RationalWiki talk:Crat elections 2011

Who is the fucktard that is linking to RWW?

Any particular reason we're linking to RWW? --PsyGremlinTala! 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

None what so ever. - π 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

My though was perhaps we could give a profile of the nominees. This counts as me doing it wrong, right?---brxbrx 14:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was following the convention already setup by other people. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think we know who the people standing for crat are, without reading snarkfest summaries. If we're asking "who?" when it comes to a crat, chances are we aren't going to be voting for him. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 14:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Although, RWW records past drama users were involved in. People like me may not have been around for that. It could very well be relevant to the elections. Or I'm just taking this too seriously. You decide.---brxbrx 14:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Participants at RWW have had their own agenda so it should not be linked. Stumpy the rope was in charge for a while and he certainly had it in for several editors.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just going to point out...

Denying the crat title to anyone who has direct database access (i.e. at least Nx and Trent) is kind of pointless, since effectively they have any arbitrary rights they want in the first place... so, having them be non-crats, is really nothing more than a meaningless political gesture. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the better option is to create a "tech" user group that can do the things that might need to be done, but without the uh, social baggage that the crates will have to deal with. I don't want to be a dispute mediator! Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. What we should be building here is a group of moderators with responsibility far more than just a group with rights. Trent and Nx don't necessarily need to be part of that even though they can, by definition of server access, do anything they like. ADK^{...I'll shake your Playstation 3!} 15:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a better idea. As I noted, it's a "meaningless" political gesture... which means it's entirely political difference. And having a "tech" user group would be a reasonable idea. Also, why do we have an "Irrational Numbers" group? Can we finally ditch that? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, "irrational numbers" was created precisely because of bitching over user rights. They contain enough powers to be more able to hide revisions than a sysop but don't do much else. If we solve it so that that elected bureaucrats act as moderators and oversight users, it's no longer needed. ADK^{...I'll devour your diamond!} 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we are starting from a clean slate, then all the "extra" groups should require justification to keep... Ninjas has a good reason (so people can bot and unbot without giving them crat rights, and/or bothering crats every time.) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And the names should be clear what they actually mean/do... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrational numbers was called that because it was supposed to be just for Pi guy. Ninja is what MW call it, it is sort of a user rights tutorial there. Тy^Talk. 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

IN was just Pi ego-tripping because he could. Didn't want to be a crat, wanted the powers. ħuman 06:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That much deductive reasoning gave me without any input from anyone else... still, when "Irrational numbers" started including more people than just Pi, it should have been renamed to something meaningful. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what you get when you have a meme and suddenly it becomes cool to be part of that group. ADK^{...I'll revolve your sceptre!} 16:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to specific sets of users, but with the same rights, i.e. tech, dispute mediation etc, wouldn't it be better to codify this? Each individual user on the site only gets access to one soopa-sekrit decoder ring to stop people being moderators with database access that also get to vote on the board. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 06:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

lol

at the headings. ---brxbrx 14:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Proportional number of Crats to Users

yea

• Totnesmartin (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

nay

• nah. that's too many. We'd end up with some of the crats we should probably rid ourselves of---brxbrx 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Have to agree there. Even if the number fluctuates it needs to be less than 10. ADK^{...I'll bescumber your sceptre!} 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with ADK. Sysops can be proportional, but there should be a hard number for crates. Blue (is useful) 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Тy^Talk. 18:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say 7 or 9, but I'm not dogmatic about it. --Kels (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• There need to be enough to form a quorum allowing for temporary absences so I'd go for the higher figure - 9 or 10.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• If there's a need to change the number, we can simply have a vote. I'd say 12 or 13 but if the majority thinks 7 it's the way to go and I'll come with. I'm ok with 7. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the current status

• No. Leave the number of crats exactly as it was. Refugee^{talk page} 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Poll closing time

