Forum:Admin Policy

Forums: Admin Policy

Note: This thread has been unedited for 56 days. It is considered archived – the discussion is over. Do not edit this thread unless it really needs a response.

As our wiki grows and changes, we are met with new voices and new opinions, new and better ways to run this wiki. This has been showcased with a recent discussion about the profile pic for Kyoshi Warriors, which evolved into a discussion on how this wiki should be run, meanwhile spilling onto Thailog's talk page.

Basically, there are four things we need to discuss as a community, to decide how our community should be run in terms of admin power. The first thing we need to decide is how admins should be selected in the future. The second thing is whether there should be an admin-only talk page. The third thing is a new policy on how pages are protected and for what reasons, and the final is on how admins should conduct themselves. I've grouped them below under four headings, and have written my opinion on these affairs. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 12:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Adminship: New System

This system needs an overhaul. These are my suggestions as to how it should be done.

Step 1: Nominating Potential Admins

Users may not nominate themselves for adminship. Users must be nominated by another user. The user then has to accept the nomination.
Users may not nominate each other (e.g. A can't nominate B and B nominate A in the same RfA) (To stop disruptive users nominating each for fun)
Users will then write a short summary of why they should be an admin, and be ready to answer any potential questions.
There will only be one request at a time. A decision will be made on the current request (change/no change) before the next request is considered. (To stop users from competing with each other)

Step 2: Voting for Potential Admins

Users may vote in support, be neutral, or oppose the adminship nomination. Users must provide a reason behind their position.
Everyone's vote counts as one vote. Admins do not hold extra power.
The vote will last for two weeks.
At the end of the two weeks, the active Bureaucrat will determine whether consensus has been reached. This means that admins require at least a two-thirds support rate to pass. Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes.

This is similar to Wikipedia. I look forward to some feedback on the matter. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything except with #3 of Step 1. I don't see why someone who is nominated by someone else should have to convince the community to elect him. When it comes to promoting someone to a sysop, it all comes down to necessity. Either he is needed, or he isn't. If a sysop is need, then someone nominates someone else and the community decides whether they want that specific person or not, presenting founded arguments. The nominee shouldn't be put in a position where he must defend the nomination put forward by someone else. They should be ready to answer any potential questions, yes, but I'm assuming that said nominee would be a trusted and frequent contributor. Actions speak louder than words, and by then the voting parties would know whether he's admin material or not. Let's not make this into a political campaign. It gives the "job" more importance than it actually has. ― T hailog 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe just to inform users or admins who don't know them too well. I mean, if new users come, then they might vote just randomly or out of liking for the person. I think a short summary is needed, though it may need at be a little larger than short, considering we want to describe all the stuff we've done. Vaznock - Talk 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, new or not, they still need to provide a founded reason for their vote (as per #4). So regardless of their favoritism, stating "I vote for him because I like" would be an valid vote. But your point raises a good question: do votes of new users count the same, or at all? I mean, if we allow new users to do so, their vote can go either way: they can be in favor because they are biased (canvassing comes to mind) or they can oppose just out of spite. ― T hailog 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this system. On Phineas and Ferb Wiki, we have this, and it's caused for a two-month user to just pop up and be nominated, while harder working and longer-seen users to not even be noticed. Unless that happens, then I like it idea.—Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think new users shouldn't vote. Only users that have been in the community for at least 2 months, so they know better the wikia and they could write arguments with good funds. About the point #3 of Step 1, I think the information about the nominated user should be added by an administrator, hence, it should be completely objective, and don´t explain reasons about his/her possible election, only a brief overview of his work in Avatar Wiki. Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the policy proposal. As for point #3 of Step 1, I don't believe the user should have to give an explination to as why the believe they should become an admin. But, I do believe that such a thing should be accepted. If a user wishes to write up a summary of why they deserve to become an admin, they may. Similar to what you did. Mattkenn3 ^Talk 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The third clause was designed assuming that new users can vote, because they may need reasoning. I guess if we have a threshold for a minimum amount of time before a new user can vote, nominate, or be nominated, it would solve the problems outlined. How about this:

Users must have 50 edits and be a regular contributor for a month to be able to vote or nominate (eliminating the possibility of this becoming a political campaign).
Users must have rollback rights to be nominated for adminship (eliminating the "new users just turning up and being nominated" problem).

Better? Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, 888! :D —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the regular contributions for a month, setting a number of edits wouldn't help, he can have someone who while making good edits to pages also edits their own talk pages a lot, and we can have someone who makes multiple edits that in the end change very little, a la LA. Image uploading should also be a factor, such as not uploading unneeded images as a negative thing, or uploading better versions of old images as a good thing. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Omni, but I think 2 months is better. Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dc, but I also think we should nominate users who do a variety of things, such as content contributing, good uploading of images, knowledgable and helpful in templates, participates in community, and the other requirements we thought of. Plus, the user should have some knowledge of Avatar, not just in wikis. Vaznock - Talk 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious. I think that is one of the most important things. Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Omnibender: The number of edits is there because otherwise we'll just have users who show up, wait a month, and vote. Remember, both requirements must be filled, not just one of them.
Dcasawang: Two months may be too long. By the time two months was over for me, I was one of the biggest contributors to the wiki.
Vaznock: Those requirements are too specific. Admins don't necessarily have to be good at everything. In fact, most of our current admins are not that expert at templates or images. Admins only need to be trusted to be able to use their user rights for the good of the wiki.

