JZ, we're going to need your LRC account information as we do a lot of the admin discussions via LRC protocol. thanks. Majnoona
What's LRC protocol? Google shows "lazy release consistency", which doesn't sound relevant. -phma
"LRC protocol" is "living-room couch". Maj and I live together, and we talk about Wikitravel here sometimes. Little joke. --Evan 11:15, 18 Jan 2004 (EST)
I think it should be made clear that "other" means "other than the nominator", rather than "other than the nominee", since the nominee isn't an admin, so by Grice if it meant that, the word "other" wouldn't be necessary. So if there are only two admins, it is useless for either to nominate someone, since there aren't two other admins to support him. -phma 17:21, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)
I think there may be some room for improvement in policy about nominations. Here are the items I'd like to raise for discussion:
Renomination protocol. When should a renomination occur? There are at least four cases of renomination I can think of: where the previous nomination was declined; where the admin bit lapsed due to inactivity or resignation; where the nomination has lapsed without the nominee acknowledging it; where the previous nomination was objected to. I kinda stepped in it when I nominated Huttite after his previous nomination was declined which maybe wasn't the best way to do it, so it'd be nice to have a bit more guidance in the rules.
Discussion cut short. Seven days might not be enough time to complete an active and ongoing discussion given the lags we have due to the spin of the planet. So I would suggest something like changing "After seven days of discussion" to something like "After 21 days of discussion or seven days without any additional comments/discussion being made (whichever comes first)". This way we don't accidently cut short an active discussion which hasn't really finished.
Unacknowledged nomination. The Nzpcmad nomination is just sitting there because we don't have a policy. Perhaps we should expire a nomination after some time since a renomination could always be done at a later time.
Encourage more discussion. It'd be nice if each admin could think of one or two boilerplate questions which they always ask (this is a common technique for employers doing job interviews to prevent accidental bias in interviewing.) The boilerplate questions could be attempts to find items which could do with further discussion. They would serve to ensure that each nominee is actually asked some questions. Basically, I'd like to encourage greater discussion with the nominee, and only asking some nominees some questions can feel more like an interogation (even though it's not meant to be). I'd rather it felt more like a group of folks getting to know one another at a pub.
So, I stretched the time period from 7 to 14 days, since that's the same as we do for deletions. I think that the unacked nomination for Ncpcmad expired after the regular time period, and we should renominate once we have some better idea of his/her availability.
As far as renominations: I'd suggest that we avoid nailing this down. Maybe just say, "Unlimited renominations possible immediately, preferably with outstanding issues resolved"? Maybe we can count on common sense on this one. --Evan 10:56, 29 Jun 2005 (EDT)
After I submitted my two cents, I noticed that the approval process requires assent by current admins. I am not an admin. I had not read the admin nomination page in a while and should have done so before chiming in. That said, Bill-on-the-Hill helped me recently when I got in over my head on a page move. He was quick to help, knowledgable, and good natured about my gaffe. Naturally, I looked up some of his contributions and was impressed with the amount and quality of his work. Sorry for blundering in. SHC 13:41, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
It is not entirely clear if voting is an open process. The agreement of at least 2 other admins is a minimum requirement but maybe everyone else can vote too. -- Ricardo (Rmx) 13:45, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
Yes, that's the case. Everyone's welcome to add their voice to the discussion. Two admins for and none against is the minimal requirement, but I don't know what we'd do if there were, say, 15 non-admins for and nobody against, or two admins for and 35 non-admins against. Fortunately it hasn't come up, since we've had such great people already. --Evan 14:11, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
If admins unanimously ignore groundswells of non-admin opinion in that fashion, then we have more important problems than how admins are chosen. I'm happy to see non-admins contribute to the discussion and support. But I don't want Willy and 14 of his logins to vote an admin down -- and the only way I can foresee avoiding that is to keep the actually tallying to admins. -- Colin 18:49, 4 May 2006 (EDT)
I agree. If we come to a state where we need a policy for such situations, no policy can help us. — Ravikiran 00:58, 5 May 2006 (EDT)
Of 3 recent nominations, 1 is out 16 days and another is out the minimum 14, but I don't see either Bill-on-the-Hill or Todd on the list of current admins. Hope I didn't miss the announcement. SHC 18:22, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
The instructions for how to nominate someone for Admin duty were recently replaced with a fairly complicated template to fill out, apparently copied and translated from the Swedish Wikitravel. Do we really need to structure the process like this? The freeform approach (nomination followed by votes/comments) seemed to me to work pretty well. But if we're going to use this template, it needs more explanation, because I don't understand it. I've already removed the "Administrator or Bureaucrat" section because it's inapplicable, but I don't even know what the "Support/Neutral/Do not support" lines are there for... is that supposed to tell us what our voting options are, are we supposed to put our votes there, or what? - Todd VerBeek 07:35, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
