Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators/Nomination Rules - Revision history

imported>Vatsa1708 at 16:44, 4 April 2012

2012-04-04T16:44:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:44, 4 April 2012
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Through the RfA process, participants should be focused on the nominee's deeds, not on personal bias or other administrators. For example, these users are discussing the nominee, "User:FailChef".		Through the RfA process, participants should be focused on the nominee's deeds, not on personal bias or other administrators. For example, these users are discussing the nominee, "User:FailChef".

	~~{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"~~		<blockquote>
	\|'''Support''' - I support User:FailChef because he's my friend! --FailChefFan 08:18, April 4, 2012 (UTC)		'''Support''' - I support User:FailChef because he's my friend! --FailChefFan 08:18, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
	\|}		</blockquote>

	Here, this is based on personal bias. This is not allowed as adminship nominees should be assessed impartially based on their actions on the wiki.		Here, this is based on personal bias. This is not allowed as adminship nominees should be assessed impartially based on their actions on the wiki.

	~~{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"~~		<blockquote>
	\|'''Oppose''' - I don't want User:FailChef to become an admin because I hate him! FailChefHater 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)		'''Oppose''' - I don't want User:FailChef to become an admin because I hate him! FailChefHater 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
	\|}		</blockquote>

	This is also bias and is not allowed.		This is also bias and is not allowed.

imported>Vatsa1708: moved Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators/Nomination to Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators/Nomination Rules

2012-04-04T16:43:27Z

moved Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators/Nomination to Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators/Nomination Rules

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:43, 4 April 2012
(No difference)

imported>Vatsa1708 at 15:19, 4 April 2012

2012-04-04T15:19:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 4 April 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<div style="border:2px solid #~~021671~~; padding:.5em 1em 1em 1em; background-color:#~~999~~; color:#~~000~~">		<div style="border:2px solid #000000; padding:.5em 1em 1em 1em; background-color:#666666; color:#ffffff">
	A '''~~request~~ for adminship''' ('''RfA''') ~~is the~~ process by which users of the Assassin's Creed Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.		[[File:AdminBadgeInsig.png\|right\|90px]]
			'''Request for adminship''' ('''RfA'''), a process by which users of the Assassin's Creed Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.

	==Overview==		==Overview==

imported>'R BlaiddDdraig: Stuff

2012-04-04T09:25:34Z

Stuff

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 4 April 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==Overview==		==Overview==
	RfA is the means by which the community develops consensus on whether an editor should be given [[Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators\|administrator]] rights, such as the abilities to delete and protect pages, ~~edit protected pages, and~~ block users.		RfA is the means by which the community develops consensus on whether an editor should be given [[Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators\|administrator]] rights, such as the abilities to delete and protect pages, or block users.

	The community generally grants administrative rights to trusted users, so nominees have a higher chance of passing a request after having edited on the wiki for a significant amount of time.		The community generally grants administrative rights to trusted users, so nominees have a higher chance of passing a request after having edited on the wiki for a significant amount of time.
Line 14:		Line 14:

	;Nomination standards		;Nomination standards
	:Any registered user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another registered user ~~(again - no I.P. addresses)~~ for administrative rights, or a user may be self-nominated. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to undergo a request if they wish to avoid self-nomination. Adminship is usually only granted if the user demonstrates a need for the tools.		:Any registered user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another registered user for administrative rights, or a user may be self-nominated. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to undergo a request if they wish to avoid self-nomination. Adminship is usually only granted if the user demonstrates a need for the tools.

	;Expressing opinions		;Expressing opinions
	:Any user with an account is welcome to comment on requests. Comments should assess not only the use or need a candidate has demonstrated for the tools with which they would be provided, but they should also reflect upon his or her leadership ability ~~and~~ and skill at diplomacy - necessary qualities for an administrator. '''Remember to keep the wiki's best interest in mind when assessing a possible candidate.'''		:Any user with an account is welcome to comment on requests. Comments should assess not only the use or need a candidate has demonstrated for the tools with which they would be provided, but they should also reflect upon his or her leadership ability and skill at diplomacy - necessary qualities for an administrator. '''Remember to keep the wiki's best interest in mind when assessing a possible candidate.'''

