Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-31957230-20150724161051/@comment-1669199-20150725215104

Sesn wrote:

Read this thoroughly.There are times when admins and bureaucrats get support from more than enough users early (remember my nomination?). In my point of view, if it’s very obvious that the nomination isn’t going to fail, why not promote the user early? What’s the point in waiting?

Say, if the admin-to-be gets 15+ supporters (20+ for crats) in less than a week without a single opposer, the user would be promoted by the end of the week, unless someone opposes before then.

Feel free to share your ideas, but be aware we’re just talking about admin/bureaucrat nominations and not mod or rollback.

What's the point in waiting? Simple: New information that the vast majority of those who vote on said nominations may come to light that may make them want to reconsider their votes, such as perhaps information being provided about the nominee might turn out to be false or exaggerated (i.e. their contributions to other Wikis or their general overall behavior on other Wikis), or perhaps before the nominations are supposed to officially end they may do something which would throw their nominations right out of the window, and rightfully so (perhaps they get caught bullying other Users, such as threatening to use the tools of an Administrator to dish out unfair punishments to their detractors, among other bad behavior that would make anyone in their objective minds think twice about giving such persons positions of power.). Perhaps the nominees may want to reconsider being promoted for other reasons at the last minute and will want to have their nomination withdrawn. Maybe, when dealing with certain candidates, we, the community, really just need the normal amount of time the nominations are supposed to go on for in order to come to the best conclusion on how to proceed with our votes, because there's just that much information to go over.

These points should be at the forefront of Users' minds when dealing with User Rights nominations on this Wiki, new or veteran -- I don't see why anyone here would want to forgo following procedure and not even consider points such as these in order to properly determine whether the candidates are truly worthy of being promoted to the positions proposed, not unless they're too impatient to make sure that they know full-well what they are doing when casting their votes. Trying to implement shortcuts for candidates to get to positions like Administrators/Bureaucrats just because they're lucky enough to gain an initial large number of supporters in X amount of time without any opposition, and willfully choosing to ignore any of the above reasoning I just gave when considering whether doing the opposite might actually be the better alternative, would be asinine (not saying that anyone here who's commented so far actually is willfully ignoring anything, mind you -- I'd just hate to see anyone dismiss my arguments with nary a second thought after I, and others who feel the same as I do, make our case.). I know there's people here who strongly feel that other people they know, regardless of their relationship with said individuals, should be promoted to positions like Administrator or Bureaucrat in order to help out the Wiki as a whole, but I feel, quite strongly, that we have rules like the ones that require certain promotions to go on for a certain amount of time (in this case, Administrator/Bureaucrat nominations, which last 2 weeks until either the 2 week waiting period ends or until something happens that may require ending the nomination early, perhaps for reasons which I stated previously) for a good reason. If the candidates are truly worthy of the positions they're being considered for, time will undoubtedly prove so, and I don't think waiting 2 weeks for Administrator/Bureaucrat nominations is unreasonable, especially when we want to be absolutely sure that we're choosing the right people for the jobs.