Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-5143323-20180113035227/@comment-24508466-20180113160027

Teacup Terry wrote: Although this change favours me, there's something about it that just repels me. The problem with this is that it assumes staff always make decisions for the best. But that's far from the case. Take Camwood777, a former ADMINISTRATOR, who told me to shove a cheese grater up somewhere I won't even mention. Zambiealex, a former CONTENT MODERATOR, who threatened to make my girlfriend hate me just so he could date me after seeing my face reveal. And that's just what's happened to me. Sure, these are sparse cases, but the thought of these people getting more of their voice heard than some amazing regular users like AWB and Whatevz is kind of sad. We worked fine for a long time as a democracy. The vote threads about one single apostrophe were only caused by a few users. This is not to say that the whole idea is flawed. I have two suggestions:
 * Let staff decide everything but promotion threads. (This would make users not spam inane voting threads but still not let staff gain absolute power.)

OR These are just a few suggestions. Let me know if they need tweaking. Hopefully we'll all come to a reasonable understanding. I think we should let the ablity to vote for so-called verified users (this should become a role or something). They aren't staff, but they are veterans of the wiki that have been there long enough to understand what this wiki really needs. It doesn't mean that the vote will matter the most either, but it will be taken into consideration as a collection of verified points of view.
 * Let staff instantly decide promotions and only let staff create voting threads but let everyone vote on them. (This would make users not spam voting threads and allow staff to choose good candidates but not let staff unanimously make bad decisions.)