SmashWiki:Requests for adminship

This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

This is the page for requesting adminship for SmashWiki.

Rules and regulations

• Only self-nominations are allowed. If you think that another user would make a good administrator, then you can try convincing them to nominate themselves. You cannot make a nomination on behalf of another user.
• Candidates should describe why the wiki should want them to be administrators, not why they want to be administrators on the wiki. Users who wish to be promoted should demonstrate a steady commitment to this wiki, and be able to point to reasons that the sysop tools would allow them to better contribute to the wiki beyond banal janitorial work.
• After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived.
• Selections of administrators are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Indeed, a bureaucrat may decide against the "popular vote" if they believe the opposing side has provided more convincing arguments, or that the candidate has failed to satisfactorily respond to questions about their merits, and RfAs have been failed in the past that technically had a majority of the "votes" being supportive.
• When supporting or opposing a candidate, provide good and well-written reasons as to why you support or oppose the candidate. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become an administrator carry far more weight than a simple support/oppose. Additionally, attaching intensifiers to your support/oppose (e.g. saying you strongly support the candidate) will not make your "vote" carry any more weight.
• The candidate, or any other user, are allowed to respond to any other user's "vote", and are encouraged to, if a user has stated something factually incorrect in their reasoning or has otherwise said anything else refutable. Such replies should be written in the comments section, rather than directly replying to the user's "vote", so that the "voting" sections can be kept clean. Additionally, while the candidate and other users are encouraged to refute another user's reasoning when applicable, it should be within reason; a candidate or staunch supporter who tries shoddily refuting everyone that opposes will likely just worsen their case and bolster the opposition.
• Rollback status is not required for a successful RfA, and a candidate having rollback will not make their case for adminship any stronger. Users who do not have rollback and only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the appropriate request.
• Established status is also not required for a successful RfA, but users who haven't been around long enough or haven't contributed enough to be established will likely have little support unless they have quickly proven themselves extraordinary.
  • Autoconfirmed status, however, is required, and a user will not even be able to create an RfA if they are not autoconfirmed.
• Upon request, a prospective administrator may be given a scenario and asked his/her opinion on how s/he would handle it.
• Users that have been blocked in the past, or who have previously made an RfA and failed, are no less eligible for adminship. However, such users should be able to demonstrate how they have improved since the block/previous RfA, lest their RfA find serious opposition.
• Former administrators that have been formally demoted by a RfD are similarly no less eligible for adminship, but will certainly face stalwart opposition to their RfA if they are unable to demonstrate serious reformation since their demotion. Former administrators that were demoted for inactivity or formally retiring but wish to regain sysop powers are also eligible for adminship, but may be able to skip the RfA process entirely if the current active administration feels they are still clearly well-suited for the role.

Past nominations

• For a list of all previous requests for adminship that ended with the candidate's promotion, please see this category.
• For a list of all previous requests for adminship wherein the candidate was not promoted, please see this category.

How to nominate

If you have not had a request for adminship page before, follow this two-step process.

1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
   {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username}} Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated.
2. Click on the created red link, and add:
   {{subst:rfa|Username|Comment explaining your nomination. ~~~~}}

However, if you have had a previous request for adminship, follow this process instead.

1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
   {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username (#)}}
   Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated, and where # is 2 for the second RfA, 3 for the third, and so on.
2. Click on the created red link, and add:
   {{subst:rfa|Username|Comment explaining your nomination. ~~~~}}

Current requests

none