FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Self nominating for the Wikian
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 December 2016 by Joeytje50.

Hello. Forum:The Wikian outlined requirements for receiving the "The Wikian" title in-game. After reading through the thread, I don't really see a consensus for the guideline listed on RuneScape:The Wikian which is "Users may not nominate themselves". I'm not exactly up in arms complaining about this, but it feels like an unfair guideline for people that work on various aspects of the wiki, consider themselves to meet the criteria for receiving the title, and yet have to wait to be nominated by someone else.

Self-nominations are allowed on RuneScape:Requests for adminship and other similar pages, so why are we disallowing them here? It is like we aren't being consistent. There is no reason that a user shouldn't be able to put themselves forward for a title that, as stated on the aforementioned thread, isn't meant to be 'prestigious' or 'exclusive'. xHR7zpA.png6encXAo.png 20:33, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - users can just ask someone to nominate them. Do you want to be nominated? I'll nominate you if so. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 21:10, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

I'd like the title as much as the next guy which is why it was disappointing to see that self-nominations aren't permitted. My reasoning behind this discussion is because it seems inconsistent with other request pages we have on the wiki. We shouldn't be enforcing a guideline here that we don't enforce on similar pages, without good reason. Users, myself included yes, may feel eligible and want to start a request themselves, just like they would if they wanted a role xHR7zpA.png6encXAo.png 21:16, December 15, 2016 (UTC)
there you go 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 21:21, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Neutral - If someone clearly unsuited for the title would nominate themselves, they would not pass anyway, so no problems there. On the other hand, is one not truly eligible for the title of the wiki community considers one notable enough to take time out of their day (about thirty seconds) and nominate one? 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 17:39, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Support --Iiii I I I 18:31, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Yes- I was hoping this would have been included with the original guidelines. If a person feels worthy, we will check their edits when they nominate and decide then. Degenret01 (talk) 18:55, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Support - We should have consistency with requests on this Wiki. Kent Knifen (talk) 01:51, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Support - ^Consistency with requests^ If they do or don't meet the standards it won't matter how they're nominated. Law rune Samberen Nature rune 02:04, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Support - Per Samba Willow tree Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon 03:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment - per Fswe. I could see situations where someone could fly under the radar on edits and not get nominated. If you're not constantly interacting with others on the wiki either (they might be a vet of editing other wikis, so they don't need guidance. they can just jump right in). --Deltaslug (talk) 04:49, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Support/Comment - If editors aren't to nominate themselves, then there probably would need to be people scouting editors on a regular basis, which sounds irksome to me. I think self-nomination is more reliable. If unmerited nominations are a problem, then a base edit requirement (100?) could curb those. Logialian (talk) 09:43, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of a hard edit count - the discussion in the original thread settled on not having a hard edit cap because people are involved in the wiki in other ways. I trust the judgement of the community will suffice as a barrier. -- 14:01, December 17, 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I was in support of a hard edit count to avoid favoritism until now, but you make an excellent point about helping the Wiki in other ways. You've changed my opinion, well done sir :P Kent Knifen (talk) 15:53, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Support/Comment - I support because the other people nominating seems to be going very very slow. Like I have looked at the page and it looks like after Gaz's original list only like 5 people max have been nominated after that. I feel like there should be an in a sense "time-limit" between self nominations so that people can't just spam nominate themselves. I feel like a month between failed self nominations should be good so people can't just spam themselves over and over till people get sick of them and let it through. Smartman294 - The blank avatar man (talk) 21:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Information icon A user has requested closure for Self nominating for the Wikian. Request complete. The reason given was: Per RS:Consensus Support is unamimous and no clear opposes
Smartman294 - The blank avatar man (talk) Smartman294 - The blank avatar man (talk) 21:12, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - The restriction on self-nominations will be lifted. Strict rules for a "cooldown" Smartman proposed will not be added; a next-day nomination or something extreme like that would fall under RS:UCS to close it directly. Generally, people are quite reasonable, so they wouldn't spam nominations hoping one would pass. If this does become a problem though, please do make another thread about it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:14, December 24, 2016 (UTC)