Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-30683785-20160814015027/@comment-30683785-20160815024922

Avalair wrote: HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Avalair wrote:

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Ked830 wrote: If the CMs can't handle a ban properly why have them? Though I do see how it may be nice for the community to have a say on some bans, the CMs are a decent amount of the 'community', and should be able, together, to come to a relatively unbiased agreement.

So B. The issue here is when the CMs do come to a "relatively unbiased agreement," and then the administrators appear to do something comepletely different from what the CMs did. In most cases it's perfectly fine, but in others it's taken way out of proportion. And then the CMs can't do anything because the admins already came to a decision. Wow that is very pompous. The CMs aren't supposed to do anything after the situation is handed to the admins because the admins know better, that is literally what we are here for. Excuse me if this comes across as rude, but this sounds like you're implying administrators never make mistakes or are better than the CMs or the rest of the community. You should be accepting of criticisms, not deny them by saying you know better I know we make mistakes, no one is perfect. All I'm saying is that the Admins are Admins for a reason, we were chosen by the community to be leaders in a sense. It is our responsibility to handle situations that affect the wiki, and if we all agree as an admin team that maybe a situation handled by mods was not for the best of the wiki, we are to, as a team, intervene as that is what we were promoted, by the community, to do. Chat would be nothing without the CMs but the Admins are here to be a sort of safety net. So are we not allowed to disagree with the admin team's decisions, just because we did (or didn't, in some cases) support them when they put up their RfR?