Debate:Should RationalWiki have Bureaucrat nominations?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by signed users.

Ideas

You become a crat after 10 votes in your favor. IP votes are weighed as .5 votes, sysop votes are weighed as 1 vote, and already Bureaucrat votes count as 2. If you vote for, you add that total, if you vote against, you take away that total. A user can nominate him/herself. Discuss please. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 16:09, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

IP's count as 1 vote, users count as 2.5, sysops count as 10, and 'crats count as 20. 100 required. That way, voter fraud via IP is discouraged, as an IP vote counts as 1% of total, instead of 5%. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:16, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

No: _and marmite 16:15, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Elaborate, please. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:16, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

(EC) Nay. I object to all this formality. What is wrong with the way it is presently done? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:17, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

As a procedural point, this should be taken up at our community standards page before being created as a page. tmtoulouse 16:16, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Should this be moved to the debate space, then? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:17, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it can I suppose, but the ideal situation is to probably propose is on the community guidelines talk page. But it is not a big deal, I merely suggest that having the page here before it has been discussed might cause confusion, particularly if it doesn't move forward and is not removed. A month from now someone might mistake it for policy. tmtoulouse 16:21, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, and Trent and Human each get 50 votes. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:18, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Eh, I haven't participated actively in on site governing in a long time. tmtoulouse 16:21, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

1. could we spell the title correctly?
2. STOP trying to impose rules & regulations. _and marmite 16:21, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Trent, with your control of the server, you wield infinite power. You don't have to vote, of course. And Human deserves it, as he makes eighteen bazillion edits a day, and not in a Kennish way. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:23, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Can I say, I'm with toast. Why is a formal voting system needed? Are Bureaucrats running around abusing their power here?--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 16:27, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

You're grammers' atrocious, Godot. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:29, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Really? glad you think so. makes my day.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 16:49, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

The thing that is arguably wrong with the way things are currently done is that everyone has a varying idea as to what they believe makes up a user who is ready to become a Bureaucrat. I proposed this after looking back on Theemperor, (who I still feel has been around long enough) and after recieving a few messages on my talk page regarding my Bureaucrat promotions. My point in making this voting procedure would be to allow users to voice their beliefs on a voting process, rather than us banging heads over promotions. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 16:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

If people want cratship, they should do it the hard way like it did - make snarky comments for two years, then offer free beer. Totnesmartin 16:35, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Also, who here wants to be the first elected bureaucrat? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:40, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm flattered, Java. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 16:45, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

You welcome, Theemperor. In particular, may I attract attention to this bit in my archive, where Human is suggesting a general guideline following my demotion of Gauss. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 16:50, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Okay, here are the requirments you must meet before nomination

1. Have been here for over 6 months
2. Have over 500 contribs
3. relative lack of controversy
4. Dropping over $100 to Trent

Fix if nessecary. The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 12:46, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

FaFuxake, stop it with the rules already. _and marmite 12:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

What the fuck is FaFuxake? The Emperor_{Kneel before Zod!} 12:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

It means do it to glorify the Sacred Word Xena 13:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

OK. Let's start this up again

There are a number of questions.

Should there be a limited number of crats or are we happy to see them multiply like sysops?

Shouldn't be limited, but we shouldn't be handing out the rights like candy. -- Nx / talk 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

what NX said. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What TM said about what Nx said. --^{Ask me about our automobile} 20:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What CR said about what TM said about what Nx said. - π 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What Pi said. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to increase the number of crats on what basis should we make the decision?

Do you trust this person enough to give them access to javascript files and the mediawiki namespace which allows them to inject arbitrary html into the wiki? -- Nx / talk 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

should maybe go to a vote of current crats. Should not be handed out while drunk in New Hampshire. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say general discussion among everyone - without the need for a formal vote and song and dance process. I don't agree with crats having more of a say in this.Strictly speaking the crats are the gatekeepers in this regard, but I'd hope that their decisions would be based on the overall consensus. We don't have to all agree for someone to be cratted, we just need good reasons for and no strong arguments against. --^{Ask me about our rabbit} 20:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we eliminate dead crats?

Some websites recommend de-adminning members who've left, in case of hacking. But really, is there any permanent damage a rogue crat could do? the thing that should deffo be turned off is root access. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

is there any permanent damage a rogue crat could do? Yes. -- Nx / talk 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But the risk of hacking is negligible. Let's not invent solutions to problems that don't really exist. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I am indifferent about this proposal. -- Nx / talk 18:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

But what about Schroedinger's crat? --⁠ (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Would Schroedinger's crat be a crat for whom people have voted but for whom the votes have not been totalled, thus making them simultaneously crat and non-crat?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"Nick Clegg" - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

$i\hbar {\frac {\partial \psi }{\partial t}}=-{\frac {\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\psi +V\psi$--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)