Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25995065-20150317063943/@comment-25995065-20150319192518

Eagleeyedan wrote: Bourgeoisie wrote:

Eagleeyedan wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Starrocks923 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Starrocks923 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote: If there's any misconception about this, this doesn't take away administrators' ability to oppose community votes. If something is truly so bad for the community and all the administrators agree, that's a bunch of opposing votes. Then you'll have the people who read the admins' reasoning and agree with it. There's really no chance for something as negative as some people fear to happen. And again, Wikia Terms of Use will prevent anything negative happening to the wiki or the community itself. If anything leads to something negative happening within the community, Wikia Terms of Use can also protect that. I don't see why everyone is in fear that this would have negative impacts, seeing as the policy has never been put into use, and more or less never will need to be. What DOES it take away though? A tool that can only be used when 12 specific users who can never agree on anything are in full agreement? Removing such a tool is virtually useless. Why would you want it out of the way? Because having it is just as useless. All it does is continues to assert the misconception that administrators have authority over the average user and that their user rights are "powers". Without this policy, they'd still have all the rights to oppose things as they do currently, just without the unnecessary "we can have the final say if we want to" thing. So, in other words, it becomes a problem when one of the Admins decides to act like a 5-year old who wants something, and therefore we need to waste time dealing with it? It becomes a problem when one of the admins asserts their opinion over what the rest of the community agrees on. You are probably too young to remember this, but the U.S.A. once had a president who lost the popular vote but still got the position. I'm not saying the US system is even close to perfect, but there are times when the population/community needs to be kept in check, hence there are checks and balances at all levels, including the admins. We have continually allowed for more and more community involvement, but there is a limit.

Also, this is not a "one admin asserts their opinion" deal, this is a unanimous opinion of ALL the admins asserting their opinion. I don't want to open this can of worms right now, I have pressing assignments, so that is all I will say on this topic/thread for now. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ There can be better checks and balances. One better idea I can think of is a revote. If enough users, such as all the admins (which is like a good 10+ I think), want the community vote to be re-conducted, that seems more fair than the admins making a decision contrary to what the community voted for. If there are issues or risks associated with the original community vote, those should be addressed in the re-vote. Maybe even have a community discussion to improve the original vote to make it more secure or risk-free? There are safe checks and balances that can be used/implemented that don't require administrators to assert themselves above the rest of the community and make a decision themselves. Now that is actually something I can get behind. I still stand that if it is unanimous, we should have the ability to veto, but a revote could be the first step before an outright veto, with the proper presentation for the reasoning behind a revote being publicly discussed. Then, if any of the admins change their minds due to the disucssion, the veto would not go through. That, I would support. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ I still don't think the veto should be allowed especially after a revote though. If the community votes for something twice and then the administrators still ignore that, all I can see coming from that is conflict. After being voted for twice and the vetoing it, what are you protecting? Clearly, even after the possible issues were addressed twice and the community still voted for it, the community wants that change, correct? I don't see what gives the administrators the right to ignore what the community votes for just because the administrators decide against it.

If revoted do turn out to be the way to go, it needs to be clear that revotes are to be used in good faith and that a decent portion of users in good standing approve of a revote. Revotes shouldn't be used to game the system by filibustering or stonewalling the consensus-building process.