Discussion:
← Older revision
Revision as of 03:34, September 23, 2014
Line 7:
Line 7:
{{Active Discussion}}
{{Active Discussion}}
−
I don't want to be an administrator. Not while the site in this state. For me to be one you current editors need to be gone while new ones pour in.
+
I don't want to be an administrator. Not while the site in this state. For me to be one you current editors need to be gone while new ones pour in.
[[User:Joekido|Joekido]] ([[User talk:Joekido|talk]]) 03:29, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Joekido|Joekido]] ([[User talk:Joekido|talk]]) 03:29, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Line 47:
Line 47:
I posted that before I made my way through all the talk pages. Temp admins are fine. I meant we don't have anybody that would make a good permanent right now. Except maybe Calu. [[User:SeaTerror|SeaTerror]] ([[User talk:SeaTerror|talk]]) 18:19, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
I posted that before I made my way through all the talk pages. Temp admins are fine. I meant we don't have anybody that would make a good permanent right now. Except maybe Calu. [[User:SeaTerror|SeaTerror]] ([[User talk:SeaTerror|talk]]) 18:19, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
−
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Supports Calu*<br>{{User:ChokokuguzaNoTobira/Sig2|18:21, 9/22/2014}}
+
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Supports Calu*<br />{{User:ChokokuguzaNoTobira/Sig2|18:21, 9/22/2014}}
I know that, I meant JSD did not want to be perm admin. {{User:Yatanogarasu/Sig}} 18:22, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
I know that, I meant JSD did not want to be perm admin. {{User:Yatanogarasu/Sig}} 18:22, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Line 53:
Line 53:
I'm willing to become a permanent admin if the people so decide. Too bad about JSD, I think he would've been great for the position. {{User:Awaikage/Sig1}} 18:41, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to become a permanent admin if the people so decide. Too bad about JSD, I think he would've been great for the position. {{User:Awaikage/Sig1}} 18:41, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
−
No, I'm willing to be a permanent admin. I'm just unwilling to be a temporary admin permanently, if that makes any sense. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I've turned down the chat mod nominations before since that would be too much of a time commitment for me, but I think I can be just as active as our current admins.
+
No, I'm willing to be a permanent admin. I'm just unwilling to be a temporary admin permanently, if that makes any sense. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I've turned down the chat mod nominations before since that would be too much of a time commitment for me, but I think I can be just as active as our current admins.
Personally, I'd say that anyone out of Zodiaque, Awakage, Calua, and Uknownada are qualified for the job. All are good, knowledgeable editors who can manage to keep things civil. {{User:JustSomeDude.../Sig}} 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say that anyone out of Zodiaque, Awakage, Calua, and Uknownada are qualified for the job. All are good, knowledgeable editors who can manage to keep things civil. {{User:JustSomeDude.../Sig}} 19:30, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Line 59:
Line 59:
In my opinion, an inactive/not so active admin is not that big of a deal, but I'd remove his 'crats rights though... just elect any new admins to have a reasonable amount of them active all the time (like 2-3 more). Just pointing out that we are talking about admin rights, if we are giving 'crats then you should do a separate discussion. {{User:Leviathan_89/sig2|20:18|22|September|2014}}
In my opinion, an inactive/not so active admin is not that big of a deal, but I'd remove his 'crats rights though... just elect any new admins to have a reasonable amount of them active all the time (like 2-3 more). Just pointing out that we are talking about admin rights, if we are giving 'crats then you should do a separate discussion. {{User:Leviathan_89/sig2|20:18|22|September|2014}}
−
Why do you want to have five admins in total, Yata? I'd like to know your reasonings, since we've always done well with only two active admins for years, and had no problems with it.
+
Why do you want to have five admins in total, Yata? I'd like to know your reasonings, since we've always done well with only two active admins for years, and had no problems with it.
Also, if we're going to nominate people, I would strongly prefer it if we use a similar method from [[Forum:Admin replacement|the last time we voted for new admins]], instead of people nominating themselves for admins. {{User:Jademing/Sig2}} 23:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to nominate people, I would strongly prefer it if we use a similar method from [[Forum:Admin replacement|the last time we voted for new admins]], instead of people nominating themselves for admins. {{User:Jademing/Sig2}} 23:47, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Line 66:
Line 66:
{{User:12th_Supernova/Sig}} 23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
{{User:12th_Supernova/Sig}} 23:51, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
+
+
Alright, rather than just flailing blindly yet thoughtfully, let's make this simple. We'll consider two people for now, but that can be subject to reduction. Anyone who wants to nominate someone must meet the general poll requirements of working on here for at least three months with at least 300 edits to the mainspace, not including user pages or blogs. Candidates must have been active on here for at least a year with at least 1000 edits not including user pages or blogs. We'll keep the temps in place until the precedings are over and we have new people. Those elected will be given the non-bureaucratic sysop privileges. Nominations can last a week. Anyone who fits the prereqs and wants to nominate someone can drop the name of the person they wish to nominate followed by a short reason why that person was/should be chosen (when I say short, I mean 300 characters, at the very max, or two tweets and some change) in the soon to be created Nominations section. Once that has been done, the nominee must write "I accept" or "I decline" or words to that effect within 24 hours of being nominated otherwise it will be considered void and be subject to removal. Those voided without response can be renominated, but the same time limit will apply again. Should someone be nominated within 24 hours of the section's closing, they will have until the section closes to respond. Once that's done, voting will start and last for another week. See previous admin forums for how that's going to go down. First and second place become admins, third and down get the warm feeling of knowing some people thought them capable. Sound good? Of course it does.{{User:DancePowderer/Sig}} 03:34, September 23, 2014 (UTC)