YPPedia talk:Requests for adminship

From YPPedia

Odd display glitches

Is anybody else getting an occasional glitch with the display of blank sections in the individual user nomination sections? I'm getting some weird stuff with Firefox, will screenshot it if it comes up again. (EDIT)Here's what I'm talking about. --Thunderbird 21:58, 28 September 2005 (PDT)

I got that on display, but then previewed an edit, and everything was fine. Also FF. --AtteSmythe 13:38, 29 September 2005 (PDT)
You can just click on the purge link at the top of the page to reload it, that fixes it for me. --Guppymomma 17:06, 29 September 2005 (PDT)

Notes on the Voting Process

So on the technical side, I think the process looks fine. The voting side is the part that needs help :) I can't tell if people just don't know if they should vote or they don't vote because they consider themselves not knowledgeable enough about the person up for nomination. Or is it because it's not anonymous? I'm also curious as to why the OM on wiki duty (or previously on duty ones) has not participated in voting. Anyone care to comment on this? I'm just interested in getting more people involved in the process. --Guppymomma 06:48, 7 October 2005 (PDT)

I did not vote mostly because I would like this to be a player endeavor. For better or worse, if an Oceanmaster weighs in on a decision, some players may chang their minds about how they would vote, or even if they should vote. I do not want a situation where people feel our word will overshadow all else. That just creates the sense that the administrators are merely chosen by the Oceanmasters, and not the users of the wiki. However, you can be assured that if there are significant problems, we will speak up.
As far as the concern about more people adding their voices, it could be newness of the method that is the problem. If it does not change and it seems to be mostly or only administrators voting, we can address the issue and figure out a possible change. For now, we should encourage those active non-administrators to take part in the decision process. --Bia 08:31, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
Thanks, sounds like good enough reasoning to me. I just thought of one input that we should implement into the nomination template doohickey, a spot for the OM on wiki duty to note yes/no as to the "good behaviour record" qualification for the candidate. I'll add it later if Yaten or someone doesn't beat me to it. --Guppymomma 09:43, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
I don't hang here as often as I used to, but was there even any way to find out about this whole process except stumbling upon it in Recent Changes? I added it to my watch list, but I can see missing that this whole thing even exists. --AtteSmythe 10:24, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
I keep thinking there should be a sort of YPPedia current thingees to look at spot, but I'm not sure where. Perhaps if we started to get more people to use the Community portal link to the left, that would be a good spot. --Guppymomma 10:30, 7 October 2005 (PDT)
Perhaps a YPPedia:Main_Page? One thing I've always disliked about Wikipedia is that once you're off the main namespace, god knows where you need to go to find anything. Pages titled things like "List of pages which don't feature breakfast food" annoy the heck out of me. </off-topic rant> Community Portal seems perfect for this, too. --AtteSmythe 11:19, 7 October 2005 (PDT)


Due to the recent controversy, I propose that we change the who should voting section wording to require that the person at least play Puzzle Pirates and be an actual contributing, editing member of the YPPedia community along with being familiar with the contributions of the nominee (the RfA even has a direct link to the nominee's contributions page). That way it will be more clear. --Guppymomma 20:07, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Makes sense to me! --Featherfin 02:56, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Another apparent glitch

Is the variable indicating the current day doing it in UTC like the current time one is? Because seeing Current time is 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC) is a bit off considering it's later than that in the PDT zone. --Thunderbird 20:57, 7 May 2006 (PDT)

An issue with RfA

Is it just me or is a fail for RfA due to only one person voting an actual real vote? I know that there have been other people voting on other RfAs so I'm not sure why my RfA only received one vote. I know that this is supposed to be a democratic process, but one person voting really isn't a democratic vote! This is the specific vote I'm talking about, but I'm sure that there are others with a similarly low vote count. I hope I'm not ranting, but this really does need to be addressed and solved in some way! --Whitemonkey (t/c) 10:07, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

