Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150812013021/@comment-26235098-20150813001552

3primetime3 wrote:

The thing is, during both the nomination round and voting round for Cat, all admins seemed to have put a few reasons on why the user should become admin (on both the blog post and forum - since they were required), which is what you state for the reason of needing a letter. Reasons or a reason for support is not the same as a recommendation letter. In my case, Imamadmad offered before I even wrote the blog, and although she added it to the blog, her letter was a lot more substantial than 1- or 2-liner supports. Had we known the letter needed to be not-on-blog, she'd have put it elsewhere to start with, that's just nailing down process details.

In 3lite's case, he was running out of time as he was leaving on vacation, so he asked a handful of admins hoping someone would come through. Now, if that was of concern to you, I should say in 3lite's defense that it was I who suggested to him to do so, to help him make the August voting round. Ideally, a candidate might approach an admin one at a time, privately, but he wouldn't have had time at that point.

3primetime3 wrote:

What I mean here is that 3/3 bureaucrat support is too steep. I agree with everything else. Maybe 2/3 is better. It's just sad if one bureaucrat really hates the user and everyone else loves him. Then never promotion? Hopefully bureaucrats can either put emotions to the side if it's personal, or if one has a strong reason for not wanting the user, it is probably a good enough reason for that person not to be an admin. Conceivably, you could soften the unanimity rule by requiing majority support AND giving bureaucrats right of veto, so even just one can oppose and nix the thing. But if one is neutral, it can pass... that's the softening.

Wildoneshelper wrote:

This is because I encourage users to be active rather than passive. Users should strive for a position, not sitting there waiting to be nominated. Even though this path fails, the user can be an admin through the other path. I think asking for ranks is not a bad thing, as long as it is done politely. 3primetime3 wrote:

Another problem is that asking for rights can make users power-hungry. Whereas, the humble contributing user will be pushed aside. Asking for ranks is not a bad thing on both mine and your proposal. I put a different slant on that. Many users ARE power-hungry, they don't become it. Having a lenient nomination process (let alone NOT having a nomination process) makes those power-hungry ones more active, and not always in particularly good ways, tho usually in ways that make them look good - there is a difference. While others who might not "shine" as brightly might actually be real assets on an admin team. And these can indeed be overlooked.

I would probably not have applied, if Imamadmad had not said something to me. And quite honestly, our exchange invovled a slight misunderstanding on my part, and had it not been for that, I may well not have applied at all. Not that I regret it. But it's been very hard on me. I HATED having to ask. :| That's just my personal druthers. And the next guy who is better than me and hates asking even more... might not do it.

The thing is, are you really going to spontaneously promote people if public nominations put out two new admins per month? With possibly more than that trying to nominate themselves?