Forum:Replacement of Admin Calua

Today I come with sobering news, User:Calua has decided to resign as Admin. She has been too busy with school and art recently, and decided that it’s best if she resigns. She does not expect to come back anytime soon. She also has asked for me to take her rights away for her, which I have already done. We’ll miss her, and she’s done great things for us in the past, and hopefully will still be able to help us out in the future. This means it’s time for an admin election. Last time we had a discussion about if we should have 5 admins or not, and the end result was deciding on 5 that time, but not necessarily forever. I think we’re in about the same situation as that time as far as the activity of the admins and the risk of Galaxy9000 vandalism (an account was banned last week if you didn’t know). I don’t think it’s really worth discussing again, as it wasted a bunch of time. I’m gonna schedule the nomination phase to start on Thursday, around the same time the chapter should release. 13:34, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Nomination Requirements
Here are the requirements for this phase:


 * The requirements in order to nominate another user are the same as standard voting requirements:
 * You must have at least 300 edits and have had an account here for 3 months.
 * No amount of recent editing activity is required to nominate another user, however, activity will be required to vote.
 * You may only nominate one user.
 * You must be serious about nominating another user to be an admin. This is a serious issue for the wiki, and it is not time for jokes.


 * In order to be nominated as an admin you must meet the following requirements:
 * Have had an account on this wiki for over 1 year.
 * Have at least 1000 edits cumulatively in any namespace, with the exception of Blogs, Blog Comments, User, and User Talk.
 * Any user who has been banned from the wiki within the past year is ineligible.
 * You may not nominate yourself.
 * You may not ask another user to nominate you.
 * Not a requirement, but I (JSD) strongly urge nominees to accept the nomination only if they believe they can remain active for several months into the foreseeable future.


 * Nominations must be accepted before the advertised end of the nomination phase.
 * If you nominate a user, it is advised that you contact them to inform them of the nomination, however this is not required.

Regarding Past Controversy
In the past elections, there was a controversy regarding voter corruption, so I will make several clarifications about this now.


 * This is NOT a campaign.


 * Things you are NOT allowed to do:
 * Specifically ask any user to vote for any user.
 * Specifically ask any user to NOT vote for any user.
 * Specifically ask any user to remove their vote.
 * Make any kind of deal or exchange for a user's vote, change of vote, or removal of vote.
 * Create promotional material in favor of or against any candidate.
 * Advertise or promote a candidate on any page/article on the wiki outside this forum.
 * Use of the chat or any outside communication to violate any of these rules is also prohibited.
 * Do anything else that is in violation of the Poll Rules.


 * Things you ARE allowed to do:
 * Inform users of the election and ask them to vote without mentioning any candidates.
 * Make small declarations of "Vote for ___!" in chat, as long as they are addressed to large groups of people and not a small group (2-3) or a single voter.


 * These rules all apply to both candidates and voters.
 * Candidates who violate the rules will be disqualified from the election and have their votes removed. Users who voted for the candidate will be allowed to change their vote.
 * Voters will have their votes removed.


 * Any issues with these policies should be brought directly to the attention of the current Administrators.
 * These issues will be decided by only the current administrators.
 * There will be no discussion of these issues if the admins do not ask for it.
 * Once two admins agree to remove a voter/candidate, the vote will be removed. There will be no ties.

Discussion and Questions Regarding Rules
So we have a couple days before the nominations start, we have some time to discuss any questions or things. Perhaps there's a mistake in the rules I pretty much copy/pasted from last time? Inactive users should post just about anything if they intend to vote in the voting phase. I suggest saying “I intend to vote” or something like that. Anyways, have at it. 13:34, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I intend to vote, but I have no nomination to make yet.

14:07, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I have already three cards to think of. I'll say which one to nominate on the day itself.

I'll vote when in my lonely walk of life I enter this page and I see a halfway decent candidate. I have one person in mind, but not sure if I'll nominate them yet 15:54, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I intend to vote but i am not planning to nominate anybody. 16:25, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Might vote if I see any decent candidate... 16:28, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I can only think of two people who meet the edit count requirement, has not been banned in the last year, and hasn't turned down their nominations from last time Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:33, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I have no nominations in mind (it's been going fine with <4 admins for a while now), but I do intend to vote. 16:34, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Why can't we just stick with four admins? We aren't in desperate need for a new admin. 16:42, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the value of 5 admins. I know it was done with the intention of having at least 1 admin active at all times, but the wiki is inactive enough that it isn't necessary. If, in the future, more problems arise or more activity needs to be managed, electing another admin would be needed. Like many others, I would only vote for a strong, worthy candidate. 21:37, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Besty and Mont. It seems to me that the wiki is getting on just fine with only four admins, as this wiki is not very active that we're in desperate need of having a new admin.... 21:43, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Well like everyone said, we should be fine with just four administrators because this wiki is not highly active right now

Joekido (talk) 21:50, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get into this again. The situation is the same as last time, when we decided on five. Also, I won't be able to be very active during the first half of next year. 22:07, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

So, now knowing the activity of the admins, including Kage's upcoming absence, yeah, I'm in support of having a new admin. 22:58, October 6, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, with Kage's impending absence and our current activity, I feel we need a new admin. The new arc has brought about a rush of new editors screwing up pages, and I feel we've had more "admin-level" editing since about 799.

I also feel as though the pool of possible candidates is much larger and more diverse than last time. People tend to think of editors as being incapable of being an admin sometimes, but they forget that people will step up when given more responsibility. Just look at many of our chat mods for examples of that. 00:18, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

I see some promising candidates, hard working editors. But it's hard to decide... I still think 5 admins is a better way to go, with so much work to keep up with. 06:32, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Nominations

 * Nominations opened Thursday, October 8 at 00 : 00 UTC and will close October 15 at 00 : 00 UTC.


 * Nominations must be accepted before the end of the nomination period.

1) User:AuroraOfDeath| 01:20, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

2) User:12th Supernova| 01:44, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ineligible due to having been banned in the past year.

3) User:Black Leg Sanji| Dragonquiz (talk) 02:09, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ineligible due to not having enough non-blog edits.

4) User:Klobis| 03:18, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

5) User:JapaneseOPfan| 08:26, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

6) User:Montblanc Noland| 09:14, October 8, 2015 (UTC)