Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-477304-20160930135859/@comment-25622445-20161001154914

Luma.dash wrote: Myself 123 wrote:

DeCool99 wrote: Pretty solid idea. I would particularly like to see all the active users vote as it just makes things so much easier. So to say if there is an average of 6-7 of us actively editing, it should take all of us to support a nomination. It seems a lot easier to depend on those you can actually depend on. I think it would be asking too much if a nomination needed unanimous support from all members.

And is there any better option? Actually, we must'nt depend on begging users from discord or any other place to help us on voting. It is like you're asking someone outside of the wiki for making a decision.

Practically, I see every editor's approval for that user to gain the right better than giving a right a specified number to success, because how can you tell the exact number of users. It is better to ask working users than counting on a non-existent users number.

Besides, for our current state, there is not an excess of users, so you should not count on users that rarely involve in the wiki to vote.

I believe that there should be some merit involved as well for a user to gain rights, such as the amount of (constructive) edits he or she has made, the more credibility as an editor the user has, I believe the better he or she deserves those added rights. Is there some sort of override against users who abuse their newfound power, and I`m not just relying on sysops and 'crats to override the user, but like if a consensus is reached on if the accused user shall be punished or not, then if (s)he is found guilty there could be some sort of option for the community to deliver the punishment, like suspension of rights for a limited amount of time.