UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions

Shortcut:
A/BP

This page is for the election of Bureaucrats.

FAQ

What is a Bureaucrat?

A bureaucrat (aka. crat) is a user with the ability to promote and demote users for sysop and bureaucrat positions. The Urban Dead Wiki mantains two active bureaucrats at all times, with elections occurring every three months to promote a sysop into bureaucrat, filling the position of the one who has least recently had an election.

A bureaucrat whose position is being filled can run for reelection, with no limits on how many times a bureaucrat can remain in the position.

Can I become a Bureaucrat?

Only System Operators (aka sysop) can become bureaucrats. Users who are part of the Urban Dead Wiki community for a set period of time and which have made a certain number of edits can be promoted to sysop, as long as they get the rest of the community support. For more information on how to become a sysop, read the sysop promotions page.

System Operators can become bureaucrat if elected by the community. A sysop needs to be active in the previous months of the election in order to run for crat. If he becomes active AFTER the election begun, he will only be able to run for 'crat in the next election.

Can I vote?

Any user can vote. Unless said otherwise, you can only vote in one candidate per election, and any user who vote more than once will have all their votes stricken.

Can I vote for myself?

If you are a sysop and eligible for voting, you can vote for yourself.

Rules

Rules for starting an election.

1. When a Bureaucrat resigns, or loses his status due to demotion or inactivity an election is started immediately.
   • A Bureaucrat that hasn't made a single edit in one month is considered to be inactive and forfeits their status as bureaucrat.
2. After 3 months with no elections on a bureaucrat position, an election is called for the bureaucrat position longest without an election.
3. If, for any reason, an individual Bureaucrat position hasn't faced an election after 8 months, then an election is called after that period.
4. The election ends after two weeks wiki time counting from the when the election is started.
5. The candidate with the most votes wins the election.
6. In the event of a tied vote the remaining bureaucrats will decide between the tied candidates.

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.
2. The Bureaucrat whose position comes up for election if said election is started under rule 2 of Rules for starting an election is automatically declared a candidate.
   • Unless said otherwise, a bureaucrat who lost its powers through demotion cannot run for bureaucrat on the election that will fill its position
3. A candidate can retract his own candidacy at any time.

Rules concerning voting.

1. All users have only one vote per bureaucrat position to be filled.
2. Users vote for a candidate by signing under the preferred candidates name.
   • Users can't cast more than one vote per candidate.
3. Users may change their votes for a candidate as long as the election has not ended.
   • Multiple votes at the same time will be struck.
4. Sockpuppetry is considered vandalism.

Election Space

The next election will be on the 15th August or something. Someone check that. I won't be running, so everyone else do super sysopy thing in order to win at any cost. Thanks. --Rosslessness 16:29, 3 June 2011 (BST)

You should run, you need the exercise.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:38, 3 June 2011 (BST)

Someone should sort this tomorrow. Just to confirm I won't be running. I only hope I've been the best female crat you've ever had. --"Workshed" 20:45, 14 August 2011 (BST)

You should probably tell everyone now that you gave your account to DCC ages ago.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:46, 14 August 2011 (BST)

You're female?!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:47, 14 August 2011 (BST)

wow and were not waving our e-penises at you and hounding you off the wiki... must just be for kath than.--User:Sexualharrison21:11, 14 August 2011 (bst)

Samus is a girl! -- Spiderzed█ 22:21, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Election started: 00:00 15 August 2011 (BST)
Voting ends: 00:00, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Eligible Candidates

