(→Active requests: The course of this discussion has demonstrated that the community is not competent to handle this issue.) |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==Active requests== |
==Active requests== |
||
| − | |||
| − | ===Winter Moon: Demotion from Administrator to Patroller=== |
||
| − | |||
| − | Another editor nominated Winter Moon for demotion from administrator; since the nomination was full of unprovoked personal attacks I reverted it and blocked the nominator. However, the base concern that Winter Moon is insufficiently active to justify his keeping the tools. It's a concern that has been expressed before, and Winter Moon has been made aware of it. Therefore, I'm procedurally making the proposal to demote him to patroller. |
||
| − | |||
| − | ====Votes==== |
||
| − | *'''Oppose''' - <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) |
||
| − | *'''Strongly Oppose''' - [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 09:35, June 27, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *'''Support''' ''(see my idea)'' - <span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]] |
||
| − | *'''Support, under condition - that he may resume admin duties if he wishes [[User:Sasquatch101|Sasquatch101]] ([[User talk:Sasquatch101|talk]]) 03:30, June 28, 2013 (UTC)''' |
||
| − | *'''Support, under condition that the rules should change a little.''' --'''[[User:Thomas0802|Thomas0802]] ([[User talk:Thomas0802|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Thomas0802|Edits]])''' 09:53, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *'''Support Sasquatch's Idea - '''[[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 11:48, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | |||
| − | ====Comments==== |
||
| − | *Although I feel this ought to be a community decision and will have no problem if the community does decide to demote Winter Moon, I am personally opposed to it at this time. If his lack of participation once GTA5 comes out becomes a problem, that will be a different story, but I don't believe in punishing people for things they have not done. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 05:52, June 27, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *'''I don't believe in punishing people for things they have not done.''' - Sums up it perfectly. [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 09:36, June 27, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *I know he was a great editor back in the day, but he's very inactive. Since I'm a patroller that wants to be promoted in the future, I will let the other staff members to vote so I won't look like I'm voting "Support" just because of that.<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]] |
||
| − | *Wintermoon isn't around that much. So instead of demoting him outright, he could go into a one month leave of absence and a substitute admin could assume his position while he is gone. After the one month leave of absence is up, he can resume his admin duties and the substitute admin can become a full time admin. Demoting him permanently is a little harsh, and besides I think adding another admin would be great for the wiki. Also I'm sure Wintermoon will want to resume being an admin, so it really will just be a much needed break he needs so he can come back once V is right around the corner. BTW V is in Sep 17 [[User:Sasquatch101|Sasquatch101]] ([[User talk:Sasquatch101|talk]]) 03:30, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *Winter Moon is a very good editor but he should have understanding that he is an Admin. In my opinion, at least 1 edit in three months to not be demoted is a mindless idea, also me, Dodo, Tony, and other patrollers and users who keep working hard everyday should think in my way too. So meanwhile the patrollers are doing a very hard job, doing hundreds and thousand edits per month and an admin who only has one edit per month is unusual and inequitable. If we reduce the edit requirement to one edit per month than he may be doing one or two edits per month and he will still be an admin. The role of an admin is keep Wikia free from vandals, helping it everyday and that's what the Patrollers are doing in the place from Winter Moon. It's just my free-mind opinion. --'''[[User:Thomas0802|Thomas0802]] ([[User talk:Thomas0802|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Thomas0802|Edits]])''' 09:53, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *I thought better and I came up with these ideas: |
||
| − | **If the '''Demotion''' is '''<font color=green>Successful</font>''': |
||
