User blog comment:TopsyKretts3/The Voting Standards Act/@comment-3255675-20130608221211

Since when did this "Voting Standards Act" passed? The community did not decide whether or not to implement this system.

Also, since when did bureaucrats suddenly have the power to veto propositions?

First of all, I personally think this act is stupid. Not only bureaucrats now gained more power in the wiki, but also there are lots of flaws with this act.

1.) If bureaucrats voted for either side in any proposition, whether it is yes or no, they have a lot of edge over everyone else in the decision process.


 * If they voted no, and the yes side wins, they can veto it. This is like voting two times.


 * If they voted yes, and the no side wins, they can veto it as well. Again, this is like voting two times.
 * Bureaucrats may lean towards for one side over the other due to bias opinions and favorablity, which the community could or could not have a control of.

2.) There is not a lot of people involved to vote again in order to override the veto.

Due to lack of editors, a veto is hard to override.

3.) Two thirds of votes to override a veto is too overwhelming.

Again, this is due to lack of editors.

4.) There are no restrictions on who can vote in the overriding the veto.

The act only listed the qualifications to vote on the proposition.

5.) There is nowhere in the act that says bureaucrats may not able to vote in the override process.

Because of this, breaucrats may even vote for the third time.

6.) There are more than 1 bureaucrats. One bureaucrat may not agree with the other bureaucrat.

This creates a problem with the veto process.

Overall, I disapprove this act and I do not want it to be on the wiki. This is a community wiki. I will stress over and over again that ALL EDITORS ARE EQUAL.

Article All Editors Are Equal, section Appealing to a "higher" authority, subsection Wiki Authorities states:

"No Wiki is based on any form of hierarchy, especially our own. Administrators are simply trusted and respected members of the community who have been recognized for their reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments.

This does not give them authority over other players in overruling decisions; all major decisions of this kind (such as applying for a certain title) should be made by the community, and not by an individual user."

Where did the old Combat Arms wiki gone to? Has it really came down to this? Until the wiki clearly shows that bureaucrats, administrators, and moderators are no more or less than a regular wikian, the wiki is about to lose another editor and she will not be looking back here again.