The Sims Wiki talk:Requests for bureaucratship

Discussion of proposed RfB policies

I suppose I'll open this up with a couple questions. Who determines when R's for B will be open or closed? When a person is nominated and that person accepts their nomination, does it go directly into a vote or will there be a period of discussion and review first? The policies look good, in any case! -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 19:05, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

I like it, thumbs up from me. I'd say the comment and vote period is the same. Shall we say 14 days which is more or less the norm for votes these days? Duskey(talk) 01:30, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

As for who decides the open/closed thing, I guess it's consensus from 'crats and admins alike. Personally I think that 3 active 'crats is a nice round number. Duskey(talk) 07:58, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

When will RFB be open for requests.

When will R.F.B. be open for requests again?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 20:51, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's closed since we're discussing a change in how it works at the moment. If we agree with the proposed policies on the article page then

Users may not nominate themselves for bureaucratship. Users must be nominated by another user. The user then has to accept the nomination.

So in short: If we approve, "requests" will never be open again, only nominations. Duskey(talk) 20:54, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

So in other words i can't put a request ,someone else has too?

If we approve of the new policies, yes. Duskey(talk) 21:02, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

then,how do i tell someone i want to be a 'crat?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 21:05, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

We know. --a_morris (talk) 21:29, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

i know that ,but how would another user let somebody know they wanted to be a 'crat?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 21:50, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

The point of nomination is not to get someone to nominate you but by being a part of the community, people have noticed the work you have done and thought you were worthy of becoming a bureaucrat. You can discuss your wish to be nominated informally but you should not appear to be soliciting. --a_morris (talk) 22:03, August 11, 2010 (UTC)Discuss it where,or is that meant to be in made into a policy^?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 00:11, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

The point of nominations is that a person is chosen by someone on the Wiki because they do good work and do their jobs well. It's not supposed to be about asking someone to nominate you. If something thinks you do a good job as an admin, they should nominate you for bureaucrat, it's that simple. But I don't think it's right to go around trying to drum up support, or to solicit someone to nominate you like a morris said. If someone thinks you deserve bureaucrat, they should nominate you without you even needing to ask them to do it. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 01:03, August 12, 2010 (UTC)Okay,it makes perfect sense now.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 01:32, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

R.F.B. last request.

I'm requesting to become a Bureaucrat.

• 1,000 edits on here
• 1,000 edits on other wiki's
• Well trusted by the community

-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 16:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm fixing to put the request on R.F.B.'s main page.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 20:57, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the Nominations thing because it might upset users because they can't express that they want to become a bureaucrat.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 21:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Vote about nominations or self-nominations

I think there should be a vote for self-nominations or another user nominating you so:

self-nominations

-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:00, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

nominations

I think their has never been a vote about this.

Comments

Wikipedia does allow self-nominations. --a_morris (talk) 22:21, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

This should be discussed before going to a vote. --a_morris (talk) 22:22, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good jumping off point, but they have millions of articles and thousands of regular contributors, versus our 5000 articles and few dozen regular contributors. That said, I'm not really in favor of or opposed to self nominations, but say that if self nominations are allowed, that at least one other user who meets the minimum criteria to nominate a user (as detailed on the actual requests page) be required to show support for a user who self-nominates within a certain time from when a user posts their nomination.

Also, I don't like to be restrictive, but since we're dealing with a situation where only one request can be evaluated at a time, I say that if a bureaucrat candidate fails to achieve a consensus necessary to receive a position, that there be some sort of waiting time before they're allowed to apply or be nominated again, to allow other candidates the chance to be nominated and vetted.

