Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-4984687-20150326211251/@comment-9062114-20150403210838

Bluesonic1 wrote: Zippertrain85 wrote: ShawnHowellsCP wrote: The Rim of the Sky wrote: Using the old administrators as examples isn't valid. Tomb got Patroller 3 days after joining, things were very different back then.

The voting system in nominations was just to see if the community liked the admin's choice. In the News Team applications for example, one user got many support votes but was still denied the rank. This is an example of the admin veto power, same with what happened to Sajuuk's NTPedia sysop nomination.

If we switch from nominations to applications, the voting system will have a bigger role as it will determine if the community would want the user when they may not even have been a choice for the position from an administrator beforehand. The admins can still use their veto power if they find the applier is not legible. Every old admin either targeted specific users, or was just a power abusing prick. It's as valid as it gets, Rim. There isn't any way to half ass this one. This is pretty much the only good way to go.

Admins will Veto people they don't like out of bias. It's already happened in the past with admins letting people remove votes, edit tallies, and even closing votes for invalid reasons. The admins choice should have an affect, but not a 100% veto. They should be able to lay down a counter-vote, like a consensus for the application. Yeah, Shawn's 100% right here the Admins having all this power will only lead to bad news, there needs to be a divided basis with the community & Admins, not just one being a figurehead, and the other having actual influence. Having the Admins a right to completely veto anything is bordering dictator control from them, and almost nulls democracy, since in the long run what people vote wouldn't even matter, since the Sysop could just "veto" The problem with democracy is that just because something is a majority, doesn't make it right. Often the choices that crowds make are very wrong ones. Also, it's not just one admin who's sitting there with this massive amount of power you guys keep talking about- there are several admins and even more staff. It's more of a council who will give their final opinion, not one dictator telling everyone else what to do. Just because it may be more then one user making these decisions isn't automatically a shield against dictatorship. It would be an Oligarchy of staff, which would still mean that a ton of users would have no say in how things are ran, we make up this Wiki, yet you think we should no say in how it's ran, that sounds like a dictatorship to me!

It also pretty much is one group of users having power over another on the Wiki, since the Staff make the decisions and choose who gets to become one of them. With the community just being brushed to the side, though democracy does have it's issues do you think some staff with total control is going to lead to anything better