Editing Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane (2)
From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===[[User:Shane|Shane]]=== | ===[[User:Shane|Shane]]=== | ||
* '''[{{fullurl:Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane (2)|action=edit}} Vote here]''' | * '''[{{fullurl:Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane (2)|action=edit}} Vote here]''' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 4: | ||
==== Votes ==== | ==== Votes ==== | ||
* '''Current Count:''' ( | * '''Current Count:''' (2/0/0) | ||
* '''Current Date/Time:''' {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} at {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC) | * '''Current Date/Time:''' {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} at {{CURRENTTIME}} (UTC) | ||
* '''RFA Ending:''' {{dateahead|{{JD|2006|10|1}}|7}} | * '''RFA Ending:''' {{dateahead|{{JD|2006|10|1}}|7}} | ||
| Line 21: | Line 18: | ||
#{{Support}} per Nomination --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | #{{Support}} per Nomination --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
#{{Support}} First, the negatives. In the past, Shane has demonstrated a quick temper, as well as a tendency to take criticism of projects he works on personally. Both of these are to be avoided, not only for contributors but especially for administrators. This all came to a head at his RFC, from which he not only abided by the consensus reached in that process (through a self-imposed suspension of activity, rather than a formal ban/block), but also became (unsurprisingly) one of the driving forces behind the new Think tank process. He turned negatives into positives, and has made considerable strides with regards to any previous issues. His work ethic and contributions to the site have been considerable. I don't mean to minimalize his many thousands of edits (in addition to a great deal of work that doesn't show up in edit count, with regards to the skins/CSS), but I don't think that issue is even a question. He's obviously a hard worker. I believe he would responsibly use the admin tools (aka "the mop") responsibly, and that they would only serve to further his ability to help this site. His low profile on some of the other major BSG communities leaves little doubt in my mind that there is any significant risk of him representing this wiki poorly, and what little interactions I have seen of him off-wiki have always been enthusiastic, quiet, and helpful. I wouldn't expect any grandstanding. We can use the extra hands, and as I noted on my talk page, this was one of the names I suggested when I was trying to think of people to issue a mop to. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:50, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | #{{Support}} First, the negatives. In the past, Shane has demonstrated a quick temper, as well as a tendency to take criticism of projects he works on personally. Both of these are to be avoided, not only for contributors but especially for administrators. This all came to a head at his RFC, from which he not only abided by the consensus reached in that process (through a self-imposed suspension of activity, rather than a formal ban/block), but also became (unsurprisingly) one of the driving forces behind the new Think tank process. He turned negatives into positives, and has made considerable strides with regards to any previous issues. His work ethic and contributions to the site have been considerable. I don't mean to minimalize his many thousands of edits (in addition to a great deal of work that doesn't show up in edit count, with regards to the skins/CSS), but I don't think that issue is even a question. He's obviously a hard worker. I believe he would responsibly use the admin tools (aka "the mop") responsibly, and that they would only serve to further his ability to help this site. His low profile on some of the other major BSG communities leaves little doubt in my mind that there is any significant risk of him representing this wiki poorly, and what little interactions I have seen of him off-wiki have always been enthusiastic, quiet, and helpful. I wouldn't expect any grandstanding. We can use the extra hands, and as I noted on my talk page, this was one of the names I suggested when I was trying to think of people to issue a mop to. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:50, 2 October 2006 (CDT) | ||
'''Oppose''' | '''Oppose''' | ||
<!-- Use Template {{Oppose}} and then post a reason followed by your signature --> | <!-- Use Template {{Oppose}} and then post a reason followed by your signature --> | ||
| Line 57: | Line 48: | ||
:'''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? | :'''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 believe the RFC helped me contribute to the site. With the creation of the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] I been able to deal with the problem that was lacked in when my contributions were questions. My strongest disagrements would ahve to be against Peter, but I think we both have settled on a mutual agreements. I think everything between me and the oldtimers has been worked out, and I hope to continue to do that while being an administrator. | ::A. I believe the RFC helped me contribute to the site. With the creation of the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] I been able to deal with the problem that was lacked in when my contributions were questions. My strongest disagrements would ahve to be against Peter, but I think we both have settled on a mutual agreements. I think everything between me and the oldtimers has been worked out, and I hope to continue to do that while being an administrator. | ||