Talk: Requests for Adminship

Length of Votes

I think two weeks is too long. Isn't it? Users are either very likely to win, or have no chance of winning. Thebiguglyalien ^{(Yell at me here)} 20:27, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally PerseusJackson-Jordan Terraemotus Tempestas 20:28, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so it says "until there's enough feedback" which is more reasonable. Thebiguglyalien ^{(Yell at me here)} 20:32, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

yes it isPerseusJackson-Jordan Terraemotus Tempestas 20:32, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please help me request my friend PerseusJackson for adminship? Guywithafedora, The Voice of Reason in Any Argument (talk • contribs) 22:08, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

oh dear.......sorry......you were not on for a while......i am already an admin PerseusJackson-Jordan Terraemotus Tempestas 22:13, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Voting Requirements

Hey guys , Nep here. I was thinking about it and a lot of users won't be able to vote for requests adminship because either they don't have enough edits or they haven't been here long enough. I mean does it really matter if they have don't enough main space edits if they've been here for a while but just comment on blogs and have few main space edits? Or if they haven't been here for a while but have enough edits. Looking at it realistically we really don't have a lot of users they aren't admins or rollbacks that pass the requirements, and most of the rollbacks are running this year. So I was suggesting maybe a change of rules? Because I've seen a decent amount of users who want to participate but can't because of restrictions. Plus alot of the users who can vote are inactive. Just a suggestion guys! I don't want any mean replies lol. Nep a.k.a.The Dark Knight - "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot.." 03:24, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

If they've been here for awhile, and they don't have 50 main space edits they haven't exactly contributed to the wiki in any helpful way in my eyes. They've just sat and commented on blogs for most of the time. Especially since there is a new book out there is still more than enough to edit than the usual excuse of "there is nothing to edit". I don't particularly like the idea of changing the time period requirement, but I would not completely oppose it being changed to two or three weeks. Also, I really don't want to budge on the 50, but if it's really "too high" I don't want that number to be under 35. SayuriDarling ~ “But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more.” 04:28, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

What you've suggested is more than reasonable, I think it'll get more people to vote if the rules are a bit lowered. Nep a.k.a.The Dark Knight - "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot.." 04:41, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Getting fifty mainspace edits is not hard; getting a hundred mainspace edits is not that hard. Fifty mainspace edits should be nonnegotiable because users should understand the dynamic of editing, the dynamic of the wiki in fact. Now, not only does contributing aid in better comprehension of the wiki, the time expected of a user to be here also forces them to kind of have a feel of the wiki. These two requirements in conjunction with one another ensures that users actually know what is going on and is not just choosing their friend or the person who's speech is shortest.

Just because there may seem like a shortness in newer users voting isn't enough to be convincing, even to consider lowering the requirements. The requirements are easy to meet and users should prove that they're competent enough to understand the wiki. Atelda 05:39, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sayuri that we could change the time you need to be on the wiki to maybe three weeks -- that's my minimum. However, I think that the mainspace edits should stay at 50. I mean, Neptune, you yourself get so many edits in just a day. For other users to do this, isn't so hard. Aside from that, a lot of people know vandalism when they see it. --

gggggggggggggggggggggggggg 14:33, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't hard at all but some of the users don't have the edits , that's all I'm saying lol. Nep a.k.a.The Dark Knight - "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot.." 20:58, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Back Ups

So I was thinking, every time a admin goes inactive we have elections. Now what I'm about to suggest is not eliminating elections but more or less putting into a "Plan B" type category. So I was thinking instead of going through the trouble of having an election every time one of you goes inactive we could have an instant "backups".

• We wouldn't have to wait 2 weeks for a new admin to be decided.
• I thought this would be a good idea because this is how a job works, they always have someone who can replace you at a moments notice if something should happen. Though if there isn't a direct back up for the position then they overview different candidates for the position.
• It would save time.
• Admins could pick 1 or 2 people to act as direct backups, there wouldn't be a specific back up for any admin it would just be in general.
• Another reason why I thought this would be a good idea is because I've heard multiple people say that we have admin elections every year.
• Though if the backups themselves aren't active or if the admins deem them unworthy at the time because of recent actions there could A: Be two Backups. and B: If the admins deem both backups unworthy we could then have elections.
• Again this doesn't eliminate the elections, I mean if the Requests for adminship page is open users should still be free to request it, but still.

What do you guys think? I just got done have an interesting discussion about jobs and instant replacements/backups which actually inspired this idea. Now it's just a suggestion to make things go faster in the future as well as you guys not having to have a discussion about what to do every time. Nep Everything's impossible until somebody does it. 12:16, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

A backup admin would eliminate the point of ever having an admin election and the community wouldn't be able to decide on who it is. There would be no point in every opening admin elections then if there was a constant flow of replacements. In a real job setting it works because usually 1 person decides who works there, but adminship has always been a community decision. Also, it takes a month for an admin to be considered inactive, so I don't think an extra two week waiting period is too bad. SayuriDarling | 따뜻함이란 없어 곁엔 아무도 없어 16:16, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Having a backup admin would eliminate admin elections (which people enjoy because for a week there is excitement and gossip in the air about who will be the new admin), and by eliminating admin elections, your eliminating the community's power to choose who they think would make the best admin. Even if the admins did agree to this idea, we might make a choice the community doesn't agree with, so that's why admin elections save a lot of time (and keep peace amongst our users). ✿Bella✿ 23:00, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Firstly I said this as a suggestion for something to do before we admin elections, no one said you had to pick a lot of backups, you could even just have one. I already explained why it wouldn't eliminate the elections. Nep Everything's impossible until somebody does it. 23:05, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have an admin election because if there was a constant flow of back ups there would be no point to even opening elections. SayuriDarling | 따뜻함이란 없어 곁엔 아무도 없어 23:08, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

No one said there had to be a constant flow of backups. And realistically since Rollbacks are the only ones allowed to run that means we are already considered back ups anyway because we're who you guys have to choose from. Nep I wear my sunglasses at night. 23:11, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this is not getting rid of the admin elections, it's just rendering them more rare. That being said though, it still takes away the community's voice. Also, the admin nominations show the current user who is ready to step up to the community. None of the admins should ever ask a user to constantly be at the top of their game and have full support of the community continuously by deeming them a backup admin. Atelda 23:17, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

I addressed this in the 3rd bullet point and the community could always vote on it but I guess that's the same as having an admin election.... Nep I wear my sunglasses at night. 23:28, December 29, 2013 (UTC)