RuneScape talk:Requests for adminship

Is there any way to have more people notice this page, some people are nominated, and very few people have voted. Megalodon99 talk 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes we've noticed.--Whiplash 21:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask players in-game or post on their talk pages. There's probably a better way of doing it but if there is I don't know it :p JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so shure about asking players in-game, tho it is an idea. Posting on theier talk pages is a very good idea, as I am shure that users check their talk pages every time they log in. Ilyas

I just had an idea. It may not be the best for all I know, but it still works, that is if the user has e-mail. You could e-mail them and they might take notice. I dont know if it is the best idea though, some may consider it invading privacy. Others may think thats why users can post their e-mail adresses on wiki. Ilyas

Removing Request when done
Maybe I'm wrong, and we do keep the requests when people ar sysops, but I really think that when you become whatever it is you become, you get removed from the page. -- Carralpha
 * 1) This should go at the bottom, not the top.
 * 2) Sign in before posting. (That way you can sign with ~ .)
 * 3) After the page becomes a certain size requests get archived (there's a link to the archive on the page). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok and ok -- Carralpha 09:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives?
I don't know much about archives, but at what point do we start removing old RfA's and stick them somewhere else? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

List of users
Would it be possible to get a list of users to be nominated at administrators? Carralpha - The cook with a cape / The noob protector
 * Archive 1, and Runescape:Administrators --Eucarya 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I seem like I'm making everone slaves, but is there also an article with a list of EVERY RuneScape Wiki user? -- Carralpha
 * There's no article but there's a specialpage. I'll see if I can find it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All users who have made edits. Of course, not very helpful since many are vandals or don';t edit any more. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  12:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Wikistats which lists recently active wikians, ordered by number of contributions. rank: only article edits are counted, not edits on discussion pages, etc Chrislee33 07:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough Administrators..
Oh god...That's all I have to say.. 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As the wiki grows more are needed. I think the rate of syssoping is once every 3 months or around that (not sure).01:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was up to me every editor that I trusted would be made a sysop. It kinda makes the adminship a little less....special. Which in my opinion is a good thing. RuneScape:All editors are equal, after all. If everyone's an admin, you don't get people treating you specially for it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, and you shouldn't get treated specially for it. It isn't a "trophy", they are, may I say powers that help you edit and help the wiki more effectively. So I agree with you Vimes and I read something like this on wikipedia sysop guide.15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A wiki with this size, doesn't need a new syops every 3 months. We have been around since April 2005, and we only have 2,500 pages. Think about that. 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But I am saying the wiki is constantly growing. Of course we aren't the size of wikipedia with over 1.5 million articles. But, ok maybe every 5 months then because... Whatever.18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop self-nominating?
Well, it seems that many users are fascinated with the idea of being an administrator, and they've been nominating themselves. A user might think they are worthy enough to become an admin (I hardly am... it'd be a miracle if I become one), but others may not think so. To spare some people a dozen Opposes, should we set some guidelines about only allowing others to nominate you and things like that, or is everyone free to do as they wish? 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominate myself......I'm kidding. *stamps "OPPOSE" on his forehead* 08:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I really do not like users nominating themselves, even when I support the user. 19:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say we make it a temporary (or permanent, even) rule, it is getting ridiculous lately, RFAs seem to be a new fad. :\  If someone really does deserve sysop status, they'll get noticed & nominated by another user.   03:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But what if they don't get noticed? I mean, most sysops that haven't nominated themselves normally have to do 1000 edits, be very active and social etc... Chaoticar 21:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What what's up with this..So many people nominating themselves and getting rejected. I strongly support not being able to nominate your self... 23:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please explain to me in detail what's so bad about self nomination? If people nominate themselves and get rejected, that's their problem.  Who the nominator is should not matter, since the nominee needs community approval before they get accepted.  There simply needs to be some clear X amount requirements, such as 200+ edits, etc. Dtm142 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats?
What exactly is a bureaucrat, in the wikia sense?--Atlantima 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A bureaucrat is basically a sysop, that has the ability to sysop other users. 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:User_access_levels for the different user levels on our wikia. Chrislee33 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same as sysops, except that we can create sysops and they can't. There may be other stuff too but it's pretty darn minor --[[Image:Smithingimg.PNG]] Eucarya Talk 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Main space edits
This is just a point for discussion. As justification for opposition in these RFA's, I often see "Most of your edits are in discussion and not main namespace"....Erm, so? Personally, I think this is a good thing, or at least, certainly not a bad thing. Mainspace edits may certainly help the wiki, but they don't tell us anything about an editors personality, his attitude to people, vandalism, and others editing his or her work. Talk page edits do. For those who know, remember Shadowdancer. He had great mainspace edits, absolutely brilliant, which he was nominated for. But he ended up ... Well, you know the story. Personally, I would be happy to sysop someone with no mainspace edits. Discussion and debate is more a part of being a sysop than content and mainspace edits. It tells us more about how trustworthy they are, and how likely they are to go off and block someone for doing something which they personally disapprove of, rather than for a good reason (revert wars or vandalism).

