Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-25995065-20150317063943/@comment-4257955-20150319190710

Goggles99 wrote: Riolu777 wrote: Eagleeyedan 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. This wiki is not a normal wiki you must realize. We are based on the principles of the LEGO Message Boards, and this was created as a resource for LMB users to learn about the Message Boards, the users of the Message Boards, and the content of the Message Boards as being edited by users of the Message Boards, and since the users of the LMB's are children, we, being the admins, take on the role of the Moderators of the LMBs and it is our duty to keep this site safe for children. We were succesful for some time at this, but recently, the moderators have become angry with this site as aggravated by the Nashtron incident among other things and have begun blocking any mention of this site. That means that something went wrong. Something changed that went wrong. We need to change it back in order to keep our good standing with the community with which this wiki is meant to attract. Changing things to remove power from the admins is  NOT  a move in the right direction.

▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ EED, the mods didn't want people to mention the wiki on the MBs way before Nashtron. That's why it became known as "you-know-what". Pinning Nashtron on the whole wiki and saying that because of it, everything here went wrong, is a big generalization. A few select users participating in something this wiki never endorsed is not at all the admins' fault nor is it a barometer for the community's capacity to handle things. Way to miss the crux of what he is saying by drawing the focus onto something that fails to even pass off as a discrepancy. He said "as aggravated by the Nashtron incident among other things"......notice the "other things", specifically. That's not a generalization, neither is it blaming one particular thing. I'm pretty sure his actual points in that sentence were "the moderators have become angry with this site" and that they "have begun blocking any mention of this site". If you wish to dispute, dispute the points, try not to use misdirection. That does not win you any kudos. I'm dissapointed with some of the levels of debating on this thread. I'm surprised this community vote is allowed to continue with such desperate bludgeoning promoting it.... Alright, then what other things are there? What has the wiki done as a whole that would negatively alter the MB moderators' opinion of this place? I would think any negative instances would still be the result of a few users, not the whole wiki. It's like calling the whole MBs stupid when only some users there behave immaturely, or saying all the MB mods are horrible at their jobs when only a few commit blunders (which everyone does, including the community and the admins here).

Why even are the MB moderators an authority, or someone to refer to, if this wiki is still a separate state of affairs from them? This place doesn't operate like the MBs or their moderation system.