This Community Vote has Ended!

The side of Support won in the vote!


This is an Administrative Blog!

Please do not spam this page with unnecessary comments.

NOTE: Spamming on this blog will result in
a warning and deletion of comment.

Dovahkiin full body by dremoravalkynaz-d4e2mwu
This is a Community Vote !

Please do not spam this page with unnecessary comments.

NOTE: Spamming on this blog will result in
deletion of unnecessary comments.

"It never really occurred to me how broken our voting system is until this abomination of a demotion request happened. Those supporting G-man's demotion (myself included) were handily squashed by returning users who rarely (if ever) come here; John Breasly, Parax, Goldvane, etc. It's truly sad when the will of the community is crushed by a bunch of old users who have no business interfering in our wiki's internal affairs.

To combat this blatant abuse of our wiki's generous voter eligibility rules by people who rarely come here anymore, I propose the following:

1.) We legally define what constitutes an "active user" and explicitly restrict voting rights to said "active users." The definition of an "active user" will be as follows: An "active user" is a user who has made fifty mainspace edits in good faith (this part is key; admins, please keep a close eye on people's edits) within the past four months as of the creation of the vote(s) in question on the SSC or on a blog; whichever applicably comes first. This means that after a vote is created, if a person doesn't meet the requirements and tries to spam-edit quickly to rack up the necessary edits to vote, they will be denied the ability to vote on that specific vote no matter what. 

2.) We acknowledge that certain users are active in chat but don't edit very much; people like Viceroy Robert McRoberts, Jim Logan and (more recently) Haras come to mind. I propose that these people be allowed to appeal for an exempting from the first article of this bill on the 1ASA board. If an admin determines that they're active enough on the wiki without editing, they may be given voting rights. However, they will be closely monitored and if their activity on chat declines their voting rights will be revoked. If this clause ends up being abused or not properly enforced, I'll probably propose something alternative for people like Rob and Jim (or I might anyways regardless, I don't know yet).

Thanks for considering my proposal, and may the Gamers Fanon Wiki prosper."

-Nults McKagan, SSC

Both(?) sides of the argument have stated their stances; vote away! Please keep in mind that you must have 50 mainspace edits and state a clear, valid reason for your vote in order to be counted.

Support Support -

  1. WaglingtonŒ
  2. Nults McKagan
  3. Lord Andrew Mallace
  4. Captain Ned Edgewalker
  5. Sir Joseph Grey
  6. Jeremiah Garland
  7. TheNextMaster
  8. HurrcheeseDa2nd
  9. Ishmael Venables
  10. Haras

Neutral Neutral -

Oppose Oppose -

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.