Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-4984687-20150326211251/@comment-4984687-20150403225715

I agree with CCC here. Wikipedia has stated it does not run like a democracy and neither to we, but we are not a dictatorship, we're a wiki; simple as that. During elections, all voters have to do is select which party they want on a ballot. Here we vote, but we value input and explanation. Everyone will have an opinion on an application, and if not they just vote neutral or leave a comment.

By being trusted, I suppose you mean experienced and known in the community.

Requirements must always be met. If someone is applying for patroller but has around 300 mainspace edits rather than at least 500, they will be denied. If someone does not act like a role model for the community and applies (i.e. has a bad attitude, short-fused, vulgar, abusive) then an admin can veto their application.

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. Just because the old administrators are now retired does not mean they can be insulted. Some of them can be considered that way, but if not every one of them. They may be gone but our rule that insults will not be tolerated still applies.

Our current admins are certainly not abusive, and they will not use a bias to reject applications. Veto rejections will only occur when the user shows that they do not meet requirements. Admins who were abusive in the past are considered to not meet or current standards.