Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Why do admin votes have to be unanimous for a guy to be an administrator?

Why do administrators votes for a person to become an administrator have to be unanimous? Ive noticed two great wookieepedians have just been rejected from admin status just because one person objected, that makes it like the regular wookieepedians votes don't matter, if 100 regular users voted for one guy and 1 admin objected the guy still couldn't be an admin, it doesn't make sense. Wouldnt that makes us an Empire? Just because one party pooper objects why cant that person be an admin? I speak for the people. Roron Corobb 14:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. The current "If one administrator says 'No', the RFA fails" is very unfair. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell, this rule wasn't even discussed by the community before being put in place. The "one admin vote against the nominee and the RFA fails" rule was fine when we had 5 admins, but now that we have 16, there is always going to be someone to object. Case in point: The last two RFAs (although I am guilty of being the "party pooper" of the last one...). I do agree that the admin vote thing has potential for abuse (like an admin voting against someone he doesn't like just out of spite), and I do agree that the rule should be changed or at least modified somehow. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 15:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Could it possibly be changed to "The RFA will fail if the majority of administrators oppose"? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Sounds good to me, i think we should have 1 admin per 1500 to 2000 articles, so just 3 or 4 new admins might be enough for now. Roron Corobb 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I still think we should just grant the veto power to WhiteBoy and Riff. It puts the power into reliable hands, and limits the number of potential objectors. -- SFH 15:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I wil leave a message on White Boys talk page. Roron Corobb 15:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with SFH in principle here: if the community thinks we should have a lot of admins, this sort of veto power should be limited, both to make it easier for new admins to be created and make it harder for a single admin to stonewall the rest of the community on such an issue. On the other hand, I can see why it's necessary to have admins elected not by a simple majority of users voting, but by some sort of "super-majority" (whether it be 100% of admins voting in the RfA, 100% of bureaucrats voting, or some other standard.) As WhiteBoy said, Memory Alpha has an even stricter policy. There the vote must be unanimous among all voters...not just admins.. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I just left a message on White Boys talk page asking him about the idea. Crisis resolved. (: Roron Corobb 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of questions regarding votes for administratorship, I have a question:Do wookieepedians who failed to become an admin get another chance?--SWME 17:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, sure. But it is usually wise to wait a while. -- SFH 17:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think, given the two most recent failed RfAs, that exceptions may be in order. Anyway, how's this for criteria: unanimous bureaucrat votes, 2/3 supermajority admin votes, majority user votes? Or is that too complicated? jSarek 03:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • 2/3 of admins is good. Also, would that be 2/3 of All admins or 2/3 of the admins that voted? -Finlayson 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree with jSarek - change the "unanimous admin vote" criteria to 2/3 supermajority admin votes, and majority user votes, and ALL bureaucrats must vote/approve. --Azizlight 05:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I like the new idea. I was really disappointed when a couple of those RFAs failed- they would have been good admins. Besides, I try and keep tabs on the statistics page, and we are growing enough that more admins may be needed. Atarumaster88 14:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
            • So... if this new idea passes, will RMF and I be promoted to admin status? :P Adamwankenobi 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
              • We should probably hold a new vote under the new criteria :-P --Azizlight 04:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
                • In other words . . . yes, but you'll have to wait a couple weeks. ;-) jSarek 07:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FYI, here's my reply from my talk page: I am always open to suggestions, but I have to tell you that it would be difficult to change my mind on this one. The main reason is that adminship on Wookieepedia means more than it does on other wikis. It is not simply for someone to have easier tools to revert and be able to ban someone quicker. It is a leadership role. An admin is someone that the community has to trust, and especially the other leaders of the community...which is why we have the unanimous-admin-vote rule. WhiteBoy 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Additional thoughts regarding the above discussion: I would say it has to be a 2/3 majority of the voting administrators as inevitably some admins will not vote for various reasons. Personally, I still prefer the unanimous among administrators rule. I think it helps ensure unity among the leadership, and I don't think it should necessarily be an easy thing to become an admin because of the leadership role that it is. Just my two creds. WhiteBoy 01:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. IMO, it should never be easy to obtain a position of power. I don't see a problem with wanting a unanimous vote in regards to administrators. --beeurd 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
        • but anybody who has had adminship on any site knows that it seems cool before but then it turns out to be really lame . Ugluk 01:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly! If any users are thinking of adminship as an award that any and all regular users can and should eventually get: please don't. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I didn't even know you were an admin! I'm a bit behind the times, I think. --beeurd 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)