Forum:Replacement of Admin Roranoa zoro/Nominations

It has been decided we're going to elect a new admin to replace Roa. This section is for nominations. I will also make clarifications on the rules, and open the floor for questions about those rules before the nominations open. 16:14, March 11, 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.
 * 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 through the end of August.


 * 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 not required.

Regarding Last Time's Controversy
In the last election, 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.
 * "Current Administrators" does not include Roranoa zoro, only the other 4 active admins.
 * Once two admins agree to remove a voter/candidate, the vote will be removed. There will be no ties.

Questions Regarding Rules
I've obviously just written up these rules just now. If there are any grammar/obvious mistakes, feel free to change them w/o discussion. I'm sure people have questions and I'm willing to change them. Here is a section for that, so ask away! Thanks. 16:14, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the bit in the requirements to nominate an user - "No amount of recent editing activity is required to nominate another user". Why should inactive users be allowed to nominate? That just sounds like a bad idea all in all. If an user is inactive, then they have no idea what is going on in the wiki, they have no idea if their choice is still a good editor or not, they have no idea about any new changes in the community, etc. Personally, I think you'd have to be active in the last six months to be able to nominate someone. Six months is very fair, IMO. 00:06, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, I made that because the forum about putting activity restrictions on polls is not complete yet. How about just adding a reminder for people to make sure that their nominee is currently active and a good choice for the wiki at this time? 06:23, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

As what I understood from the previous topic, we have 4 admins living in the United States, so we're looking for an admin that isn't in the United States? If so, that should probably be mentioned. It is a good idea since they would be able to cover the time when we're asleep and someone is vandalizing. 20:19, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

I'm against the rules about not candidate ourselves and neither asking to be candidated. Who cares if someone writes his own name? If he's a good guy, some other would have done it. Otherwise, simply no one will vote him! It seems it's a sort of "making a name is the first vote for him" and while it's not a wrong rule it's still useless. --Meganoide (talk) 22:19, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

You said it yourself ^ If he's a good guy, someone else would do the nominating anyway. 14:31, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

A huge part of the job of admin is dealing with the community and knowing how to edit well. In doing those things, people become known by the community. The thousand edits you need to be elected don't go unnoticed. So in a sense, making a name for yourself is required, but it's not a bad thing. Much like last time, I also expect members of the community to search for people who also deserve the position and not just have the few users who get nominated right away.

As far as limiting the slot to non-Americans, I'm not sure if we should do that. Timezone should be a huge factor in the decision, but to cut an already small pool of possible candidates even further seems a bit unfair to me. We need to talk about this more, I think. 17:06, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

If the community thinks someone would be a good admin, that should take priority over if that person thinks they would be a good admin. And while the timezones thing is important when it comes to deciding, it's not like it's a cast iron rule. We've survived on less than perfect admin coverage before, I'm sure we can do it again.

17:08, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with letting inactive editors nominate. If the person they nominate isn't a good choice anymore or something, then people just won't vote for them. 17:46, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I think the quality and reliability of the new admin is more important than the time zone. Beside, Yata and DP used to be the only admins, and they cover the US's time zones, yet we got along with the two just fine for years. Time zones should probably be a factor in selecting a new admin, but IMO, the new admin should be a good, reliable, editor with plenty of quality edits and interact with the community on the forums and discussions, and shouldn't be chosen based on where the editor lives in.

I'm going to drop inactive editors not being allowed to nominate, btw. 21:21, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so if nobody else has any problems, we should be all set to start the nominations in a couple hours. 22:35, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Nominations

 * Nominations will open Monday, March 16 at 00 : 00 UTC.