Cheers, Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 03:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I still think they should know at least a little about Avatar. Vaznock - Talk 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, if they didn't know anything about Avatar, they would never be asking for adminship anyway. I think it's true that if potential admins have no knowledge of Avatar, it would be more difficult to enforce policies related to Avatar. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Although, if they were here for such a period of time and edited to such an extent, they would obviously have some (if not a lot) knowledge about the series. It seems more or less like a soft rule as it overcomes itself. Joey - Talk^Contribs 07:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to hold off discussing on this untill the need for more admins arose. I mean times change, you know? Zero - Talk 14:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that everyone wants it decided now. Also, the system I've proposed here is quite similar to the system used on many big wikis, including Wikipedia, so I don't think that the proposed system becoming outdated is very much of an issue. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 16:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those things that is better decided when the need for it arizes. Deciding beforehand will be no use if we change everything according to the will of the users at the time of need anyways. Is it? Zero - Talk 17:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with deciding this policy when it actually needs to be done is that inevitable, some users who want adminship or are eager to make other users admins will try to influence the proposed system to favour their own ends. If we decide now, when we don't actually need more admins, the policy will be more pragmatic and fair as everyone thinks less of "wait, that will hurt my chances of adminship" and more of "that sounds fair". Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Then here is my proposal:

Users give a 10 Line request for adminship.
The Sysops Discuss his/her chances for gaining adminship taking into account all of his/her stats as well as his/her comatibility with other admins.
The Bureaucrat has the final decision.

Doing it any other way will leave an open hole for problems of a sort that can result in an admin who is incompatible with the other admins. This will result in further problems. Simple is best after all. Zero - Talk 18:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And how is that different from the status quo? I support The 888th Avatar's proposal in 100%. ― T hailog 18:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Zero's proposal. That's the same thing we do now. And, it gives the admins and crat the complete control. I go for 888's. Vaznock - Talk 19:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I too have to agree with 888's proposal. Joey - Talk^Contribs 19:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just giving my view on this. So stop chewing me out for it. Zero - Talk 06:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey, I'm not chewing you up, no one is. The only thing is that the entire point of this discussion was to change the current system, and you're suggesting keeping it the same (or at least, extremely similar). As I'm sure you've read the discussion in full, you'll know that many users (myself included) do not agree that this is 'admin only discussion'. Making admins is everyone's business as it does affect everyone, and thus everyone should get a say. This is what made us to come up with this new system (888's proposal) which should please everyone. So, your proposal here obviously is the opposite of what everyone who came to this discussion wanted, which should explain why we are disagreeing with you. I hope this helps explain to you why we didn't like your idea. Thanks :) Joey - Talk^Contribs 07:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to fear the issue of potential admins being unable to work with present admins. Potential admins require rollback rights to be nominated, and Requests for Rollback is not, and should not, be democratic (too complicated to be democratic). Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 08:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Still I only gave my view. So long as the system does not result in a destructive admin its fine with me. Zero - Talk 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, it won't, and even if there was one destructive admin who managed to get his or her hands on the user rights, the community can always call for a removal of user rights. Admins just need to be accountable. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought we already were accountable. Zero - Talk 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but this would make us more accountable. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh. The "We want more! More, More, More!!!" Effect. Zero - Talk 05:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think consensus has been reached. I'll post this on the RfA page. If there are objections, I can always revert. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I got no problems so long as any new admins work well in a group with the current admins. That's my only fear. Zero - Talk 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Although. It's a little sad that adminship will be given on basis of popularity rather than on the basis of earning it. Zero - Talk 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you read 888's proposal? Voters will have to provide a reason behind their position, so they won't vote on someone because they like them. ― T hailog 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before I'm not gonna stop you. However, it's still turning into a popularity contest, in my opinion (which, if I may add, I'm free to give). Anyone can give reasons for anyone they like but will they give the right reasons and will we notice that they are the right reasons. That is the real question. Zero - Talk 10:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. If I were a crat, I would simply ignore a vote saying "he's a great guy" or "he's a good friend". That's not good enough. A reason is more like "the user consistently fights vandalism, makes great edits and keeps a cool head in discussion". Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Admin-only" Talk Page?

