Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which this wiki's community decides who should be an administrator (or sysop). Administrators have access to a few technical features that help with maintenance. A user may submit his own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or may be nominated by another user.

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Battlestar Wiki's policies. Admins are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Battlestar Wiki. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been with Battlestar Wiki long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Almost all admin actions are reversible; being an admin is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to admins.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than a basic level of trust from other editors. However, some users set a variety of standards on a personal basis. You may nominate yourself. Some people apply higher standards to self-nominations, while others view them more favorably as showing initiative and desire to serve the community.

Nomination process

Any user in good standing may nominate any other user. Nominations remain for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time interested users register their opinions or make comments. At the end of that period, candidates who receive consensus supported will be made admins. The bureaucrats who handle admin promotions review the discussion to see if a consensus is present (the threshold for consensus here is roughly 75-80 percent support). Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend the deadline or call for a revote if this will make the consensus more clear. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time – at least a month – before nominating yourself again or accepting another nomination.

Bureaucrats, please use {{subst:rfap}}-{{subst:rfab}} as a header and footer, respectively, when closing a successful nomination. Similarly, use {{subst:rfaf}}-{{subst:rfab}} for a failed nomination.

How to nominate an editor for adminship

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page.

Voting and commenting

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, including the nominator (however, because the focus is on whether other people in the community trust the user, self-nominating candidates or nominees should not vote for themselves). To add your vote, click the "Vote here" link for the relevant candidate. You may then indicate whether you support or oppose the nomination by signing your name under the relevant heading.

Please include a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. Remember that we are all people with feelings, emotions and pride: please respect others in your comments and responses.

Neutral votes are also permitted, but not necessarily counted in determining percentages, although they will be considered by bureaucrats in borderline cases. Discussions should be held in the Comments section. Long discussions should be held on the discussion page of the individual nomination.

If you are new to Battlestar Wiki, you should wait a while before voting. Otherwise, you may be mistaken for a sock puppet.

Executive privilege

Please note that in special, extenuating circumstances, Joe Beaudoin may exercise executive privilege and appoint a user to administrative status. (At the same time, should the issue arise, an administrator may have their privileges revoked by Joe Beaudoin for any reason.)

Current nominations

Add new requests at the top of this section.

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.

Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.

Current time is 00:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Peter Farago ----

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

Ricimer

Battlestar_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship/Ricimer|action=edit}} Vote here (1/3/2) ending 09:15 28 December 2005 (EST)

Ricimer (talk • contribs) – I think I'd be good for administrator because of A) My stagering knowledge of all things BSG (haha), B) my extensive body of work here notably on the episode guides, battle pages, and C) My political handling of debates such as "Are there 12 Cylon models", which all resulted in compromise rather than arbitrary deletion. D) My good looks. I'm formally putting myself up for nomination, etc. --Ricimer 09:15, 21 December 2005 (EST)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

1. I was waiting until the RFA got a little more ironed out before nominating you, but I guess I can still contribute by casting a vote. While he may come off as abrasive at times, he is unquestionably a vigilant defender of the Battlestar Wiki. The battle pages alone are a major addition, one that I am trying to use as a model to migrate over to the TOS side. You can tell Ricimer takes the Battlestar wiki pretty seriously. I mean, not too many users will hold out "until the flesh is hacked from [their] bones" to defend a principle they strongly believe. This nomination completes the trifecta of my favorites, and I think he would make a fine admin. --Steelviper 11:07, 21 December 2005 (EST)

