FIRSTwiki talk:Nominations for adminship
From FIRSTwiki
Anonymos User edits
Since anonymos users are not allowed to vote/nominate, should we restrict editting of this page to users? --Astronouth7303 11:55, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)
Wikipedia Requirements not FIRSTwiki Requirements
Months?!?!?!? this thing has only been up for 2 weeks tops! 500-1000 edits? that's a little more resonable (though probably the only people who have meet this requirement are already sysops) Can Max post specific numbers? Or should I forget that? --Astronouth7303 22:10, 8 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- I didn't really mean those guidelines, i meant more of the formatting and the system of putting comments down. --Max 22:26, 8 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- Is there a page that lists users and # of edits? Sorted preferably? And, where can I find how many edits user x has? --SilverStar 00:31, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
By user quality or need of administrators?
Is the induction of sysops and bureaucrats only by votes (a large number of positive votes would indicate a high quality user) or does it take into account the need for administrators at the time? --SilverStar 23:04, 8 Jun 2004 (EDT)
- Definitley not solely by number of votes, but I'd hope that need for administrators shouldn't factor into it. As I said on FIRSTwiki:community decisions, I think anyone qualified should be granted adminship. Of course, our needs in an admin are not nearly as strict as Wikipedia's. Moderating disputes is probably a minor issue, while presence on FIRSTwiki is a much larger issue as we need administrators more for helping new people (and fixing their edits). --Max 23:11, 8 Jun 2004 (EDT)
I know about the pipe, I had just copied the page directly from Wikipedia's, but thanks. --Max 00:16, 9 Jun 2004 (EDT)
