From StrategyWiki, the free strategy guide and walkthrough wiki

Current administrators ·

Successful requests ·

Unsuccessful requests

Requests for promotion (RfP) is the process by which the StrategyWiki community decides who become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the the few enforced policies and understand the nature of vandalism before submitting your request.

[edit] About RfA

The community will grant administrator status only to trusted users who understand policy. Therefore, nominees should have been on StrategyWiki long enough for people to determine whether they're trustable and knowledgeable about policy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of StrategyWiki.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The only major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator is evidence of how the user will use administrator tools. Since users can't use the tools before they receive this status, their actions made towards performing administrative functions even without the tools to expediate it are looked upon.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to talk to a current admin first. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus, but a request for adminship is not a ballot.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination.

Expressing opinions

Any StrategyWikian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections, except for the candidate (who may respond to the comments of others). Always be respectful towards others in your comments.

[edit] Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page.

[edit] Current nominations for adminship

Click on the candidate's bolded name just below this to reach the actual RfA.

[edit] Arrow

User Description

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve StrategyWiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?

A: Primarily keeping the guides clean of vandalism and random giant deletes, since that's what I primarily do with my current two guides.

2. Of your articles or contributions to StrategyWiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Obviously the Battlestations Midway guide, as well as the currently incomplete Command and Conquer 3 guide, which is undertaking sweeping changes. Battlestations Midway I'm particularly proud of because it was my first guide ever, and was made a featured guide.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: No real conflicts thus far, aside from the "MrSue nightmare" (as Notmyhandle put it) in the Command and Conquer 3 guide.

General comments

I have quite a bit of mod experience on forums, first with a community board, then most notably for an entire year on a Pokemon RPG. Hopefully that will count for something. =P

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

• I like Arrow, he's a strongly positive member of the community and a top notch contributor (and he's pro at cleanup). But, we have to look at the necessity of the situation as I believe the only reason he requires increased privileges is to better combat the crap dumped by euSrM on the guides Arrow is interested in. If he wants to expand his efforts, then awesome, but I think that's the main thing we are looking at as Arrow's contributions tend to stick solely to his interests. However, it looks as if he's conscious of his potential role as a sysop, and I'm not worried that he won't be of great help. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

If I may, I generally only buy games I'm interested in, so wouldn't it make sense that I only nitpick the games that I really like? I'd like to think I'm great at English, so I can proofread stuff; it's really a matter of me finding stuff to proofread, though. Like, what needs proofreading and what doesn't, and I'm often too busy cleaning up the C&C3 guide to peer at the other guides...though that can be changed. --Arrow Windwhistler (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

P.S: If I'm not allowed to say anything here, just revert me please.

I meant to say that your concern with site-wide maintenance has not been apparent to me, that's all (I understand that we all have our separate interests/gaming experiences). For instance one of the things you might want to get used to is patrolling edits. Like when you created Battle for Midway I don't think I really ever helped, yet I was watching most of the edits to see what you were doing (checking for errors/ways to improve it). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

• I'm supporting Arrow for most of the reasons Notmyhandle mentioned, for being a fellow member of the "featured guide gang", and predominantly for being around a lot which is important. Procyon (Talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

• Seems to have a good understanding our policies and willing to learn. -- Prod (Talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (CDT)

• He comes onto IRC about as much as I do, which is definitely a good thing. As for patrolling, most people don't even know that the feature even exists until they become sysops, although I hope that Arrow will help a few of us out in going through rc and looking over unpatrolled edits... it isn't fun when I have to spend an hour on a backlog of 100+ edits :( --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 August 2008 (CDT)

• Arrow has produced such excellent work... I find it hard not to support him :)

Support

1. Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
2. Procyon (Talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
3. Prod (Talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (CDT)
4. Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 09:26, 1 August 2008 (CDT)
5. DukeRuckley^{Talk | Contribs} 20:35, 1 August 2008 (CDT)

Oppose

1. I dont trust him and he refuse to create his userpage(76.247.222.101 10:59, 3 August 2008 (CDT)) Only registered users are allowed to voice their opinion, as per the policy (see the "expressing opinions" section). --Skizzerz (talk · contribs) 11:25, 3 August 2008 (CDT)

Neutral

[edit] About RfB

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also set bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, generally requiring a clearer consensus. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

To nominate a user for Bureaucratship, simply create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA (using the template here, then add a link in the section below. New bureaucrats are recorded at StrategyWiki:Requests for promotion/Successful. Failed nominations are at StrategyWiki:Requests for promotion/Unsuccessful.

[edit] Current nominations for bureaucratship

[edit] Related requests

• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at StrategyWiki:Bots/Requests for approval.