The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
imported>LostInRiverview m (Changed protection level for "The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship": Locking page while requests are closed - Be sure to return to Semi-Protection when requests are opened again ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))) |
imported>LostInRiverview No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{minibox|shortcut|TSW:RFA}} |
{{minibox|shortcut|TSW:RFA}} |
||
{{minibox|end}} |
{{minibox|end}} |
||
{{Info|Administrative Projects|All new administrator applications must include a selection of two [[The Sims Wiki:Administrative projects|administrative projects]] that the applicant would like to fill upon promotion. Check the administrative projects page for a list of projects and the duties associated with them.}} |
|||
{|align="right" |
{|align="right" |
||
| |
| |
||
| Line 18: | Line 17: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
{|class="wikitable" style="background: #EEEEEE;" |
{|class="wikitable" style="background: #EEEEEE;" |
||
{{request|sysop| |
{{request|sysop|open}} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
[[Category:Site administration|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
|||
'''Administratorship requests are currently closed on The Sims Wiki''', due to a [[Forum:Addressing issues with rights requests|discussion on possible changes to the request process]]. |
|||
'''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. |
|||
==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. |
|||
*[[The Sims Wiki:Rollback|Rollback rights]] are a prerequisite for requesting adminship. |
|||
=== Stage 1: Nominating === |
|||
#Users may nominate themselves or be nominated by another user for administratorship. The nominee then has to accept the nomination before voting can begin. |
|||
#If the nominee accepts the nomination, they should also choose two [[The Sims Wiki:Administrative projects|Administrative projects]] when stating their acceptance. |
|||
#Multiple requests at one time are allowed. |
|||
#Administrator candidates that are not given administrator privileges are ineligible to be nominated or to nominate themselves for at least a month. |
|||
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. |
|||
=== Stage 2: Voting === |
|||
#Users may support, be neutral toward, or oppose the nomination. Users must provide a reason behind their position. |
|||
#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. |
|||
#Everyone's vote counts as one vote. Admins do not hold extra power. |
|||
#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. <u>Strength of argument is more important than the number of votes.</u> |
|||
#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. |
|||
#A vote on an RfA shall last for 1 week. |
|||
#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) |
|||
To nominate a user, or to apply yourself, please [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship#Pending applications|go here]]. |
|||
== 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. |
|||
==Minimum requirements== |
|||
== What you may not do as an admin == |
|||
In order to apply for administratorship or be eligible for nomination, a user must: |
|||
*Use your administrator privileges to take advantage of users or to control the wiki. |
|||
* have [[The Sims Wiki:Rollback|Rollback]] rights; |
|||
*Ignore the needs and wants of wiki users. |
|||
* be able to communicate effectively in English, including the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling; |
|||
*Act as a poor representative of The Sims Wiki on other wikis, or participate in major cross-wiki drama. |
|||
* 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. |
|||
More info and a list of current admins can be found at [[Project:Administrators|Administrators]]. |
|||
== Positions available == |
|||
Additionally, some [[The Sims Wiki:special positions|special positions]] are available for administrators and members of the community. These are filled on the [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for special positions|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 [[The Sims Wiki:Special positions|this page]]. Willingness to take on special duties may make you more likely to be selected. |
|||
== Open requests == |
|||
<!-- EXAMPLE REQUEST (PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE) |
|||
=== [[User:Example|Example]] === |
|||
{{userlinks|Example}} |
|||
Reason for request/nomination here. ~~~~ |
|||
--> |
|||
== Closed requests == |
|||
===[[User:Hurshbr|Hurshbr]]=== |
|||
{{userlinks|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)[[User:Hurshbr|Hurshbr]] ([[User talk:Hurshbr|talk]]) 23:32, May 3, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr |
|||
====Consensus on Hurshbr==== |
|||
:''This period of consensus will last for one week. Time remaining: {{Countdown|time=23:32 May 10, 2013|zone=UTC}}.'' |
|||
---- |
|||
{{VoteAgainst}} - ''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! - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 00:25, May 4, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{VoteAgainst}} - '''Not Yet''' - per above {{WHsig|01:15, May 4, 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
::{{VoteAgainst}} - '''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. —[[User:Random Ranaun|<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Random Ranaun|<font color="#006400">Talk to me!</font>]])</sup> 01:27, May 4, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{VoteAgainst}}'''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. {{LabSig}} 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. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 15:38, May 7, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===[[User:HanaGoth96|HanaGoth96]]=== |
|||
{{userlinks|HanaGoth96}} |
|||