I unilaterally set nominations and the crat count poll to close at midnight London time on the 17/18th whereupon we'll start voting for crats. Long enough for the majority of users to have their say and for the best crat contenders to be nominated, but short enough that we can have finished the crat vote by this time next week. If there's a problem or I have missed something obvious please say. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we certainly have to get this done by the 21st, or all the secret Christians will vanish. --Kels (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But do we want a runoff for the crat poll as 11 people aren't actually voting for 7 crats. (No, I'm still not over the AV referendum) ADK^{...I'll mystify your lava!} 17:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What would you have us do? Тy^Talk. 17:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You think you unilaterally set a close for nominations and polls when we don't know how many crats there will be, who can vote, or how many votes they get. Smooth. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to have a deadline for the discussions on those issues. I would say more like the 20th, though. Blue (pester) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be done and dusted by the rapture. If you set the deadline too far away people just get bored. Sticking something tighter on it encourages things to actually get done. ADK^{...I'll jostle your nostalgia!} 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about process gets finished when consensus emerges about when it gets finished. Then we can be sure we're doing the right thing without having to worry that some revolutionaries are going to upend the whole fucking thing because they feel like it. I'm sick and tired of people slapping up vote sections and it being a fait accompli simply because everyone on this motherfucker is exhausted and feeling a little hopeless. Some of you are acting like imperious little children stamping your feet that you want it all right now. Well you don't get it like this unless the sheep let a few of the revolutionaries tell them how it is. And if that's the case RW is fucked. The other children get to cobble together a real consensus, not whatever you think is actionable because you think you've got better judgment than everyone here. Fuck. This. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nutty, you make a good point. My qualm is that nobody will actually be aware of a) when a consensus is reached or b) what that consensus actually entails. Not setting a deadline helps (b), but setting one helps (a). I'm actually undecided as to which is more helpful. Blue (is useful) 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. Then let's work that out. And to Armondikov's incredibly insulting point that "If you set the deadline too far away people just get bored. Sticking something tighter on it encourages things to actually get done.": Doesn't that tell you something about what you're trying to push through rather than making broad statements about the capacity and state of mind of every single other person potentially affected by this? Nutty Roux (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Defining when consensus is reached was the major problem that made the Old Way unworkable. Two years ago, four prominent users agreeing on something could have changed the entire mission statement of the wiki no problem. Now there are 1001 Little Emperors all wanting their say, wondering why something was done without them chiming in. It can't continue because you end up making your voting and decision processes intolerably long. You spend the best part of a week deciding and voting about how long to spend voting and then it turns out to be 2 weeks and by the end of that the next decision has to be made. Wiki politics cannot be all pervasive and intrusive or it will be unbearable. ADK^{...I'll pull your businessman!} 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

uh-huh.

It would seem that most of the people protesting the change (discussions of democracy aside) want

1. Rights that are useless to the wiki's normal functions: you can still write articles and discuss things without block rights, mkay. Or are you admittedly vain and openly seeking crat/sysop positions just for the prestige?
2. The right to troll and flame others. Really, why are you here?

This is not your circlejerk anymore---brxbrx 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

--ǓḤṂ^³ 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well your points are not accurate in my case. I don't covet "rights" - I was a 'crat for over a year and voluntarily de-cratted myself, never asked for it back, don't want it now. Also de-sysopped myself when I left last year, and don't really care if I am sysop either. What I object to is the way this was done. No due process. No discussion leading to consensus. No satisfactory resolution. Your second comment: "the right to troll and flame others". I have never in the years I've been here, flamed or trolled anyone. Or been in any type of conflict. Why is it hard to believe that someone objects on the basis that this action was not fair? That the community as a whole needs to have input into decision making? If not, you risk losing members of the community. Refugee^{talk page} 20:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the point of our little Bastille Day is that from now on, we will have due process, and we will no longer have HCM or unilateral decisions. Think of it as a swift coup, removing the corruption. Probably not ethical, but certainly an opportunity to improve the site. Let's not waste it.---brxbrx 20:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to act so swiftly and unilaterally. We were engaged in a reasonable discussion, but then this coup made everything more urgent and stressful, not to mention the backlash against reform it has created/will create. Blue (pester) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(ECx2) What I object to is the way this was done. No due process. No discussion leading to consensus. Yeah, and that is completely new to this wiki. Fact is: RationalWiki was a mobocracy, if the resistance would have been so big the mob could have taken the power back somehow (there isn't or at least not yet). It's been hours now and nobody did much against it. Actually the complete opposite happend. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's because the mob hasn't been able to do anything about it. None of us have the rights to undo what has been done. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Exactly right Eira. And when faced with an enormous surprise attack, it would take anyone time to gather people to mobilize them into some sort of action. Refugee^{talk page} 20:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

