GuildWiki talk:Requests for adminship

This is a good idea, but not very well implemented. The section on how to vote at the end is, quite frankly, atrocious. The process should be transparent to average users, not uber leet coding gurus. I refuse to hinder the voting process by making it more complex than the Florida punch cards. Please think of a way that involves writing plain text.

Also, a note should be made that writing comments such "I am surprised he is not an admin yet" and "need I explain why" are not exactly what we are looking for here. --Karlos 16:45, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * How hard is clicking on the "edit" link next to the relevant Support section? I am not well versed with the abilities of a Floridian punch card voter, so please elucidate. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 16:49, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos, it's only the nominations that may be slightly convoluted (which is no problem as far as I'm concerned, if anyone wants help nominating, I think they'll figure to ask). The voting simply requires typing plantext in the "Your vote here" field. --Bishop (rap|con) 16:50, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Great work setting this up, this will be very helpful in eliciting what the wiki community feels about new admins. --Xeeron 16:49, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Procedural Question
Now that Skuld has been promoted to admin, should we leave all remaining candidates to have an available on-going pool; or archive the whole list to reset for any future rounds of nominations and votes of support? I believe the Wikipedia method is to keep the list as an on-going pool, but I prefer to archive and reset method myself. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:46, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, so we are still just getting one at a time? - 13:58, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Here's what I think: In a few more days, once there hasn't been any new nominations or support votes for a while, we should tally up the consensus and everyone with a clear, undisputed majority (lets say, at least 5 support votes) should be submitted to Gravewit for admitting to sysop status. After that, we could archive the remaining submissions and clean the slate for a new round, possibly including a discussion of whether or not we need more admins.


 * However, despite GW:YOU, I am not an admin and I really think it should be mostly up to the current admins to decide how they want to proceed. After all, they're the ones who will be "working with" the new faces. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I prefer treating each nomination individually, independently of the others. Full disclosure: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Wikipedian. – 70.20  ( &#x260e; ) 2006-06-11 20:44 (UTC)

Current administrators and RfA votes
I'd like to propose that all current administrators vote on all candidates. Since the candidates here might eventually become part of our team, I'd like to know what everybody thinks before we reach that point. &mdash;Tanaric 10:03, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Jamie
Jamie's proposal has gone nowhere. May I remove it? &mdash;Tanaric 01:49, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry for the late response. Yes, you may. Jamie himself has commented on his reduced editing of the Wiki and has a nifty little banner saying he's retired GWiki. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:32, 5 December 2006 (CST)

What about the other two? One rejected and the other is going nowhere. Seems like we aren't getting new admins soon even if there was need for them. -- (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2006 (CST)


 * Agreed. Xeeron said no, and Evil Grevin isn't getting more votes... Eh, no sweat either way, as we have enough admins. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 01:41, 6 December 2006 (CST)