FANDOM


NominationEdit

JasonThePlum

I, Beds, would like to nominate JasonThePlum (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) for administratorship on The Sims Wiki. Jason has been with us for time now, adding vast amounts of information to our articles, reverting quite a bit of vandalism and helping his fellow users. Not only that, but Jason has shown an interest in different parts of the wiki, for example he has taken an interest in JavaScript and CSS. Overall, I feel that JasonThePlum is ready for administratorship on The Sims Wiki and feel that he could put the extra tools to good use. Beds (parlare - da leggere) 18:28, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I really wasn't expecting this, but I would like to Accept this nomination. There isn't much to say apart from thanks a complete bunch. This means a lot to me. Jason (Talk) {{{1}}} 15:37, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

This discussion shall continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion.

Jason's done a fine job in his time on the wiki. He's added a lot of information to our articles in the main namespace. He has also been active in several community discussions and has been helpful to other users. All this leads me to conclude that Jason would do well with these tools and should be made an administrator. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 17:37, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

I think Jason would make an excellent administrator. Though his edit count might be a bit low, I rank quality over quantity at any time. Jason definitely shows promise, has done well with his rollback rights and has always been a kind, helpful, and friendly member and a great addition to the Sims Wiki community. I think Jason is fully ready to embrace these rights, and I think he will do nothing but good when using them. Good luck, Jason! SalazzlePGR7 (parler - entendre) 14:24, September 27, 2013 (UTC)


After five days, a consensus among the community does not yet appear to exist. In accordance with the rules, discussion will continue until there is a two-day long period, or longer, in which nothing is added to the discussion. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 20:00, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with those above me. His edit count shouldn't be too much to worry about - quality over quantity. Jason's edits are thoughtful and structured, showing experience. He's active in community discussions, shaping the future of the wiki and helping decide things on a number of levels. Jason has also seemed to be friendly and helpful to other users. From what I've seen, I think he would be a wonderful administrator and the tools he would receive would improve his abilities on the wiki! ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 01:15, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

ConclusionEdit

We are at end of the discussion phase, as determined by the RfA procedure. At this point, there are four users (including the nominating user) that are in favor of JasonThePlum's promotion. It is difficult to confirm that there is a clear consensus in favor of this promotion due to the low number of people participating. Accordingly, I have consulted another bureaucrat and a former administrator and sought their opinion on resolving this matter. Both users, and I, agree that no one is in opposition to the nominee, and if they are, they haven't commented here. There has been ample time for users to weigh in either in support or opposition. We also agree that it is unlikely that a vote will yield a different result other than the one we already have. Therefore, the conclusion I have reached here is that JasonThePlum has achieved consensus, and should be promoted to administrator.

Since I supported the nominee, I will request that another bureaucrat confirms my findings here, before JasonThePlum is promoted. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 19:31, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty there isn't that any users compared to this time last year and it seems to me as if most of them have approved it, and really what Dharden said here seems to be the case. In my opinion if someone had an issue here they would have voiced it in the ample time they have had. For what its worth I too support this request, and I see little point of going to a vote because it would likely end the same way, and I have full confidence that a vote would lead to a positive consensus. Therefore, I'm going to be approving this request. ђ talk 01:04, October 5, 2013 (UTC)