As of 12/21, the former Encyclopedia Gamia has been redirected to this wiki, which is now the definitive wiki for this topic. To see more about this change, read more here.
Codex Gamicus:Requests for adminship
|Basic Editing | Cleanup | Referencing |
Images & Media | Localization
|User Page Help|
|Resolving disputes - Deletion - Talk pages |
|Codex Gamicus community|
|Community Portal - Userboxes - Admins |
Admin nominations - Discussion Forums
|Codex Gamicus Guidelines|
|Introduction | About | Site direction|
|Codex Gamicus Policies|
|Image Policy - Video game articles |
Editors may use this page to nominate other editors or themselves for adminship.
Things to consider before nominating
Before nominating an editor, you should think about the following:
- Does this editor want to become an administrator?
- What would this editor do as an administrator?
- Has this editor been a member for long, and are they familiar with policies?
- Has this editor made significant contributions?
- How well does this editor handle conflicts?
- Has this editor been banned or blocked, or caused trouble before?
- Does this editor get involved in community discussions, such as the ones at the forums?
Generally, it is good etiquette to ask an editor before nominating them for adminship, since it lets them know that they may be nominated, and allows them to decline the offer - there are editors who do not want to be administrators, for a variety of reasons.
Before nominating yourself, you should think about the following as well as the above:
- Plenty of useful work can be done without using the administrator tools. Why would this role be of benefit to the work you undertake here?
- Why do you want to become an administrator? Adminship is not a status symbol, but just an extra set of tools (or relaxation of certain restrictions) that allow certain types of work to be more easily performed.
- Would it be better wait for someone else to nominate you?
If you are nominating someone for a second time, you must wait a minimum of six months, and feedback must be presented over how much that user has changed in that time.
To be nominated, an editor must have an account and must not currently be banned. Other than that, there is no minimum requirement, although editors are advised to consider the items in the above section before nominating themselves or others.
Pass RfA requirements
In order for a user to pass an RfA, they have to get 51% or more of supports, the admins will count the number of votes to ensure that the user gets that amount or percentage of that support; A bureaucrat will close the RfA once the amount of support required is acquired. If that percent is not acquired, the user will fail the RfA and it will be immediately archived.
Required voting time
The initial voting time will be seven days; this means that the user has one week to get the required support. If no one votes within that time, or if the tally is effectively a draw, voting time will be extended by three days. If the situation remains unresolved, the existing Admin team will make the final decision no later than two weeks after the initial date the nomination was posted.
Create a page using the below inputbox. After that, other editors will comment on whether they believe the editor should be an administrator or not. Editors may also ask the candidate questions. There is no exact time for how long a request will be open, but it should be about two to three weeks. By that time, a bureaucrat will review the nomination and determine based on the discussion if the user will be given administrator access. If it is obvious that an editor does not have the community's approval to become an administrator, the discussion may be closed earlier or by an administrator.
The decision is not simply based on the number of votes, though a good rule of thumb is that candidates should typically have much higher than 50% support. Rather, the result is mostly determined based on the reasoning provided by editors when they support or oppose a nomination, and any comments with a strong rationale thus receive more weight than simple "Support"/"Oppose" comments. Other than that, any editor with an account in good standing may comment on any nomination. Users may also leave a "Neutral" comment.
Bureaucrats should leave comments toward the end of the RfA voting period to enable other users to have a say that displays more prominently.
Nominate a candidate
Replace "Name" with the name of the candidate. If the candidate has been nominated before, replace "1" with the number of the current nomination.
Remove the arrows and the instructions inside them, replacing them with what the instructions say.
You might need to refresh this page to see new requests or remove old requests.
Do not manually add requests to this list. Please use the above inputbox.
To add your vote, please click on the user's page to go to their nomination.
Extension:DynamicPageList (DPL), version 3.3.2: Warning: No results.
Admins or Bureaucrats can close RfAs and RfBs and put them here.
Administrators/Bureaucrats that are inactive for 3+ months will be demoted. After demotion, if that user has been inactive for less than three months before asking for reinstatement, promotion is permitted to occur with no questions asked, though it is generally considered good practice to only do so only if the user plans to be meaningfully active. After this time, any previous Admins who wish to apply to have their role reinstated will have to do an RfA again. However, exceptions exist, and all decisions are ultimately on a case-by-case basis. To request reinstatement, contact a Bureaucrat that can be seen here so they can decide whether reinstatement will occur for that certain user and under what terms.
Demotion for misuse
Demotions for misuse/abuse of these tools will be decided by the community; whether-or-not the user gets blocked will be a discussion consensus by the current Admin team. For example, if someone was to block and/or ban a user from the wiki for no reason, that user can be demoted by a request that can be made at the forums and then be decided by the community, however, if an administrator and/or bureaucrat vandalizes the wiki, that may be be instant demotion and block without a community consensus. Bear in mind that these are tools and not something that should be played around with in this manner; these tools can harm the wiki if misused. Please read this before you nominate someone so you are sure that they will not misuse these tools.