Boxy

1. Always bet on Box. ~ _{00:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)}
2. I still demand Boxy is placed back into power. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:43, 15 August 2011 (BST)
3. Aslong as I get a box of my own.       02:20, 15 August 2011 (BST)
4. This vote is sponsored by 'I Can't Believe He Ain't A Bureaucrat'. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 09:17, 15 August 2011 (BST)
5. This one is a solid vote between Boxy and Vapor. Normally, I might go for Vapor, he has the most contributions, he makes solid decisions and he's an excellent janitor. However, it is my sincere belief that, at this time, the wiki needs Boxy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:38, 15 August 2011 (BST)
6. Let's just give him perma-crat status and be done with it. =p -- Cheese 10:50, 15 August 2011 (BST)
7. crat 4 life --hagnat 12:36, 15 August 2011 (BST)
8. if boxy was not running, than it would be easy to vote for vapor over the rest of these clowns. but he is, so too bad. box for everything!--User:Sexualharrison13:04, 15 August 2011 (bst)
9. Always reliable. --Papa Moloch 16:40, 15 August 2011 (BST)
10. Bandwagon. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 17:08, 15 August 2011 (BST)
11. Yep -- Asheets 18:24, 15 August 2011 (BST)
12. Good times with Boxy, help me alot setting up individual block pages in suburbs back before the great page history wipe --JD 18:08, 16 August 2011 (BST)
13. Purge the records of him not being a bureaucrat ever. -- †  talk ? f.u. 04:14, 17 August 2011 (BST)
14. Everyone else is making a comment, so I am too. - Wyronth 06:00, 17 August 2011 (BST)
15. Grargh! -- User:Whitehouse 14:18, 19 August 2011 (BST)

    Sure, why not. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:29, 29 August 2011 (BST) - After deadline. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:52, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Karek

1. I'll go with one of the guys who didn't cause the Izumi drama. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:08, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   Vapor didn't cause the Izumi Drama.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   isn't Vapor a chick?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:11, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   True. I was going to vote for Vapor, but I realized that Karek was running, and I figured if he was interested, I would toss my support behind him. If Karek backs out, then I will move back to Vapor. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:19, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   I never back out on principle but I also don't "campaign" so I tend to be a green party candidate. :p --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:46, 15 August 2011 (BST)

2. kareeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:07, 16 August 2011 (BST)

MisterGame

1. I wanna see what happens--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:32, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   ZOMG! Worst crat evarrrr of course.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:56, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed

I'll leave that here for now in order to maintain the paper-thin illusion of democracy on UDWiki. -- Spiderzed█ 17:05, 15 August 2011 (BST)

The General

1. MY vote goes here--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 13:59, 15 August 2011 (BST)

   Good to see that the General is the new me. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:08, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Ineligible Candidates

• Krazy Monkey - <12 edits in the last 30 days
• Red Hawk One - <12 edits in the last 30 days
• Revenant - current bureaucrat.

Withdrawn Candidates

Misanthropy

Vote Vapor instead. 11:42, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Rosslessness

Rosslessness has expressed that he shall not be running above.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:00, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Yonnua Koponen

See this for full details.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:00, 15 August 2011 (BST)

DanceDanceRevolution

I still check udwiki several times a day but my activity is barely worth sysop powers currently, lest crat privs. I'm also not interested in the position. There are plenty of operators more than capable of handling the job properly right now. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:05, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Axe Hack

As Cloud Strife would say..."Not interested." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:43, 15 August 2011 (BST)

Vapor

1. Probably any of these flavourings are fine. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:36, 15 August 2011 (BST)
2. This guy. 11:42, 15 August 2011 (BST)
3. Because boxy will remove himself from voting in the next few days, or will win by a landslide . --"Workshed" 13:57, 15 August 2011 (BST)
4. V! Veni, vidi, vici. -- Spiderzed█ 17:05, 15 August 2011 (BST)
5. This is a comment. —Aichon— 04:43, 17 August 2011 (BST)
6. -- Goribus 05:32, 17 August 2011 (BST)
7. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:18, 17 August 2011 (BST)
8. In the words of flava flav - Yeeeeeeeah boyyyyyyyyyy!--Jambalaya 05:52, 18 August 2011 (BST)
9. Why not, he's a good guy. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:13, 18 August 2011 (BST)
10. Heil Vapor!   ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} _{01:39, 19 August 2011}
11. Way too active for his own good. Let's punish him with moar responsibility and see how he handles it. :Þ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:55, 21 August 2011 (BST)
12. [insert witty comment here]   URGGGGGGGHTalk PSYCHOUTTalk STAN SATANTalk 15:47, 21 August 2011 (BST)
13. Uh huh. Petite Fille 04:12, 27 August 2011 (BST)
14. Ditto Gordon 21:55, 27 August 2011 (BST)
15. yup --Kirsty Cotton 22:28, 27 August 2011 (BST)

