<div class="quote"> <p>Legofrodo12 wrote: Well shoot, I've been following this thing so dang long, I'd forgotten I hadn't voted...   I am soundly opposed to moving the admin discussions here, for reasons already stated by others. </p> </div> <p>That's not what this vote is about. :P </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Legofrodo12 wrote: Well shoot, I've been following this thing so dang long, I'd forgotten I hadn't voted...   I am soundly opposed to moving the admin discussions here, for reasons already stated by others. </p> </div> <p>That's not what this vote is about. :P </p> </div> <p>Per Obi lol. You've got the wrong vote. :P </p>

<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Legofrodo12 wrote: Well shoot, I've been following this thing so dang long, I'd forgotten I hadn't voted...   I am soundly opposed to moving the admin discussions here, for reasons already stated by others. </p> </div>That's not what this vote is about. :P </div>Per Obi lol. You've got the wrong vote. :P </div> <p>Gahh, sorry, got my names mixed up. </p><noscript></noscript> I didn't mean to type the "Moving to the wiki" part. xD  So yeah, still meant to be an oppose.

Oppose. I am absolutely fine with admins having this power.

<div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Goggles99 wrote: Hey cmon Mikey, easy there. Calling EED "lazy" and community members "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. EED isn't saying LMBW is weird or that it needs to be bubble wrapped. He's saying every Wiki is unique and different, with different needs, and should be allowed to run their own way. They shouldn't have to completely conform to some exact standard, there should always be room for freedom and customization, like with a good business franchise. If you really wanted to help out around here, you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki, not trying to change this wiki to fit the mould of a generic wikia, or you would at least try to be impleminting your ideas peacefully and slowly and caringly, not this forceful tone you have been taking. I really do not appreciate this at all. I was totally willing to believe you had changed from your old ways, but I'm not seeing a lot of that right now. No offense.
</p> </div>

• Why I used "laziness" to describe it: If EED, an administrator, noticed abuse or disruption taking place in a situation such as Nashtron, it's his responsibility to take action on that. I didn't say he's lazy in general, but if he noticed something he as an administrator would be responsible for resolving and didn't that's a situation of laziness.
• Why I used "stupid" to describe certain community members: Their actions are blatantly stupid. I didn't generalize the entire community as stupid, nor am I attacking them. I'm stating their actions as what they were: stupid.
• I'm not saying this wiki can't be unique or be run its own way. But there are some standards that apply to <i>any</i> wiki or <i>any</i> community that this wiki ignores. Most of them are already in act. Such as what this forum. Right now, the unanimous administrator repeal ability <i>will never happen</i> because some administrators won't <i>let</i> it happen. All this forum proposes is to remove the line regarding it from the policy, because as it stands right now it will never be used and should never be used.
• "If you really wanted to help out around here, you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki" - This is rude. No changes I've proposed have had negative intentions. If any changes I propose don't pass, I honestly don't mind. I want what this community sees as best, and I'm merely offering improvements through these forums. I'm not saying "this is how it needs to be done". There are things I'll argue—things I know are true—such as the underlying principle that things in general such as policies and processes do need to be changed or considered for change as a community itself changes. This is a fact for a successful community, which is why I argue it when someone says otherwise.
• "not trying to change this wiki to fit the mould of a generic wikia" - This isn't about being a generic wiki. The things I've been saying are general facts about any community in general.
• "or you would at least try to be impleminting your ideas peacefully and slowly and caringly, not this forceful tone you have been taking" - I'm not using a forceful tone. I'm arguing my side while others argue theirs. That's <i>completely normal</i> when building consensus in a wiki. I'm not forcing anything. I've suggested a change, and I've supplied an argument to anything I've found incorrect or invalid. You'll notice there are some oppositions I haven't argued as they're completely honest and reasonable.
• "I was totally willing to believe you had changed from your old ways" - What old ways? This statement of yours is not related to this at all. And to be honest, I haven't changed from my "old ways". I was always willing to suggest improvements to this wiki or ideas that could make it a better community. Suggestions like implementing RFRs, ArbCom, etc. Assume good faith instead of assuming I'm trying to harm the community with these proposals. They're forums for gosh sake. If they pass, they pass. If not, they don't. I'll continue to find ways I feel the community can be approved and offer them to the community. In the end it's all up to the community, which is why I'm starting community votes for them....

</div> <p>Weew that's a long reply there! Okie dokie, let's do this.
</p>

• He is both taking responsibility for it, and doing his part to resolve it here. You still called him "lazy" and that's not cool.

