UESPWiki talk:Patrollers/Nominations

Voters

Perhaps it should be clearly noted who votes for Patrollers. May all editors vote, or do only existing Patrollers vote? --GuildKnight 21:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Everyone can vote. On the site everyone is equal, from the admins to the anons. --Ratwar 21:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Actually, for admin voting I put that any editor with an account (e.g., not anonymous IPs) could vote. I'm pretty sure I took that from Wikipedia. It kind of makes more sense to me, with anything that's up for a formal vote (i.e., not just consensus discussions about contents of a particular article) to limit it to editors with accounts. For one thing, it prevents problems with someone voting fifty different times by resetting their dynamic IP address over and over again. Also, I think that to have a say in decisions that affect the entire community, it's not too much to ask that someone have created an account and signalled that they want to be part of the community. IMHO. But if others feel that votes should be open to anonymous IPs as well (not that it was really GuildKnight's original question), we can always change things. --Nephele 22:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Well technically I have a account... --67.142.130.19 22:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Aha, I should have guessed you were Chaos Monkey... since you're getting a new randomly assigned IP all the time it's more difficult to automatically keep track. I'd say we can make an exception for you because of technical difficulties :) --Nephele 22:42, 5 March 2007 (EST)

See also the discussion on the talk page, where TheRealLurlock just convinced me that the approval of the existing patrollers is the only significant criterion. ^_^ -- JustTheBast 02:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Seercull

Should someone add a "consensus" to Seercull's nomination? --GuildKnight (Talk) ^contribs 23:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I did it. --Ratwar 23:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Ratwar! --Nephele^Talk 23:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Wow, that was quick! Thank you. --GuildKnight (Talk) ^contribs 23:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Fastest typing in the... Well, actually, I type rather slowly... --Ratwar 23:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Explanation

Actually, before my nomination, I was trying to familiarize myself with the Recent Changes page for the past few days. That may explain why both of you thought I was a patroller already. Thanks for your support! --Mankar Camoran 10:51, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Nomination Template

While it's true that new nominees should be able to format their own templates correctly, I didn't find the established template to be all that obvious at first glance, and the nominators may not always be skilled editors themselves (though I'll admit it's probably unusual for them not to be). Oh and if, in the end, we decide not to keep it, the sentence referring to it in the current nominations should be removed as well, of course, but I figured we should debate here and fix it once, rather than multiply. --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

We actually had a Template:Nomination a while ago that did basically the same thing, but that too was deleted, unfortunately along with the discussion. Basically all I can say is what I already said in my summary. That whether or not an editor can format an official nomination gives us a clue as to whether that editor is ready for Patroller status. - Game Lord^{Talk|Contribs} 14:10, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I suppose that's fair enough, but I think that that should be so small compared to the required 100 edits as to be irrelevant. And as I said, the person doing the nominating may be entirely unskilled, and simply have noticed that the person they're nominating has some really great skill. Besides, I think the hardest thing in there is the linking to your own User page, and if you don't know how to do that, your lack of editing skills will be painfully obvious at a glance through your contributions.

Looking back, I see another reason why a Nomination Template might be a good idea. There used to be a Questions section, which has since disappeared (I didn't try to track it down, so I don't know when or why). Having a Template would make sure that if a new standard is decided upon, it's clear from looking at a current version of the template, rather than creating your own from a historical version of it. Anyway, didn't mean to re-open an old debate...guess I'm coming late to the game here. :) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

I would say that typically, (which is to say every single time so far, and most likely it will continue to be the case) anyone nominating a patroller is either A.) themselves a patroller (or admin) or B.) is self-nominating. In the former case, it's safe to say that the person doing the nomination is familiar with the process, having been through it at least once themselves, and since they passed, it's likely they're a skilled enough editor to figure it out. In the latter case, as has been said before, if you don't have the editing skills to properly format your own nomination for patroller status, you probably don't deserve to be a patroller. I think it would be quite unusual for somebody who is not a patroller to nominate somebody ELSE for patroller status - it hasn't happened so far and I don't think it's likely to happen in the future. People who are not patrollers (and are not self-nominating) generally don't even need to be involved in the patroller nomination process, as the entire patrolling system is basically invisible to non-patrollers. (Unlike, for example, the Admin system, where everybody may be affected by who gets Admin rights.) As for certain sections existing or not existing from one nomination process to the next, I don't think it's that big an issue. The Questions section I think is something that may be added in special cases if somebody actually has specific questions to ask, but I don't think there's any reason it needs to be a part of every nomination process. (Again, Admin nominations are a different case here, as that's a far more formal process.) --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 00:39, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Okay, you make some good points. I'll go back to my patrolling...when I get it! :Þ --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, after looking back, it seems the Questions section has only been used on Admin/Beaurocrat nominations, and never on Patroller nominations. People are just more likely (and with good reason) to have questions to ask would-be Admins before handing over the keys than they are to need to ask aspiring Patrollers. So we're not really even being inconsistant in that respect. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 01:15, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I didn't go so far as to see if they were being used or not, but they were at least present when this page was first split off from the main Patrollers page. ([1]) In any event, I understand the reasoning, even if I'm still a bit ambivalent about it, so it's a moot point. Heck, if anybody's that desperate, they can always backtrack through the history for it! :) --Robin Hood (Talk • E-mail • Contribs) 00:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Voting Section

I think this page requires a section about Voting similar to the one of Featured Articles, to make clear who can vote and how, plus encourage users to vote. --Wizy (Talk/Contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Nominations

I couldn't immediately find anything on what's necessary to do a speedy nomination, but it seems to me that with three admins (me included) agreeing that our latest nominees should all be speedily nominated, that should be sufficient. So I've gone ahead and made it official. However, I was thinking that the nominations should be left up for the normal week in case anyone else wants to contribute to the discussion. --Nephele^Talk 16:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kitkat and Minor Edits both received speedy promotions as well. I'll archive the nominations when a week has passed. --Krusty 22:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedily Withdrawn Nomination

Since Jak Atackka withdrew his nomination before anyone voted, I'm not transferring it to the Completed Nominations page (thereby not imposing the three month withdrawn nomination rule). If anyone disagrees, feel free to overrule me and we'll go by the book. – Robin Hood↝talk 23:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)