In my opinion, this should cease to exist. I believe that most users are mature enough to be able to have input into boring things like blocks etc. We do have Forum:Administrative Requests after all. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that there's an "Admins Only" talk page (or anything for that matter) is why I personally think that admins perceive themselves above the rest, which misleads other to assume that their voices and opinions have more weight than those of regular users. Why would regular users be shunned out if everyone's opinion is equally important? This page and attitude conveys a certain arrogance and hubris that I for one have always felt unattractive and off-putting. And I'm sure that the heart of this problem lies in the fact that admins are chosen between themselves. By taking away the community's role in the elective process, the community is deprived of a voice in everything regarding the administration, which goes against the entire concept of a wiki. ― T hailog 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Vaznock - Talk 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. I think the concept of having an 'admin only' conversation is quite silly. It would be much better used for users to tell admins about things in general (although we have a forum that's for most of this). If I'm not mistaken, I actually questioned this page a while ago (before I was an admin), and that's why it's obvious for me to side with you all. Joey - Talk^Contribs 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the admin-only talk page was created when there were not many registered users, and most of the registered users there were had all been made admins. There needed to be a place where admins could discuss vandalism, and other admin-stuff, privately. However, the wiki has clearly outgrown that. And I do feel that having an admin-only talk page has helped along the idea that admins are a "higher-class" user or a super-special authority that runs the wiki (we're not), and has decreased the democratic decisions around here. In short, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it has ultimately created more problems than it has solved. Given that, and everyone else's excellent arguments, I also support ending the page. Puragus ^Talk 23:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Puragus does have a point; there was a point quite a few months ago when you were either an admin, or you were a newbie user who didn't know anything. But we have since become a more stable wiki in terms of regular contributors, so the admin page should go. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So what is our result? Joey - Talk^Contribs 03:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you unprotected it, I took the bold step of archiving it and rewriting its purpose. No-one's objected anyway. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 07:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Now matter how one sees it admins are different from normal users, they are mediators and organisers of the wiki. As such, they are different. Having an Admin only talk page allows admins to talk without interference from third parties. Most imporatant discussions take place on the community portal, however there are some discussions/notices that are to be placed by admins only for admins only. Allowing others to do so disrupts the normal working of an organisation. The admin only talk page also serves to bring admins together to work as a group. Would you prefer writing the same message on every admins talk page? No. Far better to write it on only one page. Furthermore, I see no problems occuring by it's presence. As such, I protest against the deprotection or dissolution of the talk page. At least without a proper discussion and vote first. Zero - Talk 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a proper discussing, and you are so far overwhelmingly outnumbered. In fact, it has been talked to death, and, as such, no voting is required to confirm that. As for "writing the same message on every admins talk page", just use the community portal or the forum. ― T hailog 14:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I kind of predicted Zero would protest this (no offense, Zero) when I found that example on the admin talk page and pasted it on Thailog's talk page. But, I think, since only one user disagrees, and since that user is a sysop who has gotten used to using that page for half a year, that we don't set up a formal process, or else we'll just we proving that admins "run" the wiki. Vaznock - Talk 14:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Too general. And the discussion cannot be considered proper untill a decision has been fully reached and the discussion is closed. Acting before that is just... wrong. So... I'm going to set things back a little untill this discussion is concluded. It's only right. Zero - Talk 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'm going to ask you to refrain from doing so, on the grounds of your obvious bias. A discussion is not over because it has a closed stamp on it. It's over when consensus has been reached, which is the case here, where the majority of the interveners and active users approve of this proposition. ― T hailog 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you not biased? I'm just saying we have a set guideline for stating a consensus. Namely: The Voting Procedure. Both sides put forward their reasons for having things their way and then everyone votes on which way is best. After the voting is done I will not go against it. But if you ignore the procedure then it's only chaos. I cannot let that happen. We do this here then we will do this somewhere else and then again and again untill there is no more order. So please follow the guidelines. OK? Zero - Talk

And we've been over this what you're proposing is not democracy. It's Lazzis Faire (Free Style). It's only good for small organisations of five to ten members. Zero - Talk 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any chaos, and I don't know why a vote that has already been decided is taking place. Vaznock - Talk 14:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's because care has been taken to snip it in the bud. Much like here. And we're supposed to have a vote because it's the corr4ect procedure. And don't you think it's better to discuss this a bit more before we move on to a vote. It's seriously unfair for me since I was on a leave of absence. Isn't it, Energybender? Zero - Talk 14:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think its better, but your the only one who disagrees and your a sysop. Sorry, but I said sysop because it's much more likely that a sysop will disagree, and all the other sysops and rollback users agree. Vaznock - Talk 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not biased because I'm not the one who unprotected the page, so I can't be accused taking unilateral measures, unlike you. The page was unprotected because the majority agreed upon it. And there are plenty of discussions that did not require a "Voting Procedure." That only takes place when the community is indecisive, which is clearly not the case here. ― T hailog 14:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, this has turned into exactly what I said it shouldn't be. We're trying to say admins don't have "power", just helpful tools and trust and respect, and changing this to a voting process because one sysop disagrees is exactly what we are trying to end. I mean, seriously, if a good user like Piandao disagreed and tried to make this a process and everyone else agreed, his edits would have quickly been reverted. Vaznock - Talk 15:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's not twist rules to stroke the ego of one disgruntled admin. ― T hailog 15:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true I'm a sysop. And I was the one who gave the original idea for an admin only page. But please hear me out first and try to think from my point of view. That page was created not merely to exclude others but to bring the admins closer so that they may work better together as a team. True, there are many discussions that should be discussed by anyone who wishes to join in however the opposite is also true. There are some discussions that are the sole precinct of sysops. Like blocking a user who is particularly destructive to the environment. In that case we must have only admins in the discussion to eliminate the effects of sockpuppets. (I mean seriously can you expect to catch a sockpuppet the very minute he shows up?) I'm siding this way because I thought it unfair if everyone said one thing and didn't even consider the other side. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you wish to remove the admin only talk page. Your points are good from where you are standing. But have you considered the consequences of removing a system that has worked without any serious gliches. When you remove somthing you leave an empty space behind. Removing the admin only talk page may result in the admins not working as smoothely together as they have untill now. Do you really want that to happen? Are you willing to pay that price? Think about what I've said at the very least. If the results of the voting will still be in favor of removal then so be it. But untill so the proper standard procedure should be observed. Procedures are there to maintain order after all. To you this may seem as an advancement, but to me it seems as a method of dividing the sysops. But then again I could be wrong. Zero - Talk 15:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make such petty jabs Thailog. It ill-becomes you. Zero - Talk 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but now we have experienced users who can do just as much as admins. And if a sockpuppet shows up, we'll probably know it is a sockpuppet. And by removing the page we are making the entire community work together, not just admins. So, why exclude users from conversation just so sysops can work together? And, if the sysops don't work well together, it'll be their fault they ever thought they were worthy of adminship. Vaznock - Talk 15:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We are indeed a free and open community. The only thing special about administrators is that they have a few more tools. If I gave the impression here that admins are some "higher power", I'm sorry. Why would maintenance workers need a page to discuss things for themselves? That is what e-mail is for. Feel free to e-mail any administrator, Zero2001. That is the only way you are going to be able to talk to an administrator privately. --Energybender 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not making petty jabs – I am stating the obvious. This issue has been talked to death and several users, admins and otherwise, have expressed their opinion in favor of unprotecting that page. I don't see how you plan to convince us to change our minds, particularly with that admin cohesiveness argument. I mean, how well did that page work for you and Felinoel? ― T hailog 15:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaznock: That is true certainly, but what about those who are still incompetent in various fields like making bots and coding templates? Oh, about what you said earlier Vaznock. Isn't calling power tools just cloaking one word within another? I really think that is just a way of running from the truth. Admins are people that are given power and are so chained by their responsibilities. I consider power to be a burden, and a responsibilty heavier than any other thing. But to hide what it is is just wrong. Far better to face it for what it is, dont you agree? Zero - Talk 15:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Energybender: So I'm supposed to send the same email to every other admin, when it can be done more simply with the current system. How repititive. That seems a lot like sneaking to me. At least this way other users know what is going on. Zero - Talk 15:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thailog: One failure against multiple sucesses. Oh that's a strong argument indeed. You are ignoring the fact that the page was still in it's infancy back then. Will you deem something useless if it fails once or seek to improve it? Zero - Talk 15:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous of you to claim credit for the healthy working relationship between admins? I'd say that admins work well together because they are mature and serious users, not because they have an exclusive talk page. Most wikis have admis that work well together without the aid of a protected talk page. That page may have had its use back then, but now it's superseded. ― T hailog 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I never took full credit. I only said I helped start the admin only talk page. And you are wrong there. No person, no matter how mature, can work with another if they cannot talk and understand each other exclusively. All I did was light the candle and watch it as it burned brighter and brighter untill the entire room was illuminated. Now you wish to blow out that candle. All I'm asking if it is really worth it? Zero - Talk 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