Failed does have certain connotations that a real vote went through, but it's best not to split hairs and stick things on different pages all over the place. It's still an RfA that has not passed within the time period allotted for voting. I know that we have had similar discussions before including higher up on this page and the issue was also touched upon here. Voting may be done by any active editor that feels comfortable with voicing their opinion. Sometimes people just get busy and don't spot the RfA, and most of the other times people don't feel familiar enough with your work/the voting process to publically record their vote. It's hard because we have a very small community, unlike the thousands of active editors on wikipedia. The only thing to do is to continue to foster community involvement in both editing articles and meta-YPPedia issues. If you want to know why I didn't vote, I've been extremely ill for the past week, but please don't accost individuals as to why they did or did not vote as it won't make them excited to vote in the future either ;) --Guppymomma 11:41, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
In addition, so far only three nominations have garnered fewer than four votes in total: two where the candidate got no votes as they withdraw the nomination (in both cases they were nominated by someone else), and... this one. I didn't vote in this case because I simply haven't been active recently and as such I'm in no position to assess contributions or quality of edits. However, I do think that lack of votes is a perfectly fine reason to not grant someone adminship. It's just erring on the side of caution, IMO. (And, in this case, the only vote cast was a vote against, meaning that the vote was, in fact 100% opposed.) --Ponytailguy 11:54, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
Fair enough, I think that I may have been slightly ranting! I'm just slightly concerned that the previous discussion (somewhere above this one) was finished without a real conclusion! --Whitemonkey (t/c) 13:32, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
I think that most conversations about broader wiki topics like this are always ongoing, meant to be brought up again whenever someone has new ideas or other input. --Guppymomma 14:01, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
I think it's just a matter of people not knowing they have the ability to vote on administrators. I've added the recent election and current running RfA of Tyman_101 to the Yppedia:News article to hopefully spread the word. If only we could advertise it a bit more, people might be more interested. Perhaps a post about it on the forums?--Muffynz 21:05, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
The problem with posting in the forums would be that non-ypp editors could vote which would be not right in itself! I think that it should be linked to on the main page personally --Whitemonkey (t/c) 23:56, 11 March 2007 (PDT)
I never voted simply because, like PTG, I've been far less active than usual, and I haven't visibly seen your contributions. --Piplicus 00:00, 12 March 2007 (PDT)
As of now, it is linked to via the main page through the news link WM. From the main page to Yppedia:News and then there's an entry for current administrator votes and recent elections. I just put it up this afternoon. --Muffynz 01:04, 12 March 2007 (PDT)
Thanks Muffynz, hopefully this should prevent a non-vote occurring again! --Whitemonkey (t/c) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

I was wondering whether it was normal for no one to vote... Reading through the discussion here, I guess nothing much has changed in the last two years :S. Here's to hoping someone notices this page in the next few days! Adrielle =) 06:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Failure to fill out the RfA properly

Since this has actually come up more than once where we've simply removed attempts to do an RfA where the user obviously did not know enough to be able to follow the directions, let's just make it official policy on this page.

I propose that we put in a clause that RfAs where the people cannot follow the directions to create the link to and create the RfA page will be reverted. This does not include minor mistakes such as not filling in the date, etc. If the "RfA" is a self-nomination, that user name will be added to the unsuccessful candidacies page with an appropriate note.

I'm going to consider this as consensus and pop it into the page. --Guppymomma 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. --Guppymomma 17:37, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  2. --Thunderbird 17:40, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  3. --Faulkston 18:37, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  4. -- Cedarwings (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  5. --Fannon 19:19, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
  6. -- Muffynz(t/c) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (PDT)


  1. --Top90 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC) instead of removing them edit them


"Recently" created admins

Anybody else notice the fact that the recently created admins page goes all the way back to the beginning? While I don't see an issue with this, it could probably use a different name ;). --Thunderbird 23:47, 2 August 2014 (PDT)