Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Bulbapedia talk:Nominations for administratorship

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Revision as of 02:28, 5 October 2008 by Theininen (Talk | contribs) (Sockpuppeting: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

This isn't easy... I just spent 10 minutes going through different users and I couldn't find any that I think deserve this AND match all the guidelines... --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because they've all been made into admins already? I think we're fine for admins right now, unless we decide that we need someone who can deal with late-night vandal attacks. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, its a more innocent and productive and less disruptive pasttime for bored users than userpages. Theininen 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Voters

Anyone agree that we should have guidelines preventing new users from nominating and voting? I'm protecting the page for the time being from new users. We can't have a kid registering just to nominate their friend for adminship. --ニョロトノ666 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it would be a good idea to stop people from nominating themselves. Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
They can't vote for themselves, but I agree that it is a good idea that new users can't vote.--PsychicRider 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No...wait, i mean like, make a new account, i think on here it's called sock-puppeting, on other websites I'm on its called Mule-ing, like, make a new account and vote for themselves that way :3 Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I get it. Yeah, that too should probably be checked out. Make sure that the nominations are fair, and don't have the support of sock puppets and new user friends.--PsychicRider 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone that would do that sort of thing wouldn't be good material in the first place. Glinn Mgraw 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleh

This page is a bad Idea.Everyone and there dog wil have there friends nomionate them or will nominate there friends only.DCM 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice for it to be deleted. tc26 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
NO. At last BP is taking steps to be democratic, but you are so happy being ruled over, DCM go to Zimbabwe youll like it there, you get absolutely no say in who leads you, just what you seem to want. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Nomination doesn't mean auto-adminship, or adminship at all. Glinn Mgraw 12:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
HAHAH DCM says that and look who he nominated, his best friend Porygon-Z, you cant tell others off for voting for freinds when you vote for Porygon-Z, your best friend. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Voted for him for his good contributions.DCM 12:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can use that excuse, right as soon as Kuki's here for 6 months im voting for him and ill say "his great contributions" --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
He revamped the TV section and is constantly watching the User SPace.Thank you for your timeDCM 12:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, when DCM knows hes wrong he results to petty attempts at winding me up, such as the thankyou for your time at the end of his sig, which used to be mine and he enjoyed making fun of. DCM you voted for their friend, and you complain that people can vote for their friends. HYPOCRITE --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to have this argument.But if you look at Porygon-Z contributions....DCM 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
A page talking about nominations is exactly the right palce to be arguing about nominations. Im not saying that PZ shouldnt be an admin. I VOTED FOR PZ AS WELL. What im saying is that you cant vote for a friend and then complain that people are voting for their friends, when they might have valid reasons like you. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because they are nominated, doesn't mean they will become one. There is still a final say that goes on. DCM actually voted for someone decent, Everyone else, except for Magnedeth, would be horrible and would cause so many problems. MoldyOrange 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agrre with MO, just because they are nominated doesnt mean they will get it. SO the PAGE STAYS, DEMOCRACY is finally coming to BP. DCM youll have to find another Autocratic site, to be ruled over without having a say, as BP is becoming democratic, which you dont like. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That statement was to help DCM's case, not yours. I meant that the check Users are the final people to decide whether or not nominees are good enough. In this case, most of them aren't. MoldyOrange 13:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
DCMs case is that this page should be deleted, my case is that it shouldnt, so you finished DCMs case for good. We are on the same point of view. We both believe this page should stay. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate this page and I want it to be killed immediately! I mean look at the recent changes. This page has become as bad as the Userspace... in one day! MoldyOrange 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont wanna get into an argument, but why did you say something that basically guranteed the page should say? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You know. I wish people would be as enthusiastic about, oh, I dunno, featuring an article? TTEchidna 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to bump the featured article candidate page about 3 or 4 times, but no-one was interested. Glinn Mgraw 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've voted on more FACs than I ever will requests for adminship. Whoever's supposed to be working on the other end of the project just hasn't featured any of them yet. And as for this, I've gotta say, I don't even think we need any more admins then we have, unless some upstanding Siberian editor is willing to fend off late-night vandals. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 08:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Use some common sense

