AVID:Requests for Comment/Deciding our new leadership structure
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- Closing as successful per overwhelming consensus in favor. Bureaucrat policy is created and Administrator policy is ratified by virtue of RfA being codified by bureaucrat policy and the new modification to current administrator election practices. Agent Isai (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
With the vote to remove the board closed and successful, it's time to decide how this wiki will be run going forward. Below I've worked up a model policy based on Meta:Bureaucrats and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. I have set up a vote below. Feel free to suggest any further additions under the Comments heading. 
Talk · Edits 06:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are users with advanced permissions beyond that of a typical administrator. They have the ability to add or revoke administrative tools and access to wiki configuration options via Special:ManageWiki. The role of bureaucrats are as follows:
- Determine consensus on RFCs and forum posts pertaining to wiki decisions
- Decide and carry out the outcome of requests at CLG:RFA and CLG:RFR.
- Remove the admin rights of any user determined by the community to be unfit to have such tools.
Users can request bureaucrat rights at CLG:RFA subject to the edit requirements denoted there. Requests for bureaucrat rights will remain open for 7 days and those applying must have an 80% support ratio.
Bureaucrat rights can be revoked if a request of no confidence is opened and more than 50% of the vote is in favor of removal. They will also be removed if the user's adminship is removed at any time either by community vote or voluntary resignation.
To align with this policy and other similar policies on WP and Miraheze, I also propose that the voting period for RFA be reduced from 2 months to 7 days (2 months was way too long anyway) and a requiremment for a 70% rate of votes in support be implemented for RFAs to be considered successful.
Support
Support Way better than a board-of-directors, which isn't really needed for a community. This, if anything, is an outline of what could be beneficial for the Wiki going forward. TheAmigo67 (Wanna talk?)
- I think this would be a good alternative to the board of directors, which was a really pointless thing to have for a mostly niche community like this.
- We just need to make sure the right people are chosen and it should be good, even vital for the future of the wiki DevinStudios (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Agreed. It's time to take it to the next level, as a team! Snelfu (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support This is one great idea. Like it! 
(Visit my talk page!) 08:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I love this idea, and, of course, I much prefer it over the BoD. Nova (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I'm all for this! HibiscusCrown20 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support You have my support. AnimeTVLogos (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Sounds good to me. It's time to let the people have a say. BoyOnTheMoon (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Support A bureaucracy reflects a community wiki more than a BoD. Logohub (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I'd be down with this. Thisisanswer
Support Not much to say, but is one of the best ideas for the wiki. TVB (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Support We need to have better administration here, so I'm up for it.--Crazy Muzzarino (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Cassie Grandstaff (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I have been watching and observing these wikis since 2014 - 2016. This whole nonsense broke the wikis back then, and now we need to adopt to modern standards. I have not edited much, but I still am a forever member of this community.
I like to think you all, and make sure this Authoritarian issue doesn't happen again.
JrStudios (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Support That is good idea for it. I have my support for this! FeMC/Minako Arisato (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Support That should be. I agree. User:Timpbskid23 5:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC), 8:41, 18 September 2022 (EEST, my timezone)
Support I agree with this! User:Thesquidgeeks 7:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Biggest yes of my life!!! User:BootScreenFanatic 1:00 PM, 18 September 2022
Support This is a once-in-a-lifetime big, anticipated change for this wiki. I, alongside the others, support this idea. 
(talk)
Support I'm definitely in favor of the Bureaucrat model, as well as of candidates requiring supermajority support in order to be assigned. That should keep things well in order. I haven't been around all that much until recently but it looks like the previous leadership format was rather incomprehensible before the purge. Toron Beldevar (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Support Nothing else to say that hasn't already been said, really. AlmightyKingPrawn (talk)
Support It will be a far better idea! --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Support I TOTALLY agree with this! --User:RSX-798 00:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Support this is a much more necessary way to actually address the issues this site has, not by very few people who thinks they know better but a strong community that can guide this website into meaningful progress moving forward. User:Mr. Gann 9:23 PM, September 19, 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
Comments
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
