Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-5939269-20160504224254/@comment-26239911-20160505192611

Lily8763cp wrote: Protanly wrote: Someone456 wrote:

Protanly wrote: The word administrator is equivalent to words such as supervisor, director, leader, overseer. Case in point, it simply isn't part of the job of administrator to make edits, and while any administrator could go out of their way to do so, it shouldn't be required.

We need to stop looking at mainspaces as the ultimate point of staff positions that don't need them. They shouldn't be the deciding factor of how we promote people that are deserving of such positions, especially when there are so many other ways to determine how fit and ready a person is for such a job. Your argument is reasonable. However, it's not an easy task to set some clear and objective guidelines to determine whether a person is trustworthy, maturity, and kind. Can you give us more ideas?

At least, I think our current system does not have some serious flaws (it doesn't mean it will be unchanged). As we can see that voters also consider non-mainspace factors of candidates. There're some examples that people with sufficient m-edits but they were opposed.

Right now we see these mainspace requirements as an absolute requirement, when overall I feel that these should more be a reccomended or desirable thing if anything. I'd be ok with it if it wasn't mandatory, so much as bonus/style points to gain support. Getting 1000 mainspace edits surely shows dedication to the wiki, however the fact that we see it as an absolute is the reason that it is flawed.

I could spend thousands of hours in chat. I could literally be the best forum mod by removing junk threads, locking threads that need to be locked, etc. I could literally be the best chat mod by being active in chat 24/7 and being on rulebreakers right away. Yet despite all of this, we still look at these kinds of people and say "Where are your mainspace edits?" Forget this.

Hence the reason I created this thread. So that we can discuss as a wiki what we feel is the best direction to move forward. I'm not saying that I know the best way, or that whatever I come up with is superior. It still doesn't change my views that the system is flawed, and that we could come up with a way together to solve it.

As a rational human being, I'm not going to say that I'm outside of this situation. As a dedicated member of this wiki, I've been here for 2 years. I've shown my dedication through quality edits and countless hours spent in chat. I've voiced my opinions towards votes, and I've done my best to keep this wiki up to the high standard that I hold. Despite all of these things, I still do not meet the current requirements for administrator. Forget the fact that I would need to be supported once I do meet these requirements. 2 years here, and all of this dedication, and instead we choose to say that I am not ready or trustable based on the quantity of times I've clicked Publish on mainspace articles?

I don't know about you, but I feel that is a prime example of the absurdness of our system. I strive towards administrator to gain access to mediawiki CSS pages so that I may develop for our wiki. I strive twards administrator so that I wouldn't have to sit there removing spam threads and pages for an hour while someone runs rampant doing these things, leaving me having to wait for someone else to show up.

All of these things that I want to do, all because I have chosen quality of my time spent here than quantity of how much I click publish? I leave that as a flawed system, and it isn't just me that it is affecting, but many other contributing and deserving members that I see daily. So you want to be an admin? Old news.