Forum:Admin elections: Difference between revisions
imported>K6ka No edit summary |
imported>K6ka (edit) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
i think we should have admin elections where people vote for people to be admins. it should work like the president so if the person doesnt get enough votes then they are not admin anymore. i think we should do this with an admin every 2 months like a performance review so we can see if the wiki comunity wants them as an admin anymore. <small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:LaVemNana|LaVemNana]] ([[User talk:LaVemNana|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LaVemNana|contribs]]) 15:22, April 7, 2018 (UTC) - [[Help:Signatures|Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]]</small> |
i think we should have admin elections where people vote for people to be admins. it should work like the president so if the person doesnt get enough votes then they are not admin anymore. i think we should do this with an admin every 2 months like a performance review so we can see if the wiki comunity wants them as an admin anymore. <small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:LaVemNana|LaVemNana]] ([[User talk:LaVemNana|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LaVemNana|contribs]]) 15:22, April 7, 2018 (UTC) - [[Help:Signatures|Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>]]</small> |
||
==Discussion== |
==Discussion== |
||
'''Oppose''' Administrators are not selected through votes; they are selected by discussion at [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship]]. Discussion and community consensus determines whether or not users become administrators, not through votes alone. |
'''Oppose''' [[Project:Administrators|Administrators]] are not selected through votes; they are selected by discussion at [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship]]. Discussion and community consensus determines whether or not users become administrators, not through votes alone. |
||
Voting is a ''huge'' problem because voting does not give room for proper discussions and arguments on the table and oversimplifies the process to a bunch of numbers. Votes can also easily be manipulated, allowing trolls to exploit the system to get clearly unfit users to become administrators. It is possible for users to create dozens and dozens of sockpuppet accounts to manipulate an election by flooding votes in favor of or against a candidate unfairly. Lastly, since adminship is not a position to be taken lightly (and since it is ''not'' a position of power), discussion and proper reasons as to why users should become admins should take prevalence; turning it into a vote downgrades this to a mere popularity poll. |
Voting is a ''huge'' problem because voting does not give room for proper discussions and arguments on the table and oversimplifies the process to a bunch of numbers. Votes can also easily be manipulated, allowing trolls to exploit the system to get clearly unfit users to become administrators. It is possible for users to create dozens and dozens of sockpuppet accounts to manipulate an election by flooding votes in favor of or against a candidate unfairly. Lastly, since adminship is not a position to be taken lightly (and since it is ''not'' a position of power; administrators are equal to all other users and are still expected to follow wiki policies, and so the processes used for selecting them is not and should not be like selecting a president), discussion and proper reasons as to why users should become admins should take prevalence; turning it into a vote downgrades this to a mere popularity poll. Administrators are not selected through popularity; they should be selected through whether or not they are mature and level-headed enough for the position. |
||
As for "performance reviews", this is unnecessary; administrators are volunteer users and should not be obliged to have to meet quotas or performance standards in order to keep their tools. Two months is also far too excessive and will simply drain the community's patience and resources constantly reevaluating admin candidates. Administrators that abuse their tools can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 15:35, April 7, 2018 (UTC) |
As for "performance reviews", this is unnecessary; administrators are volunteer users and should not be obliged to have to meet quotas or performance standards in order to keep their tools. Two months is also far too excessive and will simply drain the community's patience and resources constantly reevaluating admin candidates. Administrators that abuse their tools can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 15:35, April 7, 2018 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:39, 7 April 2018
i think we should have admin elections where people vote for people to be admins. it should work like the president so if the person doesnt get enough votes then they are not admin anymore. i think we should do this with an admin every 2 months like a performance review so we can see if the wiki comunity wants them as an admin anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVemNana (talk • contribs) 15:22, April 7, 2018 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
Discussion
Oppose Administrators are not selected through votes; they are selected by discussion at The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship. Discussion and community consensus determines whether or not users become administrators, not through votes alone.
Voting is a huge problem because voting does not give room for proper discussions and arguments on the table and oversimplifies the process to a bunch of numbers. Votes can also easily be manipulated, allowing trolls to exploit the system to get clearly unfit users to become administrators. It is possible for users to create dozens and dozens of sockpuppet accounts to manipulate an election by flooding votes in favor of or against a candidate unfairly. Lastly, since adminship is not a position to be taken lightly (and since it is not a position of power; administrators are equal to all other users and are still expected to follow wiki policies, and so the processes used for selecting them is not and should not be like selecting a president), discussion and proper reasons as to why users should become admins should take prevalence; turning it into a vote downgrades this to a mere popularity poll. Administrators are not selected through popularity; they should be selected through whether or not they are mature and level-headed enough for the position.
As for "performance reviews", this is unnecessary; administrators are volunteer users and should not be obliged to have to meet quotas or performance standards in order to keep their tools. Two months is also far too excessive and will simply drain the community's patience and resources constantly reevaluating admin candidates. Administrators that abuse their tools can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:35, April 7, 2018 (UTC)