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 In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.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

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 21:52, 25 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.

Gougef

Vote here
Back to RFA.

Votes

Current Count: (9/0/0)
Current Date/Time: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 21:52 (UTC)
RFA Ending: Thursday, October 19, 2006 at 12:00 (UTC)

Gougef (talk • contribs • edit count • page moves • block user • block log) – Gougef (aka FrankieG, aka Ranger) has been around since March. He really turned it up in June, though, which was in the twilight of the season break. His contributions have ranged from keeping the daily quotes updated (much appreciated by myself) as well as updating and mopping on content articles as well. Ranger has also made significant efforts in the Think Tank, helping to shape and clarify Battlestar Wiki policy. When prompted to suggest potential admin candidates in a recent discussion on my talk page, his was one of the names that leapt to mind. His consistent civility, level-headedness, his commitment to promoting and upholding standards demonstrate an archetype of what a contributor (and an admin) should be. --Steelviper 09:19, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept. --FrankieG 12:59, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

Support

Support As nominator. --Steelviper 09:19, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
Support. SV read my mind: We were in agreement in considerations for the previous RFA candidate as well as this one. Frankie has shown a strong level-headedness, initiative and motivation in his work that will aid everyone greatly as an administrator. Given the growth of users and articles here, we need another mopper. Besides, we need another old man aside from me as an admin. :) --Spencerian 09:38, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
Support Has been nothing but a "Father" figure (Other than Joe and Spenc} to all. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 11:09, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
Support Nothing I can add that hasn't been said. --Talos 11:56, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
Support He has had no conflicts of note, and, since he's been here over 7 months, any hypothetical downsides would presumably have surfaced by now; importantly, there is no evidence he would abuse power given it. He has made many good edits and been diligent, thorough, and civil. As I can find no reason at all to object and several good reasons to support him, I'll do the latter. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 18:29, 12 October 2006 (CDT)
Support FRAKHEADS Unite! --Ribsy 00:07, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
Support You've got my vote as well --Larocque6689 01:23, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
Support Definite support, very mature and intelligent, very helpful to new users. Excellent admin material. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 02:51, 13 October 2006 (CDT)
Support --April Arcus 03:58, 13 October 2006 (CDT)

Oppose

Neutral

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 Battlestar Wiki:Project List's for a list of projects.

A. My job and family life let's me keep an eye on the Wiki roughly 16 hours a day, which will be handy in calming disputes and preventing vandalism.

B. Fairly decent at "mopping". However, the caveat being that I can't edit my own material worth a frak :).

C. Episode Standardization

D. Podcast Transcripts

E. Quote of the day - find duplicates.

F. Much like this discussion between Steelviper and Spencerian, the only think that I will be doing that I haven't done or will do it that I can block users to prevent vandalism, rename pages , and maybe delete a page here and there mopping up. Otherwise, same-o, same-o.

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

A. Helping to keep the Main page fresh over the hiatus, by keeping quotes, air times, and news updated. The quotes were a challenge sometimes because I had to come up with a new one almost every day.

B. Episode Standardization - Scary, worthwhile, learning experience because I had to put my "hands" on a lot of different articles, and had to make "interpretative" decisions.

C. Importing Wikipedia policies - These policies were about civility and proper behavior. I love peace and quiet and rational discussion.

D. Things you just don't do, not even in war - More civility and behavior ideas.

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 have never had a conflict directly with another user because I believe that sincere, civil discussion can take care any editing differences. The only time my ire was raised was during an RFA because I thought the wiki was being attacked from the "outside." Once the details of the matter was made clear, I understood and dropped the matter.

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.