Thread:Nusdan/@comment-26481819-20150813053628/@comment-17897872-20150813075213

in some, in some. And I see Nusdan brought this up to you too, probably over PM. Getting pretty experienced on this issue, Nusdan knows XD, I do wish to leave my two cents, if you don't mind :)

I am concurrently facing the same problems here and on CCSW. However, I find this post very weak because, obviously, it still lacks a few things. It's only filled with things that I really abhor (with a burning passion) in a nomination method. Your second post will be much more important - the nitty gritty of the whole idea, I guess. That can be fixed over time when you post the rest of your idea.

GS Irber wrote:

A candidate must be either a chat mod, or a moderator. They must have held the position for 45 days, and be active on the wiki. Strong oppose. Oh god, prerequisites again, the thing I hate the most! A chat mod will only be promoted if the user is active in chat. A moderator will only be promoted if the user is active on the forums. But being a good admin doesn't mean that you have to have one of these ranks. I have jumped from none to admin because of the slight edits on main space at first.

GS Irber wrote:

They must have been active on the wiki for a minimum of 4 months, and have accumulated at least 700 edits. Oppose X1000. Another prerequisite. What is it with the 4-month requirement? I've been promoted here after a few weeks in this wiki, I suppose. And also, this time frame is kinda useless. I've seen so many brilliant exceptions that this rule always gets overlooked in the future. I also don't like the 700 edit requirement. Take a look at this user's contributions. He should make a good admin if he joined here. I don't care if he had been here for a short time and have 100 awesome edits.

GS Irber wrote:

They must have generally well behavior, and have good relations with the wiki (Regular Users and All). They must have been helpful to the wiki, such examples are but are not limited to: finding spam, moderating the chat, and aiding other users on the wiki. The user MUST be over the age of 13. This is to ensure the utmost mature individuals get selected. If the user fits the bill, the candidate will NOT be informed about their selection to ensure that their behavior does not change during the election process. Exactly what an admin should be, no need for the other requirements. COPPA law is also important here.

GS Irber wrote:

If the user has had previous unexcused incidents in the past, it may impact the view of them (depending of the serverity of the incident). Support. Of course. This is very obvious. Everyone will remember this incident and vote the person lower if s/he has committed this crime. This doesn't even need to be written out, the other users will come to their senses and decide whether the user has become eligible for the rank.

GS Irber wrote:

If the user has three or more violations of wiki rules, they will be ineligible to become admin (exceptions may apply). Oppose. The violation of wiki rules should NOT limit if a person can be an admin or not. This will get ironed out when other users vote. Your statement here is also very contradictory. What are the exceptions you mention? I've also been given that User:Hoanganhminh was a very bad user when first joined, breaking many rules, and maybe even getting blocked several times, but this user turned around and became a bureaucrat shortly with a change of attitude. Again, I need to know what you mean by exceptions because you contridict yourself here.

GS Irber wrote:

If the candidate is eligible to become admin, they will proceed to the "Voting And Community Appeal Process" (Section II). Awesome! What will it be? Let's find out! Are you having any trouble deciding how to do this. I can help you out! The Candy Crush Saga Wiki has given me the experience to debate on this at length, which is what I'm accidentally doing here. Check out this link and this link for some inspiration. You can see how much I was in this debate and gained so much confidence.

Thank you for bringing this issue up!

-3primetime3- (talk)