Forum:User Rights Elections Voting Process

Recently it was proposed that we should revisit the User Rights Voting process. This vote is regarding which users will be able to vote for which positions.

In all of the options, demotion votes are as follows: activity related demotion votes will be admin team only, and demotion votes for non-activity reasons will be open to all active users.

User rights votes/elections are when a user runs for rollback, administrator, or bureaucrat.

This vote will remain open for one week and will close on Monday the 4th of February, 2019.

Option 1
The voting process stays the same, meaning that all active users can vote on all user rights votes.

Option 2
Only active users not on the admin team can vote on user rights votes. That is, if you are on the admin team as a bureaucrat, administrator, or rollback, you cannot vote in user rights elections.

Option 3
The voting process would be as follows:
 * For Rollback elections, only active users not on the admin team can vote. That is, admin team members cannot vote in Rollback elections.
 * For Administrator elections, active users and rollbacks can vote. That is, bureaucrats and administrators cannot vote in Administrator elections.
 * For Bureaucrat elections, active users, rollbacks, and administrators can vote. That is, only bureaucrats cannot vote in Bureaucrat elections.

Option 4
The voting process would be as follows:
 * For Rollback elections, only active users not on the admin team can vote. That is, admin team members cannot vote in Rollback elections.
 * For Administrator and Bureaucrat elections, all active users can vote.

For Option 1 (+7)

 * 1) Bond_em7 (Owl Me ) 13:22, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) The High lands Lady 19:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The High lands Lady 19:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The High lands Lady 19:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The High lands Lady 19:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The High lands Lady 19:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

For Option 3 (+7)

 * 1) -aste riea
 * 2) Don't Blink. Blink and you're dead.
 * 1) -<font face="candara" color="#D1D1ED">aste <font face="candara" color="#D1D1ED">riea
 * 2) <font color="#696969">Don't Blink. <font color="#696969">Blink and you're dead.
 * 1) <font color="#696969">Don't Blink. <font color="#696969">Blink and you're dead.

Comments
I understand the thought process for reconsideration; however, I believe everyone should get a vote. Bcrats, admins, and rollbacks are all users too and I think it's fair for them to have a say in who they think would be best suited for the position. The admin team will be working with whoever gets voted in, so it is only right that they have a vote towards that decision. Especially if they are voting for a department that is not their own. Because the person being voted in is a representative for that particular department. Option 4 is one that I would consider looking into as well, but ultimately I think Option 1 gives everyone equal voting grounds and is the most beneficial.

While yes, I could be blind to the problems behind this, I fail to see why we really need to change something that really does not need a change of this caliber. I'd rather it stay the same to avoid any sort of confusion, from anyone's end.


 * When I presented the idea, I did it moreso out of consideration for the userbase; after all, they're the ones that should have the most power when it comes to selecting who is on the team. It helps prevent potential 'cliques', and ensures everyone in the team was chosen because the userbase wants them and not because the team thinks they're easy to work with (or because they're their friends). I mean, what we're doing is for them, right? Shouldn't we maybe give them the right to decide just for themselves who is on the team?

While I understand why this was proposed I think removing admin team members from voting on who will join the admin team would be a mistake. Those on the admin team are generally the people who have been here longest and are the ones who the community has trusted enough to put into leadership positions. While I understand how the power could be misused this is also taking away votes from the longest standing members of the community and the ones the userbase should trust. If a member of the admin team is abusing that trust they should be removed from that position by other means. However doing it this way means the people who new members of the admin team will have to work with won't have a say in if they're voted onto the admin team or not. I think (as an example) if a new Admin is going to be working under a crat or with other admins (as they should be) the people they'll be working under/with should have a say. <font face="cursive" size="3" color="#104E8B" >Bond_em7 (<font face="Calibri" size="1" color="#A9ACB6">Owl Me ) 13:21, January 28, 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3 was presented as a way to allow everyone beneath the level being voted on to have a more predominant say, so for instance, because in truth, I feel like as of lately a lot of admin team members are voted in because some people figure they'd be the easiest to work with, or because they're friends; take a look at the most recent votes. Most people who voted were admin team members. This had led to a lot of regular users not voting, as they think their vote won't matter. I think, lately, we've been more accomodating towards the needs of the admin team and who they wanna work with, rather than who the userbase actually wants representing them. Dunno, I don't wanna offend anyone, it's just how I feel.

I won't pretend like I don't understand Jaye's point, because I get the picture, but I must ask: is it really worth alienating the few (the admin team) for the many? Because I personally wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that now my vote does not have any weight and as part of the team, do I not deserve the chance to say whom I'd want to see alongside me? That is just my take.


 * To put it bluntly - yes. Because the admin team are not there (or at least in my view, they shouldn't be) there for their own interests. They are DARP's equivalents of Public Servants, they are in theory, supposed to be there to represent the interests of their constituents, (in this case the users that are below their "rank", i.e. the user base). I think it's quite telling that thus far, only one person voted for Option 1 that is NOT on the admin team. (I'm counting Bond as on the Admin Team). The Admin Team should be looking beyond their own self-interest to what the wiki itself wants and making policies and taking action based off what the user base wants. Therefore, the User Base should have the greatest voice in saying who's on the Team, based off who they feel will represent their wishes and desires the best. It's a selfless thing to be on the Admin Team, or at least, it should be.

We talk about everyone on the wiki having unity regardless of position, but wouldn't taking away the ability of the admin team to vote contradict that? I don't mind option four, it makes sense in retrospect, but all the other options besides one seem a little against the whole wiki unity campaign. At one point, the userbase was also biased, and the admin team also does count as the userbase so really we're just hindering or singling out a group of people based on the principle that because we're supposed to work for the wiki, we can't vote on who is going to help us do these things. The user base is technically everyone, so in saying that the user base should have the greatest voice, we are technically including everyone. Following that, separating ourselves into regular user base and admin team might just make the divide between us worse in the sense that: yes, physically there is an admin team and people who are not on the admin team, but we shouldn't reiterate that divide mentally. All in all, we're all still members of the wiki and no one, admin members or not deserve more privileges over the other.


 * I could get behind Option 4, as to get into the Admin Team and be considered for those higher positions, you'd need a vote from only the User Base. But I can't in good faith, get behind Option 1. I've seen corruption in the Admin Team far too many times, and if to get into the Admin Team, you'd need the vote of the general userbase, it would somewhat limit that corruption and it would still take into account the opinions of the Admin Team for those higher positions.