I don't really like the idea of withdrawing with this much community support. I'm mostly doing this to show my support for Boxy but also to end the debate over how to best handle the tie. FTR it should have always been a crat decision and adding/striking votes after voting ended was a bad way of handling the situation. ~ _{18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Result

Looks like we had a draw this time. I'd be perfectly fine if you just promoted Boxy. ~ _{00:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Lol, actually it looks like my vote to break the tie got in just in time. :3 --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:31, 29 August 2011 (BST)

You were about five hours late. Maybe you were looking at the current time instead of ending time. ~ _{06:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, Yon's formatting sucked pretty hugely there. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:53, 29 August 2011 (BST)

We have precedent for this somewhere, I think the remaining crat decides, though I could be wrong. Votes outside the allowed time-span definitely get struck though.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:46, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Yeah, we can let one vote slide or we can run rule 6(Because it's in the rules, who thought). Although, as it turns out there's no rule that invalidates a late vote just a rule that gives the appropriate time of the election so you might want to think on what that actually means for this instance. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:01, 29 August 2011 (BST)

We never counted votes after the deadline, there's nothing to discuss here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:09, 29 August 2011 (BST)

How strange, I could swear we were never particularly stringent about deadlines in the past 1 unless we explicitly blocked the vote. Silly me. And actually you're right, there is precedent for a tie that I somehow missed and it was caused by this same stupidity of vote striking confusion over unclear timelines being enforced. The whole strict timeline thing is a pretty recent concept that has done nothing but cause problems.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:43, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Hey Karek, stop being an idiot, and don't blame Yon for your disability to read, thanks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:06, 29 August 2011 (BST)

First of all I was making a point about the appropriate placement of my comment and having fun with it. I reverted it in the next edit, so please, get offended, make a fool of yourself.

Second, you are retarded if you think that I was blaming him for my not being able to follow the page. I was blaming him for a stupid formatting choice that led to the error on the part of a user, and probably other users in the past as well if that's been done then too. I happen to be the user in question that made a stupid mistake because of it, he happens to be the person who made a stupid formatting choice, you happen to be a loudmouth and probably just stupid in general. Now that we know each other's roles you can go back to keeping out of a comment and action done to re-enforce good editing practice(Keep it Clear/Simple).

Third, you still don't add anything to the conversation. We have the rules to refer to not the misleading comment about precedent that doesn't actually exist(I checked just to be sure), which is what I was getting at by moving your comment. We also have common sense and a vote a little late that was done in response to Vapor's own comment's on Rev's/Ross' pages. We also happen to have a hole in the rules that allows us to use this idiots vote as a tie breaker since there actually aren't any rules about when votes no longer count which, with the absence of a promotion as of yet can be used to break this said tie without rule 6 because bids end in results. Common sense dictates that in the case where one candidate clearly got more votes they win, It's less muss, less fuss, more to the point. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:22, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Well, Karek, I copypasta'd it from what Boxy did last election, but I doubt you'd realise that with the fact that you're trying to break election rules to get him in. Leave it to the current crats to decide: it's happened twice before.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:31, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Once actually, because people were striking votes. Also, I saw where it started, which was where we started actually getting confused users voting extremely late(days in some cases) so it really probably should never be done again. Also, not trying to break the rules, trying to be a pain in the ass simply because it's a point for common sense when it comes to voting, my vote actually won't make any difference, as Vapor already said. I made the vote with the assumption that at the time it was still within the timeframe because of a combination of our stupidity(yours and mine) on the basis of solving Vapor's problem for him in a more straightforward way. Now I'm arguing that this change in voting regulations which more or less took place by assumption instead of ever being proposed or discussed or enforced but in a small handful of elections is pointless, needless, and worthless. Basically I'm being a dick about it because it might actually make you think about how stupid the way it's being done now is on a wiki that has elections ending at a different time for everyone. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:57, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Actually, it's just making me think how stupid you are.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:37, 29 August 2011 (BST)