That's my view. Discuss. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the wiki still needs content - it's our reason for being here. I am still happy to sysop people who do very little in the main namespace, but they'd have to be fairly outstanding in other respects. --[[Image:Smithingimg.PNG]] Eucarya Talk 09:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that discussion pages are important. There's been a lot less discussion on how to do things and voting since I joined and I think that's a shame.  What isn't important is a million forum and userpage edits.  It drives me crazy when a user has been around on the forums for a month but doesn't have a SINGLE mainspace edit. This is a wiki, not myspace.  Sorry, I won't get into a rant on this.  --Wowbagger421 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate it when people think this is a blog and edit their user page everyday for 5 months but have NO mainspace edits or forum edits and when asked when they edit, they say "Nahh, I don't want to." 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just because they have a lot of forums edits doesn't mean that there contributing to the wiki. For example, someone might have 200 forum edits, but all of there forum edits might be in the "Docter who fan thread" or the like, which doesn't really help the wiki at all. Tesfan 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sysops have become something else.
Sysop used to have a meaning. It used to mean System Operator. Someone who works on the site, keeps it running, keeps it clean, keeps it safe. However, it seems that recently, this meaning has become distorted in the minds of not only several ambitious applicants, but also many deserving nominees who are now administrators. Being an admin seems to have come to be a sign of recognition for contributions. Many users who have been on the wiki a long time have become sysops just because they're been around and they know people, so people vote for them. But is that what a sysop is supposed to be? In wiki terms, a sysop is a responsible, active contributor who is capable of making rational decisions, and dealing out reasonable punishments. A sysop must be mature enough to make on-the-spot decisions about vandals when no other sysops or bureaucrats are around. A sysop must be active enough to be able to catch vandals in the act. Furthermore, a sysop must practice restraint and not abuse his/her powers. Finally, as sysop must be rational enough to make fair decisions about how long and how harshly vandals should be punished. Lately, the sysop list has become lengthy. There are several sysops who currently don't do much with their extra duties, or aren't active enough to be able to. While I believe that everyone on the list is worthy of recognition, maybe sysop isn't quite the right kind of recognition that fits them. Therefore, I have several propositions regarding the current system of recognition and administration:


 * Sysop Requirements
 * Been an active user for over two months - This will give users some experience and knowledge of the nominatee, which will allow them to make an informed vote. This way users will get to know nominees before they decide that they deserve sysop responsibilities
 * Over 300 main page (article) contributions - Sysops need to be active. Sysops need to be dedicated. If a nominee isn't dedicated enough to make 300 edits, then he/she hasn't shown the activity which is crucial in catching vandals. There's no point in having inactive admins.
 * Nominated by someone else - Several overly ambitious users have nominated themselves for adminship within weeks or even days of joining the wiki. Don't nominate yourself for sysop. If you've shown maturity and responsibility, others will notice and nominate you.
 * Approval of a bureaucrat and three current sysops - This hasn't been a major issue yet, but there is a flaw within our administrative system. Under the current system of votes of support or oppose, a user could create several accounts or get friends to create accounts just to overwhelm our vote. In the interest of democracy, we would then have to make a potentially unworthy candidate an admin. This should be avoided. Like I said, if you show responsibility and maturity, this won't be a problem.
 * Majority support vs oppose vote - Gives a general consensus on whether the community feels the nominee is worthy of the job.
 * User Hall of Fame (or something similar) - This was sort of started with user of the month. However, there are only twelve months a year, and there are many people deserving recognition for their contributions. Therefore I am proposing a sort of hall of fame for contributors where they can be recognized and appreciated for the contributions they've made to the wiki. Preliminary guidelines below:
 * 500+ main page (article) contributions - This would be an honor given to hard-working contributors...so they have to earn it.
 * Approval of a bureaucrat and three current sysops - To ensure that the user is deserving of the honor.
 * Majority support vs oppose vote - Still gives users a say in whether people are deserving of being recognized or not.

