Required Admin Participation on RfR's | Fandom

This post is locked.

Luke McSwagger99·7/23/2015 in Community Voting

Required Admin Participation on RfR's

The administrators are the leaders of our wiki. They oversee what goes on in our community, and are the most powerful users with rights. Ultimately, the admins analyze and dictate what is best for our community, as they are expected to actively do so.

As the leaders of our wiki, the admins should /especially/ have their good say in RfR's electing users to the positions of Chat Moderator, Forum Moderator, and Admin as well. Take note of our last RfR, in which not one admin had the opportunity to vote. This was due to the unreasonably short length of time the RfR existed, an issue that will hopefully be partially solved through this vote.

I not only want to see sufficient admin participation in every RfR, but also want to ensure that the leaders of our wiki as a whole express their approval or disproval in each and every request. So in addition to the Minimum Time Requirement Vote for RfR's, I propose that we establish an additional requirement for RfR's to close: A required minimum of votes from admins for the RfR to close. I find it highly important that the leaders of our wiki have their say in users' requests for rights, particularly CM. It's also important to see whether the majority of the admin team approves or disapproves of a user having the rights they request. For this reason, I propose a vote including several options:

A) Two or more votes (each can be support or oppose) from administrators on a RfR are required before that request can close. (Simply for participation purposes)

B) Two supporting votes (or two opposing votes) from administrators on a RfR are required before that request can close with the majority of supports (or opposes) closing the request. (This is to ensure admin approval/disapproval of the user possessing said rights)

C) Oppose, administrator votes should in no way be a requirement linked to RfR's.

D) Neutral/Other idea (please specify)

Current Votes

A: 16 votes.

B: 3 votes.

C: 16 votes.

D: 3 votes. (1 vote for suggestion by Jdude: same as A, but for three admins/buros)

Consensus

Two or more votes (each can be support or oppose).

(Edited by administrators)

0

Harold89·7/25/2015

Changing vote from B to A.

(Edited by Harold89)

0

EvilMidnightNG·7/25/2015

C

(Edited by EvilMidnightNG)

2

Goggles99·7/26/2015

A. Since an admin is the one who actually needs to make the promotion, it is not good that they would just make the promotion without even voting on the candidate. This system would encourage admin participation.

And maybe most importantly, there are many times where a candidate has come up for RFR, where I know things about the candidate that would definitely change most people's votes, but I am unable to say, because it would be too inappropriate for public LMBW, and labeled as slander. I can, however, tell other admins in private, and they can take it into account it their votes. And the same is true for all other admins. In this job we see things about users that most others don't (as creepy as that sounds...)..

(Edited by Goggles99)

0

Dr. Shady·7/26/2015

FortressOfNight wrote: C. Admins aren't leaders.

The policy says otherwise.

(Edited by Dr. Shady)

1

Obi the LEGO Fan·7/27/2015

LilCaSh15 wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote: C. Admins aren't leaders.

The policy says otherwise.

That statement is the opinion of the admin who wrote it (and a few others), and not a binding rule that dictates how people view admins.

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)

0

Luke McSwagger99·7/27/2015

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote: C. Admins aren't leaders.

The policy says otherwise.

That statement is the opinion of the admin who wrote it (and a few others), and not a binding rule that dictates how people view admins.

Why would we have opinions in our policies

(Edited by Luke McSwagger99)

0

Dr. Shady·7/27/2015

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote: C. Admins aren't leaders.

The policy says otherwise.

That statement is the opinion of the admin who wrote it (and a few others), and not a binding rule that dictates how people view admins.

I understand that now, but it should be edited as it can cause confusion. :P

(Edited by Dr. Shady)

1

Jdude420·7/27/2015

It's more of an idea that Admins are leaders as well as tool-holders. Its not some binding idea, you can think whatever you want, and "Admins are leaders" can be interpreted a couple different ways depending on your view point.

(Edited by Jdude420)

0

Obi the LEGO Fan·7/27/2015

Luke McSwagger99 wrote:

Obi the LEGO Fan wrote:

LilCaSh15 wrote:

FortressOfNight wrote: C. Admins aren't leaders.

The policy says otherwise.

That statement is the opinion of the admin who wrote it (and a few others), and not a binding rule that dictates how people view admins.

Why would we have opinions in our policies

We shouldn't.

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)

1

Obi the LEGO Fan·7/27/2015

Jdude420 wrote: It's more of an idea that Admins are leaders as well as tool-holders. Its not some binding idea, you can think whatever you want, and "Admins are leaders" can be interpreted a couple different ways depending on your view point.

Yeah, the term "leader" is quite open to interpretation. Admins tend to be leaders by example, leaders by influence, etc., regardless of what actual control they wield over the community. Leader =/= control.

(Edited by Obi the LEGO Fan)