Hello, my name is [[User:HanaGoth96|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. [[User:HanaGoth96|<font color="violet">'''HanaGoth96'''</font>]] ([[User_talk:HanaGoth96|<small text>'''Neigh...?'''</small>]]) 18:01, May 2, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
====Consensus on HanaGoth96==== |
|||
:''This period of consensus will last for one week. '' |
|||
---- |
|||
'''Question''' - I'm curious - you were nominated for admin less than a week ago, but you chose to turn it down; why? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 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. [[User:HanaGoth96|<font color="violet">'''HanaGoth96'''</font>]] ([[User_talk:HanaGoth96|<small text>'''Neigh...?'''</small>]]) 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 [http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Wiki:Requests_for_bureaucratship?oldid=406713#Voting 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. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 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. [[User:HanaGoth96|<font color="violet">'''HanaGoth96'''</font>]] ([[User_talk:HanaGoth96|<small text>'''Neigh'''</small>]]) 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. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 04:18, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
{{VoteFor}}'''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. [[User:Cavia porcellus|<font face="candara" size="3"><span style="color:turquoise;">'''Cavia'''</span></font>]] <small>(<font face="candara">[[User_talk:Cavia porcellus|<span style="color:lime;">'''wheek'''</span>]] • </font> <font face="candara">[[User_blog:Cavia porcellus|<span style="color:pink;">'''speak'''</span>]]</font>)</small> 19:32, May 2, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Neutral}} '''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. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 12:44, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::{{VoteFor}} '''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.{{ColinSig|15:57, May 3, 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
:::{{VoteAgainst}}'''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. {{LabSig}} 17:56, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{VoteAgainst}}'''Weak Oppose''' - Per Lab. {{DanPinSig}} 18:23, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{VoteFor}}'''Support''' - I think Hana deserves rights. She has an good edit count and reverts vandalism wherever she can. [[User:RossInSA|RossInSA]] ([[User talk:RossInSA|talk]]) 18:28, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{VoteFor}} '''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. <font face="Courier (typeface)">[[User:AsherÉire|<font color="#74C365">Asher</font><font color="#FFA700">'''Éire'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:AsherÉire|'Sup?]]</small> </font> 19:52, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{VoteFor}} '''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. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 22:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::{{VoteAgainst}} '''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. —[[User:Random Ranaun|<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Random Ranaun|<font color="#006400">Talk to me!</font>]])</sup> 23:20, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{Neutral}}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. [[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]]) 23:51, May 3, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{VoteAgainst}} '''<s>Abstain</s> Oppose''' - <s>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. {{WHsig|01:23, May 4, 2013 (UTC)}}</s> |
|||
:::::::::After some thought I've decided to change to an oppose due to some of the points other people have brought up. Sorry. {{WHsig|05:46, May 9, 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
:::::{{VoteFor}} '''Support'''- Hana deserves adminship. I have seen her edits, and they are good, and she is helpful. [[User:Icecream18|にゃー！ --Icecream18]] ([[User talk:Icecream18|talk]]) 13:12, May 4, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{VoteAgainst}} '''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. --'''[[user:Bleeh|<font color="navy">Bleeh</font>]]'''<sup>[[User talk: Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(talk)</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[User blog:Bleeh|<font color="#489094">(blog)</font>]]</sup> 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. [[User:HanaGoth96|<font color="Violet">'''HanaGoth96'''</font>]] ([[User_talk:HanaGoth96|<small text>'''Neigh...?'''</small>]]) 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. <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*P:55, May 5, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::<s>{{VoteFor}}'''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! [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 23:33, May 8, 2013 (UTC)</s> |
|||
::::::::::::{{VoteFor}}My reasons for supporting her are as follows |
|||
::::::::::::*Higher wiki editing knowledge. |
|||
::::::::::::*Understandable, (almost 100%) correct English all the time. |
|||
::::::::::::*Having started to contribute on The Sims Wiki |
|||
::::::::::::*Plays the game |
|||
::::::::::::*Is able to expand articles to make them more useful for the community [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 22:24, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{VoteAgainst}}'''Weak Oppose - '''Sorry Hana, while you are a great editor, some of the stuff I've seen tells me you're not quite read to be an admin. Do this again in a month or 2, and you'll mostly likely be ready. <font face="comic sans MS"><span style="text-shadow:aqua 0px 2px 2px;color:#0000BC">[[User:GAHSIcepick|GAHSIcepick]] ([[User talk:GAHSIcepick|talk]])</span></font> 02:31, May 9, 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) |
