Board Thread:Wiki Discussions/@comment-24003134-20140413044406/@comment-24003134-20140416023326

Kc3reo wrote: In all honesty bureaucrats should have been implemented from the start. If they're an admin that means they've given two craps about this wiki and are willing to maintain it. If Justin's activity is truly lessening, this self-reliant system needs to be implemented.

However, please make a council to make bureaucrats instead of the public. I realize they're part of the second part and here's why I want to destroy the first. People will be notified "hey can you vote for me I do a, b, and c." and they will blindly vote. Or the other way around and nobody cares enough to vote for the bureaucrats and people will be so desperate to do good they do bad and sockpuppet, in hopes to be even considered. I do agree, and if you have seen about Justin's promotion, it was based off the fact that the other Bureaucrats left and he was the only one active and trusted on the wiki, and was instantly promoted from rollback to bureaucrat+admin. His activity is lessening and I am concerned that he may end up alike the other bureaucrats (SDMaraukin, DinoKev), who left without much notice.

Wikia's are to be run by the community (at least for the most part), and the only part about promotions run by the community is the discussion (where people discuss whether or not the person would make a good admin/bureaucrat), and the vouches (to see if the person has enough support to be evaluated). The evaluation (where the admin/bureaucrat team will discuss what the person has done for the wiki via contribution logs and posts) is run by what I suppose you could call a council (consisting of staff members). We haven't had any sock-puppetting as of yet, and I really don't think that it is a major problem, and plus it is relatively easy to tell when someone has been sock-puppetting.

Did this answer your question? =]