The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship

Administrator requests are almost always open on.

Minimum requirements
If you have proven yourself to be a valuable member of the community, and you think you're capable of doing the job, this is where to apply. Minimum requirements are:
 * Average or higher wiki editing knowledge.
 * This means you have to have contributed regularly to some wiki (not necessarily this one).


 * Having started to contribute on The Sims Wiki (edits in the content namespace are not taken too seriously).
 * Your first edit on The Sims Wiki should not be your application on this page.


 * Understandable, (almost 100%) correct English all the time.
 * If u talk liek dis, ur not rdy 2 bcome admin


 * Playing the game is nice, since you'll be editing and making decisions based on the game's content.
 * Be able to expand articles to make them more useful for the community.
 * You should not copy articles from Wikipedia and paste them here.


 * Rollback rights are a prerequisite for requesting adminship.

Stage 1: Nominating

 * 1) Users may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for administratorship. The nominee then has to accept the nomination before voting can begin.
 * 2) If the nominee accepts the nomination, they should also choose two Administrative projects when stating their acceptance.
 * 3) Multiple requests at one time are allowed.
 * 4) Administrator candidates that are not given administrator privileges are ineligible to be nominated or to nominate themselves for at least a month.

Stage 2: Voting

 * 1) Users may support, be neutral toward, or oppose the nomination. Users must provide a reason behind their position.
 * 2) Users must have 50 edits and be a regular contributor for a month to be able to vote or nominate. Users who have been absent for extended periods of time (3 months or more) will be considered as "new users" for the purposes of RfA and must make 50 edits and be contributor for a further month before voting.
 * 3) Everyone's vote counts as one vote. Admins do not hold extra power.
 * 4) A bureaucrat will then determine whether consensus has been reached. This means that administrator requests require at least a two-thirds support rate to pass. Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes.
 * 5) Admins and bureaucrats may nominate and/or vote on a nomination. However, a bureaucrat who votes on a nomination and later reviews the nomination must review according to the vote result, not their personal opinion of the nominee.
 * 6) A vote on an RfA shall last for 1 week.
 * 7) Votes on an RfA may be closed early if it is obvious that consensus against it will not be reached. (e.g. 6+ support and 0 oppose)

What you will do as an admin

 * Revert vandalism, warn and/or block vandals.
 * Move pages to correct page names, delete unnecessary redirects.
 * Have a strong voice when decisions have to be made.
 * Represent The Sims Wiki well in the Wikia and internet community.

What you may not do as an admin

 * Use your administrator privileges to take advantage of users or to control the wiki.
 * Ignore the needs and wants of wiki users.
 * Act as a poor representative of The Sims Wiki on other wikis, or participate in major cross-wiki drama.

More info and a list of current admins can be found at Administrators.

Positions available
Additionally, some special positions are available for administrators and members of the community. These are filled on the Requests for special positions page, though users requesting administratorship here may in their request ask for one or more of these positions. List of positions and their responsibilities is available on this page. Willingness to take on special duties may make you more likely to be selected.

HanaGoth96
Hello, my name is HanaGoth96 and I would like to nominate myself for sysop rights. I feel that I would be a good admin editor of this wiki as I am a helpful user, helping those who ask me for assistance. I also like to guide users the correct way, pointing out how to license images correctly and the correct templates to use when creating new fanon. I am also a rollbacker, having undid several acts of vandalism on various articles and I have also helped out with a few incidents involving vandals. English is my first language and I am familiar with the British-American spelling policy.

I joined this wiki in February 2013 and have already made more than 1700 edits, most of them consisting in mainspace articles. I am friendly to my fellow users and have partake frequently in community discussions. My knowledge on the wiki has grown vastly since joining and I feel ready to apply for the sysop rights. I don't know if the admin projects are still running or are being used at all, but as it is a prerequisite then I would like to work on the two projects Image & File Maintenance and Layout & Navigation. I would also like to say that I will not use my sysop rights to cause harm to the wiki and will apply these rights fairly and only when necessarily.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for considering my nomination and if the consensus goes my way, I will do my best to carry out the role to the best of my abilities. HanaGoth96 ( Neigh...? ) 18:01, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on HanaGoth96

 * This period of consensus will last for one week. Time remaining: .