|||
:I've seen an additional point raised, regarding whether activity and "caring" about the wiki should factor into the decision. I do not believe it is relevant because, simply put, we all care about the wiki. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be bothering to edit here. So to say that Hana (or any applicant) should receive rights just because they care seriously belittles all the other users who clearly also care about the wiki. |
|||
:On the subject of editing here... the matter of editor activity was raised, and I believe it is equally without merit. No applicant for an RfA would be seriously considered in the first place without showing they were active on the wiki, so this isn't a redeeming quality that could be assigned to Hana individually, or a reason to support her RfA. And to take the stance that many of the opposing votes to this RfA aren't active seems to seriously go against all the contributions that the opposing voters (as well as the supporters) really '''do''' make to the wiki. I for one do not appreciate having that sort of an accusation lobbed at me. |
|||
:We need to cut through the false arguments for or against this RfA and get to the heart of the matter - is HanaGoth96 capable of being a fair and effective administrator. I do not believe that she is ready to be an administrator, and there are ''many'' incidents that show that she would not be trustworthy in a leadership position at the present time. That is why I voted in opposition. Unless supporters can come up with an explanation of why my assertion is incorrect, I cannot take their votes of support to mean anything other than personal support for the candidate, not for their ability to do the job, which is ultimately what the RfA is meant to be about. - '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 01:25, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree fully. In fact because the argument claiming that most of the admins on this nomination aren't active editors and don't "genuinely care about the wiki" is generally rude and demeaning not just to other administrators but also, as LiR clearly stated, every other user who "cares" about the wiki, which by extension is almost everybody here (not to mention the argument says nothing about the nominee's suitability as an administrator), I've striked it out and thus is null and void. |
|||
::Auror, I get the impression you don't understand that administratorship isn't entirely about raw editcount as there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff too, such as but not limited to maintenance, templates, community involvement, all of which are as beneficial to the wiki as any good faith edit, and to be reading an argument like this '''from an administrator''' is honestly quite shocking. Also, you might be interested to know that [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|most]] [[Special:Contributions/Lost_Labyrinth|of]] [[Special:Contributions/Dharden|the]] [[Special:Contributions/Waikikamukow|admins]] voting have edited more in ''a week'' than [[Special:Contributions/Auror Andrachome|you have in ''a month'']], so even if your statement wasn't deemed as offensive, it's still not only hypocritical but also false and an invalid argument. |
|||
::I'm not expecting my decision to go without controversy and if anybody does wish to complain then come on by to IRC and we can discuss this thoroughly and amicably. I'm now going to distance myself from this RfA to avoid any conflicts of interest with regards to my opposition vote. I do hope that in the future, those supporting an RfA will put more emphasis on the candidate's suitability for the role rather than personal ties, which, as LiR once again stated, appears to be most (though not all) of the support votes (oh and before somebody throws this at me, Auror's vote was striked due to the bad faith assertion of her argument with regards to other users, if I was camping on support votes then I would have striked the "she deserves this" votes too). {{LabSig}} 11:42, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''Postscript:''' I've reversed my aformentioned decision for the sake of neutrality. I'll echo the fact that I'm not happy with the argument/underlying comment made in that particular vote; I'm doing this to defuse any potential accusations of bias on my part. {{LabSig}} 18:22, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::'''Firstly''', my post was solely to show my support for [[User:HanaGoth96|HanaGoth96]]. Suggesting anything else, such as throwing out accusations or belittling others was not meant to be done, but seeing the post-passage written by you two, I don't feel too sorry for having typed it. Perhaps there is an undertone I'm not aware of that should be brought up elsewhere? My partition about "activity" was meant for myself as well, so don't get so rash. I brought up my points because that is where Hana stood out most and I was simply commenting on them. If you saw something else, then that's a fault on your part. Lab, I know full well what administratorship is and isn't. If you hadn't already been aware, I've been blocked four times, yet still an admin today. If you feel I don't deserve it, then the admins can discuss about revoking my rights while I stand in as admin pro tempore. |
|||
::::On another note, it seems I've forgotten when the definition for "majority" seems to have changed. Providing four active admins doesn't make the whole team active. The whole "hypocrite" argument is also dead as I've already mentioned that I included myself with the "inactive admin" clip. And really, striking my vote because of what I retorted is bad faith? Yeah, I'm throwing an accusation of bias at you, good sir. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 22:18, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This is the last thing I'm saying on this matter, so read carefully because I'm not going to repeat it. |
