The Sims Wiki:Requests for bureaucratship

Requests for bureaucratship is where experienced and active administrators can be nominated for or apply for bureaucratship. Bureaucrats fulfill a similar role as administrators, except that they are able to change the user rights of other users, and they cannot be demoted by anyone but Wikia staff. Bureaucrat nominees should be the most experienced and trusted editors on the wiki. Applicants or nominees for bureaucratship must already be administrators.

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 bureaucrat rights, or to nominate another user for those rights. Please ensure that the nominee is an administrator and is eligible.

Icemandeaf
I, Sims2Player, nominate Icemandeaf for bureaucrat rights because I feel he really deserves it. Sims   Player  (talk) (mistakes) 13:57, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

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

Stage 1 - Nomination/Application

 * Administrators may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for bureaucratship. 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 bureaucratship/ ') 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 ay 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.

Archives
Completed Requests
 * Old Archives

Beds - November 11 to 16, 2013 - Approved
 * New Archives

K6ka - January 31 to February 5, 2015 - Approved

__NOWYSIWYG__