I'm sort of just throwing a few ideas out there. But I do think that there needs to be a difference between sysop and contributor, and that it needs to be distinguished, now. Feel free to shoot me down or change anything. I just want feedback. Also, note that while the requirements for the 2 different positions would be different, there would be an important line between them. Sysops need to have shown responsibility and maturity, while contributors just have to be helpful to be recognized. Should the sysop requirements be tougher? What do you guys think? 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * .....No respones...? 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like setting defined limits like 2 months minimum, 300 posts etc. Bear in mind that the wiki is still growing - when Vimes and I turned up there were probably 10 editors total, now we probably have 100+ active contributors.  What's to say we won't have 1000+ in another year?  When I was sysopped originally I think I got 1 nomination, 1 vote.  Now it seems that you need 10 votes+ to get sysop rights - in another year, it might be 100 votes+.  I simply have no idea.


 * Additionally, this page often gets missed by a lot of people. If you look at the archives, we had hardly votes at all for certain people simply because people weren't looking at this page.  We've just gone through a flurry of activity on this page, but quiet spells will come again.


 * That said, the general principles are good, though it perhaps misses the most major point - rfa should be democratic - if enough recognised users support a user to become a sysop, they should be become one. I know that vimes or I (as bureaucrats) are making a subjective decision regarding "how many votes is enough?", "does one oppose count for far more than one support?".


 * If you do want to set recommendations like above (eg 300 posts, support of 1 craft and 3 sysops etc) and can gather enough support, I, as part of the democracy am happy to forego the subjective judgement I have to make each time. --[[Image:Smithingimg.PNG]] Eucarya Talk 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree that the Wiki is growing at a great rate. I estimate that we have 50 active users per day, and 300 active users per month. The 15 or so sysops that we have isn't too large a number in comparison. But how many do we really need? After all, the main job of sysops is reverting vandalism and blocking vandals, which shouldn't require more than 25 sysops...we don't have that much vandalism. My requirements were ideas for guidelines, I don't think that they're all absolutely necessary to be a good sysop. I'm just kinda worried that adminship has become a bit of a reward instead of a responsibility. That's why I made the proposal for the hall of fame type thing to have a different reward for contributions. I think the uotm system is a good step. Do you think we should implement a hall of fame or not? Gangsterls 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea, but just seems strange to me (the hall of fame thing). I would have to go with no on that idea, but since this is a democracy, I would be more than happy to go with it if everyone else likes it. However, I do believe that the "Fad" for RFAs is slowing down. If you check the history, a totally new user who had not been here for even a week elected himself as a crat! That really seems wrong to me and it tells me that we will need to observe this for a month or two and if the RFAs slow down, it should be left this way. If not, we should really consider your idea. I'm not too against it, it just seems strange to me.19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fad seems to be rising again... it must be that accursed link in the sitenotice. =| Although, it does help get votes... and we really should put Please read the guidelines before applying yourself or someone else. I really would like to see the whole self-nomination abolished. See my little thing above. If we think someone isn't nearly deserving enough, should we just delete the nomination and drop a note on their talk page telling them to wait a little? Don't forget to include RuneScape experience doesn't equate to trustworthiness & knowledge of Wikis on the guideline list. :) Also, I think an oppose should be as powerful as the argument posed, as long as it is valid and rallies agreement. If it's something as small as "s/he called me a poo-head," it shouldn't be considered; if it's something like "s/he has been very immature handling arguments/isn't very trusted yet," we should probably consider it. 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

