Thread:FrosteeSnoman/@comment-7211845-20140526213507/@comment-24003134-20140527074835

Heya Kubs, sorry I haven't been able to talk to you much in chat due to our time zone differences.

Bureaucrat Nominations: I have done a little bit more research into bcracy and have a better understanding of it now than previously. I apologise for jumping to making the bureaucrat requests thread and others alike that, I see now more into what bureaucracy is about and what it fully does. By looking at other Wikia's (with larger communities and developed staff applications), there is generally no form of appointing crats as it is done mostly when the founder/bureaucrat sees a need for another crat or if in the case of smaller wikis (alike this) a bureaucrat has left or retired from the wiki.

Another reason that I agree with Justin's removal of the bcrat applications thread is that bcracy really is a dangerous thing. Once it is granted to a user, it cannot be removed by anyone except for themselves or Wikia staff (only if they absolutely need to step in, i.e. vandal bcrat or ruining the wikia). It also means that the bcrat can run the wiki ways which others would see as very wrong, or jumping to conclusions, or really anything as they are given total power. When Justin told me that he was leaving, I wanted to give him the choice of who he wanted to appoint, feel free to read the thread. I really did want to make him choose who he thought would run the wiki and has the management skills to do so. I don't want to offend, but some actions you have done are questionable, and things such as quick promotions and threats to block users you dislike aren't things that are great characteristics for running a wiki, so I'm kind of unsure about giving you bcracy. With the negative always comes the positive, and I do really like how you are very hard-working and very active, and that you are involving yourself with the community! I really want you to see that you are not missing out on anything, bcrat is just an admin who can promote people!

Maybe you would understand more about the role of a bureaucrat more if I put it to you like this. The only difference between a crat and an admin is the ability to promote users to rollback/admin, and to occasionally step in when things get out of hand with the admins (which won't happen here seeming as we have a very small staff team!). So basically, bureaucrat = admin with ability to promote.

It seems a high probability that Justin may not return, but that is no reason to allow the wiki to get out of hand or do major questionable changes for no reason. If you think of a reason why the wiki needs another bureaucrat, please let me know and I will greatly take it into consideration. =]

Admin Nominations:

I think it would be better to keep it as a rollback for 2 months as opposed to chat/roll for 3. Reasons for this is that chat moderator is not a very staff-heavy role, and can be taken quite lightly. Users with rollback are more involved in admin-like activities such as cleaning up spam and vandalism.

EpicBoss: Pestilence:

He has not had any editing issues (spam/vandalism/bad faith edits) so it should be alright. If he does happen to turn I will immediately contact VSTF and ask for a global ban on his IP on both wikis. Hopefully he will not result to revenge for getting blocked, and will remain a good and active member of the community.

Nominations in general:

I know the main reason you may bring this up is about EpicBoss: Pestilence. His block was for actions that he did a while back, and they were minor issues (so 1 week should send the message to get him to not do it again), but the sockpuppeting is a real problem. I would not hugely oppose him becoming a rollback as it is not really a heavy position, but being previously blocked and going for admin is bad.

People do change, and I've seen people change and return from their blocks with a lot more maturity. As I said above, if this person applied for rollback or chat mod I would not have a huge issue with it, but for admin that is a different story and we can touch more on that if that problem arises. A small block should not be a set-back from becoming an influential person in the community, and I do believe in second chances. I would be neutral for removing the "must not have had a block on any wiki" from the chat moderators and rollbacks applications, but certainly not from the admin one.

Chat Moderator Nominations:

It is for sure a better system of applications, and the thread has cooled down a lot. It is going fine how it is, and remember not everyone who applies will get the role, and so far everyone who has been given CM has really deserved it and has proved it by being actively on chat and helping users. The rules are fine how they are, any harder and no-one would apply, any easier and everyone would apply.

3 months is unreasonable as you need 2 months to become a rollback, and once rollback you can apply for CM without vouches (creating a loophole in the system). I don't think that adding a "must have 1+ vouch from admin/mod to move on" is good either, because it really exclused the role of the community and makes staff members seem overly important in the choosing of staff. Bonaya has recieved sufficient vouches and I have moved him on to a discussion board, Zellox has not yet posted to become a CM, and as we do not do quick undiscussed promotions on the KnD Wiki he must apply to become a CM. It really isn't right to limit the amount of CM's that we can have, if the user deserves it and qualifies for the position they should become a CM. We will not pick and choose people until we have "the right amount" or what we feel is a good number. It's better off having the people who deserve it and qualify for it elligable to apply whenever. =]

Hope this clears things up a little! =]

07:48, May 27, 2014 (UTC)