RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Because RationalWiki's bureaucrats are much more analogous to other wikis' sysops, we don't have an "RfA" page. Instead, we have this.

RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations is for nominations for bureaucratship. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

Tyrannis
Does good work, lots of mainspace/templatespace editing. Here for a year and a bit, quite active. Will toe the party line. Why not? 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Tyrannis does more than all of the defunct 'crats combined on a daily basis, and doesn't afraid of anything. 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded. And I'm not just saying that because he has pictures of me and Mama Phyllis Schlafly in a compromising position. P-Foster (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fourtheded. No one, and I mean no one, has put more pointless stubs in to more pointless categories.   22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we get this into some sort of coherent voting? 22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For

 * 22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P-Foster (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For all of the reasons stated above.  22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For reasons discussed in my seconding of his nomination. 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar reasons to others, plus for voting for himself. That's ballsy. 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * His tiny penis and halitosis make cratship a moral obligation - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuck it. Since there are only about three people who agree with the "too many 'crats" view, why not have one more? Although the asshole had better 'crat me on RWW or there'll be a whole heap of fucking trouble. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never agreed with the "we have too many 'crats" argument. Besides, the accused has done a respectable amount of work and is a good editor. I approve of this demotion. 00:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever seeing them do something wrong. If they do they could always be promoted. Phoney (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Tyrannis -- 01:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Against

 * Against: Stalinist removal of WikiHistory by vanishing all references to ACD. 21:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Against I like Tyranis fine and am sure he is amply qualified but why more crats? I'll change my vote if someone can justify adding more crats. And then crat can become the new sysop. 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What does 'cratship mean to you, then? 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cratship means never having to say you're sorry. Unless you're Human. Ace of Spades 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) If someone were to try to justify having more 'crats to you, it stands to reason that they should be aware of what you think 'cratship means. 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If "too many 'crats" is the complaint, then the solution is simple: I, Gooniepunk2010, hereby will relinquish my 'cratship to Tryannis if it will stifle the old "too many" adage. It's far overrated anyways, and I'd still be a ninja/sysop/irrational number. 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't do that just to appease one person. 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked about a coherent program for crats before the LJ was implemented. That's a long time ago. If we don't have one I don't really see any reason for there to be more or less of us. And what I personally think cratship is about really has nothing to do with anything. We need a program or its just a kiddy club. 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you make a very good point Nutty. And, unfortunately, it's one that this community puts off every time we get a 'crat nomination. I think the reason nobody, let alone this community, has put forth a plan is because everybody knows that someone's toes would get stepped on. If we said, for instance, that you had to have X-edits in Y-space in order to qualify to be a 'crat, then some sysops that may not make good 'crats could become 'crats, whereas other 'crats may no longer be qualified to be one, even if they've been one for forfuckingever. It's the elephant in the room, and nobody wants to discuss it, IMO. 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty makes a great point. But last time I brought it up, all I got was scorn for suggesting that there should be criteria for 'cratship. 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we just vote using the same qualifications as with the RationalWiki Foundation? I wouldn't like to use the same software because I don't trust it. Have public votes like this. Phoney (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Against I do agree with Nutty. The problem is that sysopships are handed  out like candy and thereby remove any commendation that might otherwise go with the position; so that to commend an editor, we only have cratship. We probably need more brainstars or an intermediate position.  22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brainstars we have aplenty, but nobody uses them. And what sort of intermediate position could we have? Perhaps have 'crats be only able to demote users to sysop, and add the Steward position which would have full (as they are currently) 'crat rights? The problem, as Goonie said above, is that you'll always be stepping on someone's toes; someone is always going to have to give up their rights or position with any meaningful change. 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brain stars have been discussed several times. Everyone seemed to regard them as "mental masturbation", if I remember correctly. And most of them were created by CUR and HOG. Not exactly our two most popular users. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Against Too many new crats. I will continue to vote "no" to all new nominations on principle until clear standards are established.  -- 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't care