By letting the community join in we'll be lighting many more candles, and by power, I mean the ability to make your opinion higher than others and the ability to continue a discussion just because you disagree. Vaznock - Talk 16:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

But in order to maintain order there must be one with power over others. That is the basic rule of order. Is it not? Zero - Talk 16:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that. We are a wiki. Together, the good users, rollback users, and admins are like an overseeing council. This is a wiki, and power is the last thing a wiki needs. Admins are trusted janitors, rollback users are appreciated "good users", and good users are simply undiscovered rollback users. Nobody is an authority, we just protect and grow the wiki. No user should have the ability to be the boss of others. Vaznock - Talk 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To trust someone. The fact that you said what you said in the last post means you obviosly do not trust admins. Doesn't it? Zero - Talk 16:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. I just don't think that leaving our wiki into the hands of just a few users who are bound to make mistakes once in a while isn't a good idea. Vaznock - Talk 16:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words you do not trust us to make the right choice everytime. Do you think the majority is right every time? Zero - Talk 16:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that admins shouldn't be the only ones to have a say in things and that they shouldn't be counted any higher than others. I mean, other users could have just as good of ideas as admins, and their ideas could be better. As a famous example, this wiki once suffered from a collapsibility problem, and the admins did not know what to do, yet Joey, who was just a regular user at that time, stepped up to the plate and fixed it, among many other examples. So, why entrust everything to a small amount of users, when others users might have the perfect idea. Vaznock - Talk 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a community orientated site – your dictatorial notions are unsuitable and unwelcome. Unlike you'd like to think, admins do not rule any site that they don't own. Do you own this site? If not, you don't get to "have power over others."

This conversation is going nowhere. Your arguments are desperate and your logic is flimsy. Moreover, we don't need to convince one user to make the necessary changes when the majority has spoken. ― T hailog 16:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna ignore Thailog since he can't answer. So... How is that any different than what is happening now? Oh and while we're on the subject wouldn't telling someone about the policy of a wiki be the same as bossing them around? (Think calmly and answer. If you can't answer these questions then it's just like what Oromis said to Eragon in Eldest. Assuming You've read the Inherence Cycle). Zero - Talk 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, lets not get bitter. To Zero: reprimanding policy isn't bossing a user around. Its reminding them of what policies to follow if they wish to contribute to the wiki nicely. Thats what rules are for, and admins are simply there to block the user if they go against the rules the community has agreed on. Vaznock - Talk 17:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The people involved in this argument need to calm down and get back to discussing, rather than mud-slinging. We won't talk about how desperate or flimsy the arguments are, and we will not ignore each other, because this all is approaching a grey area of the spirit of the wiki.

Personally, I, like Puragus, think while the admin talk page sounded like a good idea at the time, it is no longer relevant.

There is no pressing need for the admin talk page. If users need to be blocked, there is Forum:Administrative Requests. If policy needs changing, there's the forums or Avatar Wiki talk:Community Portal. If admins need to tell everyone that they're going to be out for a while, they can notify others on their talk page and change their status on Template:Administrators.
There is no way the admin talk page will work the way it is envisioned to work. The admin talk page is not private. While only admins can post there, everyone can still see it, and will complain to the administration about the outcome of particular discussions, which will still cause incredible annoyance. If anyone needs to tell anyone anything in private, there is always the email option. I believe that all admins should have an available valid email address.

