Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship

This page is an official policy of Battlestar Wiki.
This policy is considered by the community and its leadership to be the status quo of Battlestar Wiki and is not to be countermanded or ignored, though changes to it can be discussed on the appropriate talk page. This policy was implemented on 16 December 2005.

Shortcut:
BW:RFA

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 In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.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, it is believed that new users may not fully understand the nuances or job responsibilities of an administrator. Therefore, while new users are encouraged to comment on RFAs, they may not vote. Should they vote, their votes will not be counted. A new user, as defined by this RFA process, is a user who has joined the wiki. A user is no longer "new" after a period of a 30 days. It should be made exceptionally clear that this is not an effort to disenfranchise voters, but to ensure that voters know the duties and responsibilities of an admin and to vote accordingly based not on superficial criteria but on the actions of the potential admin.

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

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 20:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Purge server cache if nominations haven't updated.

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

Catrope

Vote here
Back to RFA.

Votes

Current Count: (7/0/0)
Current Date/Time: Sunday, November 24, 2024 at 20:55 (UTC)
RFA Ending: Wednesday, August 1 2007 at 17:30 (UTC)

Catrope (talk • contribs • edit count • page moves • block user • block log) – has quickly become a vital member of the team. Some of his most important contributions have been editing and creating many templates that make using the wiki easier, and he has demonstrated lots of technical knowledge in that area. In addition to that, he has been a good mopper, doing lots of cleanup, style and convention edits to make this a tidier place. He is also active on talk pages, weighing in with useful comments on both articles and policies. As a result of that, Catrope is already a trusted user with some extra powers. Making him an administrator is just the next logical step.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I honoredly accept. Please note, however, that I will not very active this week, and will be completely inactive from next Friday (the 20th) through the 28th. If anyone feels the need to ask me some questions before voting on my RFA, I'll only be able to answer them before Friday. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 13:24, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Support

Support as RFA creator --Serenity 12:24, 18 July 2007 (CDT)
Support - absolutely a worthy candidate. JubalHarshaw 22:14, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Support - Didn't see this until just now but I cant think of any reason why not plus it would be good to get a more active precense of admins in more western europe. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 05:18, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Support - --BklynBruzer 11:51, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
Support - An active, level-headed cat. Easily mop-worthy. --Steelviper 10:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Support - My only initial worry involved Catrope's age. However, he has shown more than sufficient maturity (in comparison to many, many US kids his age) and excellent technical and mopping skills that I am happy to vote to give him a set of keys to the "Wikimobile", no learner's permit required. --Spencerian 11:18, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
1. Comment - I'm half tempted to try to defend people in my age group, but hell, most people my age disgust me. --BklynBruzer 13:36, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
  1. Comment - I wasn't exactly the most popular kid either, but since most of my classmates (17-year-olds mostly) are leaving puberty and moving into sanity, they don't treat me as "that geek" any more :P. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
2. Comment - It's true a lot of kids in my age group display immature behavior, so thanks for looking past any prejudgments you may have. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 15:42, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
Support :) Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:34, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

~~Since I (Catrope) will be away from July 20 through July 28, I won't be able to answer all your questions. I will also not be able to respond to the result of the vote until the 28th.~~ I'm back now. Feel free to interrogate the hell out of me.

I thought you'd be sort of back. Should have waited maybe. On the other hand, I don't think we need you to testify much and can try you...erm vote for you in absentia. --Serenity 13:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

In case anyone has doubts or urgent questions, the vote can always be extended with another week. But of course I hope that won't be necessary. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 14:03, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

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. Everything I already do. This includes watching over and mopping the wiki, giving my €0.02 here and there, and helping out where I can (mostly with templates and other technical stuff, but also with podcast transcription and verification, although I haven't had much time for that recently).

B. I intend to write a bot that uses the new MediaWiki API some day, but that API is far from finished. Right now, I'm too caught up in finishing said API to have even started writing my bot, so it's really a long-term project. When that bot is done (which will be quite a few months from now), I'll offer its services to the wiki. But, I repeat, that bot's really just a daydream at this point.

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

A. My only big contributions have been in the podcast namespace, most notably Podcast:Rapture (which I have transcribed completely, save for the first two minutes) and Podcast:Frak Party Q and A (still not finished yet). Podcast:A Day in the Life Bonus has only had its first seven minutes or so transcribed, and the other three bonus podcasts are still waiting in line. While any help would be appreciated, I intend to get quite an amount of work done here.

B. The bulk of my edits is just mop work: fixing spelling and grammar errors, rewriting phrases to make more sense, etc. Me actually adding content to the wiki is rare, the most notable cases being Lee Adama, BW:ARCH and a failed BW:TANK proposal about deletion discussions.

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 haven't really had any real conflicts with others here. On two occasions has an admin (not the same one both times) reverted an edit of mine that was only partially bad, thereby also reverting genuine improvements. In both cases I have kindly notified the admin in question, and in both cases they have acknowledged their mistake. Having your work reverted for the wrong reasons is annoying of course, but rather than getting all hyped up and agressive, I remember that admins are just as human and just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else. If this RFA is successful, I hope others will remember that too when I mess up.

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.