RationalWiki:Crat elections 2011

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

IMPORTANT NOTICE
Bureaucrat elections are tentatively being put on hold (and possibly disbanded altogether) pending a new proposal by RW Pooh-bah Trent Toulouse, which would disband Bureaucrats altogether and create a new group of Moderators. In the meantime, feel free to continue discussion here if you wish, but be warned it may all be for nought. Input is being sought at Forum:Plan of action for user rights and moderation (same as the link above). Moving further discussion there would likely be more worthwhile for now.

The various issues we need to work out before having this election are being discussed on the talk page.

Nominations[edit]

Please bold and sign to accept; strikethrough and sign to decline.

# of crats[edit]

How many crats should we have?

4

3

Vote

5

2

Vote

6

1

Vote

7

30

Vote

8

1

Vote

9

13

Vote

Other (specify below)

2

Vote

Keep the system as it was

32

Vote

Proportional to users[edit]

Because user numbers are bound to vary.

  • 1 crat per 20 users (about 10) PsyGremlinParla! 14:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 1 per 30-40 I think. If not more. Or have a baseline of 4-5 and add one per 70-100 users. ADK...I'll soak your fritter! 14:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I like ADK's scale, with a minimum of, say, 7. Needs to be an odd number regardless for voting purposes. --Kels (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Whatever proportion ensures that there are 3 or 4 looking at recent changes and available to assist with pressing matters at any time (that number ensures that this doesn't turn into more of a job than volunteering your services as time permits would entail). Proportional to my fancy = 1 crat, me, and such minions as I shall audaciously appoint from time to time as long as "there's enough weight for an action at the time," which weight I've arbitrarily set at 90 pounds (6.4 stone). Nutty Roux (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Proportional, since that creates opportunity for the amount of respected and productive users to become crats without needing to spark a hate-fest when some cabalist is forced to lose their crat status for someone they perceive as an upstart. Allowing the site to grow seems like a good policy. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we're still too small to be fully proportional. We need 3 or 4 to keep an eye on things allowing for vacations, work, time zones, etc. That's why 7 or 9 is a good number. I prefer the larger number to avoid any cliques. We can decide to increase numbers as the need arises.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there is a practical minimum, in order to provide "coverage". 3 or 4 people covering 24/7 will be working full time, think about that. So I'd lean towards 20 or so, plus one more for each 50-100 active editors. People being away makes having an odd number for "voting" irrelevant. So basically I would recrat all the crats we used to have who hadn't become inactive (and wanted it). ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
But if we have seven crates who have been elected to be active, there shouldn't be a problem with people always being away. And if any of then is going away for a period of time, they can temporarily transfer the bit to the next available runner-up from the election. Or something similar. Point is, there's not much work in being a crate outside of moderating, and when voting is necessary, we'd give it a few days to gestate, if you will. Blue (pester) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That's just silly. If I am going on vacation, I have to crat someone and then undo it when I come home? In addition to packing, planning, killing relatives I don't like, etc.? Seven is simply not enough to monitor the wiki. It's a great number for a court that acts over time, like the Limp Jumpers, for what it's worth, but not for this chore. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"If I am going on vacation, I have to crat someone and then undo it when I come home?" Yes. Because a 'crat will hopefully have actual responsibilities, such as that. Blue (is useful) 04:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If someone has a job to do and they're gonna be away for a couple of weeks, they ask a buddy to cover for them. This isn't as big a deal, but same concept. --Kels (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Other Numbers[edit]

Because we can count higher than 9.

  • 13 - 12 to be complete and one more to split the vote if necessary (Yes, that is the best explenation I have for it). --ǓḤṂ³ 15:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 12! because then Trent can be Tee-bers and we... sorry... they can be the 12 disciples. Or Despicables. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Are there even twelve factorial people on Earth? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I, personally, think there should be 3.14159 bureacrats, and their only power should be goat. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As many as we have good and upstanding users who would be suitable for the job. If that's everyone, that means we've got good people - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That was the old way of doing it. You problem then becomes about who gets to define "good and upstanding" and "suitable for the job"? ADK...I'll reconstruct your lawnmower! 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The old way was working just fine as far as most people were concerned. A vocal minority wanted some radical change and forced the issue with a putsch, a coup. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ludicrous[edit]

