RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

This page is dead, but is being retained as an archive. Please do not edit it! This page has either outlived its usefulness, or, through neglect and/or indifference, become unused. If you wish to reinvigorate it, bring it up on the talk page.

Because RationalWiki's bureaucrats are much more analogous to other wikis' sysops, we don't have an "RfA" page. Instead, we have this.

RationalWiki:Bureaucrat nominations is for nominations for bureaucratship. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

---

Tyrannis

Tyrannis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log)

Does good work, lots of mainspace/templatespace editing. Here for a year and a bit, quite active. Will toe the party line. Why not? Blue (is useful) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Tyrannis does more than all of the defunct 'crats combined on a daily basis, and doesn't afraid of anything. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 21:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. And I'm not just saying that because he has pictures of me and Mama Phyllis Schlafly in a compromising position. P-Foster (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourtheded. No one, and I mean no one, has put more pointless stubs in to more pointless categories. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we get this into some sort of coherent voting? Blue (is useful) 22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

For

• Blue (pester) 22:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• P-Foster (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• For all of the reasons stated above. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• For reasons discussed in my seconding of his nomination. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Тy^Talk. 02:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Similar reasons to others, plus for voting for himself. That's ballsy. ^EXTERMINATE 02:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• His tiny penis and halitosis make cratship a moral obligation - David Gerard (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Fuck it. Since there are only about three people who agree with the "too many 'crats" view, why not have one more? Although the asshole had better 'crat me on RWW or there'll be a whole heap of fucking trouble. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I never agreed with the "we have too many 'crats" argument. Besides, the accused has done a respectable amount of work and is a good editor. I approve of this demotion. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ is out of his mind 00:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't recall ever seeing them do something wrong. If they do they could always be promoted. Phoney (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I like Tyrannis --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Against

• Against: Stalinist removal of WikiHistory by vanishing all references to ACD. 21:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Against I like Tyranis fine and am sure he is amply qualified but why more crats? I'll change my vote if someone can justify adding more crats. And then crat can become the new sysop. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What does 'cratship mean to you, then? Blue (pester) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What's that have to do with the price of tea in China? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cratship means never having to say you're sorry. Unless you're Human. Ace ^{of Spades} 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If someone were to try to justify having more 'crats to you, it stands to reason that they should be aware of what you think 'cratship means. Blue (is useful) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If "too many 'crats" is the complaint, then the solution is simple: I, Gooniepunk2010, hereby will relinquish my 'cratship to Tryannis if it will stifle the old "too many" adage. It's far overrated anyways, and I'd still be a ninja/sysop/irrational number. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't do that just to appease one person. Blue (pester) 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked about a coherent program for crats before the LJ was implemented. That's a long time ago. If we don't have one I don't really see any reason for there to be more or less of us. And what I personally think cratship is about really has nothing to do with anything. We need a program or its just a kiddy club. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you make a very good point Nutty. And, unfortunately, it's one that this community puts off every time we get a 'crat nomination. I think the reason nobody, let alone this community, has put forth a plan is because everybody knows that someone's toes would get stepped on. If we said, for instance, that you had to have X-edits in Y-space in order to qualify to be a 'crat, then some sysops that may not make good 'crats could become 'crats, whereas other 'crats may no longer be qualified to be one, even if they've been one for forfuckingever. It's the elephant in the room, and nobody wants to discuss it, IMO. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nutty makes a great point. But last time I brought it up, all I got was scorn for suggesting that there should be criteria for 'cratship. Blue (is useful) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we just vote using the same qualifications as with the RationalWiki Foundation? I wouldn't like to use the same software because I don't trust it. Have public votes like this. Phoney (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Against I do agree with Nutty. The problem is that sysopships are handed out like candy and thereby remove any commendation that might otherwise go with the position; so that to commend an editor, we only have cratship. We probably need more brainstars or an intermediate position.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brainstars we have aplenty, but nobody uses them. And what sort of intermediate position could we have? Perhaps have 'crats be only able to demote users to sysop, and add the Steward position which would have full (as they are currently) 'crat rights? The problem, as Goonie said above, is that you'll always be stepping on someone's toes; someone is always going to have to give up their rights or position with any meaningful change. Blue (is useful) 22:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brain stars have been discussed several times. Everyone seemed to regard them as "mental masturbation", if I remember correctly. And most of them were created by CUR and HOG. Not exactly our two most popular users. Тy^Talk. 22:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against Too many new crats. I will continue to vote "no" to all new nominations on principle until clear standards are established. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't care