...Well...in response to Ilyas...that guy who nominated for crat stated his reason being: ''seeing as no one is running i like to try out. i'm a runescape player mod and could keep a system going(events, updates, etc.) in my spare time. so what do ya say?'' Needless to say this is absolutely ridiculous...the reason people aren't nominated for crat very often is because it's the highest position in the wiki and with it comes the most responsibility. This guy had just joined, had 0 contributions, and just nominated himself for crat because he thought he would do a good job. The main reason I wanted some guidelines on time been here was to prevent the retarded applications we get from people who aren't even close to being worthy or responsible enough to have sysop privileges. Other applications that most of us just said 'Um.....No...' to include Total Rune's, Majora18574's, Cashman286's, and Malestro's. An example of a fairly reasonable nomination was Patcong's self-nomination, who, although receiving no votes of support, received several votes of oppose that said it was only a bit too soon. We shouldn't have to shoot down stupid applications every few days because someone thinks they would make a good sysop. 02:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of having some clear-cut guidelines to use in order to chose Sysop's etc. There needs to be a system that will help others to understand that it's not just a matter of knowing RuneScape or knowing the web address of RSWiki.  If a person is to be in a position to contribute to the organization and management of the Wiki, they need to know and understand how the Wiki works, they need to have been contributing for some time and made useful contributions (to illustrate that, take myself, I don't make a lot of main page edits, jsut a few here and there, most of mine are on the forums, and I wouldn't vote for myself to be a sysop because of that...and other reasons).  So something needs to be done.  It doesn't really matter if the guidelines are changed in the future, as long as they are replaced by something more current.  03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This will come to end sometime sooner or later. We all know that Chiafriend12 is trustworthy, has been here for quite some time, and is well know. It is only a matter of time until Eucarya or Vimescarrot sysop him and then we shall have a good enough reason to remove the Sitenotice link. Majora's was, with all due respect, the most self confident. When he was hit down, he stated that we behaved extremely rude in judging him so quickly and not taking into mind that he had helped with the pirate page... Users should:

I think that something has to be done. When I took into mind the impression that this page was not well noticed and that more users should visit it, I had no clue that such things, such as this, would happen!20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the requirements that Eucarya set
 * Re-Think their nomination (if self elected) and decide if they truly do feel that they are ready
 * Consider the nominations of recent users who failed and re-thinking if they are really more responsible and more experienced than them

Who are you calling stupid??? I just wanted to see what would happen, and I didn't insist on getting voted for, like the others. After a couple Oppose's, I just listened to them and stopped. Money has feelings too!!! 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My thoughts about the current rules, guidelines and proposed ones:


 * "Contributors should not nominate themselves for adminship. However, users are welcome to implicitly or explicitly show an interest in becoming an administrator in order to alert other users."

This should be changed, sometimes deserving users don't get noticed. This should be replaced with a few requirements for the nominee.


 * "To acquire more positive votes, it is best to be requested by a contributor with much experience or an administrator."

Abolish this in favour of RuneScape:All editors are equal. It shouldn't matter who the nominator is since the nominee will need community consensus anyway. Who the nominator really is shouldn't matter.


 * "Contributors should not be nominated simply for having many edits or having been around a while. While these two often factor into successful adminship, these two qualities alone do not make an administrator."

Agreed. The contributor should be nominated for doing the things mentioned in the guidelines.


 * "In most cases, bureaucrats may only be recommended by other bureaucrats. Because it is good to have a stable amount of active bureaucrats, nominations will be made when one bureaucrat becomes much less active on the Wiki. There are currently 5 bureaucrats and 3 active bureaucrats."

Abolish the thing about nomination in favour of RuneScape:All editors are equal. At this current time, people should only be nominated if a bureaucrat becomes inactive or the wiki population has a massive growthspurt.


 * "Nominations will be held for at least 2 weeks before a final decision is made. If the vote is clearly positive before the two weeks are up, a bureaucrat may make a statement of intent to attract any negative votes.

Agreed, two weeks seems like a good amount.

My ideas for nominee requirements:


 * A registered user (this goes without saying)


 * 200 or more edits in any namespaces. This is very reasonable, it shows an amount of activity of the wiki and isn't really asking for a lot.


 * Been an active member of the RuneScape Wiki for at least two months (the clock starts as soon as you make your first edit)

My ideas for voter requirements:


 * A registered user


 * An active member of the wiki for at least one week. This is to reduce sockpuppetry and could lead to semiprotection of the page.

Dtm142 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Self-nominating again...
''Contributors should not nominate themselves for adminship. However, users are welcome to implicitly or explicitly show an interest in becoming an administrator in order to alert other users.''

