Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby talk:Editor-in-Chief/draft

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search


Length of Term[edit]

Should the position be annually elected or only done "as needed"? Tacopill (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. I'd say as needed. ---PinkYoshiFan 23:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. As needed. Having yearly elections would invite campaigning, which I find distasteful for a wiki. --Samwell (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. I would say either way works, but I have a small lean towards it being as needed. - Gigi (talkedits) 23:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Probably as needed. I don't mind yearly election, but it creates an odd situation where the EiC would only have the option to quit every year, which undermines the principle of volunteer work. I'm in no rush to retire from the position, of course, but we probably don't need yearly election here at least as of now. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. As needed. I see no reason to reconfirm an EiC when there's no good reason to (like a controversy). If the EiC is no longer trusted from their position, the community will always say so. We are also a small wiki, and we probably all know each other well. pandakekok9 (poyo) 03:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. As needed per arguments above. Superbound (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. As needed. There is no need for replacement when/if the current team already does a good job. Trig - 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  8. I say as needed per the reasons above. -- Jellytost (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be to make it "as needed". Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Position Requirements[edit]

Should being nominated be restricted to admins and above, patroller and above, open to all? Tacopill (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Admins+ only. They are the ones with the most experience with the wiki. --Samwell (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Admins+ only is also my preferred option, for the same reason as Samwell. - Gigi (talkedits) 23:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Admins+ definitely seems like the best option, for reasons that Samwell expressed quite clearly. Admins have the most experience with wiki work, and considering that the EiC position includes a promotion to bureaucrat, already have experience with many of the tools that the EiC has access to. --YFJ (talk · edits) 23:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. I'm neutral to this. Obviously if someone is clearly edible to be a 'crat, then there's a bug chance that they already are, and inexperienced users who try to self-nominate will probably fail imminently. Probably. That's my reasoning for my doubt, since there users on this wiki whose age isn't in the double digits yet, who knows what might happen. It might be good to create idiot-proof system. Superbound (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. I say patrollers+ only if self- nomination is banned. Otherwise, admins+ per above reasoning. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. I would suggest having Moderator+ instead of Admin+ as the specific powers of moderator are for preventing any harm from the wiki almost exclusively, and as so, would insinuate that being the second rank garners at least some general experience. Perhaps what could be suggested is that people below admin can only nominate in the ranks higher than their own (for example, at this time, Former Patroller could only nominate a Moderator, Admin, or Crat, while Moderators such as Superbound could only vote for Admins or Crats. Admins and Crats can naturally vote for anyone. Just an idea. Trig - 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. Admins+ have the most experience since they have been around the wiki for the longest, so I say Admins+. -- Jellytost (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  8. Moderator+ but without extra rules suggested by Trig. They have experience and trust, so if the community prefers one of them they could go for one too. —Viperision (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be to make it "Admin+". Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Length of voting/nomination period[edit]

Should the current length of nomination process (3 days) and voting period (7 days) be extended? If yes, by how much? Superbound (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  1. Nomination has already been extended to one week, which is good, and I could go for either keeping both at one week or extending the voting period to two weeks. ---PinkYoshiFan 21:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. I agree. One week for each would do fine, but two weeks for the voting period would make it less rushed. The appointing of a new Editor-in-Chief is a very important event that takes time and consideration. By no means should such a thing be rushed, in my opinion. -- Jellytost (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)



Alright I have few questions to ask.

  1. I think 1 week voting period and 3 day nomination period are waaaaaaaay to short, considering our Referendums last two weeks. I think that time will do enough for voting and 1 week for nomination.
  1. I'm unsure if we really should skip over the process of election and just appoint AEiC automatically. I suggest having AEiC (assuming they weren't removed as well) to run the election.
  1. Does AEiC needs to be a 'crat? Since if they are taking over their responsibilities they probably should have 'crat tools. If EiC appoints someone who isn't a 'crat, are they going to be promoted (even if just temporarily for that period of time)?

