Effect on Wiki spotlight[]
A few of us have been wondering why the spotlight hasn't gone into effect yet. I just found the reason on the page that describes the spotlight:
- The wiki should not be in the middle of choosing new admins, or any other upheavals; it should be a stable, friendly place.
So, once this fourth nomination is settled, we need to stop further nominations for at least several months. After the spotlight is active, we can evaluate if four admins are sufficient. — RRabbit42 15:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, four admins should be enough. We can add rollback users as we need them to combat things, but actually from what I hear, the influx of new users isn't usually all that drastic. Although for us it might be (relatively speaking) since we're a small wiki. —Topher (Talk) 06:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Self-nominations adjustment[]
Currently, nominating yourself is not allowed. This was added at a time when we had some users making quite a few sockpuppet accounts and we knew the purpose was to obtain admin rights so they could abuse those rights. The time and number of edits also made it harder for this to happen.
It's been a while since that had happened and things have pretty well stabilized. We've now entered a period where we need to elect some new admins, but getting people to nominate others is not happening as often as it should. In order to give more people a chance to become admins that are qualified, I propose that we allow self-nominations for users who have made 750 edits over the period of nine months. That little bit of extra time and activity helps show even more dedication to building the wiki.
Unless we have a good reason not to, I say we put this into effect by the end of the month. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 06:54, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm neutral about this topic, so I'll leave it to the users and other admins to decide. ~KinHikari ♪ Minogasenai akiramenai. Yume ni todoku made wa. ♪ 17:15, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Given the fact that no other administrators besides Kin showed objection, or even responded, I see no reason for this rule to not have been put into effect. -Vozhan (talk) 13:56, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
I've looked at this for a bit today and I do remember the reason I stated six years ago. It was put into effect because of sockpuppets being created by vandals just so they could nominate themselves. We needed to prevent that and I was saying it politely without actually saying it.
I've also looked at the page at about a dozen different points in the edit history and I just realized something: I don't think it's ever been stated on the page that people couldn't nominate themselves. I can see I disallowed one nomination because they were "not allowed to nominate yourself and hasn't met minimum requirements yet".
I had to dig around to find it. Not nominating yourself was added to the Administrators page when it was overhauled in April 2009 but not to the nominations page. It has always said it's for "nominating users to become administrators of the site" and "the nominee should not vote for themselves". That's it. It's worded with the assumption people would read the Administrators page to see what's involved with the job and would see the restriction about nominating themselves.
I'm going to fix that right now by removing it from the Administrators page, for the following reasons:
- It should have been consistent in both places. Someone could have contested not being able to nominate themselves. It just never came up.
- I proposed it back in 2014 because the reason for it had passed. We had a good group of admins that meant things didn't get out of hand.
- With the upcoming change to the new Unified Community Platform, we need additional staff to help with updating the wiki to handle the new features.
- —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 23:52, May 2, 2020 (UTC)