That is a very dumb rule. Self-nominating is not dumb as many say. If a user feels they are ready for adminship duties and no one has nominated them yet they should be free to nominate themselves. This rule was mostly put in place to stop new users from doing this. I think a guidline to prevent that could be something like you must have been here for at least a month. Then if the user dosent meet the guidline their request can be removed from the page.--Whiplash 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abolish it in favour of RuneScape:All editors are equal. It shouldn't matter who the nominator is since the nominee will need community consensus anyway. We simply need X amount requirements for the nominee, such as 1 month minimum and 200+ edits.  Those are very reasonable requirements, and they're just for nomination anyway. Dtm142 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would Dtm but we need more opinions before I can or can't. --Whiplash 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware that Chiafriend bases his vote on this and one other factor, edits. Editcounts may determine a lot but don't necessarily. And he also made an oppose just because someone self nominated them self, I think it was Gangsterls. I left a message on his talk page, here. 19:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet - You are a good editor, but you've only been here for a month (or so). In a few months or a couple hundred edits I'll support.

This is off of Endasils nomination I think that Endasil is very suited for the job he has brought alot of intelligent discussion to the wiki and seems to have the proffesionalism of a sysop. But Chia based this votes on edits and time and not actually the user themself. Chia is not the only one who has done this there have been others notably Dreadnought. --Whiplash 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and by the way Dtm im going to wait to hear Chiafriend's opinion specifically before we begin altering the rules. Anyways for now im going to be offline. --Whiplash 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Chia really has no right to base his opinions only on edits. After all, Moogel got about 400 edits in a week by making tons of tiny changes to a page and saving each one separately. It also helped that he was responding to criticism on his talk page, then correcting misspelled words, then deleting the whole discussion, then deleting it again when it was restored, then archiving it, etc. And if you want to base it on that Chia, I have almost double as many article edits as you, even though I only have about 60% of your total because you've made nearly 500 forum edits, over 400 user edits, and almost 400 user talk page edits. Dtm has 1.5x as many article edits as you, with over 71% of his 908 total edits being article edits. So don't talk about edits to us. Don't talk about self-nominating either, because anything you say is a bunch of hypocritical garbage. I don't want to get in your face and have a fight with you about this, especially since me, you, Whiplash, and Huanghe seem to make up almost the entire Dark Runescape Wiki, but sometimes you can be very controlling and self-righteous. 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If everyone is pissed off at me for thinking different than them then fine, call me a heretic. I am just excercising my freedom of thought, judgement and speach. If I'm not allowed to use the most basic of rights here then I'll just leave. 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're looking for the reasoning behind your opinions as to why you are so against self nominations before the rule gets changed. And you did nominate yourself in the first place, so please let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone.  You're welcome to oppose these nominations, but we want to hear your reasoning behind it first. Dtm142 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would show my reasoning, but Gangsterls said "Chia really has no right to base his opinions only on edits" which is saying I can't use my basic rights. That REALLY pisses me off. 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of rights its a matter of opinion. And people are beginning to focus this on Chia when the real question here is to abolish the self-nominating guideline so stay on topic people. --Whiplash 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If we continue, Chia will leave. Patcong left earlier this week, Moogle is planning on it, and now Chia? 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about Total Rune O.o Chaoticar 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway back to the debate at hand I somewhat agree with the abolishment of the 'no self-nominating' rule. I mean, unless you ask another member to nominate you, nomination can take quite a while. Also, as the community decides, nomination is generally irrelevant to whether a person will become an Admin/'Crat. However I think there should be a change to the 'All Editors Are Equal' thing. Shouldn't we make regular, or at least well-known, editors able to vote, so as to reduce sockpuppetry? Chaoticar 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Semiprotect the page, and if necessary make some requirements for voters (very light ones, like 20+ edits or placement in the Wikistats list of active users). Dtm142 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But Total Rune taking a one month break is a good thing! For his benefit and for ours. 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I put in that you can self nominate yourself. I don't get what the problem is.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you were on a break from the wiki, there was a sudden popularity in RFAs and almost everyone nominated themselves. 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Activity?
With the surge in self-nominations I believe that activity of the nominated on the Wiki is a major concern. For all of you that have been either nominated by yourself or others this is the big question:Will you be active on both the Forums AND Mainspace of the Wiki? The Wiki needs active Users, Admins and 'Crats. However, once the novelty of Adminship wears off, will you still be active? Will you still be editing Mainspace articles and Forum threads, blocking vandals etc? Will you still be ON the Wiki? I mean, I'll admit that I'm just a lowly user, but the last thing I want to see is an Administrator that's just going to pop in-and-out of the Wiki whenever the mood takes him/her O.o Chaoticar 08:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New set of rules
Considering the size of our wiki, I think its time to tighten up these rules.

our current ones are

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the users of the RuneScape Wiki decide who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user.