Question - I'm curious - you were nominated for admin less than a week ago, but you chose to turn it down; why? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:08, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer - I felt that Fangirl's nomination was not descriptive enough and it had some issues with the wording. I appreciated her nomination though. HanaGoth96  ( Neigh...? ) 18:11, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

There are two main questions that need to be answered when selecting new administrators. Firstly, is the applicant/nominee capable of using sysop rights effectively, to improve the wiki on a more technical level, to help grow the community, and to help combat vandalism? But beyond the question of whether a user can handle, technically-speaking, the powers that adminship provides, there is an additional question; can the user be trusted to apply those powers fairly, to apply them without prejudice, and to be open to criticism from users and other administrators if those powers are allegedly misused?

I am sure that HanaGoth meets the first of the two criteria I have listed. I am confident that if she were given administrator rights, she would be more than capable of using those tools that would be at her disposal; her edits so far on the wiki do prove this. But those very same edits and actions on the wiki also cause me some concern when it comes to the matter of answering the second of the two questions posed here. Unfortunately, Hana has shown a propensity towards rash action rather than well-thought reaction to criticisms, disagreements or quarrels.

I am not a fan of personal criticisms of applicants. I have been voted against on similar grounds in the past. For this reason, I do not oppose this application; I am simply hesitant. It would be improper for me to support the application given the issues I have seen, but it would be improper for me not to give her a chance to prove that she is ready for the position. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:37, May 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that I do tend to take criticism a little too hard and that I do tend to get into disagreements and quarrels with other users, but I can also keep myself calm and I would really like the chance to prove to you that I do have what it takes to be an admin. HanaGoth96  ( Neigh ) 18:57, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess for the sake of clarity and fairness to you, I'm going to come out and formally oppose this nomination. Actions speak louder than words, and there's no real way to prove that you've changed except through demonstration, which would be difficult to do in an RfA. It's not fair to you to expect you to try and demonstrate that to gain my support (although my support is only one vote). And, with all due respect, the time you have to prove that you're ready to be an administrator is before you apply to be one. My only advice is to take those faults you acknowledge and try to improve them, and apply later. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:18, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support - I think that HanaGoth deserves to have admin rights. Being an active user for just 3 and a half months, she has a very impressive edit count consisting of many main content edits, along with a strong history of reverting vandalism. I assure you that Hana only has the best intentions.  Cavia (  wheek  •   speak  ) 19:32, May 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I don't doubt that Hana has admin potential; the skill and good intentions are clearly there. However, given the points that have been raised, I'm not sure she is ready for it yet, though I am still open on that matter. Dharden (talk) 12:44, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Hana is a great editor. Recently she may have been inappropriate but her behaviour has improved immensly. I really do think she is cut out for becoming an admin, she plans out everything. Heck, she's even been planning this request for weeks. Hana has evolved and learned from her mistakes. The only thing she needs to improve on is keeping her cool, which is already being worked on. She is was of the quickest learning editors out there and she'd be able to cope well and make good use out of the admin rights. If you tell Hana to improve on something then she will try.
 * In conclusion, Hana is cut out for this. She is improving on her skills everday and would really benefit becoming admin.
 * Oppose - I'm not convinced at this time that you possess the mindset of an administrator and I'm worried, based on your tendency to overreact, that you'll make poor decisions with the admin tools. As LiR said, addressing these flaws should really be done before posting an RfA and I will safely say that you do have potential and everything else is sound, so don't be too disheartened by this. 17:56, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Per Lab. 18:23, May 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I think Hana deserves rights. She has an good edit count and reverts vandalism wherever she can. RossInSA (talk) 18:28, May 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Support- To be honest, I personally feel that there have been times in the past where Hana has been quite reckless. However, I understand that making mistakes is all part of being human, and I feel Hana has learned from this. I also understand there has been the odd disagreement or two with other users over the past month or so, but I feel that a similar thing could be avoided if it happens again.