Finally, and this is no disrespect to Danny (Monster), but I'd ask that his RfB be disregarded since TSW isn't currently open to new requests, and we haven't formalized or finalized the RfB and Bureaucrat selection process. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

When will rfb be open next year?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Why is it so hard to become a 'crat,is it because you can't remove this right?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:51, August 22, 2010 (UTC) What do users think of me?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 23:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know when applications/nominations will be accepted, since I'm not in charge of them. I can only guess that they will be open within the next few months, but I would be very surprised if they're not open by the end of the year. As for difficulty, I think a thorough and difficult application process is actually a good thing. It ensures that the users who are trusted enough to receive bureaucrat status 1) are very very qualified, 2) are willing to put forward time and effort, 3) are able to communicate well and willing to talk with other Bureaucrats, the Administrators, users, and Wikia staff, 4) can be trusted to take on the many added bureaucrat responsibilities without abusing the priviledges and unique "powers" that receiving Bureaucrat status presents, namely the ability to add and remove administrators and other positions. So, I think it's important that applications be difficult and thorough, and it's very important that they're done correctly because, while it's not exactly easy for a non-bureaucrat to get rid of an administrator, it's practically impossible to get rid of a bureaucrat, if they should abuse their authority. Think of the bureaucrats as sort of the co-managers of the wiki (since there really are no "owners" outside of the legal mumbo-jumbo), who have to be able to get along, discuss things with each other, and trust each other.

Finally, on further thought, I believe Danny does have a valid point in suggesting self-nomination; a user may not necessarily want to nominate an admin if the admin hasn't shown any particular interest in a bureaucrat position, even if that admin would be willing to take on the position if nominated. But, I still stand by my previous idea, that a self-nomination should be seconded by at least one other user. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 23:34, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what LIR says, the rule of 2nd is very nice. I've sort of used it myself when suggesting new stuff, if there's no 2nd, there's no need to keep discussing the issue. Duskey(talk) 04:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

When will all these position discussion's be done?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:06, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ratification of Requests language

I am going to formally propose the following changes:

• Users will be able to nominate themselves.
• Self-Nominations must be supported by at least one other user who meets the minimum qualifications for nominating a bureaucrat.
• Bureaucrat candidates that are not given bureaucrat privileges are ineligible to be nominated or to nominate themselves for at least a month.

I don't think a formal "two-week vote" is necessary here on whether these are accepted. Rather, if there are any real disagreements to these changes, I will withdraw or modify the proposal. Otherwise, if these changes are made, I am in full support of ratifying the language on the Requests for Bureaucratship page ASAP, seeing no real major discussion or disagreement over the other policies on that page. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

last thing about my R.F.B.:can i put my request on the rfb's main page now?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 23:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

I like LIR's suggested changes. Duskey(talk) 13:04, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Can i "open" Request pages now?-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 20:07, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Since nobody is responding i'm "opening" the request pages at 6:00P.M. tonight, if nobody still responds.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 20:53, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait until some time next week. Two of our active admins (and our only active beaucrat) are absent at the moment and on the 28th, the vote on inactive admins ends. After that we can demote the ones who are inactive and then see if we need more. Duskey(talk) 21:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Since only Bureaucrats can decide who and when to promote, I think only bureaucrats can open or close the page. I think admins and members can voice their opinion as to whether requests should be accepted, but I don't think admins really have any control over it. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 21:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

what about community consensus and nobody should be the boss.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 21:56, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

TSW is not a democracy. Consensus is good, but there's a reason certain users are given those special privileges and not others. The bureaucrats (aka a morris) can open or close the requests at their own choosing, whether or not the general community agrees. For the sake of the wiki, it would be best for them to follow community consensus, but in no way are they required to. So, in this case, a morris is the boss. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's why i want to become a 'crat to help the "boss" out.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:12, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt, you can't become a bureaucrat until she lets you become a bureaucrat. That won't happen until she decides to open the page. Nothing you or I or any other admin can do will speed up that process. You need to be patient. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:15, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you can't tell, I'm trying to move this process along. A formal vote is totally unnecessary in this case, and in my own opinion, the sooner we can get a new bureaucrat, the better. Not that I want to replace a morris, but I get the feeling that she has too much stuff to have to be responsible for, and it's not fair to her to make her do all of it alone when we have others who are willing and able to do it if given the chance. So I think this page should be opened up as soon as it is wise to do so, but we can't rush into these things. And, as I stated, in the end it's her call. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 22:19, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I might have to leave a request for bureaucrat on central wiki.-- Danny (Monster2821) (talk)(random page) 22:35, August 26, 2010 (UTC)