UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Reduce Minimum Edits For Bureaucrat Promotion

This line of text from A/BP

Rules concerning candidates 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 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 ~~~~ or # ~~~~ 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.

For

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. -- ^{(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 THE END IS NIGH! 17:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
5. Make it so. ~ _{00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)}
6. For for the great oooglie booglie says so... --Conndraka^{TAZM CFT} 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Against

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 easier it is for the abuse to occur. Don't allow sysops who literally can't even reply to messages on their talk page access to a bureaucrat spot. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)