Please, don't bother nominating someone who "should get a go and we'll see how they do". The nomination should be for someone who is clearly an experienced member, and is seen fairly often around the 'pedia. Don't bother saying "if such and such doesn't have the experience take the powers of them again". It's just a waste of time. Glinn Mgraw 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

His contributions are good. He deserves to be an admin based on what he has done and tried to do. I said if he goes corrupt then take the powers away, but he wont go corrupt. he will be a good admin. Im 100% sure. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Get real... This argument is getting silly, as is the page. People are only voting for their friends. --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not voting for my friends; i think most people on here are mature enough to vote for someone who would be good at being an Admin, rather than their friends. Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing would make me happier than to believe that (well, almost nothing :)), but look at the nominees, who nominated them, and their records. There are only 2 good users nominated. The rest are... Well, come on... --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunaetly, some good users dont have the six months under there beltDCM 15:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Which makes them not experienced enough. It's a fair rule. --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are some people who've been here over 6 months who hardly do anything. Just because they haven't been here that long, does not mean there not experienced |: I think thats highly unfair, i could agree with one month, or maybe two. |: I mean, look at me, i've been here since February and how many edits do i make to the main space? Normally it's just the little grammar tweak, or spelling here and there. But take certain users, not naming any names, who've been here for a few months. Some of them have made many edits that have really helped. If you ask me this system is unfair. Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
More than anything, six months show dedication and consistency - if a user has been a good and contributing editor for more than six months, they're probably here to stay. Two-monthers might grow tired and leave next week. --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, but don't you think SIX months is pushing it a bit? |: That's half a year, and trust me that is a long time. I think someone who's been here for about two months would probably stay. Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're here for four months it'd likely be good, but six months makes sure you're dedicated... though to tell the truth, I did get it after three months of being here... I dunno, Argy would know why. TTEchidna 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any way to change the 'rules' of this? I think four months would be fair, but thats just my opinion though. Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 20:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We'll speak amongst ourselves to determine it... TTEchidna 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to sound like an idiot, but what do you mean by that? Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe he meant the admins will talk about it elsewhere and decide. --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh right :3 Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Say...

...We should get a section called 'Proper reasons for nomination'. I mean, people who come up and say 'I nominate RandomGuy because he's kind to new users and is a gud friend' are like, WTF? Reasons that are okay should be something like 'AnotherRandomGuy has good grammar and is actively editing Bulbapedia often. I propose that we make him an admin.' Of course, we still need the 6 month policy as any vandal can put up that act. It's the Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links03:33 14 Aug 2008

Makes sense yo me.DCM 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If you care to write up a few guidelines... I'll look over them. TTEchidna 06:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not acceptable:

  • No reasons that involve futuristic views. (Eg. He won't get corrupted if you promote him...)
  • No reasons that involve friends. (Eg. He's kind to new users...)
  • No reasons that involve non-Bulbapedia stuff, basically. (Eg. He makes great sprites, isn't that Bulbapedia stuff?)
  • No reasons that involve anti-other-users. (Eg. You won't promote him just because he's my friend!)

Acceptable:

  • Most edits are in the main namespace.
  • Reverts when vandal strikes (might reconsider, some users are just unlucky that the vandals come when they're asleep or something...-points at timezones-)
  • Often active (What's the use of an inactive admin?),
I dunno. This needs improvement for sure...It's the Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links06:24 14 Aug 2008
Surely knowing there arent gonna get corrupted is a plus point, ok not a reason, but a plus point.
  • definately agree about the friend one.
  • Sprites are Bulba
  • I agree with the 4th as well.

