Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-4091815-20160221025102/@comment-5163932-20160223174058

Utah Alpha wrote: He picked the same people voted for through out multiple threads. Everyone he choose were excellent choices. You seriously disagree?

Not necessarily with the people but with the method, multiple threads are no good, there was supposed to be an official thread for the voting, like how the "community selected Admin" thread was there for two weeks. If something is to be done, it should be done fairly and neutrally, not on friendship or other emotional bias, and certainly not out of fear of retribution (not implying anything there, I am speaking in general)

A wiki needs two impartial admins who work for the wiki and for the good of it, not for how they view it should be and not to rule it and not merely to oppose another admin, the wiki should come first. Any good admin will know that admins are not rulers and are technically not in charge (though surprisingly few know this) they are merely users trusted enough to use tools to work for the wiki, however, some admins can bypass the trust part if they are the founders (which gives instant rights to the creator) but they should be held just as accountable as any other admin, and more importantly, any other user because all editors are equal.

If a rank had to be given to an admin, it would be that of a janitor, as their job is simply to maintain the wiki, not control or dominate it.

And if you or others think the people selected were good choices, then you shouldn't have a problem doing the matter properly in a voting thread.