I totally disagree with this entire process. I refuse to participate in this sham. I won't nominate anyone, and won't vote on anyone, because I disagree with how this whole process was forced down our throats. In fact, other than checking to see what happens here, as a result of this, I won't be participating in the future at this wiki. Refugeetalk page 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Know what, I think I'm going to join you in that. Not the thing about leaving, but I agree that the best way to express dissatisfaction with this quasi-putsch is not to participate in any pointless "elections" when a new power structure has already been established. Röstigraben (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Your long-form post kind of struck a cord with me as well... this was all fun until you made your post and pointed out how people here are being spoiled brats. I've taken on real responsibility for this wiki, so I'm not going to blow that off, but it seems that people here are taking vendettas too far. (Even my "joke" vendetta with Maratrean is pretty much BS... I shortened his self-imposed block.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're not implying that this is all about Human and Nutty Roux. Blue (is useful) 19:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't all about Human and Nutty Roux (didn't even know he was involved)... it's about all the people bitching that HCM isn't a valid dispute mechanism and that the only solution is to mass decrat people, and start over again from a new radical user-rights scheme. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? Your reaction to something you don't like is too rage-quit? If you don't like it, take ADK and Nx too the chicken coop. A vote their would decide if the mob wants the old regime back. And if you don't agree with any of the processes then make that point particitpating in them - because if you don't you can just be ignored. If you don't want to "work" under a more strict set of rules, just say so, but if you do then the cause doesn't seem to matter more to you then the way you edit this wiki. --ǓḤṂ³ 19:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not a "rage-quit". No rage involved. Not angry. A bit disappointed at how it was done, and the effect it may have on the users and the wiki. But I don't have the time to put a lot of effort into what could be a futile attempt to try to make this better - and there's not much point in that, after the way this was done. The powers that be decided what they wanted at this wiki and did it. This was a nice little wiki and I wish you all the best in the future. Refugeetalk page 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant![edit]

The solution to someone randomly promoting another user is to just promote everyone! Great plan! (I crossed my name out on the nominations list, BTW.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also kind of hard to take this seriously when one of the nominations is one of RW's most notorious trolls. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
He added himself I think. And the reason he hasn't been removed yet is because no-one thinks they can. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
WTF? When did it become ok to remove nominees? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, since you stopped having any power to do anything about it? I'm not for sure though... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 20:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You do have the power to do something about it. I didn't wave a magic wand exclusive to myself, just used to edit button and a little common sense. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Common sense isn't part of a mobocracy! --Kels (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't common sense, it was spite. If you are correct, or at least backed by a majority in your opinion of the nominee, they won't "win". Simple, really. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Secret ballot, proportional voting[edit]

I am for both. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

STV, presumably? Blue (is useful) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This seems like the best idea. - π 23:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Like I said on the talk page, I like the idea of using something like the Board of Trustees election extension (which I believe uses STV). Blue (is useful) 23:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It would likely be the most legitimate form of an election. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the handy "Add section" Button?[edit]

I would eliminate any candidate who self-nominates. 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Now you do the same for me. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ummm. Thanks. and no. C®ackeЯ
You mean like, you'd murder them? That's a bit harsh. --Kels (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Anybody who aspires to power (generally) should be kept FAR away from "the button". Murdering them? Hmmm, seems a bit extreme I was thinking moar along the lines of extraordinary rendidtion, say, a wiki where torture isn't necessarily illegal. 19:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Don't make me break your legs now. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 19:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd pay to see that. I'm 6'2'' and 250#, not too many people mess with me. (You can block me if you want though.) C®ackeЯ
I'm very busy at the moment, but my strong-yet-stupid associate Plump Stewart shall be happy to address any concerns. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Plumpy owes me money!C®ackeЯ

Electioneering here?[edit]

Argue, insult, campaign, what have you. You know you want to. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My opponent Human is a horrible person, and does not deserve cratship! So say we all! --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Please don't forget to display your party's rosettes! Hi Eira! Love you to. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I vote for both of you!! δij 07:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If nominated I will not be elected; if elected I will not sever. nobsViva la Revolucion! 20:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd never say it and actually I can't believe I'm saying it now: I actually learned a word from Rob today (forgive me the digg Rob). --ǓḤṂ³ 22:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I was deeply saddened by the recent chain of events, and I believe that as 'crat I could do a great deal to stop the slide towards repression and stupid controversialism that plagues this wiki. Most importantly of all I will take a stand against users like PhantomHoover who take the site too seriously and appear to want this to be over-run by a bureaucracy, by rules and structures. I want this website to return to its past glories, something it has lost hold of. The new generation pale in comparison to the titans of old; where is our AmesG? Our great Dane? Our doctor? All gone, and for good reason. This website must be a hub of dissent and ideas once again. The lapse into structuralist conformity will be reversed, and liberty will walk the land once again. I sincerely believe in this vision. I trust, that you will too. Vote for me. If you value it, vote for it. Vote for MarcusCicero, the humble harbringer of reason and logic to an increasingly authoritarian world. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Humble??? NDSP 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what people don't understand about this. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If elected, I will give all trolls server access. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
If erected, I promise to fall on a regular basis. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Crat_elections_2011&oldid=941698"