Oppose

1. Comment: Ricimer's temper issues, especially with regard to new contributors, strike me as a serious and ongoing problem. He has demonstrated substantial improvement recently, and his excellent contributions speak for themselves, but I sadly cannot support his RFA at this time. --April Arcus 18:51, 21 December 2005 (EST)
   • Having given this matter substantial thought, I am now changing my vote to "Oppose". I want to preface my arguments by stating that I do not consider Ricimer to be an enemy by any stretch of the imagination. He is one of our best contributors, as I have stated on numerous occasions. However, I do not believe that this alone qualifies him for adminship, and I do in fact have serious reservations about that prospect. To continue:
   • Ricimer has demonstrated extreme hostility toward newbies on numerous occasions, as pointed out by both myself and others on his talk page. Although he has improved as of very recently, recent comments such as "helps to have conservative ballast around" and "best to strike while the iron is hot", do not - to me - indicate that he has repented of his past behavior. Although I frequently agree with his criticisms of new users' contributions, I do not admire his attacks and abrasive language towards newbies. The vast majority of such contributions are made in good faith. Those that are factually incorrect can be removed; those that are badly written can be corrected. The only "bad users" are those who are unresponsive to communication and refuse to cooperate in the wiki community, and in such cases harsh language is plainly without efficacy.
   • He has conducted himself with a hot-headed style which leaves him open to attack (as we saw with the Jzanjani incident). I do not mean to imply that Ricimer would abuse any powers delegated to him, but his haste to anger and quick judgements will not serve him well as an administrator.
   • In conclusion, I must oppose Ricimer's RFA. I hope that my comments will not impede our cooperation on future projects, and that he will understand that my opinions are not born from any personal grudge. --April Arcus 01:56, 22 December 2005 (EST)
2. Despite Ricimer's great contributions to the wiki, I don't approve of his behaviour towards other contributing members. A relative majority of his comments appear hostile in nature, and behaviour of this kind will only provoke trolls to vandalize the articles. That said, Ricimer, keep up the excellent contributions, your vigilance is appreciated, but needs to be tempered. --Mason 12:52, 24 December 2005 (EST)
3. As one of the many victims of Ricimer's angry and immoderate editing zeal, I'm afraid I must speak against his promotion to admin. Ricimer has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding and sympathizing with opinions which do not match his own - to say nothing of his reaction to contrarian viewpoints! - and bestowing the power of administration will allow him simply more opportunity to abuse this resource to an even greater extent. Furthermore, he has also shown that he is ignorant of rules of etiquette which have been produced by consensus of members, not only in reverting others' edits but other ways as well. However, most importantly, although the other members of this community may feign to distinguish between quantity and quality, I would even question the intrinsic value of Ricimer's contributions to the material. As a writer, I know an amateur when I see his stuff, and Ricimer is an amateur of the most pedestrian variety. His style is ineffectual, rakish and emasculate, his spelling is atrocious and slipshod, his diction is uninspired, pretentious, and formulaic, and the general impression is that of an uncultured and uneducated ignoramus affecting to be something quite different. The community shall please keep in mind that I am speaking of the impression given by Ricimer's writing only, and am not making any disparagements of his character. After thoughtful deliberation, I am sure that the members of this community will come to the right decision and vote against this proposal. Jzanjani

Neutral

1. I think Ricimer is one of our strongest contributors on this wiki: the various battle pages, starting with the Fall of the Twelve Colonies are some of his most excellent work. And, while sometimes a bit too gruff in his responses, he's ready to fend his point of view or sources from all comers. We're still working on improving his funny bone (he wasn't too pleased with the non-sequitur Toaster and The Battlestar Galactica Drinking Game articles, with some important dissent), but Ricimer's dedication to keeping the wiki informative, dynamic and from becoming a farce cannot be denied.
   • As an admin, I'm torn a bit. I think Ricimer is a fair person, but Ricimer has also documented that his gruffness can be taken the wrong way, causing others to be put off. Unfortunately, when he has been personally attacked, he tended to respond back in the same way, something that an administrator (in my opinion) can never do. I would recommend that voters look back on both Ricimer's contributions and missteps and judge for themselves. I think he'd be a good admin, but as both contributors and as administrators, we all have to show responibility, tact, and neutrality. --Spencerian 12:15, 24 December 2005 (EST)
2. FOR. I won't elaborate because I need to get to the bank and then make a movie time. --Day 14:08, 21 December 2005 (EST)

   On second thought, I don't know that I can vote one way or ther other. I certainly respect Ricimer's edits and have enjoyed his comments on various talk pages. I also think he's improved as far as newbie-biting is concerned and I expect that, as time moves on, he will show that this improvement isn't just a momentary thing. However, when things get tense and Ricimer is personally involved, I think he can be less cool-headed than I'd like an admin over me to be. I'm not even talking about the rather rediculous debacle with Jzanjani. Just that when someone disagrees with Ricimer, he sometimes over-reacts either because he's taking it personally or... I have no idea. This seems to happen every so often to new and old members alike. I pretty much agree with Spence: Ricimer has most of the qualities I look for in a leader who I'd like to follow, but level-headedness (while not a deal-breaker exactly) is important, so I will have to ABSTAIN. --Day 02:30, 27 December 2005 (EST)

Comments

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 Category:Project Pages for a list of projects.

A. First and foremost, the episode guides, the meat and potatos of this wiki. Secondly, I've been starting to help out with the podcast pages that got started. Thirdly, Citation Crusade: making sure "independent research" is not used.

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

A. The battles pages, all of which were of my own design (I made the battleboxes for Lord of the Rings battles on standard wikipedia, and when these were done, I wanted to keep doing something like that so I created the battles series here); secondly, due yo my vast knowledge of BSG trivial facts and analysis, I have made great contributions to the episode guides, and as it's not like I have a life outside of this :) I'm usually the first to post notes for an episode up after it airs (though this is not a rule), and I'm really happy with the episode guide stuff I've done (check the history tabs, etc).

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. Firstly, debate and compromise. I had that running 12 Cylons debate with Philwelch, but it was resolved civily and now we're cool. Secondly, in cases of that troll Jzanjani, who kept attacking me, I requested that he be put on temporary ban by Joe, and he was.

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. ----