Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 14

Poll on making all sysops bureaucrats
I nominate all sysops to be bureaucrats to save having to vote on everyone twice. Angela. 02:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * All sysops who appear on this page? or All sysops of Wikipedia as they appear in Administrators ? Optim 03:18, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I mean any sysop who asks to be one. I don't think there should be a vote each time. They can just put their name here and be made one right away. Angela. 04:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) angela.
 * 2) Since bureaucrats can only make sysops, not de-sysop anybody, I don't see why the ability can't be given to all sysops. Also, it would get rid of the name bureaucrat, which has negative implications to many people. All sysops would have to abide by RfA procedures, of course. Creating a sysop without following the process would be a serious misuse of admin privileges. --Michael Snow 16:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Makes sense to me. I don't like the idea of a new level of hierarchy. Like most things here, sysoping someone can, technically speaking, be undone, so it is not like it is a dangerous weapon. -- Viajero 16:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Viajero - keep the hierarchy to a minimum. &rarr;Raul654 17:45, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Unlike Optim, I can't think of any admin who couldn't be trusted with this ability. Certainly it makes more sense than marching the 100+ of us through here (and honestly, I think most of us would like the option to be able promote). Jwrosenzweig 17:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) In my mind, this whole bureaucrat idea seems somewhat superfluous anyway. Stewart Adcock 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) conditionally. It doesn't need to be thrusted. Give it to only those who request, but to so immediately since the requests are almost occupying half this page. Giving bureaucrat status to inactive accounts is a bad idea. Unlike the other admin functions, only a few people need to hold the power. --Jiang 03:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Down with the cabal! Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * 9) I seriously doubt that any sysop would abuse bureaucrat powers... and in what way is making someone a bureaucrat any more dangerous than, say, vandalizing the main page or blocking sysops for no reason? ugen64 04:25, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. After speaking to Angela on IRC, I'm convinced that a whole bunch of sockpuppets would be easy to deal with. It would be noticed quickly if someone was sysopped who wasn't on Requests for adminship, and the original offending sysop can be desysopped, and his actions undone with relative ease, as well as the actions of any of his puppets. --cprompt 16:17, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) (I have already voted Oppose above) Try to imagine what a drunk sysop who gets mad could do: he/she could grant sysop access to trolls and vandals. then, they could do the same, and start destoying Wikipedia. In such a case only an SQL query could fix the db. isn't this enough for having a separate hierarchy level? Optim 04:50, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you have someone special in mind? :-D Anyway, I don't think we should have anyone who wishes to destoy wikipedia as even a sysop. That is teh correct level for our last and only line of defence. Anyway, count me as a suppository for the concept of sysop=Bureaucrat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 03:07, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * You know what we do with suppositories, don't you? ;-) -- Viajero 21:42, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. If we can't trust sysops to be bureaucrats, we shouldn't trust them to be sysops... -- Seth Ilys 21:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) Defer, too new to wikipedia. (once user:allsysops has more than 1,000,000,000,000 edits, I will support. Perl 15:31, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I would support eliminating the "bureaucrat" status and replacing it instead with an interface where 2 sysops are required to elevate a user to sysop status. This would help eliminate another level of artificial heirarchy, while still stopping a "lone sysop gone crazy", or more likely, a single sysop whose interpretation of consensus differs from the community's consensus of what a consensus is. Most of the issues with sysop status is that, by precedent, once someone is a made a sysop, they are perpetually a sysop (with the exception of outright vandalism). Maximus Rex 08:02, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Oppose. Bureaucrathood already carries a power that I consider to be far more dangerous than the ability to delete pages or ban users. Buraeucrathood could someday carry other powers. I disagree in automatically allowing all sysops to have bureaucrat powers (although I think most of them should be, anyway!) Perhaps, to streamline the process, we can allow people to request bureaucrathood without being an admin to begin with, and a consenting vote could imply adminship as well as bureaucrathood. --cprompt 02:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Wouldn't that defeat the point of having a separate bureaucrat status in the first place? Metasquares 13:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) * Yes it would, but are there any sysops who would not be supported should they apply for bureaucrat status? If sysops are going to apply for it, I can't see the point of voting on them. Angela. 