I don't see the point either, it's not like there's such an overwhelming flood of applicants that we need it... Jpatokal 04:11, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
Since we're moving the multilingual coordination pages from en: to shared:, it seems like an appropriate time to start doing go-between reports for en:. This would kind of suggest that we need a go-between. I'd like to start some nominations; the voting procedure for e.g. the French Wikitravel Expedition seems to be fair and not too confrontational. Should we start this on e.g. Wikitravel:Go-between nominations? --Evan 11:50, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
This is a smart idea. The voting procedure looks fine to me... Maj 12:14, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
Choosing a liaison user for en: sounds quite good to me. What I don't like about the "French" system, though, is that you end up seeing people having to decline their nominations whereas others may feel like it's against the rules to self-nominate. I'd rather see some volunteers who would really like to undertake the job fighting among themselves for this prestigious international post. --Ricardo (Rmx) 14:59, 19 August 2006 (EDT)
I am continuously amazed by the number of Wikitravellers that become administrators. I think it's particularlly wonderful how almost all of our regular contributors have become admins or have at least been nominated for the position. While, the the sysop user rights is something that is kind of mistaken as meaning having absolute authority and righteous judgement, especially on Wikipedia, the idea of who is a Wikitravel "admin" can be extended to those who aren't even "sysops". The administrator nomination process is more of a formality saying "Hey, this person is a great contributor." Take OldPine and WindHorse for example, while they turned down the extra buttons, both are still philisophical administrators - leaders within the community, who provide an excellent service to the project and travellers from around the world.
Sure we all make mistakes like my biting when I should have barked a little longer over the edit war on the US article or everyone who voted "keep" for Congress ( just joking :} ), but we have great people who help clear our heads and we all learn from our mistakes and make sure that what we learn promotes the project and helps new users.
Unfortunately, I am unable to conclude this in the elegant manner that I had intended, but I'll give it a shot. It's been a great pleasure to help organize the project and contribute, but the only reason it's been so great is because of the other "administrators" like Evan, Maj, Tom, Colin, Ryan, Todd, Jani, Bill, David (OldPine), the anonymous WindHorse, Ravi, Hypatia, Sandy, Tim (Tsandell) and the many others that I've forgotten to mention. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 23:13, 23 October 2006 (EDT)
I think that qualifies as elegant and I'll bet I'm not the only one. I very much agree with the sentiments and appreciate the inclusion. There are times when I wish I had The Button or even the steenkeen badge, but I really do enjoy being "just a contributor". I do appreciate and admire the way you guys take care of business and just wanted to say so. Thanks for the opportunities... all of them... all of you. OldPine 07:11, 24 October 2006 (EDT)
I've got one of those left-wired brains that makes me not-so-good with words, but just wanted to leave a quick note saying that I appreciate being included in your list, and agree that it's pretty cool what such a diverse group has been able to do together. -- Ryan 23:03, 24 October 2006 (EDT)
I really feel bad about not including everyone who I should have included. I had to add a few names after checking the recent changes page and seeing another name and realized I forgot to add him/her! You made it really easy for me to list your name because of your advice on various topics and your edits. -- Andrew H. (Sapphire) 23:24, 24 October 2006 (EDT)
Well said Sapphire! You do a great job as a community leader above-and-beyond the 'extra button' pushing! I'm glad we got a chance to hang out at Wikimania. I'm really looking forward to meeting more of our excellent admins, superusers, daily contributors, and newbies at the Get-together. Maj 13:41, 29 October 2006 (EST)
Based on this morning's seeming confusion I added a sentence to hopefully discourage the use of admin nominations as rewards since the admin role is about understanding how Wikitravel works rather than rewarding people for contributing. As always, if anyone feels that it's inappropriate to try to define who makes a good/bad admin nominee then please revert me - the hope was simply to avoid the awkward situation where anyone would have to oppose a nomination for a good (but inexperienced) contributor or have to endure having their nomination rejected. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Per policy, I contacted several admins about the requirement that they log in every three months and make an edit. A few don't have emails I could contact them at. And a few have not edited anythng in at least a year. Anyone have advice on how to go forward? Do I need to make an announcement on the nominations page? Or just execute a user rights change? How long shall I wait before changing an user's rights? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 17:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)
Well it seems you tried to contact them as best you could, but their rights should be gone and they should resign from position. I think it's more of a safety thing, but if the person comes back and we can tell it is them, then they should regain their rights (so long as they say they will be staying for a bit). edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 17:58, 12 January 2009 (EST).
