Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-30683785-20160814015027/@comment-1984487-20160817125010

HyperFlash Studios wrote:

Roddy15 wrote:

Brick425 wrote:

Roddy15 wrote: Brick425 wrote: I think we should. Admins should listen to the community more, so I feel we should submit the idea for a user to be banned if there's good support and see what happens. If it gets passed, the admins ban that user. If not, they don't. This is just a bad idea. Doing this basically make admins pointless and the way this could be abused is just ridiculous. The community should not be the ones deciding who is banned and who isn't since that just opens it up to witch hunting. It's already been pointed out a million times that petitions aren't binding contracts for admins. They don't have to listen. The reason I'm supporting is so we can have our voices heard by them, and at least have them consider something. I agree that if this did let the community decide, it might lead to witch hunting. But the community isn't deciding anything. I know what a petition is...

My response is to your post in particular which is not what this vote is on but it seems to be something people agree with.

Your post suggests admins should ban a user if the community show a level of support for it. That idea completely undermines authority.

As for the petitions and this vote, I am against any move that lets the community have any say even on advisory level when it comes to problem users. So the admins souldn't take into consideration what the community wants at all? They should just ignore the people who voted them in to their position and make any and all decisions without any external input? It just seems like you don't want anything to do with democracy or bureaucracy for the wiki. If that's the case, you have your opinions and we have ours. Clearly, people have similar opinions though otherwise, the yes vote would be winning. Let users "vote" on banning is just a completely pointless affair that as we saw with the nya carry on, only leads to smearing and arguments. If a user wants to complain about a user they can do so privately, a website doesn't need public court cases and prosecutions to ban people.

The point of an admin is they are the ultimate decision makers, brick's suggestion completely ignores that fact and this vote also moves toward that.

I don't like democracy and bureaucracy on a wiki because ultimately I feel the staff shouldn't need to be consulting and asking users to vote and petition over every single decision. Sure get feedback but we shouldn't have to be voting on things like demoting inactive CMs, that should happen already without anyone having to bring it up.