Bulbapedia talk:Nominations for administratorship

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. Thein inen 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.--^Psychic _Rider 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.--^Psychic _Rider 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. ^Moldy _Orange 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. ^Moldy _Orange 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! ^Moldy _Orange 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)