Yes, this is a bold change, but I've created the page because we seemed to have overlooked this aspect of our RfA changes - if admins are voted on, bureaucrats must be voted on as well. Logic. Also, I've refrained from setting it to closed, because I don't think the "one-bureaucrat" policy should really apply anymore considering our policy changes. (This doesn't mean we have to have more than one now, however.) Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have a second crat. Vaznock - Talk 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Dcasawang1 - Talk 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it'd be best to have more than one in case of emergencies. —The Flash - (Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!) 18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Another bureaucrat would be helpful. I think we should elect another. Also, this page sould be moved to Avatar Wiki talk:Requests for Bureaucracy. Mattkenn3 Talk 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Helpful on what? And what kind of emergencies are bureaucrats needed for? The only thing bureaucrats can do that sysops can't is granting and removing rollback rights, and granting, but not removing, sysop status. ― Thailog 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. A second crat would be helpful for just that reasons. An example is if Omni went though long periods of inactivity like Howabout. If we finally decided to have another bureaucrat, we'd need Onmi to make the promotion, and who knows when he'll get the message, and with Requests for Rollback being always open, we'd need an active crat. So, with a second crat, we'd have someone to give promotions when the other one goes inactive, and users won't have to wait for just one user to promote them. Vaznock - Talk 20:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that and I agree that there should be more than one active bureaucrat; I'm just unsure that everyone is clear on what a crat can do, since none of those reasons qualify as "emergencies." ― Thailog 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the reason I gave up a few comments is, in my opinion, the only way it would benefit our site. Vaznock - Talk 22:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I've read that, but my only concern here is that we're imagining "what if..." and trying to make this decision ahead of time. Considering that Omni really hasn't showed many signs of inactivity or anything less than being daily active, we wouldn't need another 'crat for any of those reasons. In my opinion, our site is so small that one really-active 'crat will suffice, but if Omni thinks he'll be getting inactive or checking here less often, then I am all for making another bureaucrat. But, that's just what I think. Joey aa 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Vaznock - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- This response surprises me, I have to admit. Let me weigh up what the pros and cons of making another bureaucrat are. So why would we make a new bureaucrat?
- We've decided that admin power should be diluted/removed, because that is the correct way. If we dilute admin power, we should in principle make another bureaucrat or two, so that the seeming "aura of authority" is brought down to a more acceptable level.
- Convenience. User rights requests look to become more frequent than in previous years on Avatar Wiki, and it simply makes sense to have more than one bureaucrat than one in this regard. Also, it makes inactivity for bureaucrats less of a concern. Asking Wikia Staff for a user rights change is painful.
- Wider range of opinions. With our recent changes to RfA, it would make sense to have more than one, as bureaucrats close the discussions and promote based on discretion.
- Why would we not?
- It's not a pressing need at the present time. Well, there is one bureaucrat, who is editing. We don't have to create another bureaucrat.
- Potential disagreements and unpleasantness between bureaucrats with regards to user rights
- Weigh these up and consider. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- One probably, two tops. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- At the most, I think three active crats should be enough, though I don't think we have enough movement to warrant that many crats active at once. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think two crats would be good. BTW, can we nominate two Vaznock - Talk 15:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but only one at a time. So two successive votes, but not two consecutive votes. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Two crats (including Omni) is enough. Dcasawang1 - Talk 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think we'll just see how we go. But I will insist on two successive votes if we end up electing two more, because I don't like it when candidates compete with each other. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the bureaucrats do not run the site. They simply have the ability to help the wiki to a greater extent because of their administrative tools. Mattkenn3 Talk 18:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, our wiki is run by a whole community, not by crats. Vaznock - Talk 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what I just said? By the way, when are we going to give this man the position. Come on. Mattkenn3 Talk 18:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That was either an edit conflict or just a mistake. Vaznock - Talk 18:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Mattkenn3, according to Project:Voting, the voting procedure ends on 24 June 2009. --Energybender 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
2 Week Policy[]
Okay, this is just silly. 888 has gotten just about the entire communities votes, and it's unlikely he'll do something to lose them. Why wait like another week? Like Thailog said (to me in an Email) we're not Wikipedia. We're basically wasting crat time for 888. Vaznock - Talk 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, what I basically said was that we can't adopt every one of their tenets. What works for them may not work for us. They have up to 60 memebers casting votes in these elections. That is unlikely to happen here, so there's no reason to uphold such an extended period. ― Thailog 11:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... This sounds like something that should be brought up about the RfA rules, and then of course that will keep us abiding by our own polices. "If nominated user receives full consensus after one week of voting, said voting period will end immediately"... perhaps? Joey aa 11:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just as a note, long ago when we formalised the voting system, we implemented a clause called the "three day rule". If no new votes are cast for three days, the option with the most votes is chosen. So far, this RfB hasn't passed that rule, because of a string of votes later on. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- (Dramatic voice) It is done. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 11:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)