This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was Eliminate self-noms but don't require admin endorsement.–SentryTalk 04:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently, it seems more and more people are seeing adminship as simply a status symbol and something they get just for being around long enough and not vandalizing anything. Witness recent attempts at adminship that failed badly with almost no support for them. What did the three most recent failures have in common? They were self-noms. While self-noms have worked in the past, I really don't think they're necessary, as anyone who can't get a nomination from anyone else isn't likely to get support to become an admin anyway. There's nothing stopping anyone from asking someone else for a nom anyway.
Which is why I have a corollary proposal to limit nominations to current admins. This would eliminate the possibility of junk nominations still getting through simply by asking a friend and would cut off popularity-contest, because-I-can, and I'm-entitled-because-I've-been-around-a-while noms. While I recognize the danger of turning adminship into a good old boys' club, I think that there is currently a large and diverse enough base of admins that anyone who would have a decent shot at adminship (remember you need 2/3 [voting] admin approval to become an admin already anyway) would be able to find an admin to back their candidacy. Essentially, it's my feeling that this wouldn't significantly increase admin control over nomination beyond the high level already wielded by them, and it would serve an invaluable role in eliminating the junk nominations that stand no shot of succeeding anyway. Havac 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (edited 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC))
Cull Tremayne 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC) - Agree. Also as Havac said it seems perfectly fine for a regular user to appeal to an admin to nominate someone. If they have any doubts about going to an admin it's obvious the nomination may not be needed. Additionally, if the regular user can't get admin support it's not going through anyway.
Support, per Silly Dan. Even with the admin voting requirement, regular editors should be able to make nominations and state their cases for those nominations. jSarek 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, they could still state their cases to the admin whose endorsement they request and would naturally have the opportunity to do so in the actual vote. All the admin-only restriction would do would be to require one single admin to agree that the nominee deserves a shot, and if you can't get that you're not going to make admin anyway and might as well not waste the time. Havac 07:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a very bad idea to limit nominating to admins. It's not supposed to be a "Okay, who should we nominate to join our club?" type of thing. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The point isn't that only admins would be able to nominate, though. It's that any nominations would have to go through an admin to make sure they're not spurious. Bureaucrats can already veto and one needs heavy admin support to become an admin already. I think that, in practice, this won't really increase their power in the adminship process beyond the large power they already have. Havac 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
So the admins have to review the nomination before people are allowed to vote? I don't think so. That's completely unfair. Let's say all the admins have a grudge against a certain user, who was put up for a nomination to become an admin, and all non-admins are getting ready to vote for him. However, since the admins have to review it, they could easily just say no. I'm not saying the admins are like that. I'm just saying it's an unfair process. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So now we see what your true concern is. Kuralyov 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, if every single admin has a grude against that user and doesn't want him to be an admin, they'll vote against him in the actual vote and he will fail anyway because he doesn't have 2/3 admin support. My point isn't that there's no possibility for unfairness, just that there's no more possibility than there already is. Havac 00:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
However, voting against someone merely because of a grudge is another issue that shouldn't be allowed. But I won't go into detail on that here. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Per Silly Dan.–SentryTalk 00:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Per jSarek. --Azizlight 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Only allowing admins to nominate invalidates that whole spiel about sysop privileges NOT being a status symbol here. And while I don't mind self-noms and do love to see people get shot down for sheer hilarity, I won't mind a lack of clutter. Wildyoda 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)