Forum:CT Archive/Administrator Voting

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

This was the topic of some discussion on the Senate Hall, so here's the consensus track for it. I'm sure it will be full of discussion. Feel free to set up a new proposal or idea, that's what it's here for.

A new plan for nominating admins was proposed:

The New Order
To be confirmed as an admin, a user must:


 * 1) Meet all the criteria of an administrator
 * 2) Have a majority of user votes.
 * 3) Have a 2/3rds supermajority of all administrators that vote on the nomination.
 * 4) Have a unanimous vote by all bureaucrats.

Support
 * 1) Atarumaster88 14:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Roron Corobb 15:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Jabbathehuttgartogg [[Image:Desilijic Clan (Jabba’s Tattoo) .jpg|20px]] [[Image:Desilijic Clan (Jabba’s Tattoo) .jpg|20px]] 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Adamwankenobi 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 7)  Jaina Solo  Goddess Stuff [[Image:Jbig3.JPG|20px]] 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * But you know, as soon as I vote a "no", any adminship vote would still fail to succeed. I am listening to the other admins' concerns, and SparqMan does have a point about making more admins but not structuring things to make them more efficient to begin with. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As you are one of the co-founders of Wookieepedia and a bureaucrat, we of course undestand that you would have veto power- that's the fourth part of this policy. However, I wasn't aware of a way for other users to see the admin-only discussions, so I created this page as a way to let users express their preferences to the higher-ups. I really don't know what point Sparqman has as I have not seen it. Thanks. Atarumaster88 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Requests for adminship/Adamwankenobi August 2006 Requests for adminship/Rmfitzgerald50 -- Riffsyphon1024 16:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just want something clarified before I vote. Not all admins vote on RFAs, so when you say "all admins", does that mean all admins who have voted, or all 16 admins?  StarNeptune Talk to me! 16:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * He probably feels that 2/3rds of all admins that participate must agree. Getting Imp and Aidje to come back for this is impossible. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Better? See also Forum: Why do admin votes have to be unanimous for a guy to be an administrator? Atarumaster88 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this. I think that the last two people should've gotten through, but I feel that the opposing concerns are certainly valid. -- Ozzel 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me an egalitarian, but I honestly don't see the need to elevate admin/bureaucrat votes over those of registered users, especially considering this is only done on RfAs. For better or for worse, most of our decision-making on the CT (and elsewhere) is based on simple majorities; a sort of democracy. Elevating sysops to a higher status (as has been done a bit around here) is essentially a type of oligarchy, which has some benefits but also a number of drawbacks. My personal opinion is that a democratic model is more fitting to a community-driven site such as this one. Sysops are (or at least should be, IMHO) regular users with some extra maintenance/security tools, not site decision-makers or arbiters. I hope this doesn't sound like I'm bitter because of my RfA... I'm truly not (in fact, it was probably fortuitous that it failed, a number of RL things have come up that have cut back on my time here drastically; the last thing we need is another MIA admin :-) This has just been something I've noticed that has bothered me a bit. RMF 22:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be best to allow some sort of restraint, as well as the fact that it would be good for them be on the same page, since both of them are the only ones who can grant admin powers on this site. -- SFH 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry RMF, but I disagree. Many of the users who vote on such pages are fairly new and may not know a nominee's past history. The admins have usually been around for a while and have worked with those who are nominated. Since we voted to make them admins, we might as well trust their good judgement and allow them more say in the matter; especially since it is they who must work closely with the new admin. I am reluctant to vote to loosen the rules because I fear the wiki might be overrun with admins who are popular, but lack the maturity required to make a good sysop.– 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a point, but I would argue that the community on the whole is experienced enough to make the right decision – if a user has some sort of past history that would cast doubt on their RfA, all it takes is for someone to bring it up in their objection and other users previously unfamiliar with the situation could look into it (via checking edits/actions). Don't get me wrong, I think the policy above is an improvement over our current one, I'm just not convinced we need both a 'admin supermajority' rule as well as a bureaucratic veto ability. If some level of restriction is necessary, surely one or other is sufficient? RMF 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you guys have good points. Perhaps the best solution then is to require a 2/3 supermajority of admins AND regular users.  That would make admin votes comparable to regular user votes, but would keep the bar high (raising it, in fact). jSarek 23:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Roron Corobb 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Old Republic
Currently, to be confirmed as an admin, a user must:


 * 1) Meet all the criteria to be an administrator
 * 2) Have a majority of user votes
 * 3) Have unanimous administrator votes.

Support

Comments