More so another issue... Nx used direct database actions to remove everyone's rights. That means there was no way to protect anyone from being decratted. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And you believe he would do that again even if everyone else is against it? --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a voice. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to put the entire site in the coop? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We're already there... even though it isn't in the coop, we're in the biggest HCM ever. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"All I hear is "whaaa"..." - Eira, voting goat during the trial of Human. I know what you mean now. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)As UMH said, if the mob violently disagreed with this then it would have already ended. TBH this has been received far more positively than I expected. You're not defenseless; you have your voice and chances are that the opportunity to reverse all this will float your way soon. Whether or not you'll take it (and people will appreciate you taking it) is a different matter. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of having a more formalized system for determining user rights, but the way this "reform" was carried out was the most idiotic way possible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But depressing as it is this is probably the only way it was going to happen. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What Nebby said. The fundamental argument was about rules instead of unilateral action as a way of resolving disputes. I'm also in favor of reforms, and we had already started several debates about this. It's fucking unbelievable that the people who supposedly want more rules are now the ones who simply charge ahead, try to impose their will, and refer to the "mobocracy" as a legitimation, with all the numerous blanks to be filled in later. Now a grand total of four users leaving supportive messages at a talk page apparently counts as community consensus, and the fact that there's almost nobody left to turn these changes back is seen as tacit approval. This blatant hypocrisy is what's depressing here. Röstigraben (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's what mob rule is. I only decided to turn an ineffective system against itself. Was it making a point? Yes, yes it was. Was it hypocritical? No, I don't think so because although I'm in favour of a better system with responsibilities given to elected moderators we weren't in that system at the time. I was merely playing by the rules of Mob Rule. I imposed no will on anyone - these rights aren't supposed to mean anything and you'll notice that the only person blocked at the end of the spree and unable to post was, in fact, me. No one was stopped in their tracks. Nothing was harmed. Those previous debates were just going to fizzle out like they always do. There's been years, literally years, of talk talk bloody talk about this. You know you can't get consensus under a mobocracy, there are no real rules to follow - and even the rules we do have can't be enforced. So how would you expect consensus to be achieved? I didn't see it happening so decided to shake the boat. If 3 years on this site under The Mob has taught me anything, it's "being a cunt gets things done". ADK^{...I'll prove your flagella!} 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For everything except the last sentence, . Blue (pester) 23:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record that last sentence is not something I agree with, but I've found it to be observed fact. Hopefully a week or two from now I can say "being a cunt gets you blocked for a day". ADK^{...I'll exorcise your boat!} 23:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but Maratrean was actually blocked for a week when the sysops disappeared. This was later cut to the end of the day, and even later completely undone, but apparently he had like 3 blocks to unblock before he could comment... he might still be blocked, I haven't seen anything from him... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware anyone was blocked for a week. Indeed, I thought it was "policy" not to block for those periods of time. But that's what mob rule gets you. ADK^{...I'll feast your scroll!} 00:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he blocked himself. Well, I don't have an answer for that apart from the fact that I didn't wipe the sysops and didn't intend to. I just wanted to wipe the crats because that would have made the point without actually making a difference. ADK^{...I'll legislate your driptray!} 00:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't care whether or not something is allowed under "mob rule", because that's not where we want to get, and more importantly, it's not even the current system either. We do have things like the community standards, the coop and the LJ, all of which are incompatible with true mobocracy. Not enforcing rules consistently isn't the same thing as not having any. It's also completely irrelevant that "nothing was harmed" and that all of your changes could be turned back. If that were the standard by which to judge user actions, almost nothing could be criticized, because Trent and Nx are the only ones who could do something that's irreversible. We would've had to dismiss all of the coop cases, for instance. I don't see how this got anything done, either - we had a few people debating changes before and afterwards. If others don't want to join in and debates fizzle out, well then so be it. The only valid interpretation of such behaviour is indifference or satisfaction with the status quo. You may not like it, but that doesn't give you the right to pursue changes regardless of support and consensus. Röstigraben (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Indeed. Before, there was no due process. The previous discusions I don't believe were going anywhere. Now we are marching onwards. Anybody watch Babylon 5? This is like when Sheridan was put on trial for overthrowing President Clark's totalitarian regime. He broke the rules, but on the other hand, he deposed a real dickweed.---brxbrx 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I really have to watch that show one day. --ǓḤṂ^³ 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, now you don't have to. (warning: huge spoilers) --Kels (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem: 30KB/s and a download that will run the next 40 minutes (living in a dorm sucks). I'll get to it then. But actually I wanted to watch the whole show, it's constantly references by people. --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe the regulars are allowing the aspies to effectively take control of the site and making it a boring memeish imitation of wikipedia. 86.47.25.198 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

as if you're here in good faith. vent your troll somewhere else.---brxbrx 21:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been here a lot longer than you, you fucking halfwit. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As classy as always. --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Consolidated elections discussion

