The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship/Joey.eyeball (January 2014)

Nomination
I, K6ka, would like to nominate for administratorship.

Joseph's been an amazing contributor to. He gets along fairly well with other editors and is online regularly, aside from the occasional WikiBreak that we all need. Being a rollbacker already proves that he can be entrusted with dangerous tools. Looking at his userpage, he also has "Become an administrator" as one of his goals. I think now would be appropriate to take those steps. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 03:17, January 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * I gladly accept! Thank you very much for nominating me, K6ka. It feels weird to be complimented like this and I just hope that the bureaucrats agree. Joey.eyeball (talk) 03:26, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
''This discussion will last for at least five days. Time remaining: ''

Just a note, Joey. Bureaucrats aren't the only ones who will determine the outcome of this nomination. Anyone can actually get involved here, so please don't get the wrong impression of us bureaucrats. :)

I'll be honest that I'm not giving strong support on this request. Joey has been a very active member in this wiki, and his number of edits is remarkable. However, his scope of edits is more less in fixing Sim infoboxes but largely minor. He's been participating in several discussions, which I think is a good point, but I feel like he still has much to learn in the wiki. He's still a valuable member of this wiki, though.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:14, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I try not to take someone's personality into consideration when voicing my opinion on these nominations, but in this case I think I would be remiss if I didn't. I have no doubt that Joseph is a competent editor in most ways, and is able to learn where he may be lacking. My issue is primarily with what seems to be his immaturity or naivete about certain things. I have concerns that he may take an action without thinking it through completely, or say something without considering what effect his words may have. I suspect that he may be of a younger age (although I try not to judge based on a person's age) and it sometimes shows in what he says or how he responds to certain things. I know that he means well and he certainly never acts in bad faith, and he is an asset to the wiki. But, at present, I unfortunately cannot support this nomination. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:35, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness, Joseph, you are a great contributor and member of the wiki and I applaud you for your excellent contributions to the wiki. You voice your opinion in community discussions, which is an important part for any user who wishes to become an administrator. However, I simply must agree with both what Nikel23 and LiR has said. Your contributions are sometimes quite minor, mostly based on adding information Sim3 infoboxes and I feel that you should make more larger edits, as you so call it. I must also agree with LiR on the theory of taking action without thinking. I too have been judged on this matter and my first attempt to administrator was declined, due to this matter. I just feel that you should improve a little bit before you move up the ladder. But, you must remember, that you are a great member of the community. Therefore, I cannot support this nomination. Sorry. Beds (parlare - da leggere ) 11:50, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I feel the not now clause comes into play here. There's no faulting that Joseph is a strong contributor and that he's an asset to the wiki, but I do think he still has some learning to do - it's mostly little things really, but those things do add up. The argument made that he often acts without thinking holds additional strength in this RfA. I know there are situations when everybody struggles to avoid that pitfall but it seems to happen a fair bit here and some of these situations are more concerning than others, with that news blog comment incident from a few weeks back being an example. I know he probably didn't mean anything by those comments but this is where "thinking before leaping" comes into play. I hope Joseph isn't disheartened by this, because I do generally think he could be a great administrator someday and he does seem eager to learn the ropes, which is a good thing, but he just needs to get bigger before he gets better. 14:39, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Joseph is a confident and skilled editor, and that generally his contributions are proper and beneficial to the wiki. Being a rollback (despite that being a requirement to become an administrator), he is trusted enough in the community to be allowed the tools to quickly revert vandalism. Joseph is also active in community discussions and blogs, always wanting to have his say and make a positive difference to the community. Unfortunately, however, I do think that in some cases, Joseph has acted a little irrationally, and that this may pass over to his use of the administrator tools he would be given. Overall, in my opinion, the good things about Joseph outweigh the bad things, so I am in weak support of this request. ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 07:47, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

A skilled editor, I couldn't disagree less (in other words couldn't agree more). Joseph undoubtedly has the skills and editing experience to be an administrator. C.Syde65 (talk) 06:59, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of consensus
This discussion has surpassed the five day discussion period and a consensus does not exist to favor promotion. Under the RfA discussion rules, a request can only proceed to a vote in cases where it's unclear whether or not a consensus exists to support promotion. When using a general definition for consensus (in this case, a definition of 'general agreement'), this RfA has clearly not reached that stage, so I will be suggesting that this RfA be declined and that it not proceed to a vote. This is a difficult interpretation, however, so I am going to request that another bureaucrat weigh in as well on whether this matter should proceed to vote or be declined now. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:18, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we need roughly two-thirds support from the discussion for a promotion to take place. Although it's close from determining consensus here (and by weighing up strength of argument, of which I do remind does matter), we don't have the required two-thirds majority support and I feel that the best course of action would be to decline this RfA. 01:23, February 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * The result, therefore, is that this RfA is being declined at this time. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:27, February 5, 2014 (UTC)