Id love to stop a vandal, but literally I never see them, also do templates count as mainspace? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 09:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason why we give 6 months is to prevent corruption. So far, all good faith users have been uncorrupted ('cept me, of course).
Secondly, sprites are Archives, not Bulba. I'm not going furthur in case I get another ban and...
Last ly, templates ain't mainspace. Duh. Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links09:23 14 Aug 2008
ok then, thanks for your time. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree on a lot of those points:
  • "Being kind to new users" is a good sign as dealing with other users in a patient manner is a part of the position.
  • Images uploaded to the Archives should be used on Bulbapedia, so uploading a lot is generally a positive help. The custom sprites an issue in itself but they shouldn't have a negative effect on the chances of getting the position.
  • Edits to templates are certainly good, though any prospective admins should probably be made aware of the consequences to the server of editing the protected templates.
  • Expanding from that, edits outside of the mainspace are not inherently bad, just so long as the userspace isn't being abused. There should still be a substantial amount of edits in the mainspace, though.
Overall, the reasons just need to be directed towards suitability as an admin. No logical fallacies, no random stuff, just evidence that they would be a good addition to the staff. --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 10:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yay for fabu-vinny, I wasnt gonna argue with Ph34r4ever, but i agreed with everything you just said. Thankyou Fabu.--Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The definition of 'kind' as used there is 'not strict'. Anyway, I'm not going to argue with an admin. Especially one which I lost an argument to...especially one that has more experience than me...Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links13:10 14 Aug 2008
Being too scrict to new users could drive away potentially good contributors. Obviously, there's a point where the line has to be drawn but it is best to assume good faith at first. --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 12:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination acceptance

I think one of the first steps in any nomination should be to post on the user's talk page, telling them they've been nominated. Give them a chance to officially say "I accept this nomination", rather then go through the voting process without being sure if the nominee is even interested in the position. If the nominee doesn't feel they'd be good for the job, I'd say that's a pretty quick answer to the "should this user be an admin?" question. No doubt, there are plenty of good contributors here who are too busy to add more things to do on Bulbapedia... just my two cents. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 06:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. The nominator can do so. TTEchidna 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to think of this in a different angle

Sure, an Admin should contribute to the Mainspace, but on a site where many users edit the User space more than they edit the Mainspace, shouldnt there be some admins that specialize in the User psace?If all the admins focus on the MAinspace, who watches the User space with the same amount of attention?and who watches the admins?DCM

The bureaucrats and the editorial board watch the admins. As for whether or not there should be admins specifically assigned to watch the userspace, I think it's a given that we'll all do our parts to make sure users don't spend too much time editing their userpages. --ニョロトノ666 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But do admins realy do that?I notice more users warning other users about editing the ?User space(which is a good thing) but we really cant do anything about itDCM
Sure we can. We can alert the admins when a user gets out of hand. There's no point having an admin just for that - it's too much power. And I have seen some admins (mostly the newer ones) warning users about these things. --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule about nominating yourself

Can someone explain why we have this rule? Plenty other sites that use MediaWiki software allow users to nominate themselves with no problems at all. Baby G 20:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Considering nominating yourself? --ニョロトノ666 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
How about because then every user on this wiki will be nominated? As a Pokémon wiki, we have many kids on board. While many of them are good users, not all are mature enough to only do it if they deserve it. Not to mention - you're probably not worthy of the powers if nobody else thought about you as such... --electAbuzzzz (TALK) 20:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you theres no point to it."I nominate myself becasue I am so awesome that I deserve it!"Thats whyDCM
Yes, I'm considering nominating myself, but not until I make about 2,000 more edits. And if tons of people nominate themself when they don't meet the requirement, their nomination can simply be closed. Baby G 21:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The flaw in this system is that, even if they don't meet the standards, the other kids who have grown to like them for reasons completely unrelated to the wiki would vote for them just because they're friends. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 01:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
For future reference to others, this has already been established. Please read the other sections before adding.... ht14 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can you request to be a nominee, if you followed all the guidelines? ht14 01:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is virtually the same as nominating yourself, which isn't allowed. MoldyOrange 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, just becuase you asked that question, you are pretty much out of the running for it.Sorry.Look here:http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User_talk:TTEchidna/Archive_Jul-Aug_08#adminDCM
Sorry, I didn't know.... ht14 01:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How does it work?