 * I was here at, like day four of this wiki, have never been made a 'crat, and never saw the use of it. Do you want the person to give out sysopships or not?  Then go for it.  But it affects the average user little.  sterile 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let the accused speak
So. Now what? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We wait a few days. I think you can vote for yourself. 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think only crats can vote on crats. Ty, this isn't personal. I really like you and I appreciate your contributions. You're a better editor than I am. Just to give some clarity on why I'm even a crat at all, which I can't really provide that much info about, I do provide certain services in the background that don't involve liquor or KY. I don't really need a crat bit to provide them so if in the impending discussion I hope happens we do come up with some criteria that would disqualify me I'm happy to give it up. 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't personal. You have a valid point about needing to define the qualifiers for 'cratship. If it were personal, it would be like "rah no not him !"ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well. Um.ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

TK
What, too soon? Stile4aly (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It will always be too soon.  02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am always too late. Ace of Spades 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Goat
Have we made the goat a crat yet? 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No

 * Strongly oppose Goat is a creationist hack who just comes here to troll us. 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not until Mighty Lord Jerboa is cratted too. -- PsyGremlin  13:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goat

 * ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Goat is quite popular, but they have made very few contributions, none of them recently.

So!
This session draws to a close, folks. As it stands, Tyrannis has 8 votes for 'cratship and 3 against. I think that if the tallies remain in his favor for another day, we can confer the Order upon him. 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ninja group
In response to the people lamenting the lack of an intermediate layer between bureaucrat and sysop, I would suggest that we have one: the ninja group, which consists of those users able to make themselves bots. This, I would think, entails some level of trust. 04:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't anyone run editing software on any account that doesn't require difficult captchas? Phoney (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that they can add themselves to the bot group, so that their edits do not show up in recent changes. 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I view the ninjaship as more of a utility, though it certainly does indicate a level of trust. The ability to hide oneself is only awarded to users who do many minor edits. 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bertran
Spear heading Russian RationalWiki, and likely will need the tools. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. My reasoning for making him a 'crat is that he'd need the tools over at RussianalWiki, and, when the RWF decided to go ahead with the RussianalWiki project, we decided that we'd make accounts and user rights transferable from the English RW to RussianalWiki and vice versa. Thus, if we are to have 'crats over at RussianalWiki, they'd also need to be 'crats here. 21:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to make "RussianalWiki" happen. 23:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In favor

 * Aye.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye! 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Да здравствует созданный волей Бертран Единый, могучий РациоВики ! Röstigraben (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Да ТyUser_talk:Ty 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Bertran (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In Soviet Russia, wiki edits you. P-Foster (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if he's doing good work or not, but somebody who has that many edits and set up his own language version of RW get's my vote. So, da! -- UHM harassme  22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's practical and the guy has been working his arse off. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What Ullhateme and ConcernedResident said.  01:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Broccoli (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- PsyGremlin  13:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Съгласни, без резерва. Планински Синьо 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposed

 * No 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracker
Cracker, one of the Cabalists, would like 'cratship status. 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes
Wasn't he the guy that let TK have the password to the super-secret form? Anybody that stupid duplicitous will certainly bring this wiki to it's knees by his sheer incompetence! That's good enough for me! AYE! TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not like he vaped TALK:WICOCP or anything. P-Foster (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Broccoli (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes because he would meet the personal criteria whatever they are but we really need some guidance here ASAP. Moratorium after this bc Ty has taken over the wiki, k? 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ... ITTWYFAIT. ТyUser_talk:Ty 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Time To Water Your Faithful And Itinerant Tiger? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 18:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If That's The Way You Feel About It Then. ТyUser_talk:Ty 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In Twilight Tower We Yearned For An Immodest Tapestry. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OH MY FUCKING GOD!! NO!!!
C ® ackeЯ 22:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment above convinced me. -- PsyGremlin  13:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goat

 * Goat! 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Goat. ТyUser_talk:Ty 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Long-eared jerboa.  01:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tits 14:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)