| − | ***His place will be taken by a [[File:Patroller.png|15px]] '''Patroller'''; the current '''Patrollers''' will apply for a poll, which consists in an [[File:Administrator.png|15px]] '''Administrator'''/[[File:Bureaucrat.png|20px]] '''Bureaucrat''' exclusive vote. |
||
| − | ***[[User:Winter Moon|Winter Moon]] might get back his '''Administrator''' rights if he proves he can be active enough. |
||
| − | **If the '''Demotion''' is '''<font color=red>Unsuccessful</font>''': |
||
| − | ***[[User:Winter Moon|Winter Moon]] will keep his rights. |
||
| − | |||
| − | <span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> |
||
| − | |||
| − | *I don't accept your ideas. Tom and Jeff however may have a different opinion on them. Winter Moon is as active as me. Should I be demoted? [[User:Messi1983|Messi1983]] ([[User talk:Messi1983|talk]]) 11:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | **I see you everyday, Messi. Resolving issues and things. I never see Winter Moon talking about Wiki's problems like you and the other admins do. I did not know he's an admin until Ilan told him someday that he's too inactive.<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]] |
||
| − | **No Messi, you're too much active as W.M, just look at the contributions, and you're a bureaucrat, demoting a bureaucrat makes no sense. |
||
| − | --'''[[User:Thomas0802|Thomas0802]] ([[User talk:Thomas0802|talk]]-[[Special:Contributions/Thomas0802|Edits]])''' 11:42, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | *I support Sasquatch's idea. I don't think that it's fair for him to be permenantly demoted, and that he should get his admin rights back when he can prove he is active enough. [[User:LS11sVaultBoy|VaultBoy Tom]] ([[User talk:LS11sVaultBoy|Talk to me this way]]) 11:48, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
| − | **I said the exact same thing. Anyway, wheter he will be demoted for a short period or not demoted at all, we need to encourage him to be active, so he can keep his rights justly.<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black">[[User:Dodo8|Dodo8]]</span> [[User talk:Dodo8|<sup>''<span style="color:#FF6600; font-family:Cooper Black>Talk</span>''</sup>]] |
||
| − | *OK, slow down everyone. There is no rule that there _has_ to be X amount of admins, and as I've explained before, I'm not promoting anyone because we "have" to have admins. Neither are we making any bizarre rules about part time admins, temporary admins, temporary demotions, etc... I know these suggestions were made in good faith, but that's the exact kind of convoluted bureaucracy that we shouldn't have. <b>[[User:McJeff|Jeff]]</b> ([[User_talk:McJeff|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/McJeff|stalk]]) 14:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC) |
||
==Inactive requests== |
==Inactive requests== |
||
Revision as of 15:03, 28 June 2013
- There is currently a full set of Admins, so requests for promotion to Patroller only.
Welcome to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.
You may apply for Rollback Rights or Administrator privileges on this noticeboard. To do so, you must meet the prerequisites, and then state what position you are looking for and why you think you need the rollback and/or administrator tools.
Requests for Oversight and Checkuser must be done at Wikia Central (and they'll probably be declined).
Rollback is a tool that allows users to quickly revert vandalism.
Administrators have the power to block and ban users, protect pages, move images, and delete pages and images, in addition to rollback.
To qualify for rollback rights, editors must have been active for two months with no rules violations. Rollbackers must receive a 60% 'yes' percentage to be promoted.
To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active for four months with no rules violations. Administrators must receive a 70% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Those applying for adminship will likely be asked questions on how they deal with certain situations. This is to see if a user has the capabilities of being an administrator.
Editors with rollback and administrator experience on other wikis are encouraged to apply, and based on the editor in question exceptions may be made to the length of time editing required for promotion.
When applying for promotion, a community vote will take place. Voting lasts 7 days, although it may be allowed to run shorter (in the case of an obvious pass/fail) or longer (in the case of a very close vote) at sysop discretion.
Application users who are caught tampering with other users votes, such as changing a no to a yes, will have their request closed immediately.
Please submit your requests at the top of the "Active requests" page subsection.