 * On more wiki-related reasoning, Hana's editing history has been excellent, and she is probably the fastest learning user I've seen on here to date. She understands how to use a wide variety of templates- both for fanon and mainspace use, and her anti-vandal history is very strong. In short; she knows what she's doing.


 * I understand Hana can make reckless decisions, but as I have previously stated, I feel she has learned from them (due to a certain incident over a policy that wasn't well-known or formally introduced, to my knowledge anyways). I doubt any similar incidents will happen again. I feel Hana is ready for this role, and I know from personal experience, it takes a little while to get to grips with, but she will become an effective administrator. Asher Éire 'Sup? 19:52, May 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - I don't think that one incident is an accurate show of one's character. It takes numerous examples before you can see a person's true character. Hana is a good editor and I think that she will be able to utilise the new tools effectively. ~ Waikikamukow  ( Anyone wanna chat? ) 22:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I agree with LiR and Lab. You've shown an extreme tendency to take simple discussions or minor disagreements with other users and blow them completely out of proportion. Normally, I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have still behaved like this very recently. LiR made a good point earlier that you should try to prove that you're ready for adminship before you make a request, as we currently have no reason to believe you won't overreact to something and end up misusing the admin tools. I'm sorry Hana, but based on your actions, I can't say I trust you enough to support this request, but if you try to improve your behavior, I may support next time around. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 23:20, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * As the opposing side says, Hana does have that bit of tendency to be embroiled in conflict, and indeed, given that I'm aware of this even during my doldrum period in this wiki, I would say that this issue needs to be resolved in some manner. However, I am fully confident that Hana is otherwise a good candidate and editor, so I shall put out a vote of neutrality, especially in the light of those who say Hana has improved, which I may have missed out given my doldrum activities. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:51, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * Abstain - I dunno what to put for this so I'm just going to call this abstaining from voting. I've been away for the last week or so and I don't really know what sort of things have happened and I feel that my lack of knowledge means I can't make an educated decision. I'm going to say that while Hana is obviously competent these sort of things make me want to vote against, if I knew more. I dunno whether you could count this as a vote against, a neutral, or whatever, but I thought I'd just say this anyway.


