RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations/Archive1

David Gerard

David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

As Human has 'cratted him without a vote, I am putting it to a vote here per procedure. ^{— Unsigned, by: Gooniepunk2010 / talk / contribs} 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have promoted this user to sysop while we are debating this issue.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was gonna suggest that. ħuman 22:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea!

• He's done a very good job creating and expanding articles here, such as cryonics. Hell, I'd even say he'd make a better 'crat than myself. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Because he's cool. And a 'crat at Wikipedia, so we know he's responsible. And other stuff. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not actually a 'crat at Wikipedia! But I've been a sysop for years and have been demoted high into the bitchocracy of the Foundation and stuff and stuff - David Gerard (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Strikes me as a strong asset to the community and the sort of person who can handle the whip and reins with dignity and respect, unlike some of us. ħuman 22:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • You mean he's less likely to go off half-cocked and instigate HCM with unilateral actions? That'd be nice. --Kels (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Done more for this site in a few months than I have in over a year. If it's an issue of "too many crats" I'll give my cratness to him. SJ ^Debaser 22:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yea: I disagree with RA as a general rule. - π 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• I don't remember if non-crats are allowed to vote in these things, but if so then I vote yea. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• As someone who is typically a lurker of this Wiki, I must say that everything David G. has done here is not only well done, but also he is incredibly sexy (at least in my mind). LimpWrist (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yea yea yea. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, but this isn't the way things should happen. Cratting by fiat is very iffy. Right decision, wrong way to arrive at it. --^{Ask me about our zealot} 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep in mind that it's how every single one of you was cratted. No crat has ever been "voted" in. ħuman 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Including me, of course. Trent made me one by fiat.

Nay!

• Nay. Why do we need more crats? If it is a "reward" for being a RW user there are others who have been around longer.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Bob, honestly. Has David requested this himself, for a specific reason, or is it Human just being, well, Human? I'd say nay based on both that, and because I'm generally opposed to Human pulling this kind of unilateral crap. --Kels (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nay: I've added "candidate has expressed desire to be a bureaucrat and can provide a somewhat good reason why they should be given the tools" to my criteria. -- Nx / talk 21:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet Good work and fun guy so far, but let's see how he does over a longer time. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nay Agree with all of the above points. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC) I do view bureaucratship as a reward: for being trustworthy, productive, amiable, and an established user. Mr. Gerard has only been here for a couple months, and I would prefer to wait at least six months. No sense in bureaucratizing someone who may just be a three-month flash-in-the-pan user. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RA, you are wrong. David Gerard has been here since 2008. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

RA's right in that I've only been obsessively following every single goddamn thing happening on recent changes for a very short while - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nay Nothing at all against him, but there are already too many 'crats. Also agree with the other points expressed above. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Goat!

• We either need to define more specific criteria for bureaucrats and act according to that, or we can cratify anyone who's been around for a while (and I'm tempted to start a few nominations, because I do believe some people deserve it at least as much as David Gerard does). We have enough crats is not a good enough reason to say no. -- Nx / talk 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have no idea what we look in bureaucrats, and I've been here for a long time and am not one myself. I'm not opposed to this in principle, but I'm not for it either. Šţěŗĭļė lock shucker 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed with Nx, but doubtful that anything will come of it. ^bomination 01:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• It would be a good idea. We have our sysop definition of "mostly harmless", which is pretty well entrenched. We have no general or specific criterion for cratting other than "popular enough to get lots of yea votes over some random period of time and wouldn't be 'too many crats' yet". Keep in mind that the basic job of crats is to make just about everyone here a sysop. I can't think of what else we do. Besides causing mild HCM by cratting editors we hold in high esteem, of course. ħuman 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's very much a status thing for the reasons you say, "popular enough" etc. So if it's going to be a status, then we should tack on some added responsibility and at least some criteria for getting it. Crats should complete a quest to deliver gold coins to the wizard, who shall tell them the password to the Cave of Dragons where they can gather dragons teeth to help forge the Sword of Fire... yeah, maybe. It should be a mark of experience of the site, so that new users or anyone wanting to make a request can go ask those individuals, so I'd also like to reiterate the point that we need to strip 'cratship from inactive users. ^bomination 13:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Results

As it stands, there are 9 votes in favor, 5 opposed, and 4 for Goat. With a couple days having passed, I think we should close the polls, since nobody has voted in a while. Anyone opposed? The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, give a couple-three more days? Like a week total at least? Keep in mind, this entire process is undefined. ħuman 06:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been long enough with no change. I'll make him one now. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Drink!

• I had a pint of something at the Pembury last week that purported to be a 6% mild. Steve (the owner) assured me this wasn't an oxymoron. Verr' niiiiisssssshe *splat* - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  • More seriously: I have no idea what I'd do with 'crat powers. I'm specifically not requesting them but not rejecting them; I will consent to being drafted. (This is not me being some sort of Nick Clegg, I've just had enough volunteer jobs that I say things like that now.) If they are inflicted upon me, I will probably serve well and probably won't accidentally set things on fire or cause terrible attacks of headless chickens to descend - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    • See? This is the kind of attitude that 'crats are made out of. Whether or not we decide, in the end, to make you a 'crat, you certainly deserve a huge pat on the back for all you do, and, especially, for not being disappointed at the outcome either way. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 08:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I also have some experience of my attention span. No idea how long I'll keep obsessively F5ing recent changes as my favourite timewaster ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On a more important note....

Why am I not a sysop? Sleuth (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just demote you ... er - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a serious issue. Are you "mostly harmless"? ħuman 08:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

More or less Sleuth (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OK then. ħuman 06:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As an aside to this conversation.....

While I didn't mind David being 'cratted so much as I was concerned about the unilateral nature of it. That said I would like to point out that I was 'cratted in a unilateral way......so........I am kinda all over the place. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. The right outcome but the route followed was not the right one. Even though the general idea is to joke about with the various "ranks", it does risk problems. Some people consider demotions to be omg serious business. Could be for personal penis-extension or as a more general wish to avoid the site collapsing in to a mess of 50 Caligulas cratting horsies and banging their newly cratted sisters and brothers. It needs to be clear why someone should be cratted up, and that belongs on a discussion page like this. --^{Ask me about our crack whore} 12:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My adjustment from the good old days to the new world order is confusing me, too. ħuman 06:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I be 'cratted too?

Purely for 'personal penis-extension' reasons? Thanks. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear that the crat thing extends the penis at the loss of girth. Rumour has it that the longer running crats are have spaghetti wangs. Just a rumour though. Sysops on the other hand only edit here for a brief respite from what would otherwise be a life of never ending sex with models, probably in private jets as well. --^{Ask me about our imitation fake vomit} 17:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

None for me, thanks

I don't want to be 'cratted. My nine inch penis is enough for me. MDB (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] DickTurpis (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)