Also, I made the changes earlier today, believing that consensus had been reached. Please don't slam me for it, I was doing what I believed to be in the community's interests. Thank you. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 17:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If only I had 888's abilities of speaking (or typing). Vaznock - Talk 17:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

@Vaznock: lol... @Everyone: Also, if we need to discuss problem users, I or anyone for that matter, can easily set up a section in Forum:Administrative Requests called "Arbitration Requests" where users can complain about other users, and then the whole community will have input on what should be done about the dispute. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 17:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it could work, but it might be a cause for heated argument/controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFlash101 (wall • contribs) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes if only we had 888's way of talking. So shall we make this official and put it to a vote? My real qualm was how we reached a consensus without a proper vote. Especially when you guys had a feeling I might be against it. Zero - Talk 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

However I feel we will need a page to record leaves of absences. Zero - Talk 17:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero. I personally don't think we need a vote; I believe that there is now a 100% support rate, and the discussion has been up long enough (and on the site notice too) for everyone to see it. About the page to record leaves of absences, all we really need is an "absence template" that automatically puts the page it is transcribed on into a category called "Absent users". If things need further clarification, then the absent user can post on the talk page for that category. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 17:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That could work. But I was also thinking about recording the expected amount of time a user is to be absent. Is there any way to do that? And there is a set procedure. We have to take a vote it's not something trivial so it has to be done. Zero - Talk 17:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the template tells how long the user will be absent. Vaznock - Talk 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about having that detail for all absent admins on a page. Better than going around to each and every page. Is there a way to do that? Zero - Talk 17:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was absent for a period of time, I had a block of text mentioning so on my page. On Phineas and Ferb we have one; will that type work? —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 17:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You can easily put the amount of time absent as a parameter on the template. You can also mention it on the category talk. I think that would be the simplest method. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion has gotten off topic. So, we all agree the admin talk page will now be used to discuss Avatar Wiki:Administrators? Vaznock - Talk 18:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a big change so a vote is needed to make things official. Zero - Talk 18:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Everyone agrees, so making a voting thing would be an incredibly useless waste of time. Plus, it seems the change has already been made. Vaznock - Talk 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's official when the majority accepts it, and the majority has. Casting a vote defeats the purpose of this conversation. ― T hailog 18:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need a vote because an extremely small portion of the wiki showed any disliking against doing this (Zero). We have 100% consensus with everyone else, which defeats the point of a vote. (A vote is used to get consensus, but we already have it, so a vote is unnecessary.) Thanks! Joey - Talk^Contribs 19:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedures are procedures. That's all I'm saying. Zero - Talk 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But you see, that's not our procedure. We've followed this type of procedure (with consensus) for quite while, and that's why we're also using it here. Joey - Talk^Contribs 07:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly sure that Avatar Wiki:Policy is rather vague in this matter, and that's my fault. However, I do think that we have reached an acceptable consensus. After all, I've splashed it everywhere, from the site notice to the newsletter. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 08:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a consensus has been reached. I just wanted to follow standard procedure. If that part is still vague then we can declare this over. Zero - Talk 14:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus has been reached. The admin talk page as it is now (an unprotected discussion space discussing Avatar Wiki:Administrators) will stay as is. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So... End Discussion template? Zero - Talk 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was resolved. The result of this discussion was:
The admin talk page is now an unprotected discussion space for discussing improvements to Avatar Wiki:Administrators.
If you wish to restart this discussion, please post under a new subheading below.

Protection Policy

The following is pasted from the community portal.

You know what, the lock icon really makes articles looks bad, not to mention that it gives a bad impression about this site. 1) It gives off the idea this site is vandalized on a daily basis (and by implication the admins cannot handle it), or 2) admins are overzealous and don't trust the regular users judgment. Must every main character be move protected? I can understand protecting high risk templates or images, but popular articles? Is there really a high risk of vandals renaming those pages every day? And if so, renaming can be easily and quickly reverted, without affecting the integrity of the site. That's what admins are for. Protection is not something that's used to prevent something that could or doesn't happen at all. There are wikis with 20x more traffic than this and even those do not run such a tight ship as this one. ― T hailog 22:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you have a point, I had to unprotect a whole lot of minor character articles last month because I discovered that they were overprotected. However, since I didn't protect the main character articles in the first place... The 888th Avatar ^(Talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to this discussion. Zero - Talk 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd have to agree that most pages shouldn't be protected, and that a few that are extremely prone to vandalism or ones that are extremely important are the only ones eligible. Joey - Talk^Contribs 09:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. How about we unprotect every page with a very limited number of exceptions, and from now only protect pages that are vandalised? The 888th Avatar ^(Talk) 11:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For these 'limited number of exceptions' why don't we simply use a css trick to hide the edit button from appearing. This will prevent editing from anons and most users whom can't work with urls, yet will still allow editing by everyone who knows how. An example can be found on my page. Other than that, I want to hurry up and unprotect all pages. Joey - Talk^Contribs 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good. Though I'm assuming that the trick would only be provisional. I'm sure that Wikia staff would frown upon this as a permanent measure, just like they disprove of pages being permanently protected for no good reason. ― T hailog 11:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine for pages in the project or user namespace, but I wouldn't agree with simply hiding the edit button on mainspace articles that we don't want too many people to edit. They need to know at least why the page is protected, and they can discover that when they try to edit. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 11:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya exactly, it's just for all the protected user pages of admins and such as they really don't need to be protected, and if they want reassurance, new editors won't know how to vandalize the page even if they wanted to. Also, I'm aware that Wikia Staff won't mind at all. For the main space articles though, if they are protected, then they would have been vandalized, which obviously means they should be protected for a certain amount of time. Joey - Talk^Contribs 21:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So, shall we pull a vote or simply just do it? I haven't heard any opposition, and this is something that's better to do sooner. Joey - Talk^Contribs 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be voted on. Worst case scenario we have a vote to remove the css code from the pages it's embedded on.

