 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
As Wikipedia has grown, there has arisen a need for trusted people to have more tools and responsibility than the typical editor. The main problem the community faces with this role is determining to whom to grant such privileges. To aid this determination, it is suggested a process be followed.
Proposed criteria for a nominated user:
- The nominee must be trusted.
- The nominee should have taken part in administrative work, for example Articles for deletion (optional, but preferable).
- The nominee should be able to keep cool in a conflict.
Even though you can classify a potential nominee using statistical analysis (edit counts etc.), this should be discouraged, as quality is preferred in front of quantity. Nethertheless, some guidelines can be made to specify a minimum activity required by a nominee.
- list of minimum requirements
In order to create a functional nomination process, the following points should be adhered to:
- A nomination must be made, with the nominee accepting the nomination.
- The process should not be interpreted as a vote, but to ease the burden on the closing bureaucrat, three different types of comments can be made: these are Supportive comments, Opposive comments and Neutral comments. The outcome of the nomination isn't the quantity of comments of each faction, but the relative consensus aqquired by those comments, but as a guideline, there should be more Supportive comments than Opposive ones.
- There is a nominal deadline for a nomination of seven days before closure, but a bureaucrat has the power to expand or reduce the deadline if there are reasons to do so; for example if the nomination hasn't acquired enough data to build consensus, the bureaucrat might decide that it should run for a couple of days more, and he/she might also close a nomination if there is a clearly consensus that it should not pass.
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
As Wikipedia has grown, there has arisen a need for trusted people to have more tools and responsibility than the typical editor. The main problem the community faces with this role is determining to whom to grant such privileges. To aid this determination, it is suggested a process be followed.
Proposed criteria for a nominated user:
- The nominee must be trusted.
- The nominee should have taken part in administrative work, for example Articles for deletion (optional, but preferable).
- The nominee should be able to keep cool in a conflict.
Even though you can classify a potential nominee using statistical analysis (edit counts etc.), this should be discouraged, as quality is preferred in front of quantity. Nethertheless, some guidelines can be made to specify a minimum activity required by a nominee.
- list of minimum requirements
In order to create a functional nomination process, the following points should be adhered to:
- A nomination must be made, with the nominee accepting the nomination.
- The process should not be interpreted as a vote, but to ease the burden on the closing bureaucrat, three different types of comments can be made: these are Supportive comments, Opposive comments and Neutral comments. The outcome of the nomination isn't the quantity of comments of each faction, but the relative consensus aqquired by those comments, but as a guideline, there should be more Supportive comments than Opposive ones.
- There is a nominal deadline for a nomination of seven days before closure, but a bureaucrat has the power to expand or reduce the deadline if there are reasons to do so; for example if the nomination hasn't acquired enough data to build consensus, the bureaucrat might decide that it should run for a couple of days more, and he/she might also close a nomination if there is a clearly consensus that it should not pass.