Forum:Appointing new admins without prior discussion/vote

Appointing new admins without prior discussion
Right, I guess a few already know about it, but some probably don't. The topic is about granting admin rights without a proper vote by the community, or to be precise: appointing Klobis as a new admin without officially consulting the regular editors.( 74 Are you interested?)

This is a violation against the wikia guidelines - and since both Dancepowderer/Yatanogarasu still don't think that it is necessary to involve anyone I'm going to contact main wikia itself.

But before I do that I want to gather general opinions on the matter, just in case I miss something major and the community happens to like to be excluded from significant decisions, who knows. (And yes, handing out the right to block pages, ban users and the ability to play with the wikia.css is significant.)

Nothing against any of the three, but the wikia is a community effort and important decisions should be made by the community - and the community doesn't consist of only 2 people. -- 18:56, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Opinions
'''Here we go. Please sign under the option that represents your opinion the best.'''

1. New admins (including temporary ones) should be decided by the community (nomination/vote).


 * 18:56, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * sff9 (talk) 19:07, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 19:07, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Imhungry4444 19:15, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aldarinor 19:38, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Tuckyd 21:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * One-Winged Hawk 23:00, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruxax 23:18, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror 03:22, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

2. New admins should be decided by the community (nomination/vote), temporary admins can be appointed by bureaucrats/admins as long they will demote them when they will be not needed anymore or confirm them as permanent by community vote.
 * 19:32, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * leviathan_89  19:22, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ricizubi 19:34, May 22, 2011(UTC)

3. Bureaucrats/admins should be the only editors deciding on new staff members (including temporary admins).



4. I don't care.



Discussion
I agree with you Jinbe, but if DancePowderer and Yatanogarasu understand that they should not do that again, I don't think you should warn the staff. sff9 (talk) 19:07, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Okkay i know that they should run a forum for this type of things,for us to vote but hey, they didnt have time(?) to do it,they were alone because Yazzy and Deva weren't active that time. 19:10, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. A simple forumthread/message, informing us of this decision and if we had any problems with it would have been necessary. 19:11, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, Yatano and I were starting to get in over our heads with both Yazzy and Deva's extended leaves of absence. It would have taken more time to put together a forum and wait two weeks for everyone to nominate and vote that frankly it would almost have been counterproductive. We needed a quick fix, and of the people who were nominated but didn't get elected, Klobis is on here the most frequently. Also like I told you, it is temporary until Yazzy and/or Deva begin editing again with a good degree of consistency. I apologize for not informing anyone, but it slipped our minds due to the stuff we had to do still. I really don't see the need to go as far as contacting the main wikia about this. 19:15, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Now that DancePowderer clear things up,why are you collecting votes?? 19:25, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a set date on when Yazzy/Deva will return? 19:32, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is cleared up, it isn't just temporary if you leave the final choice to Klobis and not the community. Quoting the important part again:

"As it stands, your position would be temporary but could easily become permanent if you so choose."

And as I said on your talkpage Dp, what exactly stops you from reverting that decision and start a proper nomination (if there is still need for an admin?). It is not like I didn't talked to both Yatanogarasu and you prior to this forum, but Yata sees nothing wrong in appointing admins like that and you simply ignored my last message. And well, the next higher up is the wikia staff, and I'm not afraid to consult them if necessary. 19:40, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything to justify a revocation and I don't think "cuz the community is pissed" is a good enough reason. 19:44, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, "the community is upset" is a not good enough reason? It is not about Klobis in particular, if he community thinks that he fits he would be back in position. It is a matter of respect, respect towards the community. 19:47, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry we didn't tell anyone. We were in a tight spot and we didn't think about it since we had other things to do. If you want his position to be temporary then fine, I'll tell him it will have to be. 20:05, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

It's not about wanting his position or anything, it's simply a matter of informing the community before taking decisions that are relevant to all of us. 20:29, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

DP, the Problem is not Klobis, the problem is that we want even temporary positions to be voted/discussed, at least a good number of editors does. What is the problem of telling Klobis that the decision was a bit rushed and we do a new formal nomination (if there is still the need for a new admin)? If he did a good job he will be revoted in no time. Just a token of respect?

I understand that there was a lot going on back then, and I know the line between "doing what is necessary" and "looking like a totalitarian" is super thin, but this matter can be easily solved by simply holding a quick formal vote, It doesn't need to be as huge and long like an official admin vote 20:35, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

As my vote implies, I have nothing against the current situation (though a little notify would have been appreciated). If you want to do quick vote I suggest one like confirm/do not confirm Klobis and if you don't who you want to be a temp admin. This way we have not to demote him. By the way why is there this code before every post?

leviathan_89  21:40, May 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * The only wikia I ever let slip the admins thing not going through vote is on the vocaloid wikia. Basically, the admin on there never did much, and we were pushed, I mean REALLY pushed the normal editors on making things happen. So I applied to the wikia staff to have a new bearucrat put in place, sadly to my horror I was made admin when I didn't want it. I had to rush two other editors in because I was frightened to hell about being admin. There was only 5 editors and three (myself included) didn't have experience. I had to make the two of the 5 staff to get their experience on the team otherwise the wikia staffs blunder making me the bearucrat would have been a disaster, and none of the 5 were regulaur editors at the time.


 * But for this wikia we have a large editor base and well, there are many regluaurs. We've always had a good regluars turn out even at the beginning. We ran at the start by election and I think I prefer this. I know their only temp, but a quick vote of some sort should have been rushed in. This feels so undemocratic and theres no reason in a wikia of MANY editors to do it. It also risks creating bad karma.


 * Perhaps, at the very least if we're going to have temporay admins, we should have a list of editors who can and can't be a admin if we need one in an emeragcey. That way anyone on the list can be rushed in, but it also gives others a chance to challenge someones position. One-Winged Hawk 23:10, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

That list sounds like a good idea. Should there be a 1000 edit requirement like we did for the first elections? 23:26, May 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait for this vote to run out, then call a vote on that idea. It would help editors also pull up likely canidates for future elections as well. One-Winged Hawk 00:19, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

I think the 1000 edit limit should apply for any vote and also they have to be real edits and not edits on blogs. SeaTerror 03:20, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

"He hasn't done anything to justify a revocation" He's done plenty of stuff to not have been allowed in the first place like renaming pages without discussion or evidence. SeaTerror 23:39, May 22, 2011 (UTC)