Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150812013021/@comment-17897872-20150812223537

Wildoneshelper wrote: The nomination round is completely different from voting round. It's just like gaining some support from some users first before you go to real voting. It sometimes also gives some advice to the candidate on why he is good enough to be an admin. The nomination round also contains prerequisites that will decide whether you can be voted or not. Generally, nomination round is inevitable if you have prerequisites. 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.

Wildoneshelper wrote: Yup, because Candy Crush Saga Wiki is shared among the community, not just only administrators. Normal users should have a say who should be admins or not. In this wiki, what affects the most is the normal users as administrators have access to many areas. 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.

Wildoneshelper wrote: There is no actual requirement for mainspace edits. Two edits per day within a month does not mean two mainspace edits per day. The edits include commenting and replying. Two is already the very minimum it could get. For me, I think two edits per day shows the least how active the user should be. So...what were the prequisites again? O_O

Wildoneshelper wrote: Well, recommendation letter from an admin shows why the user qualifies to be an admin and why s/he is good enough to be an admin. Basically, the user can say whatever s/he wants if there is no one proving what s/he says is true. 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. This still kills the purpose. If I state in a blog post or forum why User:Blahblah should be admin, and the person asks me for a letter, this gets repetitve. He doesn't need a letter from me because I stated all my reasons he should become one. But the requirements state to need one, so then he would ask me because he knows I will write a strong one.

3primetime3 wrote: If a bureaucrat wants a user to be nominated, simply ask the user whether or not he has no problem. Approved by all bureaucrats? That's kind of sad if one bureaucrat really hates the user and everyone else loves him.

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. 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.

Wildoneshelper wrote: There is a rule that if we found the IP is sockpuppeting, his/her votes, including the original votes, will be terminated. On a day that I am rarely at home, I can edit in 3 or more anonymous IP addresses at one time. What if all three had a bit of contributions on each (because they don't change slightly ovetr time), and I type in three different writing styles, how would you catch me as sockpuppeting to ban?