	Comments are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm. Support or opposition should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has had a disagreement with you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason.		Comments are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm. Support or opposition should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has had a disagreement with you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason.
Line 23:		Line 23:
	==Nomination process==		==Nomination process==
	===Before nomination===		===Before nomination===
	Either you or another editor may nominate you to be an administrator. Any user can become an administrator, and any user can nominate a candidate. However, keep in mind that nominees who have not been on this Wiki for very long are not necessarily well regarded, as they are less likely to perform effectively as administrators and they are not widely known by RfA participants. It is considered good practice to approach the nominee first to find out whether they would accept the nomination.		Either you or another editor may nominate you to be an administrator. Any user can become an administrator, and any user can nominate a candidate. However, keep in mind that nominees who have not been on this Wiki for very long are not necessarily well regarded, as they are less likely to perform effectively as administrators and they are not widely known by RfA participants. It is considered good practice to approach the nominee first to find out whether they would accept the nomination.

	===During the nomination===		===During the nomination===
	A request remains open for <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days, ~~begining~~ from when the nomination is posted. Contributors will make comments when they wish and the Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days it is open can harm the chances of success. While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator. Poor behaviour by an RfA candidate will generally have negative consequences.		A request remains open for <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days, beginning from when the nomination is posted. Contributors will make comments when they wish and the Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days it is open can harm the chances of success. While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator. Poor behaviour by an RfA candidate will generally have negative consequences.

	====Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions====		====Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions====

imported>Vatsa1708: Staff are allowed to reword/revamp..

2012-04-04T09:07:46Z

Staff are allowed to reword/revamp..

Páàjì titun

<div style="border:2px solid #021671; padding:.5em 1em 1em 1em; background-color:#999; color:#000">
A '''request for adminship''' ('''RfA''') is the process by which users of the Assassin's Creed Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.

==Overview==
RfA is the means by which the community develops consensus on whether an editor should be given [[Assassin's Creed Wiki:Administrators|administrator]] rights, such as the abilities to delete and protect pages, edit protected pages, and block users.

The community generally grants administrative rights to trusted users, so nominees have a higher chance of passing a request after having edited on the wiki for a significant amount of time.

===Requirements for nomination===
*Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
*Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a significant amount of time without long gaps in editing.
*Candidates should present a clear need or use for the tools (i.e. significant amounts of counter-vandalism, etc.).
*If an RfA fails, a sufficient amount of time should pass before the candidate is nominated again.

;Nomination standards
:Any registered user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another registered user (again - no I.P. addresses) for administrative rights, or a user may be self-nominated. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to undergo a request if they wish to avoid self-nomination. Adminship is usually only granted if the user demonstrates a need for the tools.

;Expressing opinions
:Any user with an account is welcome to comment on requests. Comments should assess not only the use or need a candidate has demonstrated for the tools with which they would be provided, but they should also reflect upon his or her leadership ability and and skill at diplomacy - necessary qualities for an administrator. '''Remember to keep the wiki's best interest in mind when assessing a possible candidate.'''

Comments are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm. Support or opposition should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has had a disagreement with you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason.

==Nomination process==
===Before nomination===
Either you or another editor may nominate you to be an administrator. Any user can become an administrator, and any user can nominate a candidate. However, keep in mind that nominees who have not been on this Wiki for very long are not necessarily well regarded, as they are less likely to perform effectively as administrators and they are not widely known by RfA participants. It is considered good practice to approach the nominee first to find out whether they would accept the nomination.

===During the nomination===
A request remains open for <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days, begining from when the nomination is posted. Contributors will make comments when they wish and the Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the <nowiki>_______</nowiki> days it is open can harm the chances of success. While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator. Poor behaviour by an RfA candidate will generally have negative consequences.

====Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions====

Through the RfA process, participants should be focused on the nominee's deeds, not on personal bias or other administrators. For example, these users are discussing the nominee, "User:FailChef".

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"
|'''Support''' - I support User:FailChef because he's my friend! --FailChefFan 08:18, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
|}

Here, this is based on personal bias. This is not allowed as adminship nominees should be assessed impartially based on their actions on the wiki.

{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%;"
|'''Oppose''' - I don't want User:FailChef to become an admin because I hate him! FailChefHater 13:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
|}

This is also bias and is not allowed.