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)
- If there is community support for changes to how administratorship is awarded, or any ideas for changing how current admins are evaluated, this would be the proper time and place. For what it's worth, I've seen and heard very little in the years that I've been on TSW regarding regular community dissatisfaction with the way administrators are selected or maintained. I don't discount that there could be users here who have been silently dissatisfied with the way things are, but the Community Discussions forum is and has always been open for proposals to change the status quo.
- Regarding this specific set of proposals, however, I would have to say that I am strongly opposed. As k6ka has mentioned, admin selection is not compatible with voting; admins are selected based on skill, experience, and being the "right person" for the job, not based on their popularity or an arbitrary count of supporters versus opponents. Performance reviews might be a worthy idea, but having a review every two months (in other words, six times each year) would be ludicrous. If there are reasons to reconsider a specific administrator's status, there are already ways for the community to formally do this; a performance review is redundant at best, and a massive waste of time at worst. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 03:00, April 8, 2018 (UTC)
Conclusion[]
There seems to be no wide community support for this proposal, judging by the fact that no users have spoken up in support in over four months. Closing this thread. - LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 04:27, August 24, 2018 (UTC)