|||
:::::While you obviously came here to make a support vote, a comment you made was clearly taken negatively. If it wasn't your intention to undermine other users based on activity or "caring" about the wiki then fair enough but maybe you should learn from this and maybe try to word your argument a bit better. As for the "hypocrite" thing, you didn't initially bring yourself under that argument as you suggested, only after I gave examples of administrators voting on this RfA. I only placed you as a subject of your argument in a manner of questioning your argument and the integrity of it, nothing more. You clearly don't sound like you're taking this seriously enough after claiming you're not "too sorry for having typed it" ("it" referring to your activity/caring accusation), which can honestly be taken as bad faith given that it was already made clear that your statement/accusation was taken offensively and it seems you've gone and thrown another baseless accusation of bias at me, despite already stating I wasn't acting biased with regards to the RfA and despite overturning my decision to preserve neutrality. I can understand if you're annoyed right now but you entered this situation on your own and you acted by your own accord. I'm extremely disappointed with how you've acted through all of this, because I know you know better but it seems you don't want to show it. |
|||
:::::I've now answered every possible question about this and debunked every argument that anybody could possibly come up with. I'm done with this subject in its entirety and I don't want to see any more commentary on this. {{LabSig}} 22:51, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==== Conclusion ==== |
|||
The time to vote has expired. There is no conclusion yet. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:08, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Ultimately, there are a couple issues which make it difficult to determine the outcome of this vote. [[User:Lost Labyrinth|Lost Labyrinth]] struck out a vote in support of the RfA, but it needs to be determined whether this is something that should've been done. The outcome of that decision may have an impact on the vote totals, which currently are 7 Support, 7 Oppose, 2 neutral. If the struck-out support were returned, the outcome would be 8 - 7 - 2. This is irrespective of any arguments about strength of votes, which if upheld would chop multiple votes out of (possibly) both columns. |
|||
==Procedure for Applications== |
|||
I do not believe I personally am suited to make this decision. I would like a neutral bureaucrat to rule this RfA either approved or denied, and to help determine whether the vote struck out should be kept or thrown out. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:12, May 9, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
The following steps should be followed by applicants and nominees. |
|||
:I guess this will be first role as the Ombudsman, so I may as well ''try'' to be neutral. |
|||
===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 at [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship#Pending applications]]. |
|||
* If the nominee accepts the nomination, they should also choose two Administrative projects when stating their acceptance. |
|||
* 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/<name of nominee>') and begin the discussion there. |
|||
===Stage 2 - Discussion=== |
|||
:HanaGoth96 joined almost 4 months ago. In that time, she has managed to rack up about 2000 edits. This is a very large number indeed, especially for someone who's been on the wiki for only about a third of a year. She's managed to make as many edits in this amount of time as I, for one, have in about a year. Hana has worked to combat vandalism throughout her time here, though she may not have done it in an agreeable way. Some users say that she has an excellent edit history, others say that it isn't all that excellent. |
|||
* 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 has been reached. Consensus can only be reached in favor of a nominee, not in opposition to them. If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion clearly shows a lack of consensus, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted. |
|||
* In cases where a consensus is not clear after the initial discussion period, 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 clear consensus exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. |
|||
**If this occurs and a consensus in support is not clear, the nomination will proceed to Stage 3. |
|||
* 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 proceed to Stage 3. |
|||
===Stage 3 - Voting=== |
|||
:She definitely shows the potential of being a great and profficient editor. She has already demonstrated this. I voted for her. But now, reading over the votes from a neutral standpoint, I come to see that some of the other users have a point. I agree with Lab in saying that nobody truly deserves these rights: it is a tool that is earned and given to a select few who others believe will use it wisely. I myself noted that I thought Hana was deserving of sysop rights, but I now see that I was faulty in saying that she deserved it; maybe it would have been better to say that she has earned them. |
|||
* Voting is to be used as a last resort to resolve a contested request. Voting shall take place only after Stages 1 and 2 are observed properly. |
|||
* Votes may not be accompanied by any argument for or against the nominee - they must be strictly ''support'' or ''oppose'' votes. There shall be no neutral votes, but users may abstain from voting. |
|||
* The voting period shall last seven days. A 2/3rds majority in support is required for a nomination to pass. |
|||
