Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20160106132717/@comment-54.148.77.249-20160110080007

Activeness and contributions are what a user should have. But is 2 edits per day for 15 days going to show that? In general, "the user should be active" seems better. I would rather leave that vague. If we show 2 edits per day, the user may think that he/she needs only two edits per day as an admin, which will be BAD. We should just say, generally active :P. Imamadmad was not active everyday, though she was around. Being active is different from two edits a day.

Not to be insulting, but raiders actually seem really nice, the way you describe it. If they can maintain a good relationship, stay active here, and suggest good ideas, I can be all to raiders, believe it or not. If they committed a good deed and stay dedicated, they should get their reward. Cat did so, though she did not come from a different wiki, in under three months, I believe. If a raider can win the heart of the community and stay active, that is awesome too! If the raider is power hungry? That means the user will lose interest quickly after getting demoted, seeing considerably less edits or retirement after promotion. That can easily be solved with demotion. Trolls? I think the community knows how to deal with that by opposing. A new and immature user? The community will oppose that.

We can't always tell good admins, but we can always tell some that must be promoted. Cat again for example. Those that we don't notice can be considered by writing a request forum like I state. How this system you bring holds us back? It took Cat many days to get promoted, and even though this was shortened, it is still a much longer process than my way I suggest. If Cat followed my way and wrote a forum post first, she could have gotten rights faster. We already knew that she was trustworthy.

Yes, in short, rules are my enemy. I try to find a way to break a rule if I know that it can be improved on, be that one exception. I do play my own game when I know it won't hurt the wiki or others, and I don't want to follow rules. Judgement is important.

Also, never did I say spontaneous promotion was the way to go. I support the voting method but we need to make it simpler and to the point. I oppose the two different stages. That is something we have in common. The part we differ is how to carry it out. I suggest making only one round instead of two. Then check percentages. Nomination then voting gets repetitive, so cut to the chase. The community is smart. They will know good users from the bad, the hard workers from the power hungry users and vandalizers.

And sure, might as well have a user nominate a user too on my part, Change my second bullet point to "A user can nominate another user..." That could make it more fair.

-Primetime