13:18, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I may trust someone to hit the "delete" or the "block" linky, but I may not like him/her to have the ability of sysoping. Optim 16:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. If sysops are going to have greater powers than now, this sort of snap vote is hardly the way to do it. Charles Matthews 22:54, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, I'm already disturbed w all the power sysops have, why give them the power to reproduce as well?!? Sam Spade 23:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) *It isn't giving them any power as all requests still have to go through this page. The only change I would suggest is that a fixed percentage of votes be decided on that allows promotion. If this were agreed on, then there would be no decision-making aspect, thereby giving sysops no additional powers. Perhaps that could be discussed on the talk page? Angela. 23:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) **That would be a system more clearly open to manipulation, wouldn't it? A fixed tally or percentage of votes doesn't say much, when typically under 10% of sysops vote in a given poll. Charles Matthews 15:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. It nearly defeats the purpose of having burocracy/democracy if the executive branch is also the legislative/judical. Gamera2 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Horrendous risk of rogue admin promoting sock puppets. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) *What if they did? Theose sock puppets could be desysopped easily enough and they wouldn't be able to do any more damage than the original rogue sysop could anyway. Angela. 17:33, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. 172 02:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. -- Kaihsu 18:46, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I don't see much benefits with the proposal. I belive one should always keep some distance to all possibilities of 'disasters' - if a unfortunate promotion to sysadm is made, there should be some minimum time until the user might become a bureaucrat - by basically the same reason a 'ordinary user' doesn't become a sysadms immediately upon request. And, I'm not sure about how its done in practice, but is it possible for a bureaucrat, in this proposal, to create new bureaucrats? That would, for sure, be disastrous.    Mikez 04:13, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) *Yes, bureaucrats can create other bureaucrats. Angela. 16:56, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, all that separation of power fun-stuff Fennec 16:04, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose on the grounds that I don't like general, blanket statements. Dori | Talk 16:36, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Danny 19:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. There needs to be a process. Kingturtle 21:54, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. More importantly, if there is a process, we should not have proxy votes. Votes need to be cast by each individual. Kingturtle 03:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose for two reasons: 1) i dont want to be a beaurocrat, not even a fake one; 2) it would spoil the fun for everybody who thrills with nominations and votings. Muriel 07:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. I do not trust all admins sufficiently. I decline to accept the nomination for myself. Jamesday 21:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Comments
(plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category) had been added to the tally totals for the nominations for bureaucrats. I removed the note because there is not a consensus supporting such a system. There isn't even a majority of people who support such a system. The vote right now is 11 supporting, 13 opposing, and 1 neutral. Users are encouraged to vote. Kingturtle 03:59, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Why should those who have already stated they support all sysops have to continue voting on every one that comes up. As far as I'm concerned, I have already voted, as I have said that I support any sysop that applies. It's a complete waste of time to vote 160 times for each sysop! Angela. 04:05, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * The primary reaso is there isn't even close to a concensus supporting the idea; in fact, supporters are in the minority. IMHO, you have to show up to vote. Also, vote counting might get confusing. Also, it sets a precendent that would make voting processes more difficult in the future. To play devil's advocate, could I state in VfD that they should cast my VfD on any high school posted? Who would keep track of all the different desires and requests? Kingturtle 04:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC) P.S. The votes are up for a week, which means you just need to poke your head in every 5 days or so. Kingturtle 04:35, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * No consensus: The poll ended with tally: 12 support, 15 oppose, 2 neutral -- ends 02:33, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC) -- Kaihsu 21:56, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

