Wookieepedia talk:Requests for user rights/RFB

Are there any requirements you would like to see added/changed/removed? --Imp 01:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the reasoning behind only accepting self-nominations? Is it to avoid having people "drafted", so to speak?  Or was there something else? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like unanimous requirements. There's always going to be one smartass. It should be unanimous admins and majority of others. Kuralyov 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unanimous admins, majority of users. -- SFH 04:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unanimous bureaucrats, majority of admins. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that actually sounds better. But what about the rest of the users? -- SFH 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * During the meeting, Imp and I suggested that it would be unanimous among all voting users, and users who had only began editing recently wouldn't be allowed to vote to reduce sockpuppetry. (We never worked out "recent": I'd suggest a month before whenever the vote was cast, though that might be criticised as undemocratic or something.)  I still think it should be unanimous among all registered users voting, but I could go either way on that criteria. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Though can we trust just any user to make a educated vote for a bureaucrat which they may know nothing about? There's a tendency for lesser users to simply vote with the largest amount of people, thus swaying it in that direction, plus it happens due to the fear that they may be singled out if they vote differently. Am I making any sense? But in accordance to having unanimity, that may be impossible with regular users. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm finding this overall sway to occur on many a vote on Wookieepedia, so its a generalized response. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 100% of participating bureaucrats, 75% of participating admins, 66% of participating users, participating users must have registered over one month previous. No self-noms, must be nominated by an admin or bureaucrat. Strict, but not draconian. I also think we may want to start thinking about the RFA requirements, and if we're going to set some limit now that it's easier to get sysopped. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair, but I would prefer that both admins and average users be required to have a 3/4 supermajority. – 05:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all piecing together nicely now. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, Culator's idea sounds good. 75% of both admin and user votes, unanimous bureaucrat votes. The whole self-nom thing was taken from the Wikipedia RFB page. I think it was to avoid having every admin nominated, and to prevent that only friends of the sysops/bureacrats got nominated. --Imp 09:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does everyone agree with the current requirements then? --Imp 21:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. I'd also like to add that voting (and the 2-week timer) shouldn't start until the nominee officially accepts. And the one-month voting requirement for users should be specifically from the day the nomination is put forth and not from the day voting starts or the day the voter votes, just to avoid any ambiguity. And there should be an item stating that the nominee may be asked a series of questions, and while they are not required to answer it is encouraged. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Added it. --Imp 09:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there are no further objections I propose we let this page go live. --Imp 20:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Will there be a limit on how many bureaucratships will be allocated? I can think of several admins up to the task, but somehow I can't imagine the current bureaucrats allowing that many admins to become bureaucrats within the next few weeks. But I could be wrong... --Azizlight 07:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we could set the limit at 2 or 3 new ones. It will be up to the current bureaucrats, though, seeing as they have veto power. --Imp 14:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need more?
This is continuing the sentiment that Aziz has already expressed, but why the sudden perceived need for more bureaucrats? WhiteBoy 22:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, considering that it's basically only veto power, I don't see how we need that many vetos floating around. It was nice to have Sikon, because he's consistently present and active and definitely knows his stuff, but creating two or three more vetos to throw around doesn't seem necessary. Havac 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sikon alone can easily cover the bureaucratic duties when WhiteBoy and Riff are away (promoting someone to adminship, that's all it is). --Azizlight 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am 99% certain that we have not been "late" promoting someone to administrator in the past (not that it is an "urgent" issue) even when it was just Riff and me. WhiteBoy 22:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there really is no need, and I myself didn't think so up to when the 5 bureaucrats were proposed, and as an alternate to Jay and Darth Culator provided jSarek. But it is ultimately your vote Chad that will determine this, reversing either my nomination or Sikon's. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)