Bulbapedia talk:Nominations for administratorship

Active discussions

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)


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)


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)


...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!)


  • 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)

Requirements (prerequisites):

  • Was here for long enough to learn the ins and outs
  • Good contributor (quality and quantity)
  • Does not break the rules
  • Displays knowledge of the guidelines and edits accordingly
  • Not a jerk in general
  • Good judgement (Note: This does not mean that he/she agrees with you. There is a very important distinction!)
    • Demonstrated fairness in judgement

Recommendations (reasons for support):

  • Cool head in disputes
  • Maturity (to a point; this is a Pokémon website)
  • Makes decisions which are with consensus (This is possibly not good enough for a recommendation: on the one hand, you don't want mutiny, but on the other hand, you have buttkissing and people just agreeing with perceived consensus just to join in, which shifts actual consensus)

Bad reasons for support (some of these are requirements, not recommendations, so they're not good reasons for support):

  • Good at the games
    • Knowledgeable about Pokémon
  • Nice person/friendly
  • Makes a lot of edits
  • Never heard of the guy

Reasons for oppose:

  • Does not fit requirements
  • Makes a lot of pointless edits (such as too many userspace edits, in the context of this wiki)
  • Makes joke/vandal edits (would not take job seriously)

--Raijinili 05:45, 29 October 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)


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)


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)

Whole thing starts again, but brand new. TTEchidna 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


...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)

We, us, the checkusers. TTEchidna 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


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)

Great idea! It could also help weed out any votes made by inexperienced users, such as what happened with Martonamos.--RexRacer -talk 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I knew everyone who voted for Martonimos for months...except for DigiDude, the guy who opposed him. But he "claims" that he'd been on Bulbapedia but just not as a user. So the you should use the word "user" without an "s".--Tavisource 03:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
...You knew me for months?--Kkllnn blastoise 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


I would like to nominate HoennMaster, friendly user who likes to talk over the issue before drastic changes.

--KantoLegend 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Who? Porygon-Z 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking no. Only been here since 2 August, and did a lot of userspace edits during October. Actually got warned for it. Plus, less than 500 mainspace edits. Cipher (Talk) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't even consider people I've never heard of. Porygon-Z 18:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An opinion with an idea

Since you tend to choose only nice people for admins and think that an admin should be polite then I've got an idea for a new Bulbapedia project. Nominations for dis-adminification! Because you guys want only nice and approachable people for admins, then some existing admins should be degraded because they are NOT nice and approachable. I have at least two strong candidates for that. So, what about this? You want nice people with the powers, don't you? --Maxim 17:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Being nice isn't the ONLY thing you need to become an admin. Yeah, it's important, but not the only quality you need to have.--Diby 17:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So, am I any worse than existing admins? --Maxim 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
If it were not so, then you would not have lost by such a huge margin.--Diby 18:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Maxim, please just give it a rest already... The admin you talked about (the one you told me) isn't even active. You just don't get it - adminship isn't a reward for contributing a lot. Users who contribute a lot can still contribute a lot without additional powers. If one is given powers, it means he has shown the ability to use these powers well. And yes, that means, among other things, being open to other opinions, hearing all sides of an argument before ruling, not biting the newbies, etc. It's not "niceness", as you mockingly call it. It's just qualities you need to have to become an admin. All current ACTIVE admins earned their powers by proving to have these qualities. You proved only the opposite. --electAbuzzzz 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maximmm, honey, you're going way over the edge here. Remember, Bulbapedia is a WEBSITE. And if you don't become an Admin, hey? It's not a big deal, it's not the end of the world. Stop blowing everything outta proportion, no one else is reacting so bitter about not getting Admin status. ~~Takoto タコト| サソデイ = 愛 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that current admins don't meet the requirements you have when choosing people for admins. And aside from the admin I talked about with electAbuzz, there is another one. And he IS active, but I'm too afraid of saying his name. --Maxim 18:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You yourself admited that there are only TWO admins among quite a few that according to you don't fit in the elite group. All the admins are surely not like that. Why, I've talked with almost all admins here and except for one or two, all have behaved quite well with me. So,, if you were not in fault then why would they go after you and behave properly with me and not you, never mind the fact that I'm still new and you were until recently a top contributor? Even if an admin or two "misbehaves" with you, there is always the editorial board to go to.--Diby 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What if they turn nasty as soon as they are nominated, admins should be made accountable, so if they do something unfair, an average user has a say against it instead of just moning at them on their talk page and getting ignored. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010
For crying out loud, would everyone just stop whining? We have an Editorial Board above the regular sysops, and an Editor-in-Chief above the Editorial Board. There are people to go to. Yes, the sysops do get told by higher ranks when they do something wrong. I've seen it happen even on public talk pages - and I'm guessing it happens privately as well. What are we, five? --electAbuzzzz 19:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think various admins shouldnt have their positions.Although Pie is a Good user, makes lots of Contributions, Didnt she say she left us for the Phoenix Wright Fandom?Ketsuban is not active, and their are various other admins I could cite for Lack of Edits Reccently( as in months)--DCM((Nag at Me!Edits))
Maxim, who doesn't want to be an admin? I want to be an admin, DCM wants to be an admin, you want to be an admin. But whining about not being an admin is not helping. It may even make the EB disapprove of you even more. So what you should do is sit down, get editing and control that temper of yours. Don't yell at anyone, treat them nicely (which reminds me...ignore trolls like Nova.). Assume good faith. And besides...all of us voted against you for blowing your top. What do you do in return? Blow your top. Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 03:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to say that Several of the Admins have been doing a better job recently in editing and User Relations--DCM((Nag at Me!Edits))