• Yes I know, and I'm saying calling them stupid is not okay, let alone the right kind of tone to be taking while trying to promote your viewpoint.

• We don't have to follow every "standard", and just because other Wikis do it does not make it right or necessary for us to. Sure, it's a good reason to look into it, but as an actual definitive reason to support implementing it, it's very weak.

• It's actually not rude at all. No one's calling you a negative, please calm down :P All I said is <i>"you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki"</i>.......accent on the word "specifically".

• So it's not talking about a <i>"generic wiki"</i>, it's talking about <i>"general facts about any community"</i>?........failing to see any noteworthy difference there.......isn't that technically an oxymoron?

• Your reply there proves my point. I rest my case.

• (Don't want to say much here because putting your character under question is not my intention and I don't want to embarrass you. Only replying cos you asked) It's pretty relevant actually. I was referring to when you came here with your friends to cause disruption, how you would always say how badly this wikia was run, how you detested it and had no respect for anyone on it. The only point I'm trying to make with all that is that you still don't really appear to care very much about all of us and our little Wiki here. Your propositions seem to be very indifferent and coldly put forward, as if it were a sort of hobbie or school project. Even at times with a dash of superiority and contempt. Forgive me but I'm not ashamed to say I care a lot about this place, and I have high respect for every single member of it, and I believe anything that is done should be done out of love for every fellow LMBWian, not just because it's "by the book" or the norm. Of course, whether what you say is right or wrong, that's up for everyone voting here to decide.....all I'm pointing out is that in the way promote it, you don't appear to even care about the people who are affected by it.

<p>I completely support this, it should have been included in one of the several recent votes about similar subjects. There's no reason the admins' votes should count more than the community's. </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Goggles99 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Bourgeoisie wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Goggles99 wrote: Hey cmon Mikey, easy there. Calling EED "lazy" and community members "stupid" isn't going to get you anywhere. EED isn't saying LMBW is weird or that it needs to be bubble wrapped. He's saying every Wiki is unique and different, with different needs, and should be allowed to run their own way. They shouldn't have to completely conform to some exact standard, there should always be room for freedom and customization, like with a good business franchise. If you really wanted to help out around here, you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki, not trying to change this wiki to fit the mould of a generic wikia, or you would at least try to be impleminting your ideas peacefully and slowly and caringly, not this forceful tone you have been taking. I really do not appreciate this at all. I was totally willing to believe you had changed from your old ways, but I'm not seeing a lot of that right now. No offense.
</p> </div>

• Why I used "laziness" to describe it: If EED, an administrator, noticed abuse or disruption taking place in a situation such as Nashtron, it's his responsibility to take action on that. I didn't say he's lazy in general, but if he noticed something he as an administrator would be responsible for resolving and didn't that's a situation of laziness.
• Why I used "stupid" to describe certain community members: Their actions are blatantly stupid. I didn't generalize the entire community as stupid, nor am I attacking them. I'm stating their actions as what they were: stupid.
• I'm not saying this wiki can't be unique or be run its own way. But there are some standards that apply to <i>any</i> wiki or <i>any</i> community that this wiki ignores. Most of them are already in act. Such as what this forum. Right now, the unanimous administrator repeal ability <i>will never happen</i> because some administrators won't <i>let</i> it happen. All this forum proposes is to remove the line regarding it from the policy, because as it stands right now it will never be used and should never be used.
• "If you really wanted to help out around here, you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki" - This is rude. No changes I've proposed have had negative intentions. If any changes I propose don't pass, I honestly don't mind. I want what this community sees as best, and I'm merely offering improvements through these forums. I'm not saying "this is how it needs to be done". There are things I'll argue—things I know are true—such as the underlying principle that things in general such as policies and processes do need to be changed or considered for change as a community itself changes. This is a fact for a successful community, which is why I argue it when someone says otherwise.
• "not trying to change this wiki to fit the mould of a generic wikia" - This isn't about being a generic wiki. The things I've been saying are general facts about any community in general.
• "or you would at least try to be impleminting your ideas peacefully and slowly and caringly, not this forceful tone you have been taking" - I'm not using a forceful tone. I'm arguing my side while others argue theirs. That's <i>completely normal</i> when building consensus in a wiki. I'm not forcing anything. I've suggested a change, and I've supplied an argument to anything I've found incorrect or invalid. You'll notice there are some oppositions I haven't argued as they're completely honest and reasonable.
• "I was totally willing to believe you had changed from your old ways" - What old ways? This statement of yours is not related to this at all. And to be honest, I haven't changed from my "old ways". I was always willing to suggest improvements to this wiki or ideas that could make it a better community. Suggestions like implementing RFRs, ArbCom, etc. Assume good faith instead of assuming I'm trying to harm the community with these proposals. They're forums for gosh sake. If they pass, they pass. If not, they don't. I'll continue to find ways I feel the community can be approved and offer them to the community. In the end it's all up to the community, which is why I'm starting community votes for them....