• I was here at, like day four of this wiki, have never been made a 'crat, and never saw the use of it. Do you want the person to give out sysopships or not? Then go for it. But it affects the average user little. sterile binder 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Let the accused speak

So. Now what? Тy^Talk. 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We wait a few days. I think you can vote for yourself. Blue (is useful) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think only crats can vote on crats. Ty, this isn't personal. I really like you and I appreciate your contributions. You're a better editor than I am. Just to give some clarity on why I'm even a crat at all, which I can't really provide that much info about, I do provide certain services in the background that don't involve liquor or KY. I don't really need a crat bit to provide them so if in the impending discussion I hope happens we do come up with some criteria that would disqualify me I'm happy to give it up. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it isn't personal. You have a valid point about needing to define the qualifiers for 'cratship. If it were personal, it would be like "rah no not him !"Тy^Talk. 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well. Um.Тy^Talk. 21:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

TK

What, too soon? Stile4aly (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It will always be too soon. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am always too late. Ace ^{of Spades} 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Goat

goat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · vandal log · block log) Have we made the goat a crat yet? Blue (pester) 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No

• Strongly oppose Goat is a creationist hack who just comes here to troll us. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not until Mighty Lord Jerboa is cratted too. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• Тy^Talk. 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Goat is quite popular, but they have made very few contributions, none of them recently.

So!

This session draws to a close, folks. As it stands, Tyrannis has 8 votes for 'cratship and 3 against. I think that if the tallies remain in his favor for another day, we can confer the Order upon him. Blue (pester) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ninja group

In response to the people lamenting the lack of an intermediate layer between bureaucrat and sysop, I would suggest that we have one: the ninja group, which consists of those users able to make themselves bots. This, I would think, entails some level of trust. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't anyone run editing software on any account that doesn't require difficult captchas? Phoney (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that they can add themselves to the bot group, so that their edits do not show up in recent changes. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I view the ninjaship as more of a utility, though it certainly does indicate a level of trust. The ability to hide oneself is only awarded to users who do many minor edits. Blue (is useful) 05:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bertran

Spear heading Russian RationalWiki, and likely will need the tools. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. My reasoning for making him a 'crat is that he'd need the tools over at RussianalWiki, and, when the RWF decided to go ahead with the RussianalWiki project, we decided that we'd make accounts and user rights transferable from the English RW to RussianalWiki and vice versa. Thus, if we are to have 'crats over at RussianalWiki, they'd also need to be 'crats here. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 21:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop trying to make "RussianalWiki" happen. ^postate 23:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In favor

• Aye.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Aye! The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Да здравствует созданный волей Бертран Единый, могучий РациоВики ! Röstigraben (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Да Тy^Talk. 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes.--Bertran (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• In Soviet Russia, wiki edits you. P-Foster (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• I don't know if he's doing good work or not, but somebody who has that many edits and set up his own language version of RW get's my vote. So, da! --UHM^harass_me 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• It's practical and the guy has been working his arse off. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• What Ullhateme and ConcernedResident said. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Broccoli (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Съгласни, без резерва. Планински Синьо 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposed

• No User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Cracker

Cracker, one of the Cabalists, would like 'cratship status. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes

Wasn't he the guy that let TK have the password to the super-secret form? Anybody that stupid duplicitous will certainly bring this wiki to it's knees by his sheer incompetence! That's good enough for me! AYE! TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not like he vaped TALK:WICOCP or anything. P-Foster (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Broccoli (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Yes because he would meet the personal criteria whatever they are but we really need some guidance here ASAP. Moratorium after this bc Ty has taken over the wiki, k? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

... ITTWYFAIT. Тy^Talk. 18:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's Time To Water Your Faithful And Itinerant Tiger? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If That's The Way You Feel About It Then. Тy^Talk. 18:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In Twilight Tower We Yearned For An Immodest Tapestry. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

OH MY FUCKING GOD!! NO!!!

C®ackeЯ 22:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• The comment above convinced me. --PsyGremlinFale! 13:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Goat

• Goat! AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Goat. Тy^Talk. 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Long-eared jerboa. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Tits User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)