 * Support- Hana deserves adminship. I have seen her edits, and they are good, and she is helpful. にゃー！ --Icecream18 (talk) 13:12, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - HanaGoth is obviously a very efficient editor. As well, she is very active. However, per the arguments of others, I am unsure on how she will be able to handle the social responsibilities of being an administrator. In my opinion, the social responsibilities of being an administrator are more important than editing. For example, administrators are often the ones who are asked for advice and help and one of their responsibilities is to help users who are having difficulties. However, as I see it, any user can make good edits without having admin rights. I believe that HanaGoth has not quite proven herself to be responsible in frustrating situations with users yet. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 16:03, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just like to say a couple of things. This may sound insane as it is my own nomination, but I agree with what has been said through the opposing votes. I knew I wasn't ready from the start of all of this, but some other users thought that I was ready so I decided to nominate myself earlier than I planned. But, with what has been said through the opposing votes, it has given me a confidence boost. I know that may sound strange as it is opposing my nomination, but I fully agree with what has been said and I will be taking what has been said into consideration and will definitely be improving my behaviour around here. I also know that, at least to my knowledge, that some or more of you are aware of my edit war with a certain user. Once I saw the notice, I panicked and knew that that was when I had gone to far. And after a short discussion with LostInRiverview and Ash, I realised my actions were mistakes and I learned from them too. In fact, ever since the incident, I have been watching my own edits, making sure that I won't start an edit war. Heck, I've even been asking Ash if I should undo this or undo that. Also, I would like to state something that is indeed a fact. I have only argued with one user who has indeed opposed my nomination, but me and that user have personality issues and certain things we say to each other ticks us off. I guess I'm just trying to say thank you for the feedback on my nomination and that this whole event has certainly opened my eyes and that my behaviour will be changing drastically for the good. HanaGoth96 ( Neigh...? ) 16:24, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement from HanaGoth really shows promise. If the statement is to be backed by future actions (which I believe is very likely), I believe Hana is sure to get the admin rights next time. Now only if I can keep up my momentum on my CAW work... MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 20:12, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Support- Hana, from what I have seen, is what one might call a peacekeeper; she works to make sure that everything is alright and enforces the rules when she sees something astray from the norm. She is a promising editor and has always spoken to me positively. I, for one, think she deserves these rights. She may have only been here for a few months, but it is not how long she has been here that determines the quality of her edits but what she has done with the said time that makes all the difference. Hana is deserving of these rights and I fully support her. 03:55, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Full Support - Both parties have made interesting statements that have compelled me to vote in the way I did. The opposing arguments do make a few fair points, but most are redundant and a bit pointless to continue instigating. You're actively editing (which cannot be said for most of the admins voting on this nomination) and you genuinely care about the wiki. Your fervor for the wiki is strong and your heart is in the right place. Long live The Sims! Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 23:33, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comments/Questions
To those who supported with the reasoning that Hana "deserves these rights", it should be noted that user rights, whether it be sysop, rollback or bureaucrat, shouldn't be seen as an award for one's contributions to the wiki; user rights are tools aimed to help users with their work on maintaining the wiki and while they can generally be better utilised by one user more than another, they're not "deserved" by one user more than another. Nobody "deserves" user rights of any kind. Forgive me if my oppose vote makes me sound like I'm doing this on a personal level (I can guarantee it isn't) but strength of argument matters on an RfA/RfB and four out of the seven current support votes use this argument (one of the votes did use further reasoning than this, I can see that, but that's beside the point), which is honestly the weakest argument you could use in an RfX. Reasoning for supporting an RfX should consist of whether the user would need/benefit from the rights and can they be trusted. And if not, why not? What is holding the nominee back? There are some good arguments from both the support and the opposition here, I'll admit that, but this had to be said about the votes which used the "deserving" factor as an argument (three of which using this as the only argument).

TL;DR? User rights, including adminship, are not deserved; they are utilised to aid a user in maintaining the wiki; they're not rewards for long-term/high edit count/trusted users. Saying that somebody "deserves to be an admin" is a very weak argument and doesn't say anything into why a user should be an admin. 18:37, May 8, 2013 (UTC)

Hurshbr
I would like to recieve sysop rights because I feel like I could help with at least minor bugs on The Sims Wiki. I would like to help organize stuff and just help out around the wiki. I would participate in fanon administration, image and file maintenance, and parts of community development. If you do not think I am prepared for this, please feel free to say so. I would try to keep good faith and keep calm, and I would try to keep on top of my duties despite my slight scatter-brainness. I would also try to help this wiki stay in shape to the best of my ability.23:32, May 3, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr (talk) 23:32, May 3, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr

Consensus on Hurshbr

 * This period of consensus will last for one week. Time remaining: .

- Not Yet - You only just received rollback rights a couple weeks ago, and I'd feel more comfortable supporting you if you had a little more experience using that tool. Also, and while this isn't a definite mark against you, your mainspace edits are quite sparse. Since you're applying for fanon admin it's not a huge thing, but I'd encourage you, in either case, to become more familar with the main namespace. So, all in all, I am not supporting this request at this time. You do good work in the fanon namespace - keep it up! -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:25, May 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * - Not Yet - per above


 * - Not Yet - Agreed with LiR. I think you need a bit more experience with managing the fanon namespace as a whole (including marking other users' fanon for cleanup, improving mistakes on other pages, etc.), but definitely don't let this discourage you. You're going down the right road and as long as you meet the conditions I've listed, I'll likely support in the future. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 01:27, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet - Per above. Just keep doing what you're doing and gain some experience with the rollback tool and you'll maybe get there next time. 11:02, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * Voting on this appears to have dried up, and it appears that the current consensus of "Not Yet" would be difficult to overcome. Therefore, I am calling this early, and declining the request at this time. Dharden (talk) 15:38, May 7, 2013 (UTC)