Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Serenity

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

Serenity

• Vote here
• Back to RFA.

Votes

• Current Count: (11/0/0)
• Current Date/Time: Tuesday, November 19, 2024 at 23:08 (UTC)
• RFA Ending: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 at 12:00 (UTC)

Serenity (talk • contribs • edit count • page moves • block user • block log) – Serenity has been a member here since September 1, 2006. Since that time he and I really haven't crossed paths that often. However, as I've monitored the RC I have noticed some patterns in his edits. He makes the kinds of edits that need to be made. Not just updating articles with the latest information from the episodes [1], but also making necessary maintenance edits [2], style edits [3], concision edits [4], and citation edits [5]. Most of the time when I check one of his edits it's either the case that I would have made exactly the same edit that he made, or I'm chagrined to have missed making that edit when I've recently touched it. Not only does he do good maintenance, but he generally does a good job of explaining himself, both in the edit summary [6], as well as in talk pages [7]. Serenity has exhibited the fastidiousness, commitment, and consistency I believe are requisite for adminship. --Steelviper 09:35, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

sure. --Serenity 10:08, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Support

1. Support per nomination. --Steelviper 09:35, 2 January 2007 (CST)
2. Support Full support from me, I don't think I need to explain my reasons as they have already been well covered --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)}
3. Support Superb Candidate! Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:22, 2 January 2007 (CST)
4. Support Serenity does good work. --Talos 15:26, 2 January 2007 (CST)
5. Support I've been lurking around here for a very long time and I never seen a problem with anything he does.--Quig 15:31, 2 January 2007 (CST)
6. Support --April Arcus 18:21, 2 January 2007 (CST)
7. Support --JubalHarshaw 20:10, 2 January 2007 (CST)
8. Support When I ask him to check out BattleStar Wiki while chatting with him at Ragnar Anchorage, he wasn't sure if he had any thing to contribute. Guess what! You did! --FrankieG 20:49, 2 January 2007 (CST)
9. Support -- Serenity challenges the status quo, preventing us old-timers from doing things because "it's what we always do." In addition to good editing and levelheadedness, he is a worthy candidate. --Spencerian 22:16, 2 January 2007 (CST)
10. Support -- Spike 07:39, 3 January 2007 (CST)
11. Support in favour. --Gallion 10:30, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Oppose

Neutral

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. Not sure. Currently there is a lot to do with TOS articles, but I don't know that much about TOS. I've seen it of course, but I lack the detailed knowledge others have. I Guess, I could do what I'm doing at the moment: general maintance. But I'm open for suggestions.

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

A. I haven't actually created any huge articles. Mostly I make small additions and fixes to existing articles. Bigger contributions of mine are the the summary of Pegasus (Extended Version) and the reorganization of the table at Military Ranks (RDM) together with the addition of better rank pin pictures.

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 had some edit conflicts, but not out of malice. Just many people editing an article at the same time. I got angry and started over :p

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.