vote for the sysop they now have to trust but who is completely new to them. Even more so if I hadn’t removed my bureaucrat status. --Vista 14:51, 26 March 2007 (BST)

As Vista says this would be a good idea for all sysops too. It would allow current users to vote for people they trust. For 'crats, hagnat is right. You can't suddenly get 2 new 'crats all the time as they need to learn the ropes and so on. I mean it could be likely the same person would get elected each time if they had done a good job unless they are exempt from voting...Pillsy ^FT 18:17, 31 March 2007 (BST)

look, i gave the initial idea... now i think the rest of the community could give a little feedback on this and make the thing actually work. We are about to get two new crats today, elected loosely on my idea for this round voting process... if someone else could make this policy work asap it would be great. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:46, 31 March 2007 (BST)

How many places

Are we voting on for 'crat? It says that you have one vote per 'crat position being voted on. So is there one, or two positions available? This just doesn't seem very clear to me. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 02:52, 1 July 2007 (BST)

We are voting only for Boxy's position. It wasn't really clear to me neither, so I asked Vista (I actually voted for you too!). Feel free to add some kind of acclaration if you feel it's necessary. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:00, 1 July 2007 (BST)

One at a time from now on (unless two resign at once). In 3 months time the other position comes up for re-election -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 03:02, 1 July 2007 (BST)

November '07 Round ?

I'm glad Grim isn't seriously running. I think it would be poor form to have the person who caused Vista to quit in the first place get the vacant position. At least Vista will be back sometime later. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't take your vendetta against Grim everywhere on the wiki. Oh wait. – Nubis 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vendetta? Nah. If I was mad at Grim, you'd know. I just consider him a smarter Cyberbob. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Akule. You know just how to touch my heart _{though I do agree with you on the Vista front}. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Zarathrustra says...

"Despotic sysops and powermongers will consolidate followings and argue with other factions over trivial policy debates. All of UD userdom will shatter into a thousand warring shards, heralding the end of productive cooperation for all time." Too late, The future is now!!! --Honestmistake 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ineligible candidates

I created this section for the placement of any ineligible candidates and any accrued votes. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:07, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Do tell me why you are the second fucking sysop who can't read and that I've had to revert today. Grim is no longer a bureaucrat, his status was removed by Kevan. Grim has not yet been demoted from the position of sysop. There is no mention of bans in the criteria for candidates and his edits qualify him as active. Therefore he is an active sysop and allsysops are automatically candidates. Until either Kevan says he's demoted (Kevan only removed his powers for security reasons pending the outcome of the misconduct case, he did not demote him) or the misconduct come to a final decision to remove his sysop status, he is an active sysop, and therefore automatically declared as, and is, a valid candidate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:45, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Find Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Find Funt. -- Cheese 21:49, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Read Kevan's fucking page, owner privilege trumps anything you can bring or say. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:50, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct#User:Grim_s --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Show me the exact, and I mean exact passage where Kevan explicity states that Grim can participate. Or fuck off. -- Cheese 21:53, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Simple enough: Grim lost his crat powers because he abused them in an attempt to seize control of the wiki; therefore, with little commom sense, he is NOT able to fill the position he himself left vacant. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 22:08, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Iscariot, please get your facts straight before attacking me, and also (please) stop being so openly abusive. I am not a sysop. I never have been, and have never sought to be. Also, whether Grim's demotion (by Kevan) is temporary or not, at this moment in time he is not a sysop - so therefore he cannot run for Bureaucrat. Now, we could argue over that single point. What we cannot argue over, however, is that Grim permanently banned himself. Taking the two facts together (a self-inflicted permanent ban, and no sysop status), it makes no sense whatsoever for him to be in the running for bureaucrat. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:40, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Quoting Kevan directly "Given the "effective immediately i am seizing executive power" tone of his bureaucrat abuse, and the fact that he claims to have left the wiki permanently, temporarily revoking his sysop powers seems fair enough, if only as a security issue. I'll reverse it should the new misconduct case decide in his favour." - Emphasis mine.

Now let's look at this: Kevan says powers not status. Kevan says misconduct.

As proven time and again, non-sysops cannot be found guilty of misconduct. If he can be found guilty or not guilty of misconduct then he must still have sysop status. There is no other way for it to be. If he is demoted as a result of the misconduct proceedings then he is no longer an ineligible candidate. Otherwise he qualifies, the criteria make no mention of current bans. Just because he will be demoted before the end of the election does not change the fact that he is an eligible candidate and thus I will return to voting. As Kevan has declared his status, owner privilege is in effect and even without powers, Grim is considered a sysop.

Removing the section time and again smacks of moderation and an attempt to pervert the outcome of a community decision. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)

That doesn't even get close to Kevan saying Grim can take part in the election. Therefore, you've just proved you're an idiot. -- Cheese 22:56, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Grim s

1. Surprise Yes Providing he does implement the reforms he promised and then step dow he gets my vote... However This support is conditional on his a) keeping the promise and b) Not interfering in the very recent and valid promotion of the last Crat (AHLG)--Honestmistake 15:33, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   One need not be a bureaucrat -- nor even a sysop -- to draft and advocate for the policy changes that Grim was planning. Moreover, he stated his intent not simply to propose them, but to enact them without so much as a facade of community input. And he demoted Gnome along with everyone else, didn't he? -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)

2. On the grounds that the demotion was a farce. Seriously, it's a very harsh punishment.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 15:34, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   He demoted all the Administrators and forced the owner of the game to demote him.....--CyberRead240 15:37, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   I would have voted for him if he hadn't done that. - User:Whitehouse 15:51, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   YES Withdrawn due to Grim's tantrum. No need to promote petulant children. --Stephen Colbert DFA 17:01, 9 October 2008 (BST)

3. Yes - In Soviet Malton, elections follow coups. I remind you of one of the votes that got Grim elected last time. "[He is] Not afraid to be a dick." Well, sometimes what this Wiki needs is a good deep dicking, and Grim appears ready to give it. -- Galaxy125 19:59, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   Yeah, I figured you'd be in favour of a nice dicking. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 20:19, 9 October 2008 (BST)

4. Yes - That was one impressive tirade. --JaredV 20:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

   You do realise he demoted the entire sysop team, then had it all reversed by Kevan and then banned himself? -- Cheese 20:45, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Moved here as the user was demoted from sysop and also permanently banned himself from the wiki. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:08, 9 October 2008 (BST)