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on the RuneScape Wiki long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy.

Nomination standards
 * There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors and if they can be trusted with administrator tools.

Decision process
 * Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. However, if you haven't done much on the wiki, don't expect much support if you self-nominate yourself. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining whether or not the user will become an admin. Requests will be held for two weeks before a final decision is made. Once this time is up, a bureaucrat will decide whether to make the user an admin or not. In most cases, bureaucrats may only be recommended by other bureaucrats. Because it is good to have a stable amount of active bureaucrats, nominations will be made when one bureaucrat becomes much less active on the wiki.

Expressing opinions
 * Any user with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Try to explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, make sure you let the user know on their talk page.

What can admins do?

See RuneScape:Administrators

What can I do to help?

To improve your chances of becoming an admin, you should should do some or all of the following as a normal user:

Watch Special:Recentchanges and help to revert vandalism even before you're an admin
 * Just because you don't have the [rollback] feature doesn't mean you can't change vandalized pages back to what they were before. Any "new" pages that you can't delete yourself, just put the speedy deletion template at the top of the page. An admin will see this in Category:Speedy deletion candidates and delete it. This is the primary reason why this wiki needs admins - fighting vandalism and acting as a volunteer to keep this wiki clean, readable, and accurate.

Create good content
 * Attempting rewrites of large articles will greatly help your chances of being recommended/accepted, as this is more noticeable in some ways than lots of minor edits to lots of small articles. Where the wiki wins over other sites is our ability to get information out fast simply because everyone has editorial control, even unlogged users. Help write the brand new updates - if someone else is writing the quest guide, make your own notes but start creating the sub-page articles ready to be blue-linked already.

Be part of the community
 * Welcome new editors on their talk page and guide them in the right direction. Talk to other editors, engage in the forums and generally show your face around.

All decisions should be democratic
 * Regardless of who is suggesting something, whether they be a normal user, an admin, or a bureaucrat, all votes should be counted equal. If you are in the minority on an issue over a certain article, be prepared to back down. Be mature about it. See Runescape:All editors are equal.

Now, we are getting more and more users, and most of them are going to want adminship. We need some stricter/different guidelines, evolving along with the community that we have.

"A user either submits his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user."

We have enough recent change watchers now that we need to make self-nomination grounds for a failed/removed RFA. We may also want to assign someone to look at the recent changes, just to look for people who are elligible for adminship.

"Nomination standards
 * There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors and if they can be trusted with administrator tools. "

We definetly need some stricter rules, so someone does not just call in a group of RS friends to get votes, and be made an admin, no matter what their edits/level. I propose

Requirements to be nominated for adminship:


 * To be nominated, a user account that has been here for a minimum of 2 months and has the following requirements is necessary:


 * 1) They must have at leave 250 main namespace edits. (This can be negated with the creation of 20 nonredirect articles)
 * 2) They must have created at least 5 mainspace articles. (These must be actual content articles, not redirects)
 * 3) They must never have vandalised the wiki.
 * 4) They must not made an attack on another user in the past 3 months.
 * 5) They must not have used any swearing in the past 3 months.
 * 6) They must have reverted at least 5 edits as vandalism.
 * 7) They must have edited in the last 5 days. (still be active)

Once a user has met these requirements, an established user (must have been here for 1 month min, and have at leave 25 mainspace edits)

"Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. However, if you haven't done much on the wiki, don't expect much support if you self-nominate yourself. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are the main factor in determining whether or not the user will become an admin. Requests will be held for two weeks before a final decision is made. Once this time is up, a bureaucrat will decide whether to make the user an admin or not. In most cases, bureaucrats may only be recommended by other bureaucrats. Because it is good to have a stable amount of active bureaucrats, nominations will be made when one bureaucrat becomes much less active on the wiki."

I addressed the nomination above. I also disagreed with self-nominating above. I do aggree about the bureaucrats part, but we may want to increase our number of active 'crats as our community gets larger."

"Expressing opinions
 * Any user with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Try to explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, make sure you let the user know on their talk page."

Aggreed, except that voters must have been here for at least a month, so we don't get sockpuppets.