- Avatar Junky ^-^Talk 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and do it. ― T hailog 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Vaznock - Talk 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can agree. This doesn't seem to matter that much to me; doesn't appear to make us seem bad like Thailog said. But whatever; fine with me, just keep The Last Airbender protected, and maybe the other two films. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Last call for objections before I unprotect everything on User:Joeyaa/Editing. If there is anything there that shouldn't be unprotected, remove it soon and leave a reason. Joey - Talk^Contribs 04:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection. You can't unprotect any of the files, that would be deadly if someone uploaded a file to the same name without the wiki's authorisation. Imagine what would happen if our logo and banner suddenly changed, for example. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 11:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya I know, I put them there just to see if anyone would actually read it :P Just remove it from the page and I'll start it up later. Joey - Talk^Contribs 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The pages have all been unprotected. If anyone wants to request the css trick for a page, please ask me (just in case the other admins aren't familiar with css. Also, if I unprotected a page that you think should stay protected, please put it here. Thanks! Joey - Talk^Contribs 03:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits like these are the reason I'm not fond of unprotecting certain important pages. Another example would be the move protection. The only reason someone would move a well established page such as a main character or a bending art is to vandalize it, I don't see how having some pages move protected would make us look bad. Plus, if vandals can't edit pages, there are less revisions stored and the recentchanges gets cleaner. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that's what admins are for. If you want to prevent and curtail vandalism by protecting every page likely to be vandalized then you can start by demoting 80% of this site's administrators, because they won't be needed. Yes, the only reason someone would move a well established page is to vandalize it, but that doesn't mean you should go around move-protecting every such page – as they are plenty. If that was so then the moving feature would be a sysop only feature, like file renaming is. Besides, only registered editors can move pages. If one happens to vandalize a few pages by renaming them, then revert and block the idiot. And as for the clogging of the recent changes page, I don't see how a flood of reverts is worse than a flood of Lovingwhatshisface's silly image talk posts. No one ever made a big deal about that. Also, there are ways in which you can conceal rollbacks from the recent changes page. If vandals want to vandalize and they find that they can't move certain pages, then they will move on to other pages that they can. Is vandalizing Aang any worse than vandalizing Monkey Statue? ― T hailog 20:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Only you would suggest demotion of admins for no good reason, or at the least, a very trivial reason. Zero - Talk 03:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly am I suggeting a demotion? But believe me when I do it, it will be for a very good reason – not remotely trivial. ― T hailog 08:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how some people talk about reducing/stripping the power/rank of others while ignoring the fact that by doing so they are boosting their own powers/rank. Coincidence or Conspiracy? Which do you guys think it would be? And yes, vandalizing Aang is worse than vandalizing Monkey statues. More poeple go to Aang. More importance is given to it. Thus the higher priority. Zero - Talk 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go off topic. Save your rambling rants and paranoia to blogs. ― T hailog 07:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooo. Seems I struck a nerve. Was it something I said? I wonder what it was that provoked such a response. LOL. Zero - Talk 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing a page is vandalism no matter what page. Aang, however, is worst, because more people go their, yes,but if more people go there, that means it can be reverted quickly. BTW Zero, you are getting off topic.Now, I can assure you that the regular users in this discussion don't want "power", just a way to voice their opinions, plus, if this is a conspiracy, why are there more admins than regular users that support it? Vaznock - Talk 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly is this any different than before. Seriously. Even before this, regular users were able to voice their opinions, no? Zero - Talk 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And you're going to say that all their opinions counted? That they weren't shut down at first sight? That Howabout's opinion wasn't more than Jall's, or Lord Momo's? Now, lets be honest, the users who were here even last Summer weren't very "good". They would prefer to act in some Drama thing than actually improve the wiki, so the admins did run the wiki. Plus, back then, and recently, many users desired adminship (Kevin and Lord Momo especially) because it gave them power. And I even saw examples of admins and users acting as though being a sysop was a power position. Now we have competent users who have just as good ideas as the admins. The admins no longer run the wiki. That's a fact. So we are trying to get the current users opinions to matter more than the old user's opinions. That's not trying to get power, that's trying to be heard more. You could also say an admin who doesn't want to limit his or her abilities is the one who wants the power. Plus, like I said before, more admins agree with this than regular users do. Want me to tally it up? Vaznock - Talk 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Potato, Potaato. In my opinion. The admins up till now all earned their positions, but from now on it will be a popularity contest. Anyways, that's besides the point. The fact is that even before users were able to voice their desires anyone who thinks different is clearly not remembering things right. Zero - Talk 03:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but were the users back then really listened to? No offense to you older admins, but you can't say this wiki treated regular users the same as they treat sysops. I've read the archives, and I haven't been very impressed at some of the former admin's, even our founder's conduct. As for the power comment before that I didn't clearly answer was that, yes, us regulars want more recognition. It has nothing to do with power. No offense, Zero, but the admin who doesn't want change would most likely be the one that desires power, I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying your making it seem that way by trying to accuse regulars of being power hungry. Vaznock - Talk 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If we didn't listen to you, then we wouldn't have had "discussions that were many pages long" in the first place, now would we? In my opinion the only thing that is happening is that you guys are trying to replace a system that works with one that is new. A waste in my opinion. Why change when its working? And don't say it's democracy, please. It's not. It's Free Style or Lazzes Faire. Completely different and only suitable for 5 - 10 member organizations.Zero - Talk 10:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The system obviously does not work if regular users and the other admins are in agreement. And "Free Style or Laissez-faire" is a fancy euphemism to "those who have a higher position lay down the law" which is what happened until now, but no more. Live with it. ― T hailog 10:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression, from my classes, that Laissez Faire was the system where everyone's decisions were implemented to further the organization. Are you sure you got your facts straight? Because if you do then that means my Psychology Teacher was wrong. Zero - Talk 10:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Laissez-faire" means "let do." More precisely it means that government intervention should be minimal if not nonexistent. Are you saying that such was the system so far? The admins did not lay down the law? I was under the impression that this entire debate steemed from the fact that the regular users had no saying in the administration of the site, with the admin-only talk page and all. ― T hailog 11:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Zero, I don't think this argument should continue at all, since your the only one on this entire wiki that thinks we should keep discussing; it even seems like your trying to bait the regular users with these accusations. Vaznock - Talk 14:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin Conduct: What are Admins?