The above vote seems to me to be an example of why votes, rather than consensus-forming talk, are a bad thing. Let's look at the opposers reasons for example. 1) As Angela says, bureaucrats and admins are merged, so what?, 2) They would only have the technical ability to promote people NOT the mandate to abitrarily promote people - they'd have to conform with RfA votes. All admin powers are like this 3) Agrees that a vote is not the way to go. 4) See answer to 2), 5) See answer to 2), 6) See answer to 2), 7) No reason given, 8) No reason given. 9) This is a good point, see below, 10) & 11) No concrete reasons, I don't understand the points. 12) No reason given. 13) Why does there need to be a (new) process? For what? As Angela points out, who is trusted as an admin, but would not be trusted to be a bureaucrat? If there is no such person, then adminship and bureaucratship should be merged, simply to save on all the bureaucracy around here 14) - 1) You need never use this element of your powers. e.g. I've never used my ability to block anyone 2) lol. 15) Trust them to do what, though? The power is to be used for a well-defined purpose - implementing the consensus of RfA and there is a bureaucrat log so all actions are open and transparent, and easily reversible. If you don't trust people, even after they've hung around long enough to be an admin, then isn't the whole open wiki concept a bit flawed for you?

Basically apart from 9), which deserves thought, the opinions listed in the oppose column can be taken to task. But because they are votes they're opinions that are effectively set in stone (yes you can change your vote - but that doesn't happen in practice) and full consideration of the issue is blocked. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 2) They would only have the technical ability to promote people NOT the mandate to abitrarily promote people - they'd have to conform with RfA votes. All admin powers are like this - I am still unconvinced. Policy is not a good way to stop someone from doing something bad. Refusing to give the technical ability is the best way to keep us safe. Optim 16:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree in three ways. Firstly keep us safe from what? Someone creating zombie sysops? What malevent purpose could zombie sysops serve anyway? Secondly, all bureaucrat actions are logged, open and reversible.. so there is little to fear. Thirdly if someone is untrustworthy then why are they sysops? They can do much worse things that temporarily create a zombie sysop... they can technically block users for example... they can delete pages. Finally the whole idea of the wiki is to be open and to allow everyone to do everything until proved unsustainable. Sysops should be bureaucrats by default, just like pages should be unprotected by default. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's just your opinion. For example, Angela is wrong - there already has been at least one sysop whose bureaucrat application has not found sufficient support. If people don't change their votes, it's because they don't change their opinion. This could have been discussed forever, and no one consensus would have been reached. Votes are necessary. --Wik 16:22, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll assume you're referring to User:172. If, for example, he did receive bureaucrat powers under what Angela suggests, then what? The worst thing he could possibly do is make you a sysop (wink wink :-P). But really, even if I became a bureaucrat and made 10 people sysop, so what? They woudl be desysopped and I would probably be desysopped as well (for violating what would presumably be policy to NOT MAKE PEOPLE SYSOPS WITHOUT CONSENSUS, like for example VFD). ugen64 00:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I meant that bureaucrat powers would be similar to the power to delete pages from VfD: do it right, cool. Do it wrong, bad. Presumably, the worst that could happen by a bureaucrat would be to make someone a sysop who goes and starts vandalizing, deleting, protecting, etc. All reversible actions, and no different or more harmful than if I (or any other sysop) were to vandalize, delete, and protect a bunch of pages... ugen64 00:29, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's eminently possible for a previously approved sysop not to get enough support for bureaucrat status. That's not because of anything fundamentally different in the qualifications required. Much more likely, it's because the request drew a different selection of voters (users who have had disputes with the sysop), or because over time the community's perception of the sysop has changed (in other words, the same user quite possibly would not be supported for sysop status if they were nominated now). Bureaucrat status is a useless distinction. All it does is add an additional layer of administration and turn Wikipedia into more of a hierarchical institution. --Michael Snow 17:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If there has been prior discussion on this point, I apologize. I missed it. All I saw was that Tim Starling created bureaucrats and admins as equal, and Eloquence reverted him. Then there was a vote. What were the specific circumstances of someone being refused bureaucratship? It would be interesting to find circumstances that would mean it right for someone to be admin and not a bureaucrat. I imagine the vote had the flavour of a "vote of no confidence" in the sysop rather than technical abilities... I heartily agree with Michael Snow. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 172's request was removed from the page for lack of consensus, based on 8 supports, 5 opposes, and 2 neutrals (some additional comments could be interpreted to change the vote totals). See . I think your expectation is correct for the nature of this particular vote. --Michael Snow 19:39, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll 1
Polls #1 - How long is should an admin candidate have been here before applying, minimally?


 * <3 months
 * 1) Meelar 02:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 3-4 months
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Wik 02:14, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Jiang 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Metasquares 02:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC). 3 months for a nomination. Not a terribly long time to wait for an actual contributor, but enough to discourage sock-puppets. I'd say 4-6 months for a request, because it says something positive about a candidate if a member in good standing can vouch for him or her.
 * 8) Perl This is probably long enough to discourage sock puppets.
 * 9) Gives enough time to see how the candidate reacts to situations. Kingturtle 04:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Graham  :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - given these months have been "active" months
 * 14) Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 5 months or more
 * 1) Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * No strict rule or requirement should be set
 * 1) Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - should be on a case-by-case basis
 * 3) SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
 * 5) Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules.  Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
 * 6) Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * 7) Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I think a minimum of 10-12 weeks is usually appropriate, but this can't be a hard and fast rule.  A person who edits once on January 1 and then nothing until a flurry of 500 edits in the final week of April hasn't qualified, in my opinion, by May 1.
 * 8) Anthony DiPierro
 * 9) Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Merovingian - it's the edits that count. 15:32, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Dante Alighieri | Talk - case-by-case basis works for me.

