SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Line 10: Line 10:
::: For what it's worth, this was the kind of response I would have preferred to hear when I posted this in the Pool Room, not here. I don't think self-nominations are an issue because if someone doesn't have community support, that will be obvious from the response to the nomination. You would just need one person to nominate you, and one person does not make a community consensus either--if we're trying to stop abuse, just asking someone to nominate you (or hell, to just fake it) is easy enough. I think that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop based on the community response and their own judgment, rather than relying on nominations from other people. The other major point is that I don't want to have to deal with people nominating others who aren't interested in being a sysop--then some people will have their nomination discussed without being interested in it, and there are enough issues there that aren't worth having to deal with. And even if you accept, if you hadn't really been thinking about it before and decide to accept it, then maybe you really weren't interested to begin with, and you won't be particularly active. In any event, if the process really irks you, ask a couple friends if they'd support you as sysop--if yes, then you have at least as much support as you'd need to get nominated by someone else, so there should be no shame in nominating yourself (since everyone else has to do the same thing). --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 01:01, November 21, 2007 (EST)
::: For what it's worth, this was the kind of response I would have preferred to hear when I posted this in the Pool Room, not here. I don't think self-nominations are an issue because if someone doesn't have community support, that will be obvious from the response to the nomination. You would just need one person to nominate you, and one person does not make a community consensus either--if we're trying to stop abuse, just asking someone to nominate you (or hell, to just fake it) is easy enough. I think that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop based on the community response and their own judgment, rather than relying on nominations from other people. The other major point is that I don't want to have to deal with people nominating others who aren't interested in being a sysop--then some people will have their nomination discussed without being interested in it, and there are enough issues there that aren't worth having to deal with. And even if you accept, if you hadn't really been thinking about it before and decide to accept it, then maybe you really weren't interested to begin with, and you won't be particularly active. In any event, if the process really irks you, ask a couple friends if they'd support you as sysop--if yes, then you have at least as much support as you'd need to get nominated by someone else, so there should be no shame in nominating yourself (since everyone else has to do the same thing). --[[User:Kirby King|<font color="red"><b><i>Kirby King</i></b></font>]] 01:01, November 21, 2007 (EST)
:It's worth nothing Kirby King's point that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop, but in the same respect, those candidates who ''would'' make good sysops also share that judgment, so self-nomination is perfectly logical. Those who know best how to improve the administrative side of the wiki will make the best candidates and individuals know their own skillset and breadth of contributions far better than the community does. Remember, self-nomination is not the same as self-appointment; it's whether or not the nomination is successful that filters the power-hungry attention-seekers from those who actively seek that power because they recognize how the wiki can be improved in conjunction with their skills. --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 02:54, November 21, 2007 (EST)
:It's worth nothing Kirby King's point that the sysops are capable enough of determining who would or wouldn't make a good sysop, but in the same respect, those candidates who ''would'' make good sysops also share that judgment, so self-nomination is perfectly logical. Those who know best how to improve the administrative side of the wiki will make the best candidates and individuals know their own skillset and breadth of contributions far better than the community does. Remember, self-nomination is not the same as self-appointment; it's whether or not the nomination is successful that filters the power-hungry attention-seekers from those who actively seek that power because they recognize how the wiki can be improved in conjunction with their skills. --<font color="000023">'''[[User:Randall00|RJM]]'''</font> <sup>''[[User talk:Randall00|Talk]]''</sup> 02:54, November 21, 2007 (EST)
::I see. Self-nomination really is the better way to go, then. [[User:Teamrocketspy621|Teamrocketspy621]] 08:00, November 21, 2007 (EST)