Please post your opinions below. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins are reliable contributors who have been trusted with the means to maintain the overall quality of the site. That does not mean they have authority over anyone or anything. The authority of an admin goes as far as the community ~~wants~~ allows it to go. This is a democratic community which upholds the "majority rule," hence all the ballots. And the reason why admins don't have "absolute control" is because they do not own the site. The site is as much "theirs" as it is "ours." The way in which some admins talk among themselves strongly contrasts with the patronizing and condescending tone sometimes used to address regular users, and that denotes a disparate ranking and status between members. Admins serve regular users, not the other way around – I'm using the term "serve" loosely, of course. And the only occasion where they must take on a more authoritative and aggressive stance is in dealing with (potential) vandals and to settle disruptive disputes. Admins do not get to shut down or scold off members when they are trying to propose something or voice their opinions. ― T hailog 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't of said it better myself. Vaznock - Talk 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as Thailog. An admin is a responsible, reliable, smart, sensible, kind, and all around good user that heavily contributes to the wiki. They as well handle vandals properly and abide to the policies. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But, how we would know if a nominated or chosen admin has all this characteristics and values really? Dcasawang1 - Talk 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, eventually either sooner or later they would show their true colors. If someone does something obviously against any of these, then you are assured they probably will do it again. Joey - Talk^Contribs 22:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a great idea to ensure admin and rollback accountability would be to set a page "Avatar Wiki:Requests for Removal of User Rights" so that users can nominate admins or rollback users who consistently abuse their rights for a removal of said rights. This would be a great solution in theory; I am however concerned about the implications if problem users started nominating admins and rollback users "they didn't like". One of the ways we might counter this is that the nominating users must provide several items of evidence of abuse. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But that should work those ways. Someone who is against the removal of rights also needs to provide several items of evidence and arguments to maintain the admin in question. Otherwise we'll have people opposing to the processing just because "they like" him. ― T hailog 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. For the removal of User Rights, we probably don't need an actual page. If a certain "higher positioned" user does abuse their rights, we should both post a community announcement and discussion, and contact our current bureaucrat. Having an "Avatar Wiki:Requests for Removal of User Rights" page makes it seem as if we are expecting to have problems with our administration. We are not. So, if a problem does come about, we should take action but, until then, I don't think we need such a page. Mattkenn3 ^Talk 01:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Has this certain "higher positioned" user actually abused his rights untill now? Zero - Talk 14:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe any admin here has truly abused their rights. There has been very occasional ignorance, but no abuse. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 15:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why did Mattkenn3 make that comment. It was almost as if he was pointing at someone (No idea here who). Zero - Talk 03:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

My expectations of an admin at ALL times...

Never usurp.
Advise - not belittle.
Decorum - reply politely, no posturing/chest beating.
Have patience - in the toughest situations (not give up).
Tough situation - don't have all the answers, refer, call in another admin with skills/expertise in that 'field'.
Be on site very regularly. (Do your job)
Never use posturing as a weapon (chest beating)
No gerrymandering.
Edit - openly displays attentiveness and 'acting' conscientiously.

there may be more or better ways of putting it. Oh yeah, offer the odd bit of praise if you dare :) Piandao ^Talk 12:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if this was a perfect world. However it is not. Zero - Talk 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I must agree. There will always be unsuitable people who by some mishap become admins. We can only hope they will be merely a harmless minority easy to overcome and/or ignore. ― T hailog 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

@Zero - no harm in trying to be perfect, if you are not in the lottery you won't win. Can't do it - won't do it? @Thailog - poor admins, nudge. Bad admins, bring to book
Expectation is part of it as it behaviour - policy/rules must dictate, that including action for irresponsible behavior- if it happens Piandao ^Talk 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. And I'm also glad that we've managed to avoid that situation so far. Zero - Talk 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I only wish you had. ― T hailog 07:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Zero - Talk 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't understand: When exactly did I break any rules, intentionally? I don't think I did. Zero - Talk 04:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about rule breaking? Or about you in particular? Why are you taking this personally? Heavy conscience? ― T hailog 08:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You did, 4 posts ago. So... no. No heavy conscience here. Maybe you're projecting your own state onto me. Zero - Talk 10:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Four posts? Where? ― T hailog 10:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The "I only wish you had. ― Thailog 07:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)" Seriously. Zero - Talk 10:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously indeed. How can you expect to be heard if you can't keep up on a conversation? Allow me to break it down for you:

I said: "There will always be unsuitable people who by some mishap become admins."
You replied: "I'm also glad that we've managed to avoid that situation so far"
To which I retorted: "I only wish you had" – "you" being a second-person, plural personal pronoun; not singlar.