Half the becoming and administrator guidelines are here, and half are at Wikitravel:Administrators#Becoming an administrator. You have to read both documents. I propose moving the guidelines to the latter document, and reference them from here. In other words nominate here, and policy and process there. --inas 17:10, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Sounds sensible to me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:49, 2 February 2010 (EST)
With just that little bit of support, I plunged forward to move the text. Hopefully less prone to confusion now, with all the stuff in one place. --inas 18:31, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I see you moved the nomination rules as well as the guidelines. I think the rules and instructions should remain on this page. LtPowers 18:44, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I don't mind which page they are on - but we can't have half our eggs in each basket. Surely, nominating is a direct precursor to becoming, and we want people to nominate once they meet the guidelines for becoming, not just when they know the format to type the name in. --inas 19:06, 2 February 2010 (EST)
I made a slight update - it leaves the bullet points about administrators on the Wikitravel:Administrators while still explaining how to make a nomination. Does that seem OK? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:04, 2 February 2010 (EST)
We want people to read the full set of guidelines before submitting a nom. Putting the instructions for adding nom here may lead people to think that they don't need to read the guideline, but rather just follow the instructions - especially when the instructions on how to add a nom cover part of the process. If we desperately want to separate the instructions for adding from the guideline itself, the instructions should reference the guideline further, like add the justification information required by the guideline --inas 21:38, 2 February 2010 (EST)
A page should still have its own instructions; if one of those instructions needs to be "read the guidelines" then so be it, but just having a virtually blank page here isn't very friendly. LtPowers 23:00, 2 February 2010 (EST)
Arguably, it should be the only instruction. If you really miss the instructions, then I would prefer that we just duplicate the entire set of instructions/guidelines here, rather than pick a subset of instructions just sufficient to make a bad nom. --inas 00:23, 3 February 2010 (EST)
While Wikitravel theoretically has four bureaucrats -- Evan, Sapphire, IB's KevinSours and myself -- none of us are around anymore quite as actively as we'd like and things like admin toggling have been pretty sluggish lately. Should we nominate a new one? Jpatokal 18:52, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
Just as an aside, can a bureaucrat change group membership from autoconfirmed? --inas 19:14, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
Unfortunately, no. --PeterTalk 20:59, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
Probably yes. Evan has not made a single Wiktiravel edit since I opened a user account and Sapphire barely a handful. I assume KevinSours still works for IB? So basically, it has all been you Jani. --Burmesedays 21:42, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
User:Wrh2 has now been granted the shiny red rubber stamp of bureaucracy. Jpatokal 19:03, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
I didn't check thoroughly against our checklist, but subjectively User:Vidimian seems for me to be a good candidate for administrator: here for a while, contributes much, performs MoSing. Anyone willing to research whether the checklist items are formally met for Vidimian? --DenisYurkin 17:34, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
According to Special:Listusers/bureaucrat this user has bureaucrat privileges - I assume that this was done long ago in error? Does anyone know why this was done, or can we remove the privileges? Do we have a process for nominating a user for privilege removal? -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:28, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
Have a history of article contribution, janitorial work, cleaning up articles, contributing to policy discussions, and combating vandalism/spam
Have a demonstrated ability to work with the community
If nominating someone else, please check first if they are willing to stand.
that I thought pretty self-evident, but better spelled out in a pertinent place: ie right at the top of the nomination/revocation page rather than scattered around multiple pages.
The reverting edit summary was: "please don't change WT policies on your own; those kind of changes have to be made only after the community consensus and after elaborating on the changes with current admins, thank you!"
May I explicitly state that none of these edits were intended to interfere with the way IBadmins are appointed or dismissed by Internet Brands, just with ordinary Admins that come from the editor community (we currently have a relative shortage of active, non-IB admins).
Please could interested parties spell out any objections to these changes below together with their rationale? --118dot93dot73dot30 20:57, 11 March 2013 (EDT)