- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it.
Spencerian[edit]
Votes[edit]
- Current Count: (7/0/0)
- Current Date/Time: Monday, December 23, 2024 at 16:25 (UTC)
- RFB Ending: Friday, January 12, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)
Spencerian (talk • contribs • edit count • page moves • block user • block log) – Spencerian always manages, like myself, to get involved with everything so why not take it one further. While creating these pages and templates just to nominate Spencerian, I was reading Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies, a few words popup from the pages of previous nominations.
- impartial
- respectful
- trustworthy
- diligent
And so on. Usually on Wikipedia most of the RFBs are self-nominations because the only real power they have is changing user rights. Here was having separate nominations process for BW:MOVE and the sort. So without further ado, here is Spencerian. "Take the Blue Pill, stay as Sysop. Take the Red Pill, and I show you how far you can go." Shane (T - C - E) 12:45, 5 January 2007 (CST)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I accept the nomination. --Spencerian 16:24, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Support
Support as nom. Shane (T - C - E) 16:56, 5 January 2007 (CST)- Support Full support again. Already a highly skilled member of the sysop team, Spence would be excellent in this higher role. --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 19:05, 6 January 2007 (CST)
- Support It's all been said. --FrankieG 22:00, 6 January 2007 (CST)
- Support Full support for reasons above. --Talos 22:37, 6 January 2007 (CST)
- Support Sysops should be issued a wristband with WWSD on it upon "promotion". (What would Spencerian do?) A model contributor who helps the wiki and everyone around him, just being who he is. While, to be honest, I cannot think of any current sysop that I wouldn't trust with B-crat powers (and I hope that our selection of future sysops continues to yield such quality individuals), if I could only choose one current sysop to have B-crat powers added it would be Spencerian. --Steelviper 07:21, 8 January 2007 (CST)
- Support All I wished to say has been said by others. --BklynBruzer 10:42, 8 January 2007 (CST)
- Support An excellent candidate from all that I've seen. He took time to thank me for minor edits that most would have just ignored. (Thanks Shane, and Steelviper, as well) ... I second everything Shane has said above in the initial nomination. JubalHarshaw 23:12, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- Support - 5, 4, 3, 2 - Jump! MatthewFenton 06:59, 13 January 2007 (CST)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments[edit]
Questions for the candidate[edit]
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A. I have. Generally, promotion is based on a contributor's demeanor, edit quality, neutrality and length of time contributing. In looking over our current admin field, two were given the privilege by executive decision (April Arcus, and myself), while all others have demonstrated their qualifications by the RFA process. Battlestar Wikipedians also note exemplary abilities as a criteria, but generally, being a well-rounded "nice guy" that edits well, knows and adheres to policy while helping others do so nicely can make for a good administrator, eventually. In rare instances, off-wiki behavior may be a factor in a successful nomination (Lords know I don't want to be part of something like that if possible).
- A. I have. Generally, promotion is based on a contributor's demeanor, edit quality, neutrality and length of time contributing. In looking over our current admin field, two were given the privilege by executive decision (April Arcus, and myself), while all others have demonstrated their qualifications by the RFA process. Battlestar Wikipedians also note exemplary abilities as a criteria, but generally, being a well-rounded "nice guy" that edits well, knows and adheres to policy while helping others do so nicely can make for a good administrator, eventually. In rare instances, off-wiki behavior may be a factor in a successful nomination (Lords know I don't want to be part of something like that if possible).
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A. The good news for an RfA nominee is that they can be nominated later if they are initially unsuccessful. RfAs are not for bashing anyone, nominee, nominator, or contributors. As a bureaucrat, I would take my time to parse through the supporting and opposing comments, even extending the nomination time if necessary to ensure that the contributor has a fair shot (for instance, if too few qualifying votes are submitted).
- A. The good news for an RfA nominee is that they can be nominated later if they are initially unsuccessful. RfAs are not for bashing anyone, nominee, nominator, or contributors. As a bureaucrat, I would take my time to parse through the supporting and opposing comments, even extending the nomination time if necessary to ensure that the contributor has a fair shot (for instance, if too few qualifying votes are submitted).
- 3. Battlestar Wiki expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A. It helped to be one of the early contributors to the wiki, starting in July 2005. In that time, the wiki has grown in gargantuan leaps and bounds. I've helped in my share of writing the policies and standards since I arrived, so I'm as familiar with them as any other administrator, I believe. I do take a special humorous conceit in taking certain policies from Standards and Conventions to heart: it's just not fun to have to change every instance of "the Galactica to just Galactica.
- A. It helped to be one of the early contributors to the wiki, starting in July 2005. In that time, the wiki has grown in gargantuan leaps and bounds. I've helped in my share of writing the policies and standards since I arrived, so I'm as familiar with them as any other administrator, I believe. I do take a special humorous conceit in taking certain policies from Standards and Conventions to heart: it's just not fun to have to change every instance of "the Galactica to just Galactica.
- 4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?
- A. I will. Any other course of action denotes favoritism or some form of cronyism, which doesn't make it any easier for the legitimate challengers to the esteemed rank of Mop Boys any easier.
- A. I will. Any other course of action denotes favoritism or some form of cronyism, which doesn't make it any easier for the legitimate challengers to the esteemed rank of Mop Boys any easier.
- 5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit BW:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?
- A. I do. It's a strange thing (although I think I also do this to watch for spammer vandals) but I try to remember where, when and what a new contributor begins with on the wiki. I never stop appreciating how I'm surprised in seeing a new contributor's zeal (Shane and Steelviper come to mind) and how their work ultimately makes a positive change to the face of the wiki. Without trying to "kiss up," to me, all contributors are RfA candidates that haven't been nominated yet.
- 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.