The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship

Requests for administratorship is intended to be a venue where frequent and skilled editors of The Sims Wiki can request Administrative rights on the wiki. New administrators are selected by the community based on their editing history, behavior, skills, and other factors.

Any user who meets the minimum requirements for nomination (see below) may be nominated, or may submit a request for administratorship. All requests are conducted on individual pages - a bureaucrat will set up the individual request page once a nominee/applicant has cleared the minimum requirements.

To nominate a user, or to apply yourself, please go here.

Pending applications
Please use this space to apply for administrative rights, or to nominate another user for those rights. Please ensure that you/the nominee meet minimum requirements and are eligible.

I, former administrator Asorailahd, nominate for adminship. C.Syde65's last request was denied in June 2014. Since then, I've felt he has progressed considerably and his wiki skills have thrived. C.Syde has consistently noted his faults and is quickly able to rebound from these situations. He's incredibly dedicated to wiki and has become engrossed into the technical side of website as well. C.Syde is gregarious, charismatic, and helpful member of the community. C.Syde is, of my opinion, completely qualified for this position. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 16:30, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * This nomination is made by a user in good standing, and the nominee is eligible to be nominated. This nomination is therefore valid and awaits a response from the nominee. -  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 16:36, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Auror for nominating me. I’m happy to accept this nomination, because I have worked hard to address the concerns that were raised by users in response to my first RfA. I feel I have significantly improved my editing skills since then, and an examination of my recent editing history will support this.


 * A key reason for my improved editing is that I now take the time to think my edits through carefully rather than racing to post edits. I now use the 'preview' and 'show changes' buttons before publishing, and also bear in mind the need to keep a level head when editing to avoid editing when hyped up. I use these techniques to try and ensure that I make all the changes needed in the first edit, which avoids having to alter my edits and then republish. This also helps me avoid the creation of edit conflicts, especially in community discussion.


 * I am learning which areas of the wiki I am best suited to contribute to. After a minor incident that happened in chat, less than a month ago, I feel that the best practise for me is to refrain from trying to answer technical questions raised by inexperienced users in chat. This is because to date I have not been particularly good at answering technical questions in chat as I have trouble ensuring I take the time needed to fully comprehend what has been asked, and therefore do not always give an adequate answer. I managed to settle the minor incident that occurred in chat by apologizing to the inexperienced user via private message, and fortunately the inexperienced user did not seem perturbed by any misunderstanding I may have caused.


 * I have recently learned from a minor incident where I gave a level 1 warning to a good faith editor. I replaced the warning with a friendly reminder and will be careful not repeat this mistake.


 * I feel confident with blocking vandals that have already been issued a minimum of three warnings, and have not shown any signs of improvement. In the case where I suspect potential sock-puppetry I will not make accusations without solid evidence to confirm this is the case. As a new administrator I recognise I have limited experience in this area and would discuss my concerns with an experienced administrator rather than taking action on my own.


 * If I notice a page that has been nominated for deletion I will check for any articles that link to the page before deleting it. I will make room for community consensus before deleting a page if there is content on the page that was made in good faith.


 * While I have very little experience inside the media-wiki namespace (particularly with respect to JS and CSS), I doubt that I’ll need to make any edits there, at least not significant ones, so I will ensure I don’t mess up how the wiki functions.


 * I feel that the above are good reasons for accepting my RfA and am happy to respond to any queries or feedback given to my application.


 * --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:10, February 3, 2015 (UTC)

Minimum requirements
In order to apply for administratorship or be eligible for nomination, a user must:
 * have Rollback rights;
 * be able to communicate effectively in English, including the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
 * have extensive experience in wiki editing, preferably including edits to templates and categories, and use of more "complex" tools or features such as tables (knowledge of or experience with JavaScript and CSS is also beneficial, but is not required); and
 * not be prohibited from requesting or being nominated for administrative rights due to past actions or prior requests.