Requests where the voting has finished can be found at
- GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2011-12
- GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion/Archived Requests 2013
Active requests
Inactive requests
Kingrhem - Patroller
Hi, My name is Kingrhem and I'm asking for Patroller rights to make this wiki clean from any errors . I have a hundred edits on this wiki, my grammar is very good and I have been a active for about month. I'm available for 10 hours a day. And I know a-lot about the GTA Series.Kingrhem (talk) 14:03, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
Votes
- No - Jeff (talk|stalk)
- No - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 21:04, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely Not - NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 21:56, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Not Qualified - Mr. T., That's Me! (talk) 00:02, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
- No - Boomer8 (talk) 05:49, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
- One month and 100 edits isn't enough to qualify someone for patroller on a high-activity wiki like this one. Three months and 500 edits maybe. Jeff (talk|stalk) 14:18, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I think you'd have more chances if you applied next month with at least 500 edits. I don't think you need three months as long as you edit frequently and make substantial edits (just adding categories won't get you far). - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 21:08, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
- As below, with the request that also failed, you haven't been on here long enough. I agree with McJeff in that I don't think you're worthy for promotion until you've been on here for about three months. Also, your grammar doesn't appear to be quite as good as you say; even your request paragraph has a few errors that, if I saw them on an information page, I would cringe at and take time to correct. Try again later in the year. - NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 22:01, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Around 250 to 400 edits are enough to meet Patroller prerequisites, but they need to be good quality edits, not just adding a letters to a word or commenting on blogs. Don't go AWOL after you read this and edit a lot and try to apply again because that will show that you just want the position without any reasons. Keep up the good edits and help. Try to apply again in a month or so. Mr. T., That's Me! (talk) 00:02, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
- If you get some more edits under your belt, improve your grammar, and reaply in a month or so, you'll have a chance of becoming a patroller on the GTA Wiki. Boomer8 (talk) 05:49, June 13, 2013 (UTC)
Instulent
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Instulent and I would like to be promoted as a patroller on the GTA Wiki. I've been on this wiki for almost a month, have done 1,100+ edits and counting and not one day with out editing. I have reported a few people who have either trolled etc to admins and I get along well with almost everyone on this wiki. I am a positive person who will do anything to a help a wiki out. Thank you for your time. Instulent (talk) 17:58, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
Votes
- No - Tom Talk 07:41, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- No (not now) - Dodo8 Talk
- Computer says no - NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 09:40, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Not Yet - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 10:39, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- No - Messi1983 (talk) 23:08, June 2, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe - Cloudkit01 (talk) 00:21, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- YES- Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Recuse- Mr. T., That's Me! (talk) 04:00, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- No - --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 19:41, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 05:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- I'm certain you'd make a very good patroller. But does the red text at the top of the page not hinder your chances somewhat? --NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 09:37, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine, ta. - NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 09:50, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- Almost a month is not long enough, you're doing a good job though. Keep it up and apply again in a two months or so. Tom Talk 07:41, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- You're doing a great job, but you still have some things to learn. Try again in a month or so.Dodo8 Talk
- Sadly it's still a no. An employer wouldn't promote an employee just three weeks after starting so it's the same principle here. - NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 09:43, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Some more weeks will give you more chances. Your work has been great, so far, but you need some more time to consolidate and run for patrollership again. If you wait 2-3 weeks, I might vote "Yes", the next time, Instu. - Mikey Klebbitz (talk) 10:43, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
- It is a good idea to wait on an editor who has just started out and may not be fully commited. However, in your case you seem to be very much into bettering the GTA Wiki. Your grammar and overall skills are what fit the patroller title; so I don't belive it's necessary to wait a month on a perfectly good editor. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
- He is a great editor, but I noticed some of his edits on info and images have fanon-like wordings. Despite I told him and Tom that a Patroller spot is open, I'm going to avoid voting because saying a no doesn't feel right to me nor does saying a "yes" because of his somewhat "fanon-phrases" on pages and image captions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony 1998 (talk • contribs) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
- User has only been here a short time, hence why I have voted no for the time being. Messi1983 (talk) 03:20, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
- However the number of edits doesn't matter, what matter to be a standard is how your edits are useful ( for example not adding a comma or something like this ) and remember, you did good edits and uploaded images in these times, your activity is too ok, but it's all about the time, wait a little and you can ask again. --Thomas0802 (talk-Edits) 19:44, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
- The result and the reason behind it seems pretty unanimous. D'you reckon it might be worth getting rid of this and postponing the vote to a later date? Providing Instulent stays committed and keeps his editing up to scratch, I'm sure there'll be a few more yeses after a while. Just not now. -NikoBellicsBoss11 (talk) 20:28, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
- You have a ton of edits, you're active, and you seem like a nice guy; everything a patroller should have. So I've voted"yes". Boomer8 (talk) 05:04, June 7, 2013 (UTC)