Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/CalculatinAvatar

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

CalculatinAvatar

Back to RFA.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/CalculatinAvatar|action=edit}} Vote here (6/0/1) ending 07:35 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CalculatinAvatar (talk • contribs) – I have been consistently impressed with CalculatinAvatar since he first joined us four months ago. He has displayed meticulous attention to detail, a strong commitment to accuracy, and his comments in the talk namespaces are always clear and well considered. Although his edit count is small, his contributions have been of consistently high value. I believe that as an administrator, he would be an even stronger asset to the project. --April Arcus 21:25, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --CalculatinAvatar 01:30, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Support

April Arcus 21:25, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Mercifull 09:33, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - Quality editing by a user who I dont think has fallen out with anyone at all.
Steelviper 11:42, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - An exemplary Battlewikian. Not afraid to dive in and do some of the dirty work (any help over in the TOS and 1980 sections are greatly appreciated). Outside of an odd case of confusing violent agreement with Merv I can't think of any disturbances that CalculatinAvatar has been involved in. I'm sure he'll handle the mop with care and skill, and I had considered nominating him myself. I suppose it would be selfish to tank an RFA for the sole purpose of having someone succeed on "your" nomination... so I must support.
Spencerian 12:42, 1 May 2006 (CDT) I'm sure that Day would like to stop mopping; we need a fresh Mop Boy, and CA has shown the right muster. Hope your arms are ready; the place has a bigger floor now...
Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:57, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - After a long sleep to think about it, I support the Rfa.
Mazzy 13:35, 7 May 2006 (CDT) In favor. He helped me with something I didn't know how to fix. If thats the way he works then he is an asset. Admittedly my only knowledge. But it made a good impression.

Oppose

Neutral

The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:58, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Comments

Well, I'm really confused on this one: I like CA, and he's pretty good at stuff, but, hmm, well what I'm asking is; you've done good work making pages fit with out standards, and spelling and grammer, but what things do you feel you've done that showed your discretion and/or ability to contribute quality stuff? What are several major debates which you feel you contributed Administratorish (I know that isn't a word :) ) aspects in? What insight have you provided that no one else has? I'm not sure how to vote. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:58, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
I've added this as question 5--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:13, 4 May 2006 (CDT)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What duties, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Battlestar Wiki:Project List's for a list of projects.

A. I am most involved in grammar, punctuation, style, diction, linking, and (to a lesser extent) spelling changes. I also tend to fact-check articles dealing with comparisons between the reimagined series and our reality (e.g. Kinetic Energy Weapon, Naturalistic science fiction, and Assassination). I have particular interest in the application of Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad, Battlestar Wiki:Island of Misfit Images, and Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions.

I sometimes check the text quality of TOS or 1980 articles, but my unfamiliarity with their content hinders substantive changes.

2. Of your articles or contributions here, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Assassination and Galactica type battlestar occur to me, but those are pretty much just larger cases of the same prose clean-up edits as the majority of my contributions. That said, I am pleased that, in my assessment, I improved the readability and accuracy of each.

I poke at articles more than I compose them, so those are some of my larger changes.

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

A. I have had edit conflicts in the past, and I tend to deal with them by citing sources or finding out I was wrong when looking for sources. Sometimes I simply provide a more clear justification (e.g. "Normally I wouldn't revert a revert, but sentences end in periods.") or decide the other person has a better point or one of which I was ignorant (e.g. "punctuation order (that had occured to me, but i didn't really like the impression they gave. that said, i can live with them.)" after April's change tagged "Those are real quotes, not scare quotes.").

4. What can't you do as a standard contributor that administrator-ship would enable or allow you to do?

A. block vandals (especially those annoying numeric accounts), grammar check protected pages

5. What is creative input that you feel has distinguished you? What specific debates do you feel demonstrated your grasp of the facts and ability to lay out and moderate a good arguement?

A. (I'm sorry about the delay in this answer. I moved back home from the dorms and had to fix the internet connection I found broken when I got here.)

To be honest, I don't really provide much creative input. I mostly copy-edit.

As to a debate demonstrating a grasp of the facts, I'd point to Talk:Life Forms of the Twelve Colonies#Coffea.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.