i think Maxim is just upset because he got turned down...-- MAGNEDETH 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That much is obvious. As ElectAbuzzzz said, if you have a specific problem with an admin then talk to the editorial board about it. If there is a serious issue, a kangaroo court wouldn't help matters. --FabuVinny |Talk Page| 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


It says no getting friends to vote , does that mean we are not allowed to campaign for votes for our candidate? Or that we cant rally our friends, and who determines whether you are friends with a user or not??? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

I think it means that if you've been nominated, you can't ask friends on BP to vote for you. So, for example, I can't go round other editors' talk pages like it's a door-to-door trying to get them to vote for me. It wouldn't be a fair vote at the end of it all if I did. Cipher (Talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually thought it means don't get your real-life friends to open an account just to vote... But it probably means both. --electAbuzzzz 20:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What if a friend campains for you? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

As long as you don't press someone to nominate you, then fine. ht14 02:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit late

Werent the board suposed to make Pachi an admin today. She meets all of the criteria, she has more than 10 votes, two thirds are in her favour, some admins, and its been a whole month, so isnt she our newest admin? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

She does have alot against her.Just saying--DCM((Nag at Me!Edits))
A few Admins are against her. That won't help her chances.--Blazevoir!! 22:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
She has enough support to get the nomination plus she has admins supporting her as well. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010
She has one admin supporting her. And an EB member against her... It's a close vote, and it's up to TTE and the EB to decide. They don't have to give her powers, the votes are just so that they'll see what other people think. It's still their choice. --electAbuzzzz 23:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I know she has the admin powers now, and I support her, but did the people who voted for her check her contributions since she came back?--DCM((Nag at Me!Edits))
BTW, dont mean to call you out. Just pointing it out. Congratss--DCM((Nag at Me!Edits))

So here, I'm thinking...

It'd be likely a good idea to close nominations for the time being, possibly at the end of the month. Please do not jump to nominate freaking everyone though before then. We can look to see who nominated whom, and through that, may implement a rule preventing anyone from nominating more than one person in a set time. TTEchidna 03:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. In the less than 3 1/2 months that the NFA has been open, twenty two users have been nominated. If all of them became sysops then Bulbapedia would have gone insane. I love the one a month rule. I feel that it could get a little crazy here, though, if this were implemented. We would have loads of talk page arguments about not being on at the right time and not having their nomination getting through first, and many Opposes simply due to the fact that they got picked for the nomination instead their candidate. Like-
1. Agree. He welcomed me and is really cool. -TTEchidna
1. No. I was going to nominate Kuki, but now I can't. -Chocolate
2. Oppose. HE WAS GOING TO NOMINATE ME!!!!!!!! -Kuki
3. Vehemanetly Disagree. Why does he get to be an admin and not me? -Maxim
4. Disagree. Too many admins as it is, plus, he hasn't been very active lately. -Politoed666
5. Oppose. I fought so hard to get this system in place and now it's ruined! -Guardian
See what I mean? As it is there are a few admins that have been turned down due to votes like these. And it is messing with the system. We need to find a balance, maybe like a sandbox page, where on the second to last day of the last nominated user's voting period anyone with over a month of active contribs could put down the name of someone they wanted to nominate. Once this is closed, the EB could mull it over for a day and then once the other user is approved or denied sysop powers the new, EB approved candidate could be put up. I also think that voting should be restricted to users with a month of active contribs. *whew* Anyway... --RexRacer -talk 15:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

An interesting thought

...What happens if someone creates sockpuppets to vote against him/herself? I know it's impossible but still...eh? Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 06:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, one would suspect they wouldn't become an admin.
Unless they happen to be so well respected, and it's done in such a joking fashion, that everyone gets a laugh out of it. But that would never happen. Glinn Mgraw 06:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Which would be next year's April Fool's joke? When BulbaBot creates a ton of users and adds 10 against edits to every user? Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What about..

