Click here to edit page
- To vote, simply post *{{Support}} and sign with ~~~~ under the answer you are supporting. You can always change it at anytime, until the end date by using the {{Unvote}} template.
- To vote against an answer, simply post *{{Oppose}} and sign with ~~~~ under the it to symbolize your opposition. When voting against an answer it is recommended you post a short description of why. You can always change it at anytime, until the end date by using the {{Unvote}} template.
- If you would like to give a new option or even just make a little comment that is neither for nor against what you are commenting on, use the *{{Neutral}} tag before it.
- An example of unvoting in use would be *{{Unvote|{{Support}}}}. This shows up as
Support — - Votes made by users not logged in (including regular anons) will not be counted.
- Voting ends once four days pass and there have been no new votes (except during ties).
- Unless five days pass and the vote is unanimous, then the vote ends.
- If the available options to vote for are not what you want, go ahead and add another option and vote for it.
Topic
Alrighty. So, it's come to my attention that this user was recently promoted to Social Admin. I would first like to point this out: anything I say against her is not personal in any way, and past interactions with her are not taken as making this bias.
Many users that frequent the wiki's chat particularly disagree with the recently change of rights with this promotion, and see it as unfair. The user has gotten into fights on the wiki, argued the mods, blatantly called people stupid for their opinions, and has been kicked and banned numerous times. Apparently, the reason she was promoted to a Social Admin as opposed to a mod again, was because everybody disagreed with her being a mod. Really? Social Admins were supposed to be mods given additional rights - mods to watch blogs, chat, and kick chat mods if necessary. How could someone who has had a bad history on the wiki and its chat be fitted for this position, especially more than some of the other candidates on this wiki?
In addition, the promotion was made because one, Hero Boy and the founder didn't mind if she was promoted (per feli's words), and two, she is good at managing the Facebook group. Just because of how she manages a Facebook group, which frankly anybody could potentially handle, doesn't mean she is as well behaved her. Yes, recently her behavior has slightly changed, but it was not long ago her behavior was out of hand as it was when she was kicked and banned.
On top of the above (ironically worded), she is known for not being very active on the wiki and especially not its chat. She has been active the past few days, but other than that, many users and I agree she tends to come on once or twice a week or so. There are many more active users and mods who would be much more fitting for this position, both in my opinion and a large body of the community's opinion - the user body of chat.
Well, feel free to discuss if a demotion is necessary, another user/mod should be promoted, etc. etc. P.S. Don't vote neutral. Those are useless.
Note to ATG: Please do not delete this blog (which goes to any other admins who disagree with this blog) and please do not argue with others' opinions, unless they state false facts so extreme that could affect others' votes.
Best regards --City♥Lightshttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Wikia_Logo.svg/45px-Wikia_Logo.svg.png 12:29, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
Support
- I agree. Positions should be earned, not given. Managing a Facebook group well may be reason to promote them, but it should've just been on Facebook only, and not wikia. Promotions are supposed to be discussed thouroughly by admins, and should be treated like a very serious, important matter. To be honest, I don't see anything in the user that seems to be above what the average good contributor on Wikia can offer. In my opinion, promotions should be given to those who work for it, to those who show their loyalty and dedication, who rise above and beyond the mediocre. They are to be an excellent example and representation of the community's best and brightest.
(Profile|wall) 14:09, April 19, 2014 (UTC)