Forum:Replacement of Admin Yazzy Dream

Description
Given the departure of User:YazzyDream, the wiki finds itself one admin short of the decided 4 admins. This forum will be for nominating potential users who have demonstrated themselves to be worthy of adminship. There are a few requirements for nominations.

In order to nominate, one must:
 * Have been active regularly on this wiki for at least six months.
 * Have at least 1000 edits.

In order to be eligible for nomination, one must:
 * Have been an editor regularly on this wiki for at least one year.
 * Have at least 1000 edits cumulatively in three or more of the following areas: forums, templates, articles, talk pages.

Nominations will last for 1 week, ending on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 0:00 UTC. Once nominations have concluded, a new forum will open for voting. That being said, please do not endorse any candidate on this forum. Also, no user may nominate his or herself.

To nominate, please follow this example:

User:DancePowderer
I nominate User:DancePowderer. Nominated by your signature here.

Once a nomination has been posted, the nominee must either accept or decline the nomination by posting either Accepted by nominee's signature here. or Declined by nominee's signature here.

Example: I nominate User:DancePowderer. Nominated by your signature here. Accepted or Declined by nominee's signature here.

Upon declination, the nomination will be struck through by a current administrator in order to better keep track of candidates. Upon acceptance, the nomination will be bolded by an administrator for the same reason. If the user does not accept the nomination within the one week allocated for nomination, that user will not be eligible for candidacy in the proceeding election. Please be mindful of edit conflicts, as there is a good chance some will occur.

User:Sff9
I nominate User:sff9. 03:45, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Accepted.

User:Pacifista15
I nominate User:Pacifista15. 03:48, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I accept my nomination.... 19:55, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

User:Leviathan 89
I nominate User:Leviathan_89 18:01, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I decline. Sorry, but I currently have my hands full of work on Wikia, so I think it will pointless to candidate myself to replace an inactive admin if I won't be active much myself. I will gladly help the admins when needed as normal user (and as a VSTF member). Thanks for nominating me though.

User:Kaizoku-Hime
I nominate User:Kaizoku-Hime. 18:14, November 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll accept for now & see how it goes.海賊☠姫 (talk) 20:45, November 4, 2012 (UTC)

User:LuffyPirateKing
I nominate User:LuffyPirateKing. 07:31, November 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * (I accept)

Discussion
Honestly, I think this isn't really enough. The one year limitation really directs us to nominate a few users, since the majority of the regular users here anymore have joined in 2012. The only users here who are still eligible for nominations really are LPK, Rici, Ryu, Panda, Klobis, Calu, Hime, and myself. Even from that, the users who edit the most are Klobis, Calu, and me. Our community is too small anymore to have this one year limitation. I think the minimum time should be reduced to 6 months, or somewhere between. That will give a little more opportunity for people because the majority of us aren't even a year old yet. 13:50, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with that Nada is all the extra mucking around and the amount of time this whole ordeal will take if DP took the time rule back to 6 months. But I guess to some respects I do agree, there are some people I do feel deserve to be nominated for this position but unfortunately they haven't been here long enough. 14:02, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, people with six months experience should be able to nominate people. 15:39, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * They already can. I could nominate, but I just don't have anyone else I want to nominate, besides the current candidates. 15:46, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have missed that part. I judged by the lack of newer editors adding nominations. 15:53, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

I do not really understand the restriction on the nominee... shouldn't be the same as the polls? Otherwise the group of people who can nominee someone and the group of people who are eligible are too alike.


 * I think the reason for its restriction is because this poll is much more major than any other. This isn't like removing renders, or fixing the fansub page, or telling what to do with our blogs. This is a poll to give people rights that can run the Wiki. Like running for U.S. president; You have to be 18 to vote, but 35 to be voted for. This is, in a way, voting for a "new president" of the Wiki. Adding a new member to our hypothetical Gorosei, even. That's why these restrictions exist. I agree we should have more restrictions on people eligible for nominations, but limiting it this far seems a little much. That's sort of where I'm getting at. 16:28, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, the restriction should be only on the people eligible not on the people who can do the nominee... going with your example, you have to be 18 to vote became the 300 edits/3 months rule we always use since this exact requirement is used in every consultation (not only election). There is no point in limiting who can do the nominee... the important thing is setting some requirements on who can be nominated (well we are not obligated to do so, but I agree on doing it) and anyhow in the end there will be a poll.


 * Darn my habit of writing fancily...What I'm trying to say, in a nutshell, is that the people who can nominee are proposing something very major, so something this big should require some kind of limitation. Personally, I can go either way. But I'm a bit leaning towards the "do more to nominate" side. 17:21, November 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I still not understand your logic... since an admin is a big responsibility then the limitation should be on the one who can be an admin not on who can propose a candidate. If you set the requirements too high you will fall in the paradox that the only the ones who can nominee an admin are the ones that can actually be one, which is absurd. We should have more names so to have more choice in the actual poll. And the standard 300 edits rule is already good enough (for who can propose/vote), if you keep increase the requirements (even in the actual poll) basically the admin will be decided by an handful group of user which is more likely to going inactive soon (since in average an user is active just some years). What would you say if the only people who can vote in the presidential election are people over 60? We shouldn't think much of this like a presidential election, but rather like a job interview: we select capable candidates and then choose who is the best fitting.


 * By the way... since we are at it, I have the feeling that a lot of people misunderstood the role of an admin in a wiki: an admin is an user trusted by the community who manage mediawiki pages and the interface of the wiki, delete pages, settle down discussions and edit wars which are going out of control, ban vandals and represent the community in front of the Wikia staff... basically all of this, but in the end the community is always the one who run the wiki and the admins make sure it doesn't go out of control.


 * The reason it's not the same as polls is to serve as a failsafe against sockpuppeting. By requiring the use of signatures and limiting the people who can vote by edit count and tenure, that eliminates the risk of sockpuppeting. It's what we did the last time we had to elect admins so I figured it should be done here for the same reason. 17:50, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think one angle is that it's actually very easy for people to have 3 months and 300 edits without knowing what an admin does, or really knowing other users here. (Especially when blog comments are considered in the requirements to nominate, since no real admin responsibility is needed in blogs.) When I first got 300 edits, I sure didn't know that much about those things. I think we should have a little bit tougher restrictions on who can nominate, but not to the degree that they are currently. 1000 edits takes a lot (when it's not "edit whoring"), and I can understand that for admins, but not for the nominators. I think 6 months, and 300 non-blog edits is reasonable. To have that much experience on the wiki would suggest that the users nominating would know what they are doing. 18:01, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Well ok, I thought the 300 edits/3 month was already a good safeline against sockpuppets, but if you think it's really necessary then so be it.

Levi, while you're here, accept or decline your nomination. 18:14, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, but I have to think about it for a moment... I already have my hand full on Wikia... I surely respond to it before the end of the nomination period.