I also aggree with the rest of the rules. But we need a better nomination method. I propose. This would give a header, sections for support, neutral, oppose, and discuss, and more. I have to go right now, but for the template stuff, see wikipedia:WP:RFA, and this. 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain to me in detail what is so bad about self nomination? If a user isn't noticed or nominated by the community, they have the right to ask for admin powers by nominating themselves.  It should not be grounds for a failed RFA.  Who the nominator is does not ever matter.  Who the nominee is does matter.  I agree with your X amount requirements though.  Wikipedia is way bigger than we'll ever be, and they still allow self nominations. Dtm142 22:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Rule 5 doesn't belong as an RfA rule. Sure, swearing isn't good, but as long as it's not a bad habit, and we don't hear cusses every day of the week from a person, then it's ok. As for Rule 3, does that vandalism rule count across accounts? Oddlyoko talk 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed rule 3 should count across accounts. Using sockpuppets to vandalise should be discouraged.  On the other hand if vandals clean up their act and create good content, they should be eligable for adminship. Dtm142 00:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "On the other hand if vandals clean up their act and create good content, they should be eligable for adminship." My point exactly, thanks. Oddlyoko talk 00:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... instead of having to have been here for a minimum of two months, how about 3 weeks and must have made at least 10 main edits. Then users who are here for the forums and just happen to know someone can't vote. Also, no sock puppetry! 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that. How about if you add that they have to have made at least 5 mainspace edits in the past week to vote.  I think this should be for voting on all issues, btw.  --Wowbagger421 01:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative to current nomination system
Hey, I was just thinking about how fast we're running through nominations in RFA, and I had a thought of a different system for nomination:


 * When a user wants to be in the running for sysop, they add their name to the table below:


 * Then, REGISTERED users add one to the number under the support column, and insert their username into the html comment you can see in the code for the table, if they think that that user should have an RFA vote (not that they would necessarily support them). This would NOT be open for discussion, but would rather prioritize who should be set up for a vote next.
 * When bureaucrats deem that it is an ideal time for more sysops, they take the user with the highest support count and create a voting section for that user.

I have two reasons for suggesting this. First, it will stop the community from opposing good candidates based on the fact that there are too many admins: nominations will open in a controlled, maybe 1-at-a-time fashion, when the community deems it necessary. Second, it will keep the page clean with less concurrent voting. No time will be wasted on obvious "no"s because they won't have a nomination opened.

Give this a thought and then post some intelligent criticism.


 * Um no. Sysop amount shouldn't be a factor in nominting people worthy of being administrators. It is always ideal to have more sysops as they can revert vandalism and block vandals faster. --Whiplash 20:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See my thoughts on Forum:RFA competiton, or so it may seem. Adminship should be no big deal, and the actual numbers of admins or the percentage is irrelevant.  here for the wise words of Jimbo Wales.  It should be no big deal.  If a user has earned sysop powers and wants them, they should get them if the community approves. Dtm142 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand what you're saying and I think I agree. Initially I was thinking it more as a no-stress wayfor people to get the message out that they're seeking sysop, not as a filtering system, then I just let my imagination take hold.  The real reason for this suggestion is because I've noticed that adminning is getting more attention from the active population than editing itself, and that's not what we want either.  But your right, this idea goes against the philosophy of sysop in general.
 * I removed Sacre's name from the template, he isn't running for SYSOP, he already is a sysop. 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh Ilyas, it was an example to show how the template could be used lol. I'm already sysop too, but I put my own name on there just to show how it could be used.  This is a talk page, not real content.  Oh well, I won't bother fixing it, because I don't support this idea anymore anyway.
 * Perhaps we could then adopt the X amount requirements for main article editting in order to run for adminship. Dtm142 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for vote indents
I think maybe we should have a more organized system of indents for voting. Here's how we've been doing it:

I want to be a sysop. ~Someuser, somedate
 * Sure, why not?
 * No, I don't think so.
 * Nah.
 * But...
 * That's a no.
 * But I wanna!

((Yes, I'm also making a point about our disorganized in-general indenting. :P))

Instead, I suggest we indent as so:

I want to be a sysop.
 * Support by me.
 * I say no.
 * Yes
 * No


 * Hmm.
 * I'm commenting on "Hmm."
 * I'm replying to the comment about "Hmm."
 * However, I'm still replying to "Hmm."
 * And I'm just another comment.
 * I'm commenting on that comment.
 * Another top-level comment

((Maybe I went a bit overboard on the comments hierarchy?))

