Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Consensus on HanaGoth96: Added a comments section and added a wall of text
imported>Dharden (Calling nomination of Hurshbr) |
imported>Lost Labyrinth (→Consensus on HanaGoth96: Added a comments section and added a wall of text) |
||
Line 125:
::::::::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. <del>Now only if I can keep up my momentum on my CAW work...</del> [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 20:12, May 4, 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::{{VoteFor}} '''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. {{PGRSig}} 03:55, May 5, 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. {{LabSig}} 18:37, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
== Closed requests ==
| |||