* A nominee may choose to terminate their nomination within two days of a nomination reaching this stage; the nominee will receive no penalty for doing so. After that period, normal penalties apply. |
|||
==Other rules== |
|||
:Hana has had a history of being hot-headed when it comes to reverting vandalism, and she has admitted to this herself. On one note, she is a human, as Ash pointed out, and she is learning from her mistakes as anyone would do. She has engaged herself in edit wars, but she has done what she thinks is right. Looking back at this I agree with others in their opinion that she is not ready yet. |
|||
* 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== |
|||
:Hana has proven that she is capable. But after looking at this over again, I think that in time she will earn them. Therefore, I think that she will earn them after a while. I hope to create no ill-will. My intention is to keep the peace amongst other users, and I think this is really a stressing situation. |
|||
* 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. |
|||
==Pending applications== |
|||
:In conclusion, I think Hana is not yet ready to earn these rights, though I will likely support her in a future nomination. {{PGRSig}} 01:20, May 10, 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Please use this space to apply for administrative rights, or to nominate another user for those rights. Please ensure that you/the nominee meet [[The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship#Minimum requirements|minimum requirements]] and are eligible. |
|||
::Okay I have been steering clear of this discussion like a minefield but I feel that I'm likely the best person to make an educated and neutral decision on this since I haven't heard mch from either side other than what has been written here, so here goes. |
|||
::Firstly, I'm going to say this - Hana is definitely a good editor. But does being a good editor mean one deserves the tools? In my opinion no, I'd much rather have the tools operated by a long term trusted user with a history of stability. I'm going to quote something Pidge said in the post above: ''Hana has had a history of being hot-headed when it comes to reverting vandalism, and she has admitted to this herself.'' While reverting vandalism is indeed a desirable trait in an editor, wiki admins are expected to remain calm, especially in the face of trolls (don't feed the trolls). I understand she's only human but I would expect a certain standard from a wiki admin. |
|||
::Second I have the concept of "deserved v. a tool given". I'll ake this clear as crystal, '''rights are given to trusted users, they aren't an award'''. Sure, I can see the mistake some people may make but its like saying "Good job on your math test Billy you're the principal now". It doesn't work like that. |
|||
::Thirdly, and I'm getting to the end now, is we need to define consensus. Generally consensus is around two-thirds support, but also strength of argument is an important factor as well. The votes are currently 8 support, 7 oppose and 2 neutral. For this I'm going to ignore neutral votes. We have 53% support here. While this is indeed over half, its not really consensus. One thing I have also noticed is that the majority of the support votes generally have weaker arguments for them, generally "she deserves it". While not everyone said this it is a general trend. The oppose votes, meanwhile, are much more well thought out and have stronger arguments. |
|||
::With all this in mind, there is more reasons against Hana recieving adminship than there is for. Therefore, I'm going to be '''declining''' this request. I'm also going to be closing this discussion as I can see it escalating into a petty squabble that will get nowhere. Thank you everyone for voting. {{WHsig|06:13, May 10, 2013 (UTC)}} |
|||
Revision as of 01:28, 17 June 2013
| User Rights | Rollback (Requests) |
Moderator (Requests) |
Administrator (Requests) |
Bureaucrat (Requests) |
IRC Channel Operators (Requests) |
| ||
|
|
| Sysop |  Open to requests.
|
|---|
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.
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 at The Sims Wiki:Requests for administratorship#Pending applications.
- If the nominee accepts the nomination, they should also choose two Administrative projects when stating their acceptance.
- 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/<name of nominee>') and begin the discussion there.
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 has been reached. Consensus can only be reached in favor of a nominee, not in opposition to them. If the discussion shows consensus for a nominee, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted. If the discussion clearly shows a lack of consensus, the nomination will be ended and the nominee will not be promoted.
- In cases where a consensus is not clear after the initial discussion period, 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 clear consensus exists, the nomination is successful and the user is promoted.
- If this occurs and a consensus in support is not clear, the nomination will proceed to Stage 3.
- 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 proceed to Stage 3.
Stage 3 - Voting
- Voting is to be used as a last resort to resolve a contested request. Voting shall take place only after Stages 1 and 2 are observed properly.
- Votes may not be accompanied by any argument for or against the nominee - they must be strictly support or oppose votes. There shall be no neutral votes, but users may abstain from voting.
- The voting period shall last seven days. A 2/3rds majority in support is required for a nomination to pass.
- A nominee may choose to terminate their nomination within two days of a nomination reaching this stage; the nominee will receive no penalty for doing so. After that period, normal penalties apply.
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.
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.