Overall I'm mostly fine with everything else (sans annual elections but they are already discussed above). Superbound (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to leave "does the AEiC become bureaucrat", "does the AEiC need to be a bureaucrat to be chosen", etc., up to an EiC; but if we want formalize it, we can.
Similarly, we can make it an electable position, rather than appointed.
Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer not having the position at all (see below), but if we do end up having it I think it should be an elected position. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Would it be okay if I start a vote like the ones above us for the first point? (second relates to case which is strongly disputed below, i'll rather wait until final decision is made.) Superbound (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thats fine, just change the draft to reflect the consensus. Tacopill (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Done. Superbound (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


I think AEiC would create even more Rank separation, and we should simplify it down. Being the only other active bureaucrat, Samwell is basically already that. In case of extended (complete) inactivity without a notice or a clear declaration of stepping down, the wiki owner should hold a new EiC election. No AEiC needed - it's basically EiC deciding who should automatically become one without new elections. WiKirby won't go on fire in these short infrequent EiC-less time frames. —Viperision (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Viper. Having an AEiC would create unneeded rank complexity since Samwell - and possibly other active Bureaucrats in the future - already serves as a sort of AEiC. -- Jellytost (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Viperision, the AEiC position seems a bit unneeded. ---PinkYoshiFan 12:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The point of the position is to prevent the situation that happened in FEW, where they disappeared and the rest of the wiki went without any burecreates, which meant no new admins or patrollers could be appointed, etc. Had they have a second-in-command to fill in the gap, they could have stepped in and do the promotions as needed. True, the current EiC is good at the moment. I' m just proposing this position as a worst-case-scenario plan. (Same with the idea that the staff can vote to remove an EiC, if they ever disappear.) Tacopill (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that being an issue here since we have 2 or 3 (depending on if you only count wiki activity or not) active crats. ---PinkYoshiFan 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't honestly understand the strong opposition to the AEiC role; as Tacopill said, it's basically in case the current EiC disappears or just cannot continue with the position. If you see it like a vice-president, I think the role's purpose become clearer. In that case, both could be elected together, and perhaps the AEiC doesn't need to be promoted to bureaucrat unless they need to step up to then become the EiC in case the current one steps down. While you could argue the wiki's bureaucrat are already the "leads" of the wiki, and if the EiC isn't around they fulfill that role, I think the job of an EiC is different than of a bureaucrat, which is why I think it's must better to have us also elect a AEiC in case they are ever needed. Plus, we never know what may happen in the future: right now we only have a small number of bureaucrats, it's not impossible to have most or all become inactive or step down at some point. Hard to predict, and honestly I would rather be safe than sorry, even if the possibility is probably low. - Gigi (talkedits) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Proportionally speaking, there is a high amount of Crats to active users on this site, the possible introduction of more seems unnecessary. SmashWiki sees drastically more people on its site and it only has 3 crats. More higher level staff is not necessary as long as the current ones remain somewhat active. Trig - 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

So just to understand this better: is it mandatory to have an AEiC? The proposed policy current states that the EiC can appoint one, so from my understanding this isn't necessary if the EiC doesn't feel they need an AEiC? - Gigi (talkedits) 15:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, if EiC at the time believes there's enough bureaucrats / wiki activity at the time, they could go without having one. Or they could appoint one, but then we never have a situation where the AEiC needs to become the acting EiC to run an election (the "advisory" stuff could come from other 'crats). Ideally, if a EiC is stepping down voluntarily, they should hold an election to find their replacement, and therefore keep the decision of "who is in charge" in the overall community's hands. The AEiC only steps into the EiC role if the worst happens and the EiC disappears for long periods of time, becomes unruly and the staff needs to vote to remove them from power, etc.
It's what I call "worst-case scenario planning". I hope we never find ourselves in a situation where we need to enact something like this, but I prefer to have it and not need it.
I've seen wikis where all the 'crats disappeared, and been on wikis where the most of the staff disappeared and I was one of the few left to pick up the slack. So, while I wouldn't make it a requirement, I would highly encourage it.
Hope that helps. Tacopill (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I read it more closely, sorry for making confusion.
  • If the EiC is absent but plans to return, AEiC is there to assist EiC's job. In case Tacopill (or another party) needs an active individual to talk to for wiki purposes (or there are other EiC operations to be enforced), this would would be very handy and why someone in that acting role should exist - for several years up to 2019's first EiC election, WiKirby operated under an absentee head Bureaucrat - we don't want to fall into such a worst-case scenario again.
  • If the EiC is stepping down permanently, either EiC or wiki owner (if EiC did not) should host a new EiC election. In the second line it's implied that AEiC automatically takes over - line of succession? AEiC should assist but not automatically take over.
Viperision (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me :) feel free to rephrase it to better fit the understanding. Tacopill (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it[edit]