Procedure for Applications
The following steps should be followed by applicants and nominees.

Stage 1 - Nomination/Application

 * Users may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for administratorship. The nominee then has to accept the nomination before discussion can begin. Nominations or applications should be made here.
 * After a user applies or accepts a nomination, a bureaucrat should determine whether the user is eligible to apply. If they are eligible, the bureaucrat will create a page for the nomination (typically 'The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/ ()') and begin the discussion there.
 * Multiple nominations can be queued at one time. Nominations which aren't responded to by the nominee within 2 weeks are subject to removal.

Stage 2 - Discussion

 * A period of discussion shall last at least five days.
 * After the five day period of discussion has elapsed, it shall be determined whether a consensus in favor of or against promotion has been reached.
 * Consensus for these requests is defined as a general agreement among users engaged in the discussion (including the nominating user, if applicable). If necessary, consensus can be roughly measured as a general agreement between at least two-thirds of users engaged in the discussion (including the nominating user, if applicable).
 * If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion shows consensus against a promotion, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.
 * After the initial five-day discussion period, if consensus either for or against promotion is not present, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.
 * If this occurs and a consensus for promotion exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
 * If this occurs and a consensus for promotion does not exist, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted. This will occur even if a consensus against promotion does not exist.
 * If discussion continues for ten or more days, and it is determined by at least two bureaucrats that progress towards consensus is not occurring, the nomination will end and the nominee will not be promoted.

Other rules

 * A nominee whose nomination does not lead to a consensus for promotion will not be eligible to be nominated or to request for thirty days.
 * A nominee may end a nomination at any time. A nominee that terminates a nomination will not be eligible to be nominated or to request for fifteen days.
 * A nominee who has had three failed nominations within any six-month period will be ineligible to be nominated or to request rights for three months, starting at the end of their third failed nomination.
 * A nominee who applies for rights and who is ineligible will be automatically denied, and will be ineligible to request rights or to be nominated for an additional fifteen days, beginning after they would have otherwise become eligible. Nominations of ineligible nominees by other users will not result in a penalty against the nominee.

Guidelines for discussion and consensus

 * Points of discussion should be focused on assessing the ability of a nominee to perform their duties. Discussion should avoid sweeping praise or generalizations (e.g. "he/she is a good editor" or "he/she deserves it"), and focus instead on specific reasons why a user is or is not a good fit for the position.
 * Users engaged in discussion may contradict the points raised by another user, but should remain respectful at all times. Back-and-forth arguments between two users should be avoided.
 * Generally, consensus in a request can be determined by answering these questions:
 * Are there major and specific problems raised by multiple users regarding the nominee?
 * Is there a lack of agreement between users over whether a nominee is qualified, capable of serving or a good fit for the role?
 * If the answer to these questions is 'no', there likely exists a consensus for the nomination.

Old Archives
The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 1 - April 2009 to July 2010

The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 2 - July 2010 to April 2011

The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 3 - July 2011 to September 2011

The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 4 - March 2012 to October 2012

The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Archive 5 - November 2012 to May 2013

Fanon Administratorship Archive

New Archives
Beds - June 17 to 22, 2013 - Approved
 * 2013

Hurshbr - June 22 to 25, 2013 - Not approved

Pidgeoraptor7 - August 1 to August 6, 2013 - Approved

JasonThePlum - September 24 to October 5, 2013 - Approved

Walker guy94 - October 5 to October 10, 2013 - Approved

Mate1234 - November 20 to December 5, 2013 - Not approved

K6ka - January 24 to January 29, 2014 - Approved
 * 2014

Joey.eyeball - January 30 to February 5, 2014 - Not approved

Icemandeaf - June 19 to June 24, 2014 - Approved

C.Syde65 - June 24 to June 29, 2014 - Not approved

Joey.eyeball - August 2 to August 7, 2014 - Approved

Beds - August 14 to August 19, 2014 - Approved