How is that refering to you (second-person singular) personally? ― T hailog 11:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article System

Also, this may not be the right section, but on Avatar Fanon, the community votes for a featured article, and on here, a single user chooses it. This is, in my opinion, one of biggest ideas of power on this wiki. Plus, this does givbe users the impression one user is better than the other, Energy even stated on Talk:Kyoshi Warriors that Omni had the "power". Vaznock - Talk 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That needs changing too. ― T hailog 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that full voting for the featured article each month is a little too much. I mean, we'd have to do it every month - nominating, voting and changing...It's a little too tedious. I would rather that the A-class Article Council handle the featured article system as well in the interests of efficiency. It's not an elite sysop council, because I'm the only sysop there, and I'm not the one usually handling nominations. Therefore, I don't think that there would be too much power in the council's hands. We could set up elections for the council to be held every three months or so, if the community wants that. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 08:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with Vaz. We keep the A-class system, vote on them, and then set up a forum where we discuss making new FAs. But not each month, or for just that month, we do it like some big wikis like Wookieepedia and Harry Potter do it, and decide on a mass-amount of them throughout the forums. If you look, they both have articles ready to be featured all the way to late 2010. It's a system that can greatly benefit us. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with such a system. How the article is going now is not indicative of how good the article will be when it is its turn. Sometimes, articles do unfortunately become worse after a few dozen more edits. Featured articles must be decided each month. Once we have decided on that, we do need to realise just how tedious it is to vote every single month for a featured article. Most big wikis don't do this. Most big wikis e.g. Wikipedia, Wookieepedia, Halopedia etc have a dedicated organisation or committee to decide featured articles. This is more efficient. Sometimes we do have to draw a line. Voting is okay for RfA and for other discussions that concern important decisions, but just deciding the new featured article for next month is not very major and is far too routine to warrant voting. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then where can we find a medium. Vaz is completely right on the way that FAs are chosen is the largest dictation this wiki has. Your issue is it seems to waste time to choose articles in forums each month, but doing it the way that the wikis you actually just named do it can speed up the process. What would you rather: a system where one person chooses an article or where the community picks and decides? —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I think you misunderstood. I'm not supporting a one-person decides all approach with regards to FA's. What I'm against is the whole wiki coming out to vote every single month for a routine featured article, which let's face it, some users will abuse. It would be cleaner to make these decisions to responsibility of a specific group of users, who can be elected to do the job. A good parallel is government. We elect the government to make running the country smoother. If the common people made every single political decision, running a country would be a slow and sluggish affair indeed. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested nominating multiple amounts at a time. If you want a medium for that, then we could limit the amount available and allow only users around for a certain amount of time to vote. Though that might almost definitely cause controversy... —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that I don't want a backlog of articles. Backlogs are not good. Who knows what the article will look like when it is its turn to be featured? Featured articles need to be decided each month, we should be able to establish that much. I also can't see how my proposal isn't democratic, the users deciding the whole thing are elected. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, why don't we just do this. We make a page, Forum:Featured Article, we list all the A-class articles that are not featured, and then we vote by inserting our names under the one we want. How's that sound? Vaznock - Talk 19:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That works. But mine is slightly different: we can only nominate A-class articles, the council stays, but we set up a section for each month of that year and vote on them. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 19:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vaznock's proposed system is too complicated. That way, only one or two people might vote for one article, and consensus won't really be achieved. Flash's system is too open and cumbersome. What I'm trying to get through here a system that is both efficient and "democratic" at the same time. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen work most efficient, is:

Anyone can nominate an article
Everyone (including new users can vote)
Nominations and votes start on the 15th (for next month's)
Votes aren't arguments, just votes (I like, or not)
At the end of the month, someone changes it

It all works on a simple page, requires no fancy templates or announcements, and is democratic with minimal effort. People who don't want to vote, don't have to, and new users usually come and vote amongst themselves anyway. Votes are bias and opinionated, but the goal is to just find interesting things, which is full of bias. This is basically what would work for us in my opinion. Joey - Talk^Contribs 23:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Joey's system works best. After all, it's how all wikis I work on do it. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it Joeyaa's too, Re, indent one - "Anyone can nominate an article" - if we each nominated a different article, that could be a long list. A further thought; would the voting for a FA work in a blog or are they just for and against for one item instead of multi? Piandao ^Talk 11:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll accept this proposal (Joey's) because although I don't prefer it, it is acceptable. But I would like to add a clause of my own: nominated articles must be A-class articles. We can't just have any random interesting article nominated, just because one person liked the subject of the article. Also, voting shouldn't take place on a forum or a blog. As a project section of the wiki, it, like the A-class pages, should be part of the project namespace, like it is on Wikipedia. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 11:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it too. ― T hailog 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Vaznock - Talk 21:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like Joeyaa's proposal and that the nominated articles must be A-class articles as said 888. Dcasawang1 - Talk 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like 888's addition to Joey's as well. —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

So, are we doing that now? —Excelsior, The Flash - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 22:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are no further objections soon, then this should become official. Same with the RfA policy. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar ^{Talk} 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Super summary

See Forum talk:Admin Policy