These are the issues regarding the election that we need to sort out before actually having it: Blue (is useful) 21:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of bureaucrats

I've been promoting seven. Blue (pester) 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with either seven or nine. --Kels (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The lower of the two. 7 is a small enough group so that discussion is quick and straightforward but large enough to cover all bases. I'd like to see it as low as possible because it's just too difficult to get multiple people to sing from the same hymm sheet over rules and regulations and disputes. ADK^{...I'll bang your number!} 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

7 worked for the now dead Loya Jirga. - π 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And look what happened to them. They're dead!!! --Kels (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the LJ was that it had to be "called" to action. So by the time they were called it was already too late to actually do anything. A proper set of moderators should always be on duty. Secondly, the problem was that it had no way to follow through its rulings and frankly no one ever knew what those rules were. It's unsurprising that it's dead, really. It's an interesting experiment to have tried but hindsight shows it was a doomed idea from the start. ADK^{...I'll expunge your spawn!} 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm for 7. Тy^Talk. 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like 9. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

12. With one year terms, one replaced each month. ħuman 02:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Who breaks ties, then? Should be an odd number, unless you're suggesting someone outside the group have that vote when necessary. --Kels (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming 1. that all of them will vote on everything and 2. that there will be issues they split 50:50 on. Dick Cheney can break any ties. Who says they would have to pass things by a simple majority, anyway? How about 12 crats, with 8 required to agree to have any effect? ħuman 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not assuming all will vote on everything. But there are likely to be times they do on occasion. Something like what you suggest might work, but I wonder if it's needlessly complicating things. Worth bringing up, in any case. --Kels (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be hard enough to find 5 that can agree. If it's has high as 12 we may as well not bother and just go forward with the traditional way of finding "consensus" during dispute resolution. ADK^{...I'll murder your league!} 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Method of voting

Using an extension similar to the one Trent wrote for the Board of Trustees election would be best, I think. Most efficient and reliable. Blue (is useful) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Aye. ADK^{...I'll bless your milk!} 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody digg out what that extension's content actually was? I'd like to say something about it but I can't because I don't know what's in there. --ǓḤṂ^³ 00:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's this one ADK^{...I'll yank your Suzuki!} 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not it, it's a custom extension. -- Nx / talk 07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just remember you pointing to that one or was it just as an example? ADK^{...I'll orate your oddball!} 16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Duration of voting period

10 days? Blue (pester) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

People will fall asleep and forget about it in 10 days. A week, tops. ADK^{...I'll crackle your impetus!} 23:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about the falling asleep part, but agree with the week. Pretty much anyone who's an interested party is likely to log in at least that often. --Kels (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A week would work. Тy^Talk. 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

One week. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Blue (pester) 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A week minimum. I prefer 10 days though. ħuman 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Who can vote

Three months/one hundred edits? Or do we want to make it more exclusive, i.e., just sysops? Blue (is useful) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just sysops would be a bad idea, I think. The former suggestion would be a lot more inclusive. --Kels (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be just sysops - a few good editors could be missed and there'd be quite a few eligible socks. Three months and a hundred edits would be good. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Same as the board criteria, the user group is already set up for it. ADK^{...I'll duel your octohedron!} 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Works. Тy^Talk. 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is set up that not just sysops can vote, but (and I don't remember what the board criteria was) others can as well, then it is fine. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something like 2 months and 100 edits but the specifics I think aren't that important, just that it's no "too high" or "too low". The time was specifically brought in so that people couldn't sock up after the board announcement so I'm not sure what relevance it would have for crat voting. ADK^{...I'll sell your random string of characters!} 00:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Terms for crats

