Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150812013021/@comment-17897872-20150814014653

And another long response LEL. Emmaelise401 said: I don't know where to put this. If there is enoguh support votes, and pretty much everyone wants him/her/it.. Why not just promote him/her/it?

If this idea passes, maybe we can put a different clause to it. A uniamous support from over 10+ users means that the user can be instantly promoted.

Wildoneshelper said: The nomination round has the prerequisites which objectively show your qualities to be an admin. To me, the nomination round shows the qualities an admin should have and to be proved objectively. The blog post didn't go well as I thought, because at first I didn't intend to use blog post as an example. It is CC who suggested the example. Actually I would prefer you ask for support on some users and then you have the small amount of support. The users don't have to necessarily vote on the blog post when it has 4 support votes already. And as Catinthedark stated, the blog post is to gain support for his "nomination", not "voting". For this method to work, there could be prerequisites. At this point, I still feel that this user should be able to apply at any time, even 3 months in. If people are able to support him, he should be able to pass. I just don't want them to be too steep in which a user won't be able to apply. For example, Imamadmad still doesn't meet the "active user...by having edits at least twice a day." But she still deserves the rights because she is knowledgeable in coding...things...

If this method goes out again, there needs to be a better way than the blog post. Maybe we can even eliminate this and get right to the nomination, which gets to my core of my arguement. Other users supporting and opposing will already iron out all of the amateurs. This other stuff kills time.

Wildoneshelper said: A proposal is different from voting. I understand this, but the non-users also need to be confident and speak out their own opinions, even if they don't have an opinion. They need to support a way to vote in a future too, which means voting for which proposal is better. I believe both systems just need supports. That's what we are seeking, support from other users to implement this. I only see suggestions in tweaking a few things from a few users and a few supports. This lacks a sense of community. I think these long messages are scaring off other people to respond.

Wildoneshelper said: It is stated clearly and I don't know why you are confused with that. I was confused mainly because they changed over the very very first proposal you stated. There used to be mainspace edits and everything, and I needed to make sure that I'm basing my arguement over the right prerequisites.

Wildoneshelper said: If the user fails to get 3/3 bureaucrat support votes, the user can go the other way - the nomination and voting rounds way. In that way, bureaucrat votes are counted as administrator votes, and if it qualifies, then the user is an admin. Being an administrator should get along well with the majority of the administrators and normal users. Here the bureaucrat process is like the exemption of the normal and casual process of being an admin. I believe bureaucrats always listen to what others think. But there's always that one exception. 3/3 is too steep for me, just like how you found 2/3 too steep. Could we lower this to a 2/3 bureaucrat support vote? There might be that one hate to a user from one of those bureaucrats, which makes the user have to start this long and tedious process.

Wildoneshelper said: I also don't think being too humble is a good thing. Being too humble will make opportunity pass from you quickly. There should be a balance between humble and activeness. I don't think you will be named as a position in blah blah blah if you don't apply for it. But in your proposal, there is no "humbleness." A user has to actively nominate him/herself to become admin. How is there a humble part to that? If bureaucrats see a good user and start a thread themselves, that's kind of almost my proposal for making a bureaucrat (though I can always change this for admins after which proposal passes).

Asew54321 said: The number of admins here is too much. We should never put a cap on how many admins we promote. I've seen some wikis have over 30 at one point.

Wildoneshelper said: And your proposal will further increase the number of admins but I think it's alright as long as it is heavily supported by the public. I don't see how my proposal would increase the number of admins any more than yours.

Wildoneshelper said: Public nominations for me is a good thing but I think the user should fulfill the prerequisites above, excluding the recommendation letter. Even this is better than the bureaucrat nomination for me. I still respect your opinion and will not go as far as to tell anyone that he/she is thinking "wrong."

At this point, we have reached an impasse. Along with Nusdan, we are both suggesting to stop these long messages soon as this could go on for a very long time - perhaps months. It will scare off inexperienced users, which is what we don't want. And during this period, we won't be sure how to promote good users if another one comes along. Therefore, we suggest to do the following. After the next few messages, let's shake hands and stop this. Because I'm getting tired, and I know that you're getting tired from responding to these. So let's do this: each of us will write a TINY draft on the general positives and negatives of each proposal - maybe not too specific about 75% to 90% support, but general negatives too. Than we can put this out to the public and have EVERYONE vote, not just four admins. After a proposal has been picked, we can worry about fixing the negatives and the small mistakes. We won't get anything done if we continue down this trail.