Forum:Replacement of Admin Roranoa zoro

As some of you may already know, User:Roranoa zoro has resigned as admin. I certainly appreciate his time as admin, as he helped us clean up a great deal of code issues and problems with pages only admins can edit. Thanks, Roa!

Now, with the last admin election we talked a lot about how we wanted to have an odd number of admins in the future. Now, as I talk to members of the community, it seems we are torn about this issue. Some believe we are fine with 4 admins we have, others say we should have 5. So I have talked to the other admins and decided that we should discuss this before we proceed with any kind of election process. Ultimately, this is a community decision at heart, so that's why we're here.

So here's a little list of considerations we should have in this discussion:


 * We never officially agreed that 5 was a number we were required to have. I'd say at the end of this discussion, we should either agree on a consistent number of admins, or agree to let the number be fluid based on the feelings of the community.


 * Last time, we talked about how having an odd number of admins would be good if we decide to have issues in the future where only admins vote/agree on decisions for the community. Since that election, we've enacted a lot of new rules, but none of them actually include any formal mention of "admin-only" voting for any issues. We may still use these kinds of rules in the future, but they don't exist yet.


 * If we were to make a rule like that, but had an even number of admins, I have a suggestion: In the event of a tie among the Admins, have another poll among the users with rollback rights to break the tie. Rollbackers are also trusted members of the editing community, and this makes sense to me.


 * When I talked to the other admins, I asked them about if they expected that they could keep their activity level at the level they are currently at in the future. Here is what they said:


 * DP and Yata both said that expected that they could maintain their level of activity.


 * Calu and I have upcoming conflicts with very busy school weeks where we will likely be editing at a bare minimum or not at all. I also have a few additional weekends that have the same problem. However, we know these dates far in advance, and even though these dates intersect, we believe the wiki will be fine if we appoint a temporary replacement admin for us at that time. Other than these dates, we expect no problems maintaining our activity.


 * I asked the other admins about their opinion on if we needed another admin, and here's what we said:


 * Yata is in favor of an additional admin.


 * Calu believes we will be fine without an additional admin.


 * DP is indifferent to the issue.


 * JSD is undecided on the issue.


 * The final thing to consider is your confidence in the wiki to be protected and properly run with the current amount of admins. As you may know, one of the main reasons we wanted more admins was to have more protection from vandalism, especially with Galaxy9000 vandalizing so frequently (this may still be a concern, as I have heard from other users still in contact with him). Though other vandals do still exist as well. And with Roa's resignation, all our current admins are American. And keep in mind that vandalism is not the only task admins deal with, they make minor policy decisions, talk to staff, etc as well.

Hopefully, I've described everything accurately, and we can proceed in this discussion smoothly. I would also like to add that if we do go on to a poll, we need to resolve one issue on the changed rule that allows only active users to vote in admin elections. If we decide to have an election, we cannot move forward until that forum is closed too.

Anyways, thanks for reading, and remember to keep this civil! 05:32, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
As I said above, I'm undecided on this. I hope some strong and focused arguments can convince me one way or the other... 05:32, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

If we do choose a 5th admin, who should we shortlist the candidates to? Staw was disqualified last time, so should we pass him over? 06:58, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

The reason Roa was a good choice for admin, more than his coding skill, was time zones. If possible we need an admin from as far east as possible to make sure we've got proper coverage in case of vandals. The problem is that I can't think of any active user who fits that...

12:25, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

I'm for having a fluid number of admins. There was one point in time where we had 3 admins, and that was fine as well. I think it all comes down to wether or not the current admins need another admin to assist with their work or not. I was actually wondering if someone could provide a list of admin-only tasks and who covers each, so that we can get an idea of what we really need right now. Also, I wasn't here for this so I'm not sure if this is still a thing, but I think if JSD and Calu are going to be busy, temp admins would be an option as well. 15:47, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

If we do have an election Yata, I don't see why Staw couldn't be a candidate again, but my understanding is that he has left the wiki and is unlikely to accept a nomination.

Anyways, I'd also like to add that I think that users who have been banned in the last year are not eligible for nomination. This just makes sense to me, and helps cut down on "joke nominations". As far as I can tell based on the last elections, requirements for admins are decided by other admins. 07:05, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think five is a good amount. It means that even if one or two become inactive for a period of time, everything can still run smoothly here. Sure, in those cases we could appoint a temp admin as JSD said, but I'd prefer a more permanent solution. And there is still the threat of Gal... 00:10, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Gal will always be threat. Who would be the right candidate for the 5th slot. 00:18, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I believe its in poor taste to talk about who the new admin could be in this section. Though I do believe there are a number of eligible users that are qualified for the position. If you find yourself drawing a blank, there are number of qualified users listed here, where the top half is the number of users with the most edits, who have been active in the past month. Not to say that this is the best way to measure who is best for the job, but it lists a good amount of possible candidates. Editing totals are not the best way to choose an admin, rather experience, responsibility and being cooperative are the qualities to look for. But again, I don't believe this is the right time for that kind of discussion. 01:34, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Well, should we hear some names, or let whoever want to come forward, and we can shortlist the latter? 01:36, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

IMO, I think having four admins is good enough, and if any of you guys go inactive for a while, then we can do with a temporary admin, instead of a permanent one.

And let's save the admin nominees for AFTER we resolve the issue of having a new admin or not, Yata. 01:56, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

We don't need another admin now. 4 is enough. SeaTerror (talk) 02:26, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to have five. That way we won't need temporary admins and each individual admin will have less work. 16:29, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

So could someone provide a list of admin-only tasks and responsibilities so we can get an idea of wether or not we actually need a new admin? 16:38, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Plus they can do everything a rollback or chat mod can do. 15:02, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting/restoring pages
 * Protecting pages
 * Blocking users
 * Granting chat mod/rollback rights
 * Editing the wiki theme
 * Editing mediawiki pages

Don't forget merging pages, and communicating with staff on specific matters! 15:24, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

I think a permanent fifth admin would be a good idea since these issues pop up rather frequently, and it would help decrease the admins' workload as well as ensure that there is an admin on hand to solve a problem if one or two or three of them are gone.

As for election process, I think it would be best to just have a free nomination system, and consider all nominated candidates who accept for election, provided they haven't been banned. I am aware that joke nominations could result from this, however the community as a whole will know what a good admin candidate is and that will be clear in the number of users who vote for that candidate. 15:34, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

I can't see the harm in having another admin provided they are active. It helps because more admins means less work per admin, and there won't be a tied admin vote on anything.

15:45, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'm fairly certain now that I will have some jobs/internships that will prevent me from being active from two weeks up to the entire summer. Sweet paid gigs, but each one is a week or more without a computer. I mean, we could appoint a temporary admin for that long, but I would be much more comfortable with a real admin.

I think we should just go ahead and elect a new admin. 21:33, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Let's just go for it. 12:43, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, clear majority. I'm gonna type up things about the nomination phase so that things can run smoothly when it starts this weekend. 15:16, March 11, 2015 (UTC)