Someone pointed out that a 6 month term or whatever before someone could be eligible for a crat position would be kind of annoying. It might be a good idea to stagger the terms of the crats so that during any given 2 month period or so 1/3 of them come up for election. (Like the US Senate). The first elected crats would be staggered by the number of votes they received, as in, the person with the most votes get the longest term slots, with the last person qualifying in the vote taking the first election period in 2 months. --00:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Staggered sounds nice, actually. But I'd be worried about it getting too intrusive. If the elections end up taking two weeks (week of nominations and week of voting) and they have to be held every 8 weeks that means 25% of the time is spend in an election. It gets tedious with an election every four years that lasts a month! ADK^{...I'll eat your cake!} 00:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Once a legitimate process is installed, there wouldn't be as much debate about procedure to establish the votes. The voting process would already be established, and we needn't spend all the time we usually do organizing things. We could likely get it down to a week or less. If people know the voting is from the 1st to the 3rd of every other month, it makes the objection that the vote isn't open long enough less relevant... you knew already well ahead of time when it would happen. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

True. That would probably work out. Or we can have nominations open constantly and just announce voting for a few days at the end of each 2 month cycle. Though one issue about rapidly cycling through crats; how can people keep track of them. ADK^{...I'll hurt your escape pod!} 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who knows how special pages work? Тy^Talk. 00:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean instant recognition for people who might not be in the know or haven't been around for at least 6 months. It's not readily apparent without going into the special pages. Other forums have their avatars with MODERATOR sprawled all over it, for example. ADK^{...I'll fill your anchovy!} 00:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if we really need to have them display instant recognition... they're "servants", and thus don't need deference or influence. The only time they need be recognized is when they act, and if one of them acts wrongly, you bring it to a standard place for arbitration. No specifics about who is a crat required... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough about the "servant" thing, I agree fully. But we've had at least one person in the past going around saying that they're "in charge" of RW and n00bs have taken it seriously. I'm talking about something that says "these are the go-to people who are here to solve problems" that isn't merely going to the special page and hunting the list out. ADK^{...I'll push your cauldron!} 00:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We have category:go to guys or something like that, but it is woefully small. Тy^Talk. 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Go to guys. And there are 3. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to put a link in the welcome box, which says "if you feel you're being mistreated, or someone is trying to boss you around like they're in charge, then you can go HERE and have your grievances redressed" --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would take up too much time with elections. Six months for all 'crates would make it simple. However, I'd have no issue with staggering if people disagree with me here. Blue (is useful) 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing. There's a balance between making it too intrusive and taking up too much time and us making sure we can regularly get a say in who has what powers. I think the argument in favour of staggering is "it's an interesting idea". But the argument against it assumes people don't want to be flooded with politics on a regular basis. ADK^{...I'll castigate your infinity!} 11:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, we couldn't even be bothered by yearly LJ elections even after a member passed away. Blue (pester) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of speaks volumes for how much people cared about that. ADK^{...I'll repair your band!} 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why such frequent elections are a bad idea. Not many people are going to want RW politics to intrude every two months. Blue (is useful) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Terms for life

Expulsion upon abuse. We're electing crats based on merit, right? So who cares how long they're crats? Remember that crats aren't policy makers, they're mediators and top-level enforcers.---brxbrx 01:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of that. I'm just not sure which part! ħuman 02:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Generic duties of crats

If we hold that the crats can act unilaterally within specific bounds of the rules, and if it is felt that they've overstepped, that the full crat convention can be called together to review the action, that would put a nice equilibrium between "effective" and fair (the later always working out to inefficient). --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It needs to be authoritative but not authoritarian. I've been on a website where the moderators were above and beyond all reproach, acted unilaterally and banned all criticism, blocking and hiding any argument. They were well known for it. It wasn't good and we parted on poor terms - I believe the phrase "I hope it doesn't hurt when you pull that iron first out of your arse" was used. That is a model I would never want to see replicated here. So there needs to be accountability. If crats are elected, that helps. But the incumbents are still ultimately accountable to the users, who are represented by the other 6 crats they voted for. So if someone dicks about, and the other crats agree, then they can be stripped of the responsibility. That's easy done and considerably more efficient than hauling people through the Coop where everyone in the world tries to have a say in the situation and no consensus can be reached because of the sheer number of people wanting to put forward their own solutions. ADK^{...I'll speak your Texas!} 00:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for doing this so much Blue (pester) 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we all know a website like that. ;) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So, should someone be brought before the quorum of bureaucrats, will the discussion toward the solution be a public affair on a page similar to the chicken coop, but only editable by bureaucrats? Or will it be editable by all users? Or will it take place behind the scenes? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 01:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not behind the scenes, I would hope. I don't know about a bureaucrat-only protected page. Blue (pester) 01:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely not behind the scenes. Тy^Talk. 01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is detailed process is likely TBD, but it should likely be public (except deliberation) and they will need input from the complainant and respondent, as well as any possible witnesses. It would likely be open edit with the crats blocking anyone attempting to interfere. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 01:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely in favour. It'd be nice if complaints were as straightforward as possible, although I'm sure Rob will be along at first opportunity to start wikilawyering (as if he ever stops). --Kels (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Generic duties it would appear are more passive, a willingness to hear and be fair with legitimate arguments coming from whichever source. Arguing just to make wind amounts to nothing. nobs^{don't bother me} 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The generic duties suggests that an individual crat is able to enforce the community guidelines... that means demoting a sysop, and banning them if necessary. They become the enforcement behind the rules that gives the rules teeth. If someone feels that a crat did not act properly within the bounds of the rules, then they bring it up before the entire crat council and they vote a solution out on if the crat acted appropriately, potentially undoing the lone crat's actions. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the system as it was