</div> <p>Weew that's a long reply there! Okie dokie, let's do this.
</p>

• He is both taking responsibility for it, and doing his part to resolve it here. You still called him "lazy" and that's not cool.

• Yes I know, and I'm saying calling them stupid is not okay, let alone the right kind of tone to be taking while trying to promote your viewpoint.

• We don't have to follow every "standard", and just because other Wikis do it does not make it right or necessary for us to. Sure, it's a good reason to look into it, but as an actual definitive reason to support implementing it, it's very weak.

• It's actually not rude at all. No one's calling you a negative, please calm down :P All I said is <i>"you should be trying to bring about good changes that specifically benefit this wiki"</i>.......accent on the word "specifically".

• So it's not talking about a <i>"generic wiki"</i>, it's talking about <i>"general facts about any community"</i>?........failing to see any noteworthy difference there.......isn't that technically an oxymoron?

• Your reply there proves my point. I rest my case.

• (Don't want to say much here because putting your character under question is not my intention and I don't want to embarrass you. Only replying cos you asked) It's pretty relevant actually. I was referring to when you came here with your friends to cause disruption, how you would always say how badly this wikia was run, how you detested it and had no respect for anyone on it. The only point I'm trying to make with all that is that you still don't really appear to care very much about all of us and our little Wiki here. Your propositions seem to be very indifferent and coldly put forward, as if it were a sort of hobbie or school project. Even at times with a dash of superiority and contempt. Forgive me but I'm not ashamed to say I care a lot about this place, and I have high respect for every single member of it, and I believe anything that is done should be done out of love for every fellow LMBWian, not just because it's "by the book" or the norm. Of course, whether what you say is right or wrong, that's up for everyone voting here to decide.....all I'm pointing out is that in the way promote it, you don't appear to even care about the people who are affected by it.

</div> <p>If he didn't care then why on earth would he even bother to put them forward in the first place? </p>

<p>*yawn* Well, this thread is interesting, but since it's obvious that this argument will never truly cease, then why not just agree that the admins have the power and be done with it? I mean, come on, it's not an entire freakin country you guys are trying to do stuff with. </p><noscript></noscript> It's a wiki, for lego's sake. It seems like you guys are making things a lot more complicated than they should be. The admins should have power, they're the ones that keep the wiki running, plus more reasons blablabla that I won't go into. <p>=l </p>

<div class="quote"> <p>Mishkaiel wrote: *yawn* Well, this thread is interesting, but since it's obvious that this argument will never truly cease, then why not just agree that the admins have the power and be done with it? I mean, come on, it's not an entire freakin country you guys are trying to do stuff with. </p><noscript></noscript> It's a wiki, for lego's sake. It seems like you guys are making things a lot more complicated than they should be. The admins should have power, they're the ones that keep the wiki running, plus more reasons blablabla that I won't go into. <p>=l </p> </div> <p>This isn't true— whether or not you want to consider user rights as power (which they hardly are), admins <i>aren't the ones who keep the wiki running</i>. Why? If everyone else left, got blocked, or something else, what are the admins going to be doing? They won't be keeping anything running any more so than every other member had been doing previously. The community is what keeps this place running. The admins are only a part of that. </p><p>Anyways, while there is a split between consensus, there is a decent majority in favor of this change. Since not many more votes will be coming in, I figure this will be able to be closed rather soon such as in the next day or so. </p><p>The outcome as it appears right now will to disallow admins from vetoing the community, however there will likely be discussions following as to how to ensure the "security" that some users want. As discussed between Eagleeyedan and I earlier in this thread, a potential revote process could be allowed for if a certain number of community members ask for it. Following the closure of this thread vote, any follow-up decision making and ideas will be able to be discussed in a new thread. </p>

<p>I completely support this. The admins being able to veto a community vote would be pointless. The vote was supported by the community, at least 75% (from what I've heard) of it. If the community believes that it will help them, then why should the administrators be able to counter that? </p>