Yeah, truth be told I am not fond of the entire set-up here because it just seems wholly unnecessary. I think just because a system failed on a presumably (though I could be wrong) less popular wiki doesn't mean that a system needs to be imposed on every wiki there is. Wikirby is significantly active and there is an open flow of communication from both users and staff that if something were to happen that there would be ways around it. If things lessened, we could immediately look to new alternatives. I don't think I could say the same for something like Wikibound, which is lucky to see any more than ten edits a week, and without a significant head of the program active (current EIC hasn't made an edit since September of last year). I think the EIC yearly election or fill in standard really only needs to be done on wikis that don't have a terribly active base and/or with fewer than 2 crats active. Thats just my opinion, at the least, but I again just do not see the point in creating another whole system to learn, manage, and deal with probably maybe once in the next forseeable 3 years. Trig. - 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I also think that the EiC system is unnecessary too, but for a different reason. WiKirby is a pretty small community, and that having such bureaucracy on a small wiki is unnecessary, IMO. I think a more consensus-based, simpler system would work better here on WiKirby, as well as other small wikis. Such system would have patrollers as first line of defense against vandalism and mediators for disputes between non-staff, admins who mop up vandalism, enforce policy, and mediate disputes between patrollers, but don't have any editorial authority, and bureaucrats who head the admins and mediate disputes between admins, and also don't have editorial authority. Editorial authority rests on the community, which creates policy via consensus. The EiC system, meanwhile would work better on a large enough wiki (but not too large like Wikipedia, which needs a whole different set of bureaucracy, like the Arbitration Committee), like Bulbapedia. pandakekok9 (poyo) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. We, at the moment, don't have a public Requests for Permissions process (a month+ long venting process, where a person who is requesting power has to answer questions, provide evidence, to the general wiki editor base. SmashWiki has something like this). The recent additions to the staff, are all users who have reached out by members of the current staff, usually by YoshiFlutterJump or Samwell, with support of the staff at the time they are making the request. Which means you would need a person as the "center" or "start" of this process. (also, makes it semi-Oligarchical, in my opinion)
  2. In 2019, the site was in a similar position to what FEW just went through: Short staffed, no active crat's to promote users to patrollers or admins, etc. Vellidragon was considered the de facto lead editor, but was busy with her own stuff to know everything that was going on here, even though here was in need of attention. So, rather than decide exclusively on my own who gets to be staff, since I'm technically the owner, I ran an election to let the community decide who ran things here. They then could recruit others and build a team of reliable members. And then I would only have 1 point of contact should I be needed for anything, to check in on things, etc. rather than go into the wiki and get potentially thousands of voices.
  3. While the position might not be needed at the moment, I'd rather have it and not needed, then need it and not have it.
  4. As the the time of this writing, WiKirby has had ~25K visitors in the last 30 days. By comparison, over the same period, FEW has had ~243K. The wiki has a more active editor base, but FEW pulls in nearly 10x more traffic. So, it depends on how you mean on "popular"
Tacopill (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)