Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20160106132717/@comment-3225604-20160110070128

3primetime3 wrote: We should put emphasis on the contributions of a user, not by edit counts, how long he/she had been here, etc. No no no no no... You got the emphasis wrong. The reason why "The candidate must have two edits per 48 hours in the past 15 days. (An ‘edit’ is defined as a bullet point seen in the user activity feed.)" exists is because we want to ensure the user is active, not by seeing the edit count. I think you agree that "activeness" is what an admin should have.

Moreover, this also weeds out "raiding". Users who are bureaucrats/administrators from other wikis which have a lot of experience and establish good relationship with some users here can "raid" this wiki if your idea is carried out. This rule (mainly) and also the "3-month" rule can weed out those "raiders".

Imamadmad doesn't break all of these rules. In fact, she also managed to be eligible under this rule because she once had prompt response and did many coding stuff.

3primetime3 wrote: Prequisites make the whole thing complicated. Prequisites do make something a little bit complicated, but they are necessary, because they can prevent candidates who might be trolling for "opposes" or power hungry. Your method may be prone to trolling and power hunger. It doesn't matter if the user will become an admin or not, but seems we will have a heck lot of time in dealing with them. Setting prerequisites can weed out trolls and power hunger people.

3primetime3 wrote: In general, we know who are great users who could be administrators, so we sort each other out without a system. The system is holding us back. How is this system holding us back? As long as we know that the candidate is capable, we don't need to worry that the user cannot be an admin.

And DO WE KNOW which users can be good admins? We can't tell.

3primetime3 wrote: Also, totally following rules is not what an admin is. Never did I say the admin has to totally follow the rules, but it feels like you refuse to "play the game fairly" or say it in this way: "I want to play this myself and I couldn't care less about the rules". Then, nobody will follow the rules and this makes everything more complicated or messed up. In short, you just don't want to follow rules.

3primetime3 wrote: We don't need a system similar to theirs. Although Lefty trusted us because we are able to make our own decisions, we are still humans. We are not Gods. Therefore, sometimes we may make biased decisions. Having a voting system can sometimes make us know about the user more. Moreover, we may sometimes be unfamiliar with users here. You know we are not active all the time, right? Because of this, we may miss some great users and this needs help from the normal users and admins to point them out. Hence, it is still important we let ourselves, admins and registered users nominate users. Administrators should be supported by the general community and we don't represent all of the general community because different users have different opinions, so a voting round is important.

But then, your last paragraph is a bit contradictory. Are you supporting spontaneous promotion in short? Or are you opposing promotion by voting?

Lastly, you always tend to restrict normal users from nominating users to be admins. Unless you include this in your proposal, I still have to oppose because normal users have a say too.