Formatting. EditSeems this proccess lacks any details as to how support and opposition should be listed and formatting to keep discussion tidy. The first one already is a mess.. I don't recommend following WP's formatting for it, as it doesn't really offer much expandable structure for discussion and questioning. --
- <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zeal</imagelink>
This page sucks Edit
There's a whole thing I hate about this page; all of the admins have been chosen (as far as I know, I haven't been around for a while until a few weeks back) because some people, admins and/or users, thought they were qualified for the job. I think having a RFA page just kills this. Becoming an admin if you're interested in the job shouldn't be something hard or scary to do, and in case you go unnoticed you could drop a message to a bureaucrat and it'd be discussed in user talks and IRC. There isn't such a great deal of very active users, the kind that would qualify for adminship - at least, not big enough to require this kind of bureaucracy in my opinion. Adys 03:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I'm hesitant to speak my mind either way, I'll still leave my thoughts, which might be reiterating some of your points.
- On the plus side, this gets people out and visible who would like to be an administrator, and allows for community input. This allows for feedback on editing skills, as well as other work both on and off the wiki. Which means, it helps people get better at what they do, as well as allows for community approval. :)
- It also shows us that they have enough guts to be a person in a leadership role. While administrators aren't really supposed to be that here, having the extra bit of responsibility does lend itself to being in a leadership position.
- The negative side is essentially the flip side of both of those. People, who might otherwise be good administrators, might be too nervous to apply, or to ask another of their chances of success. Or perhaps they don't want feedback / interest drawn to them. Feelings can be hurt by answers / questions made here; an expectation of support when someone says Oppose, or it turning nasty when it really shouldn't. Which is a bonus, in way; if the nominee turns nasty too, little do I want them being an administrator.
- I'm sure I could think of others, but that's what I could think of off the top of my head. --Sky (t · c · w) 03:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- We're not wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, this level of bureaucracy isn't necessary. That's why I haven't participated in either of the RfAs that have happened at this point. We've only got ~35 active (>100 edits per month, see column D) wikians right now (and the average over the past 12 months is 35.25, oddly enough), many of which are either bots or already admins.
- Should some of those 35-admins/bots editors get admin tools? Sure. We could use more active admin coverage for vandal cleaning/banning purposes. Should they go through an RfA? Probably not. Even with admin tools, permanent damange can't be done to the wiki (even though most of us have broken the wiki one or twice... >.>), and now that we've got image restore, everything can be reverted and/or undone. --k_d3 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's something I forgot to comment on. While I can see why you (plural) might call this bureaucratic, it really isn't, especially when compared to Wikipedia. We ask nothing of our nominees, except that they write a little blurb about themselves and respond to comments / questions on them. Pursuing that line of thinking, I think definitely the wrong word to describe this is bureaucratic, though I understand the sentiment behind it. You do make good points though, kd3.
My Nomination Disappeared Edit
I noticed when coming back to this page about a month or two ago, that my nomination disappeared. It's not even in the archives. Any idea what happened?-WoWDeathknight (talk) 20:47, April 4, 2011 (UTC)