It clearly separates votes and comments, making it easier to see at a glance the votes, and the discussion is separate from the votes.

Also, we should probably take a leaf out of Wikipedia's book and make subpages for each nomination... Oddlyoko talk 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Where it gets complicated is when more than one person reply to the same comment and when people have to push others' edits down to reply to the comment they wan't to reply to.  --Wowbagger421 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, it's about freaking time someone commented on the community's inability to understand simple comment hierarchies. I support this idea.
 * You two realize I'm also making a point about keeping votes separate from comments on RfA's? >_> Oddlyoko talk 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is good. I think we should do it like Wikipedia (one section for supports, one for opposes, and another for comments). Dtm142 02:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should probably give each RfA its own subpage... Oddlyoko talk 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. That would make it easier to archive too. Dtm142 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering
Do you guys think I got what it takes to be an admin?00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Put up a nomination and see. 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehhh I can nominate myslef?00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Self nominations are allowed. Dtm142 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...last time I was active self nominating wasn't allowed lol.00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some discussion went on and we decided, at least for the time being, that it's allowed. 00:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Two Weeks??? I don't think so
That's totally untrue. I believe my rfa, for one, has been up for bout a month. Other people's have or are up for more than two weeks. Should we change that? I don't think that will give the right impression. 02:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your RFA should have been finished long ago. You should alert a bureaucrat through their talk page.  I think that we need a Bureaucrats' noticeboard like Wikipedia has or a separate section of the page called "Requests for Bureaucrat" like we used to have.  Two weeks is reasonable, so the policy doesn't need to change. Dtm142 16:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Revising the process
I was thinking we'd set it up like RuneScape:Requested featured articles, where we use templates. And the look would look like this:

==User==

===Support===

===Oppose===

===Neutral===

===Comments===

or something like that.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we also change the rules for Nomination resubmittal? I'm getting really tired of the prevalent 'If I nominate myself enough times I'm bound to become a Sys-op' attitude. Chaoticar 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps make it 2 weeks after one failure to nominate again. And I support the new process.  Each RFA could even get its own subpage. Dtm142 22:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah please, the current page is horrible. It's extremely hard to look at and then tally up how many supports and opposes. I wish people would stop doing stuff like "Soft Oppose" or "100% Support" and simply clearly say "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral", then reason blah blah blah. Also the indenting is horrible. 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're not helping. Replying to a two-indent post with a no-indent? Shame on you. ;) Seriously though, I made a section on this exact subject a few sections up, with the indenting and suggested RfA format in  tags. Oddlyoko talk 15:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that format. I'd suggest having some kind of summary table on the main page, like this:


 * I agree. Except I don't really even see the point of a neutral vote.  If you don't have an opinion, why bother replying?  --Wowbagger421 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A neutral vote gives us an idea of how many people have at least thought about the RFA. In other words, if there a person has 3 support and 1 oppose with no neutrals, there could be a dozen people who would oppose but haven't voted.  But, if there are 3 support and 1 oppose with a dozen neutrals, then 3:1 is likely to be the actual ratio.

Could we temporarily close RFA to new nominations and wait for all of the current ones to be finished so that we can fully switch over to a new system? Dtm142 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it in sitenotice and put a notice at the top of the page. 17:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that right now. Dtm142 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I know I am new to this community, but whatever community I join, I try to be active in. So first off, what exactly is RFA and what is this voting everyone writes about?

--Xenogears2 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's our method of deciding who gets administrator powers. Dtm142 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me, even though I'm not very active here (Pages I know anything about, have everything I know in them, so I stick to dictionary bashing the articles) Marcus Gord 17:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates, st00f
Maybe, we could make a form to fill out. Like an application. Then an aspiring user could place that application on another user's talk page. Then that user could decide whether or not to nominate them. This maybe would prevent tons of self-nominations. Also, it would prevent users from getting enormous amounts of oppose. Plus, people would know for the future who would like to be nominated. How's that for an idea? 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with self nominating and the current nomination process? And if someone gets enormous amounts of oppose, that's their problem and when they nominate themselves, they should assume that their RFA might fail. Dtm142 01:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well. I think it's a bit cruel to see people getting struck down hard, brutally, and quickly. But maybe that's just me. 01:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)