FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Admin-bcrat selection process was a joke

Initial discussion

The selection process for admins and bcrats was a joke. I'm sorry, but it was. For admins, there were less than three days of discussion. For bcrats, less than 24 hours. Really? Less then 24 hours to vote and discuss? That's ridiculous. EquZephyr 01:10, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Throwy simply lost it and just decided to rush the whole thing for new bcrats and admins I don't mind the selection of brats but the the number of admins is just no. - KingLazy93 01:09, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think this belongs in a forum, much less "Wiki Discussion". FANMADE Berryshine sleeping by SierraExLord of Shadows Words mean nothing! 01:34, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
My apologies. FANMADE Pinkie portal front by blackgryph0n-d3f93p8Lord of Shadows Words mean nothing!FANMADE Pinkie portal back by blackgryph0n-d3f93p8 15:08, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
It does belong in a forum. The process was handled very poorly, especially for bcrat selection. The entire process was opened and closed in less than 24 hours. Maybe people who have to work and such never even got a chance to know it was being discussed, much less have a chance to participate in the discussion. EquZephyr 01:51, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I did rush it. I didn't feel like protracting the "discussion" for a month so everyone will have a chance to sling mud at the nominees. If you can give a reason why any of the admins or bureaucrats should not be admins or bureaucrats, feel free to do it. On my part, it just saves the headache of having to reply to every contributor who decides someone can't be bureaucrat because they didn't join their New Year's chatroom party. Feel free to open the discussion again, but please actually have something to discuss. I'm tired of people grumbling for no reason.
"Let's get this over with. We have a wiki to edit."Throwawaytv 09:00, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Wow way to show your true self in a calm and unique way and for the fact it wasnt because of the invite, it was because he simply ignored me so drop it now - KingLazy93 09:03, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
That was just an example. You're not the reason I rushed the process, you're a symptom. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but I wasn't up for an entire month of having to read and reply to these sort of comments. EquZephyr is correct, the process was rushed. If he or anyone have any serious reasons why the admins and bureaucrats shouldn't have been appointed, this is the time and place to voice them. If not, then I've saved myself a month of wiki misery at zero cost to you. –Throwawaytv 09:10, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Throwy, that is interesting coming from you. Weren't you the one that said we should solve problems through discussion and concensious? Yet you are also the same person who closed the discusion after less than 24 hours? Surely, I am not the only one who sees the irony of this? And sees the contradiction here? EquZephyr 09:35, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
See, this is the problem. "He didn't come to my New Year's chat so he shouldn't be bureaucrat" is not discussion. It's petty politics. "Problems" like that cannot be solved. Raise a valid issue or shut up, I'm tired of vague accusations. –Throwawaytv 11:55, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
You don't come to ANY CHAT, Throwy. And yes, I think that is a problem. You don't interact with the rest of your team on any kind of casual level. EquZephyr 12:04, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Was I voted as a bureaucrat? No? Then what does this have to do with the new admins and bureaucrats?
Again, accusations of "not interacting" with "the rest of your team" are ridiculous. There is not one person that I did not reply to on my talk page. –Throwawaytv 12:10, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Progress

Summarizing EquZephyr's complaints:

  • There was no time to voice objections for the new admins and bureaucrats.
  • BluesirTheFox discussed sexual material on the chatroom.
  • BluesirTheFox nominated himself.

Like I said before, it's obvious that the admin process was rushed to two days instead of ten days, and the bureaucrat process was rushed to one day. However this rush had the desired results: it prompted contributors to get to the point. Ideally, any big decision should be made by discussion, and voting should only take place after the discussion, or not at all. Creating a vote-first-discuss-after-if-at-all thread only leads to unspecified accusations.

As for the other complaint, BluesirTheFox has been made aware of them and I have given EquZephyr my full faith in reporting of any inappropriate behavior in the chatroom. –Throwawaytv 14:09, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the rush had the desired results. It resulted in unqualified people become admins. And people becoming bcrats without any opportunity for discussion at all. I honestly don't see how anyone can legitimately claim that rushing the process to two days instead of the normal ten, especially with NO warning that it was going to be rushed to two days instead of ten, achieved the desired results. EquZephyr 14:12, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
The desired result is that instead of lobbing around vague accusations like "unqualified people" you actually specified what you think is wrong. On your talk page I told you you have my full faith and support in removing BluesirTheFox's admin rights if he behaves inappropriately on the chatroom. –Throwawaytv 14:15, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
The actual result is that I am leaving the wiki in protest. I hope you and Bluesir are proud of yourselves. EquZephyr 14:30, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Replies:

  1. Fair enough. We could have left it open longer. It was rushed.
  2. He does it in PM, I've never personally seen him discuss it in public. But if he does then it needs to stop, since I'm pretty sure it's against the basic set of rules.
  3. I see no issue with this. Self-nominating is perfectly fine, and as much as I detest linking Wikipedia policies/essays in a discussion, even Wikipedia semi-encourages it.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  14:47, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.