Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150812013021/@comment-3225604-20150813030656

''A blog post didn't show what you stated. Many people already voted support when Catinthedark wrote a blog post for "voting." So then of course the real nomination round will pretty much be exactly the same - a lot of supports. You say above that generally, the "nomination round is inevitable if you have prerequisites," so why have both. I would like to have one example of how a person would pass the voting round and fail the nomination round. I'm just curious.''

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".

''I accept this, but a problem still remains. How many non-ranked people have logged on yesterday and seen this post? Probably at least fifty. And how many commented? ZERO. Even admins ignored this post. How are we going to encourage non-ranked users to vote? 7 right now seems steep for me, but this can easily be changed if we can get users to respond.''

Well, it seems that you have a misconception. No commenting doesn't mean ignoring the post. He may have read the post and have no comments, or waiting for this bunch of replies to settle, or just thinking of a comment to deliver. You also made an example which is irrelevant to voting. A proposal is different from voting. You can't say when nobody is replying the proposal, there will be nobody voting. Actually for the two admin candidates, they already have 7 support votes within 1 or 2 days, so I think it's not steep.

''So...what were the prequisites again? O_O''

Easy:
 * Write a letter of nomination to any one of the bureaucrats (Wildoneshelper, Lefty7788 or 3primetime3). State why you want to become an admin, what you are going to do in order to improve this wiki and what makes you qualify to become an admin in this wiki.
 * You must get a word of support from either of the admins ON THIS WIKI (let the admin write a recommendation letter for you, stating reasons of the admin support your promotion to admin and qualities for you to qualify), and 4 more users supporting you with reasons ON THIS WIKI. The list of admins could be found here. Please include them in your letter of nomination with sources of the admin's recommendation and the 4 users supporting documents.
 * You must be an active user in the past month by having edits at least twice in a day. This rule does not count if you could not edit in a part of the month with valid reasons.
 * You must have joined this wiki for at least 4 months starting from your first day as your current username.
 * Candidates having more than 2 blocks in their history will be admitted only if two of three bureaucrats establish that the misbehavior, cause of the block history, no longer applies to the user, and provided the third bureaucrat does not oppose.

It is stated clearly and I don't know why you are confused with that.

''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? 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 have a feeling that this process will be abused because it is way easier and simpler. Users don't need to do anything to achieve promotion, and I don't think being an administrator should do nothing in order to gain it. I never say if this process fails, the other process will fail. 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.

And if the user is power hungry, sorry to say you can oppose him of that. You can refuse to write a recommendation letter for the user. Even if it gets into the voting round, users and admins can oppose him/her for being an admin because s/he is too power-hungry. In an arrogant saying, my administrator process can weed out the ones who are power-hungry. The public has the choice of who should be an admin or not. And if the user is power-hungry, they can see it.

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.

''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?''

Asew54321 has mentioned that the number of admins here is too much. And your proposal will further increase the number of admins. 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.