In case anyone didn't notice, I added this to the poll a while ago. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But that system isn't fit for purpose. For a start, it allowed me to kick this off with little personal consequences. If people want to vote for it to be returned that way, fine, but that's just burying your head in the sand and wishful thinking. ADK^{...I'll curate your minefield!} 23:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's only because we haven't bothered to hold you to account for it yet. ħuman 02:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold em accountable under what rules, exactly? Blue (pester) 02:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about the one I was tried under? Lol. X 45. ħuman 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, ADK is innocent. X 45. -- Nx / talk 06:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But the circumstances were different. So were the ones where you tampered with the database. ħuman 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have stated many times that there was no "rules" case against you. So, other than "those"? Blue (is useful) 02:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ADK, I just added the option, I didn't vote for it. I support what you did. But it's important to give people the option. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it. If we get a system that isn't "the biggest dick wins", I'll offer myself up as a test case for the elected moderators and we'll see if I'm banned from RW for life for it. As of yet I haven't seen my talk page flooded with "you asshole!!!" quotes and the Chicken Coop remains empty. But you know, if the Old Way worked, I'd have experienced consequences for fucking people about. So far, I haven't. Go figure. ADK^{...I'll devour your caterer!} 16:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. You are welcome. The Coop will come later. You are an abusive, ignorant asshole who has no idea how to work with other people. You are a pompous, self-important git. You bring nothing of use to this project. You turn up routinely late for Board meetings, wasting other people's time. Now please go away for a couple of weeks or something. ħuman 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

We go back to the old system, but now you can bring other people up to your level but can't remove anyone from your level. So sysops can make sysops, crats can make sysops and crats and remove sysopship, and then elected supercrats can remove cratship. So both sides get what they want, right? Maybe? Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I tried to already demonstrate how such a system fails to actually be authoritative. It wouldn't solve any of the HCM. In fact, at least a few of the HCMs were about crats removing sysop and blocking. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm baffled why sysops should be able to make sysops in the first place, honestly. --Kels (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As am I. Тy^Talk. 01:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Right now? So we don't end up without any sysops available. It's a stop-gap interim action. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's...an odd way of doing it, but okay. We've got something like 40 now, including two who have made it painfully clear they're just here to stir shit. Maybe we could turn that off now? --Kels (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't, yet another server-side problem. Тy^Talk. 01:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's up to Tmtoulouse and Nx... no one else change change the user group rights. And if you're talking about RobS, Trent gave him sysop directly. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 01:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The mind does fairly boggle. --Kels (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. And Nx removing rights server-side is highly dubious and should be discussed at some point. Having a tech guy with access virtually no one else has who uses it to the ends of site politics is worrisome. ħuman 02:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All power to the nerds! I prefer logged action to this quick-and-dirty approach, but as everything is discussed, I'm not that disturbed... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(BTW: I think the new regime is bullocks. )

As to Eira's first comment, the elected supercrats are there to watch over the crats and prevent that type of thing. It also prevents sudden takeovers by anyone but an elected supercrat or someone with server access. Re the other points, if we keep the old style, where sysop doesn't mean much, there's no reason someone trusted enough to be a sysop can't make others a sysop - most newbs aren't gonna go around Sysopping everyone immediately upon obtaining the ability to. And if there's a problem, a crat or supercrat can clean it up pretty easily. Thunderkatz^Ho! 09:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