That's good. Now how about coming up with a good alternate idea to actually solve the problem of a crat choosing the person who is supposed to be the balance to him possibly while ignoring community commentary in the process so we don't get results like DDRs last bid again where the sysop with the most votes loses due to a stupid technicality or ties because of said technicality. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:19, 29 August 2011 (BST)

You're wrong. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:33, 29 August 2011 (BST)

The time limit is clear enough. It's up to the crats now, to toss a coin (well, actually to just sum up community opinion, so the argument about whether the late votes gets struck or not is moot, it's not longer about votes) -- boxy 12:17, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Which is more or less my point. They shouldn't be being struck in the first place since they're confidence opinions, it's actually not about the votes it's about community support as BP 1.0 and 2.0(pre-oct2010) clearly shows the whole purpose of the vote is to get a clear idea of that community support. If the crats haven't promoted someone yet then the community commentary forum is, essentially, still open. Now if anyone can actually come up with any reason as to why that's not the case I'd be glad to hear it. The goal is to prevent this in the future through common sense.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:19, 29 August 2011 (BST)

So much for minimal fanfare. *sigh* As Boxy and those above, the current BP voting rules are pretty explicit as to when voting ends so its not really a matter of votes (as you've pointed out). But you are correct Karek in that users should be able to continue discussion until the crats make their decission, similar to how it is handled with sysop promotions. The vote may not technically count but the crats can (and should) take your support into consideration when making their decision. ~ _{15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Here's my 2 cents. There's nothing I can see that stops people striking their own votes, so I'll just remove mine. Vap himself has made it clear that he wants box to have the job, and even voted for him in the first place. So box gets the gig; providing he wants it. --"Workshed" 16:22, 29 August 2011 (BST)

You can't change your vote after the election deadline, subsection 3, rule 3. So a tie, so rule 6 of subsection 1 gets invoked. End of process. If you want to change the process go to policy discussion. Christ. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:37, 29 August 2011 (BST)

The subsections says I cannot change my vote. I did not change it, I removed it. --"Workshed" 16:41, 29 August 2011 (BST)

That creates a pretty ugly precedent, Ross. Just man up and make a decision. I even made it easy for you. ~ _{16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Thus constituting a change of the original status quo, which was a tie after the end of deadline. You're changing your vote, it's no longer there in Vapor's favor. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:48, 29 August 2011 (BST)

No thad, it isn't. You're trying to use a subclause designed specifically to stop people changing their votes between candidates to ensure they get the candidate they want. Removing my vote does no such thing. It's not horse trading, it's a common sense solution that results in the promotion of the candidate that has the greatest community support. --"Workshed" 17:00, 29 August 2011 (BST)

I've struck my vote too. Now you have to make a decision.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:08, 29 August 2011 (BST)

I did. Boxy. Was that not clear? I'm waiting for Rev to confirm, controversial as it is. --"Workshed" 17:11, 29 August 2011 (BST)

Thank you Ross. Ay ay ay! I should have just withdrawn at the last minute to avoid this situation. The thought had actually crossed my mind. ~ _{17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Actually, it seems I can withdraw at any time so I'll just do that now. There. Now promote the crunt. ~ _{18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}

Striking your vote probably wasn't necessary. You could have just made that call. But yes, I voted Boxy and if my opinion as potential 'crat matters at all in the final decision making process, then I'd prefer you give it to him. ~ _{16:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)}