Bureaucrat RFR? | Fandom

This post is locked.

Obi the LEGO Fan·7/18/2015 in Community Voting

Bureaucrat RFR?

So, for a long time now Requests for Right has proven itself to be a successful, efficient, and viable system, contrary to those who criticized it. But until now, one user right group has been conspicuous by its absence from those in RFR: bureaucrat. Bureaucrats have been appointed in secret by the admin team since time immemorial. I have held for a long time that bureaucrats should be elected by the community, because who has bureaucrat rights affects the community.

Thus, I would like to propose the creation of a Requests for Bureaucrat.

Now, a few notes. Not just anyone can run for bureaucrat. I suggest that only users who have had admin rights for over six months and are currently active can request bureaucrat rights. Those are pretty much the only requirements needed as other requirements are already met when someone becomes an admin.

That limits the number of people who can run for bureaucrat immensely, and thus we don't have to worry about any immature users getting bureaucrat rights and wrecking havoc amongst the wiki (not that that would happen anyways...).

Now for the vote:

A) Yes, I support this proposal and I think only users who have had admin rights for over six months and are currently active should be able to request bureaucrat rights.

B) Yes, I support this proposal, but I think there should be different requirements (please state in comments).

C) No, I do not support this proposal — I think bureaucrats should be appointed by the admin team.

D) I have another opinion entirely (please state in comments).

Current Votes

A: 15

B: 9

{8 (1 year), 1 (1500 edits, 500 mainspace)}

C: 9

D

Consensus

Yes, with six months and current activity as the requirements.

(Edited by administrators)

0

Agent Spy·7/18/2015

I said in my blog comment about retiring that I may come back to vote on something I consider important enough. This is one of those times.

I vote C). Bureaucrat is the highest right that a user can obtain on a wiki and can not be removed by another bureaucrat. I think that the decision of promoting someone to bureaucrat should be left to the administrators, as issues concerning users of the wiki are still discussed in private by the administrators. Therefor, everyone who isn't an administrator can't know the user's stance on issues not publicized. Voting for bureaucrats should be left to the people who know what said user's opinion on issues discussed in private and in public is.

Something I expect someone to reply with is, "Well, why don't we just make all admin discussions public?". While that would solve this issue, it doesn't seem like a good idea to discuss user related issues in public that could possibly be embarrassing to the user.

Those are my thoughts on this issue. Farewell. (Unless someone replies to this and their message warrants a reply back.)

*goes back into hibernation*

(Edited by Agent Spy)

0

Obi the LEGO Fan·7/18/2015

@Agent Spy:

I have a few things to say that are highly relevant to your argument.

1) The community already voted to disallow discussions on admin talk that impact the entire community. Thus, nothing that is relevant to bureaucrat rights should be discussed on admin talk.

2) As a corollary, most admin discussions are already public. The exceptions are blocks, bureaucrat promotions, and some demotions. Blocks do not usually impact the entire wiki, unless it is to prevent the wiki from being vandalized/trolled and are in the exclusive purview of the admin team. Bureaucrat promotions technically are already within the purview of the community. Demotions can be discussed by the community, and it is a matter of debate whether we should be allowed to carry them out on admin talk or not.

3) According to recent votes, the admins now lack the authority to promote anyone to any user right without involving the rest of the community. However, there is a discrepancy between that and the fact that no Requests for Bureaucrat has actually been created. To be in alignment with our current policy, a RfB is necessary.

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)

0

ShadowOfOblivion7119·7/18/2015

Vonness11` wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

ShadowOfOblivion7119 wrote: B. I feel that Beurecrat's should be appointed by da comunity. But, I feel like an additonal few requirements could be added. In addition to having had Admin for over 6 months(consequitivly), and ar e currently, added. I feel like a Edit Requirment could be added, I'm not sure WHAT it would be, but it would make me be more at ease knowing they have contributed a decent amount. I also think that they should have Patroller/Forum Mod/Rollback? too, to be on the safe side.

Well, there is an edit req for admins (1,000 edits: 300 mainspace), but if you want a higher req for bureaucrats of course you can state that.

I'd say raise it to 1,500 edits: 500 mainspace. Bcrats are like the gods of this wiki :P we need to make sure that Bcrats aren't immature. If they are going to be Bcrats, tehy should do a good amount of editing.

small editcount =/= immature

Shush, child.

(Edited by ShadowOfOblivion7119)

0

FortressOfNight·7/19/2015

A

(Edited by FortressOfNight)

0

TheShadowAssassin·7/19/2015

A

(Edited by TheShadowAssassin)

0

Michaelyoda·7/19/2015

I am rather tempted to vote "C, screw democracy," but I'll throw my vote to A.

(Edited by Michaelyoda)

0

ZXSpidermanXZ·7/19/2015

Alemas2005 wrote: C). *Incoming hate and rotten vegetables*

>___> *Throws ripe vegetables at Ale.* Rotten vegetables are softer. :|

(Edited by ZXSpidermanXZ)

0

Agent Spy·7/19/2015

@Obi:

1) I realize that most discussions take place on the wiki, and it is why I only mentioned discussions involving users being private.

2) Seeing the opinion of an administrator on a private discussion could potentially change the mind of someone who would have voted yes to voting no, or voting no to voting yes. Off-topic: I am highly opposed to the fact that discussions about blocks are carried out on the wiki, but that doesn't matter since the vote already passed and I'm inactive.

3) Policies can be modified.

Anyway, it seems there is already a very strong support of adding RfB, so two people voting against adding RfB probably won't change anything.

(Edited by Agent Spy)

0

FortressOfNight·7/19/2015

ZXSpidermanXZ wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: C). *Incoming hate and rotten vegetables*

>___> *Throws ripe vegetables at Ale.* Rotten vegetables are softer. :|

*throws pineapple at ale*

(Edited by FortressOfNight)

0

Ihaveawiixboxds·7/19/2015

Doesn't look like it'll matter, but C.

(Edited by Ihaveawiixboxds)