I don't care about the whole "crat" thing, but in the interest of site conduct - whose fucking idea was it to promote all crats and start all this boring voting shit without any public discussion of it? If there was discussion on-wiki of this, then please, feed me my words, but I can't see any. For the next week we're going to be bogged down in all this voting crap and for the last two we've been pouring buckets of shit over each others heads because one user removed another's rights. We're supposed to be refuting the pseudo- and anti-science movements, not spending all our time coming up with classes of editors and making pointless rules which everyone will forget about in a week's time. SJ ^Debaser 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you've been following. Blue (is useful) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Check out RWW, now that there are people editing it this kind of information is now available. - π 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Basically, ADK decided (justifiably IMO) that if action wasn't forced it wouldn't get done and we would carry on HCMing ourselves away. So he forced the issue and the reaction was pretty positive. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

By "positive" Eddy means three people turned up on ADK's talk page to slap him on the back. I think the general reaction was more one of resignation, and perhaps amusement, since there wasn't anything anyone could do about it. ħuman 16:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We're supposed to be refuting the pseudo- and anti-science movements, not spending all our time coming up with classes of editors and making pointless rules which everyone will forget about in a week's time. This is basically why I did it. It forced the issue that would have either taken too long or just fizzled out to nothing. ADK^{...I'll crackle your Playstation 3!} 13:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks for clearing that up. SJ ^Debaser 13:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Armondikov expressed his contempt for process and our ability to work things out according to his unilateral timetable as well as his readiness to substitute his judgment for that of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Nutty is extremely butthurt that he no longer has these crat "powers" even though they're supposed to be meaningless. ADK^{...I'll cure your bathtub!} 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The venom, it drips all over, eh? ħuman 16:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if these user rights aren't supposed to denote a special or better type of user, then we wouldn't have had a problem and no one would have complained. ADK^{...I'll riot your bazooka!} 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You got any evidence I give a hoot about not having crat rights anymore or are you just slinging shit? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be taking the whole thing badly. If you didn't give a hoot, I doubt you'd care for slinging shit yourself. Isn't this eating into your Ty bullying time? ADK^{...I'll deport your buddy!} 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In Nutty's defense, that was shit-slinging. Blue (pester) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well. ADK^{...I'll stir your juice!} 16:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about the issue you raised. I'm pretty unhappy with your shitty judgment. If you're mistaking that for me caring about whether I'm a crat or not I'll just set you straight right now: you're wrong. This is about you, not me. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Then, as the cool kids may say "coop me, bitch". ADK^{...I'll cogitate your tomfoolery!} 16:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ADK, adding a flame war to this already tenuous situation isn't helping. Blue (is useful) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had any rights to lose I would. You don't deserve a position of trust. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will let it die for you, and in the absence of any authority to enforce it I'll voluntarily cease editing for a couple of hours. ADK^{...I'll graphitize your mandate!} 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How about a couple of weeks? That would make the wiki a better place. ħuman 06:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Really basic question from someone who hasn't been involved much

Could somebody summarize the powers, duties and responsibilities of this new and improved Crat Council position? I haven't really followed the dick-swinging contest of the last days/weeks, and I don't think I (consciously?) used Crat powers before, so I could use a primer. --Sid (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute moderation, resolution and enforcement. ADK^{...I'll snap your Andrew Schlafly!} 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

in your version of it. Where does it say that? ħuman 06:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Essay:A targeted set of reforms for RationalWiki, May 2011 --62.142.167.134 (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Demotion & promotion too. Basically trying to get some sort of dispute resolution body in place to arbitrate, instead of having a dozen trolls fermenting HCM everytime somebody steps on somebody's toes. Also, RW has become too big for "demote at will" demotions. --PsyGremlinParla! 16:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies! :) --Sid (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So.....

Is this obsolete now?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That depends on who you ask, I s'pose. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the suggestions of Trent here I would say this should be suspended.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and put a banner at the top indicating suspension of this process, or will that invoke another mini-HCM? DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You should probably do that. Тy^Talk. 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We could still vote it just wouldn't mean anything, you know, like for real voting. 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I say we can the crat elections entirely and adopt the new proposed system.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)