What abou changing al least 10 votes to al least 7 positive votes? MathijsP 07:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Ten is a safe, round number.--DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))


On the 1st of a month, nominations are made, and the rest of the month is spent debating which 1 should be an admin. Then on the say 24th, you look at each candidates support votes then minus there Object votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins. However winning doesn't guarantee adminship as the EB then look at this individual and if they dont think they are ready the EB can reject this months candidate. Then on the 1st of the next month the whole process starts again, and anyone can be renominated, even if you lost last month. What do you guys think. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

It should be decided on the 30th or 31st, not the 24th. Otherwise I agree. Chocolate 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking 24th as that gives the EB a week to decide whether the candidate gets it or not. and Im glad you like my idea. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

Since we are mostly getting rid of the entire idea, I doubt this would work. MaverickNate 20:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It would work, it means only one person can get nominated a month and the EB retain there power of saying whether they get it or not like in the dark ages of BP before Demcocracy, it just means the Users have a medium for putting forward 1 person a month who they think would make a great admin, and they dont have to be accepted if the public make a bad choice. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

Hah, dark ages, democracy. Bulbapedia's not a democracy. Emperor TTEchidna
Actually, he said Demcocracy. Probably a typo. Anyway, Bulbapedia should be about one thing and one thing only: Pokémon. It doesn't matter to me if Bulbapedia is a Democracy or a Dictatorship; as long as it is about Pokémon, I don't care. But I think people should spend less time worrying about the politics of Bulbapedia and more time contributing.--BlazevoirTalk Contribs 23:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


It's the freakin internet not the real world....--Coolピカチュウ! 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, some of us might be busy with other stuff on the 1st of every month. Not the best idea ever. Also, you're getting a little obsessed with this Nomination thing. Ever considered yourself addicted and/or slightly nuts? Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean that in a mean way or a jokey kinda way? --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

I'm serious. Dude, "shouting" (posting full caps) in a title is an obvious sign of obsession. I'm not joking, I'm not being mean. I'm being serious. Every day I see you becoming another cookie Kuki. Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 01:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
But being a cookie is a good thing...Kuki, depends no whom you ask.DCM((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))


Why don't we continue to accept admin nominations, but instead of having them open for discussion, allow users to directly submit users to the Editorial Board. There are too many problems with the current system, but too many users would be unhappy if full power was returned to the EB, so let's compromise. --ニョロトノ666 16:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If we were going to do that, can we put in a clause saying that the Editorial Board have to give the candidate ways to improve themselves so they stand a better chance next time. As a good thing with this current system is users who fail get tons of constructive critisism, which they can take, improve on and maybe do better (even win) next time. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010
I dunno, Politoed. As it is, the final decision rests with the EB. The votes just really tell them what the users think. --Martonimos 06:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Don't change anything at all. It's fine this way. MathijsP 16:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea

Why not stop spamming your ideas? It's clogging the talk page.Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor administrative point

Why don't the archived nominations have a category, or even a linkback? --Raijinili 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

NfA lockdown

Since Pokémon Platinum has been announced in the USA, you should reopen nominations for admin. 欠番 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is it'll probably reopen as part of Phase IV or V of Project Overgrow. ~ overgrownsol 02:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
What does Pokémon Platinum being released have to due with admin nominations at all??? --Theryguy512 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Read the page. It says it will open shortly before the English release. --PsychicRider 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I appears that users cannot other users anymore, here :( I don't know why? Hmmm... Or perhaps this is a part of Phase IV or V of Project Overgrow.--Clarky13 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold my breath.... — THE TROM — 10:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
haha, It just gave me a jolt there for a second.--Clarky13 12:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Do you have any idea on when (if at all) this will be revived? The page has said "until further notice" for about 16 months now. chiefboztalk 03:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly never. Future admins can apply by themselves in staff recruitment drives, or may be selected at any time by existing staff. As a result there is no longer any need for nominations. Werdnae (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright then. Sounds good. chiefboztalk 03:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Time reference

Since the nominations are not going to resume anytime soon (that's what I gather from the comment directly overhead this one and the red linked Template's history on the main page), shouldn't the page be edited accordingly to describe the present scenario of not being revived, which is in contrast to what the current article claims? Harryghost (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Major update

This page hasn't been updated in seven years! I cant edit it because it's protected, but members of staff can. Can you please update it? This may require this template. Marshtompert (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What needs updating exactly?--ForceFire 06:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
All of it. --Marshtompert (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As noted by the history, "Until we decide to bring these back, nobody really needs to be editing this page." It looks like the last time there was a nomination decision was in December of 2008. Thus, this is just a legacy page and users take a different route to be approved as an admin by the staff. Because of this, there should be no updates to the Nominees, Accepted nominations, and Rejected nominations sections. As for the lede, I cannot see anything that needs changing except for maybe the first line since "for the time being" kinda is off. Perhaps, "permanently closed" would work better, but I guess that leaving the wording does allow this to be an option in the future. Additionally, now that I think about it, perhaps the lede should contain the present route for a user to become an administrator, but that really is not my decision. Either way, would you be willing to point out the exact sentences, or lack of sentences if there is something missing, that need updating? --Super goku (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Nominations for administratorship".