Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25995065-20150317063943/@comment-4845243-20150319170611

Eagleeyedan wrote: Madkatmaximus wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Eagleeyedan wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote:

Legoanimals750 wrote: I support. But only if the community agrees over 66% on that topic. Never mind i change my vote Disagree. What made you change your mind? Well i didn't really care either way. But i thought about it and it makes more sense that the people in charge should get more power. .......admins aren't in charge and their rights aren't power. Your just trying to make me agree again aren't you? :P No, I'm pointing out a huge flaw in your reasoning. That'd be like saying "I don't want to vote for because I don't think they can run this restaurant very well", as if you thought the United States was a restaurant and not a country. User rights are not power, and administrators are not in charge of the community. You say we are not in charge, yet we are elected (I use we loosely, having not been elected myself), and even you make the analogy to us and the president? Do you claim the president is not in charge? And if user rights are not power, than what are they? Power is the ability to do something, users have the power to edit among other things, admins just have more because we are qualified to run the community as indicated by the community through voting. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ First of all don't misread my analogy. The analogy doesn't involve administrators. The analogy compares this vote in this forum to a presidential vote. Both are votes. It's not comparing administrators to the president.

User rights are sets of tools trusted to certain members of the community to help them further contribute to the purpose of the wiki. They do not entitle power, authority, or diplomatic immunity. And administrators are not in charge of the community. For example, if the community votes for something like a policy change, what are the administrators going to do? They can't just say "no" to the entire community consensus, or the community will either suggest them for demotion for abuse of rights, or you'll see your community just leave. You have a very confused idea of how wikis work. You haven't been exposed to very many, are not open-minded, and have been absent from this wiki for several years. You forget who supported people for adminship, who the admins are using their rights to benefit, and who can choose to have the admin's rights removed. The answer to all three is the community. Administrators are nothing special compared to anyone else, they're simply users with some extra tools to help build the wiki, and to quote Jimmy Wales, adminship is no big deal. Evwn though you may know much about wikis in general, it woild be "common sense" that this wikis founder would know more about this wiki in general The founder has been inactive for several years, so it would generally be assumed that he knows absolutely nothing about the wiki as of now... The founder, Legoguy1866, may be inactive, but I am one of the founders after he retired a few months after creating this. Drew and LBK took it over from him, and then I joined them about 2 weeks after. It was just us and a few others at the time and I do consider myself a founder of this wiki. I've been with it nearly as long as it's been around and I've been an admin pretty much since I joined it. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ True, but in the last three years, in which I've been active, you've been mostly inactive. And for the last two years in which I have been an admin, you have done barely anything as an admin. I am very doubtful of your ability to fully understand the complexities of this community and how it has evolved and changed over the years, and thus I don't think you have enough up to date knowledge to have a fully educated opinion about how this wiki should be run. I think that's the point others are making as well.