Poll 2
Polls #2 - Minimally, how many edits should an admin candidate have been here before applying?
 * Less than 500
 * 1) Meelar 02:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 500-799
 * 1) &rarr;Raul654 02:13, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 800-1000
 * 1) Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * More than 1000
 * 1) Wik 02:14, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Jiang 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Perl
 * 4) Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Graham  :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian 15:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * More than 2000
 * 1) Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) That's only about 20/day for 3 to 4 months. It will give a good idea of howthe user acts and reacts. Kingturtle 04:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * No strict rule or requirement should be set
 * 1) Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Metasquares 02:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC). Edits != Trust
 * 3) RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) case by case
 * 4) SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
 * 6) Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules.  Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
 * 7) Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * 8) Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - again, I don't think we can set a clear rule.  300 high-quality edits to potentially contentious pages may be enough.  600 edits that are either typo fixes or comments on talk pages may not be enough.  General guideline of 500 is wise, I think, but nothing beyond that.  And 2000 is insane -- many admins, myself included, still do not have 2000.
 * 9) Anthony DiPierro
 * 10) Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC) - I don't care about the number, I care about the behavior.
 * 11) Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) There should be no incentive to have unnecessarily many edits.Peak 05:22, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC) - as stated above, case-by-case basis

Poll 3
Polls #3 - Which combination of requirements?


 * #1 only


 * #2 only


 * #1 and #2
 * 1) Dori | Talk 02:20, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;  02:28, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) &rarr;Raul654 02:30, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jiang 02:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Wik 02:34, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Menchi 02:36, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Perl 03:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Sam Spade 03:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Infrogmation 04:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Graham  :) 16:55, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) DropDeadGorgias 20:21, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Ruhrjung 13:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Tim Starling 05:42, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Optim 19:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * neither one
 * 1) Maximus Rex 02:23, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) RickK 03:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) SimonP 05:02, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Fuzheado 06:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC), agree with maximus_rex (3 mo, 1000 edits as guideline, not entitlement)
 * 5) Isomorphic 07:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) - guidelines, not rules.  Entitlement, even unintentionally implied, is bad.
 * 6) Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * 7) Jwrosenzweig 18:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC) Again, general guidelines, not requirements.  It's working.
 * 8) Anthony DiPierro 03:42, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow 00:09, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Ryan_Cable 15:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Merovingian 15:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I want to clarify my reasoning for my votes. I feel that being a contributor at wikipedia for a length of time (several months) and making a lot of edits (a thousand or so) are necessary to judge whether someone should be an admin. However, I feel that binding rules or requirements are not good for two reasons. 1)It is unnecessary to make it a requirement (too many rules is a bad thing) 2) It creates a false sense of entitlement once someone has passed the "requirement". Maximus Rex 02:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I favor the requirements, but I totally agree that there should be no sense of entitlement of any user after fullfilling them. There are additional considerations, such as the reliability in editing and abilities to get along with others that IMO should be weighed for potential admins. -- Infrogmation 04:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow... my comment provoked a lot of discussion, but not at all along the lines I was thinking. I don't see any strong reason for having strict policy on how long people have to be here and how many edits they have to make before becoming an admin. More specific suggestions, perhaps, but not strict guidelines. I worry that it will create the feeling that someone who meets the requirements and doesn't make admin is being snubbed.

Furthermore, I disagree with Camembert's comment that eliminating self-nominations "wouldn't make any difference." I think it'd be easier on UserX to have UserY explain privately to them that they should wait and ask later, and why, than it is for UserXto nominate themselves and watch the "no" votes roll in. It's not such a public drubbing. And if UserX is the sort who will go pester others, then someone can nominate them to shut them up, and let them see for themselves. So some unqualified people still make it to the vote, but you cut twice - once when some people don't even bother looking for someone to nominate them, and again when some of them accept the explanation given them for why they should wait.

I'm not just talking about people who are unqualified because they're too new. I think having to ask someone to nominate you is a chance to find out about likely objections, before they become a community discussion. It also seems that when someone is nominated, people don't like voting against them unless there's a specific reason. I'd prefer having the extra step of needing a nomination, even if it doesn't end up doing much.

I can't think of any advantage to allowing self-nomination. Dropping a note on someone's talk page asking to be nominated takes no effort. The disadvantage is that it means some decisions are made by poll that could be settled in private discussion. This is true regardless of the outcome of the above poll, and I would like to reiterate my initial suggestion - no self-nominations. Isomorphic 07:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I self-nominated (and was made an admin) 2 months and a week into my time here, with about 500 edits under my belt. I think my position can easily be extrapolated from that. -- Jake 07:36, 2004 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * In a similar boat: I was nominated by someone else (with no request to do so from me) after I'd been here about 6-7 weeks with around 300 edits to my name. Not that I think that should be the way we do things, but I feel like the community did make the right decision in promoting me (admittedly, we did wait 2-3 weeks and 100-200 more edits before I was promoted). Jwrosenzweig 19:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To promote or not

"a known and trusted member of the community"

That is the standard I have always used in the 2+ years I've been promoting users to admin. If someone is supported by less than 50% of those offering a comment, I do not consider that to show much "trust", even if I myself support them! Remember, I seconded 172's nomination of BL. --Uncle Ed 20:06, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)