Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

I need Joe to clean this up. It's been a while since we've used this formatting. --The Merovingian 04:40, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Scifi'ers

These votes from the scifi.com'ers (where their only edit is the vote in an RFA) would likely be loudly decried as sockpuppets at a wikipedia RFA. Fortunately their scifi.com accounts buy them some cred. I hope they stick around after their vote though. (It looks like Dogger may have a project in mind...) --Steelviper 12:37, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Dogger usually has something interesting up his sleave.--Noneofyourbusiness 14:27, 16 March 2006 (EST)
Wikipedia, on the subject: "Votes of very new editors may be discounted if there is suspicion of fraud such as sockpuppetry."
In my opinion, there's no serious reason to suspect sock-puppetry if they have credible accounts on Sci-Fi.com. However, since the choice of administrators here only directly impacts regular editors, I would still tend to take their voices with a grain of salt compared to our regulars. Also, note that on Wikipedia, "the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75–80 percent support", which Merv is currently a few votes short of. I reiterate my personal neutrality on this vote, but I hope that Joe will take the opposing votes by our regular contributors very seriously as he considers Merv's promotion. --April Arcus 20:22, 16 March 2006 (CST)
I saw this issue coming... Here's the thing. I don't know whether or not these people fully understand the responsibilties of an admin or how an admin can affect a Wiki. So far they haven't demonstrated why they voted Support, other than perhaps a loyalty to Merv on the SciFi board. (Which should have absolutely no bearing here, whatsoever.)
Admittedly, Merv is an excellent contributor and his work is wonderful; he does have opportunties when dealing with certain situations (which were mentioned in an oppose vote in the RfA, so I will not reiterate them here). Has he gotten better? Abso-frakkin'-lutely.
But again, as Peter has rightfully pointed out, adminship is neither a trophy nor a popularity contest. As also pointed out, adminship grants you additional tools (mainly blocking users, protecting/unprotecting pages from editing, and deletion of articles). These tools are nice, yet most of the contributions are mainly done from non-admins. Admins have the keys to the janitor's closet and, being in that position of "power", area also scrutinized without them even knowing it.
Now, here's where people are going to really start getting irked. I'm going to have to discount votes from any accounts made within the past three weeks. From a rational standpoint, they are new contributors and are still learning the Wiki basics, so their votes have very little weight.
Of course, I am willing to listen to any and all concerns brought to the table. So please reply to them on this talk page (and don't bring this issue on my talk page, for I believe people can benefit from it here). -- Joe Beaudoin 08:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Could you please explain why my vote has been discounted? --Grafix 01:58, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Edit Histories

Just wanted to put together a quick contribution history for some of the less familiar participants in this vote. --April Arcus 01:39, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Total 21 100%
(Main) 10 47.62%
Talk 6 23.81%
User talk 3 14.29%
Battlestar Wiki 3 14.29%
Total 1 100%
Battlestar Wiki 1 100%
Total 1 100%
Battlestar Wiki 1 100%
  • Grafix: Member since 26 February 2006.
Total 188 100%
(Main) 163 86.7%
Talk 9 4.79%
User talk 12 6.38%
Battlestar Wiki 1 0.53%
Template 3 1.6%
Total 215 100%
(Main) 173 80.47%%
Talk 23 10.7%
User talk 6 2.79%
Battlestar Wiki 12 5.58%
Battlestar Wiki talk 1 0.47%

Again, this is going to irk people, but as mentioned above (and for the reasons I had mentioned above), I am planning on discounting all votes made by users who have had accounts created within the past three weeks. Thus everyone on this list (excluding Dogger) will not have their votes counted. Of course, if people feel that this isn't the best course of action, I am open to criticism. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin 08:17, 17 March 2006 (CST)

What will become of Lordmutt, Kraetos, Shane, and Day's votes then? How long have they been registered?--Noneofyourbusiness 10:06, 17 March 2006 (EST)
Day is an admin, and is an "old hand". Kraetos (formerly BMS) has also been around awhile. Shane has been registered since a couple month back, but has only been more active recently (with the start of the portals effort). Those are the people I've had dealings with. Lordmutt appears to have been here for a little over a month, so he'd be good too. It's not that we're trying to disenfranchise people. It's just that we want "residents" voting. It'd be like if a bunch of people poured across the state line to vote in a governor's race, then returned home. It's not an issue we've ever encountered before. However, it doesn't mean your voice won't be heard. EVERYBODY is welcome to voice their opinion anyway. This will sway potential voters, may change existing votes (which is allowed), and may influnce the Bureaucrat, who ultimately decides if the consensus is in favor of creating the new adminship. A powerful argument could end up having far more argument than any single "vote" can.--Steelviper 08:58, 17 March 2006 (CST)
It's actually hard to read the argument with lines through it.--Noneofyourbusiness 13:28, 17 March 2006 (EST)

How much of a majority does a candidate need?--Noneofyourbusiness 12:18, 17 March 2006 (EST)

Wikipedia procedure calls for 75-80%, as quoted above. --April Arcus 10:57, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Additional Questions for the Nominee

If you don't mind, I placed a fourth question on the Project Page to query the nominee. It's a question that should be asked of all committee / team leaders. -- Hawke 09:14, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Kudos! Good question! -- Joe Beaudoin 10:19, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Man. Especially a self-nom one. Honestly, though, I'm not sure there's a perfect answer to this one. If I'd been asked it, I think it still would have reflected negatively. So, when people read whatever Merv writes, I'd ask that they consider that the question, while valid, is very slightly loaded. --Day 21:47, 17 March 2006 (CST)
What's this NBC he talked about? The page does not exist.--Noneofyourbusiness 11:09, 19 March 2006 (EST)
I deleted it yesterday, with the original author's concurrence. --April Arcus 10:27, 19 March 2006 (CST)
Ah. What was it about? The real NBC? Well that certainly has no place here.--Noneofyourbusiness 12:09, 19 March 2006 (EST)