How does the voting work? Like, is it whoever has the most Agrees? Or is it something different? I've never been able to work it out D: ~~Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 05:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's anything like other wikis, then the decision ultimately comes down to the B.crats, while the votes give a good picture of how everyone feels about it. For example, if you got support from a few good editors, and a bunch of disagrees from totally random people, it would still be totally possible for you to be promoted. Quality, not Quantity. Just my view of the system, however, and not to be taken as official word on how it all works. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 05:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, right. ~~Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Basically all you need is 1 good edit, a friend to nominate you and a few thousand dollars. Those new servers dont buy themselves you know. LOL. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010 18:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
xDD ~~Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Wait guys, also, when does it get decided who becomes an Admin? My friend was wondering ~~Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 05:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's your friend? ht14 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
IT WAS ME!--DCM((TalkContributions))
Then YOU cannot be a nominee. Same happened with me. See "Question" on this talk page... ht14 22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
He's already a nominee (he turned it down, though). And he wasn't asking to be nominated, he was asking when these things will be resolved. TTE answered the question already; one month from nomination is when the votes are tallied. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 22:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh well.Im soooooooooo dissapointed I didnt make the cut ;)--DCM((TalkContributions))
But how about MY situation? ht14 22:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You asked if someone could request to be a nominee; you didn't actually ask to be a nominee, and the way you phrased your question didn't necessarily indicate that you were asking about yourself. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that you're in the clear as long as you DON'T request to be a nominee. It's probably a bad idea to take the issue any further than that, too. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 23:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see much harm in asking to be nominated... it'll normally be reflected in the votes how people feel about the nominee, and if the user needed to ask for the nomination, chances are there won't be a ton of support votes. (or we might happen across a qualified nominee who just so happens to not have been nominated yet.) That's pretty much the reason a lot of other sites even allow self-nomination, because normally, you can trust the other users to shoot down silly requests. As opposed to banning candidates from the process because they might have hinted at wanting the nomination... "if you want it, you can't have it" seems a little silly. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that. I'm afraid all I have for rebuttal is the same "everyone votes for their friends" thing that I've been saying over and over. But I still believe in that. The majority of Pokémon fans (or at least the ones on this site) seem to be in their pre-teens, and don't necessarily judge people based on things like how good a contributor or mediator they are. If one of their friends is nominated, they're quite likely to vote for him, even if he might not be the best admin around; and because of their number, it's quite possible that the nominee could win the adminship even if he's not quite qualified for it. That's why I put off voting for Mags and PGZ for so long; I wanted to be sure I could do so because I felt they were good editors, not just good friends. --Martonimos((Argh|Blargh)) 06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
(Reset indent) I think the voting system needs to leave the power in the B.crat's hands still, at least a little. If twenty random new users vote support for a bad nominee, and ten good contributors vote oppose, I don't think the nominee should win just like that. "Quality, not Quantity", so to speak; I think the vote reason should matter at least as much as the vote itself. You maintain a democratic process, but still keep a little control over it all. Of course, I've yet to see any crappy nominees, so that in and of itself may be a moot point. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-election

For the users who didn't meet the qualifications and were rejected, they got a date where they could be nominated again. So how does that work. Does another user have to elect them, or does the talk page thing come up where the current ones are? I wasn't sure about how that worked. --PsychicRider 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We

...last minute will not be tolerated–and we will find out. 

Shouldn't this be specified or something? It seems... out of place. tc26 13:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

As far as I know, we haven't had this problem yet (as far as this page's voting goes), but just in case, I think that maybe users should not be allowed to vote for at least a month after joining. Just an idea. Theininen 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)