Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150812013021/@comment-26235098-20150815210215

Wildoneshelper wrote: Catinthedark wrote: Wildoneshelper wrote: Currently the draft of public nomination in replace of bureaucrat nomination:


 * The public can only nominate at most 2 users per month. (Subject to change)
 * The public can start a thread on the user, and if it receives 3 support votes (can be given without reasons), then the voting round starts unless the user has not reached the prerequisites same as the ones stated in the self-nomination method (except the recommendation letter and the 4 pesky supports)
 * The voting round is the same as the other method.

What if I add the requirement that user must get an admin to write a recommendation letter for him/her? And what if the nominated user must agree on being an admin candidate? As far as allowing someone else to nominate a user, I am quite honestly undecided. 'IF it were done, I think you should simply generalize the existing procedure for nomination/voting to reflect that:
 * the candidate must meet nomination requirements
 * the nominating party, be it the candidate themselves, or another person, must gather admin letter, four supports with reasons, submit all to bureaucrat.

BUT ... I have been thinking over your reasons for wanting people to nominate themselves, and am not sure, after all, if it is a good idea to let someone else "sponsor" someone and do all the work of the nomination process for them. It is hard work, and I think in the end I agree with you that the candidate should be willing to do this work. If they are not, maybe it is not so important to them. I did not want to do it. But it was a pain in the butt trying to work on certain areas without admin. And there are areas/things I haven't even done because of the limited access, which is simply sad for me because I am willing but also a loss for the wiki more than for me, since I and able. So it really made more sense for me to apply, than not to.

I just wish there were a way for this process to mitigate the reward-seekers, but no process is perfect.

As an exception to the nomination/voting, I see the idea of spontaneous promotion only by unanimous bureaucrat agreement as having merit, but this should not be considered an "alternative path" for users. It should be a way that bureaucrats have of offering a promotion when they consider a user truly exceptional, but even in this case, I believe the user should still meet the basic nomination requirements.

As those go.... One thing I tend to see in user supports is a mentality of whether someone "deserves" admin. Like it is some kind of prize, reward. I disagree profoundly with this mentality. As a comparison, at work a person does not get promoted if they do a good job. Generally, one has to show they have the qualities necessary for a the next step. That is what I was trying to point out with adding certain criteria/qualities as requirements for nomination... I gave some examples, which could perhaps be thought out better.