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 In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.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 21:39, 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.

Shane

Vote here
Back to RFA.

Votes

Current Count: (7/0/0)
Current Date/Time: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 21:39 (UTC)
RFA Ending: Sunday, October 8, 2006 at 12:00 (UTC)

Shane (talk • contribs • edit count • page moves • block user • block log) – Every since becoming a member, Shane has been a relentless contributor with an edit count of over ten thousand (View Count). His projects have been numerous with him directly responsible for the current look of the wiki, including the Main Page redesign. He has become the template guru, fixing templates and creating new templates on demand for everyone else. Shane has had problems in the past, the result of him being bold. However, since the RFC, his behavior as been exemplary, and instead of dampening his contributions, he became a better contributor, by channeling his exuberance into projects guided by the Think Tank process. With Season 3 about to start, more users signing up everyday, and another millions hits in little more than month by next weekend, the need for another administrator is very much upon us. Although the current state of Battlestar Wiki is the result of the community, Shane has been more than willing to contribute his share and more.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:08, 1 October 2006 (CDT)

Support

Support per Nomination --FrankieG 18:39, 1 October 2006 (CDT)
Support First, the negatives. In the past, Shane has demonstrated a quick temper, as well as a tendency to take criticism of projects he works on personally. Both of these are to be avoided, not only for contributors but especially for administrators. This all came to a head at his RFC, from which he not only abided by the consensus reached in that process (through a self-imposed suspension of activity, rather than a formal ban/block), but also became (unsurprisingly) one of the driving forces behind the new Think tank process. He turned negatives into positives, and has made considerable strides with regards to any previous issues. His work ethic and contributions to the site have been considerable. I don't mean to minimalize his many thousands of edits (in addition to a great deal of work that doesn't show up in edit count, with regards to the skins/CSS), but I don't think that issue is even a question. He's obviously a hard worker. I believe he would responsibly use the admin tools (aka "the mop") responsibly, and that they would only serve to further his ability to help this site. His low profile on some of the other major BSG communities leaves little doubt in my mind that there is any significant risk of him representing this wiki poorly, and what little interactions I have seen of him off-wiki have always been enthusiastic, quiet, and helpful. I wouldn't expect any grandstanding. We can use the extra hands, and as I noted on my talk page, this was one of the names I suggested when I was trying to think of people to issue a mop to. --Steelviper 09:50, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
Support. Aside from the comments that SteelViper noted, I've watched Shane come a long way over the summer. His wiki skills are nothing short of remarkable, and I greatly appreciate his aid in the complete renovation of the wiki (combined with Mercifull's graphic work, this place is beautiful, and we get lots of comments on this). Off-wiki, he's offered to help at a fledgling wiki for the Matrix series. There is one important matter of note: Shane must be as concise in spelling and grammar as he is with coding. Often I note some sloppy contributions, although I appreciate this as a computer person myself, since good programmers are, paradoxically, not so good in overall writing, typically. Still, the ABCs of spelling and diction are crucial when mopping as, of course, you might spot an error and make it worse with poor diction. Shane's wiki skills really give him more influence than merely getting the mop tools of rollback, move, block and protect. I was hesistant at first to support his RFA until I saw a response to a contributor at Talk:Occupation. It wasn't the best prose, but he answered the question neutrally and factually, and kept it concise. I, for one, will appreciate having Shane around as our inside "Cylon agent" to protect us with code against vandals and other things, too. Provided he takes a deep breath before entering things, and types carefully, Shane will do fine. --Spencerian 17:00, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
Support Wow i didnt even realise there was an RFA for Shane. I dont really have the time right now to post a good reason for my vote here but if people really want me too then I will. I think now with S3 just about to start its a good time to bring a new mop boy on board. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:10, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
Support. I agree with Spencerian. --BklynBruzer 17:20, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
Support. What the hell, go get your mop. --April Arcus 01:32, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
Support. Yeah, I agree with the above, can't add anything more. --Talos 10:18, 7 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.

BW:Tem – Keeping a tab on the templates everyone must use for quick and easy generation of “standardized” things that the Wiki uses
BW:FA and BW:FP – Keeping tabs on the nominations
BW:PORT – Keeping the portals clean and expanding it as needed
BW:News/BW:CP – Cleaning Duties Only
BW:MAIN – Keeping the overall look of the site “pretty”
BW:CAT – Category organization
BW:i18n - Gathering Support for translation of Battlestar Wiki

I believe that most “projects” need the attention of everyone so not everything would be overlooked if I became an admin, but these are just the ones I would focus my energy level to.

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

A. I am really pleased with Colonial One. I was happy that I was able to contribute heavily to a BW:FA article. But I am only pleased with all the articles in which all users participate in. All articles are qualified that I am pleased about. While 10,000 edits is amazing, helping out fellow contributors to the overall success of this site helped me reach this goal. I could not have done that without their help as well.

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 believe the RFC helped me contribute to the site. With the creation of the Think Tank I been able to deal with the problem that was lacked in when my contributions were questions. My strongest disagrements would ahve to be against Peter, but I think we both have settled on a mutual agreements. I think everything between me and the oldtimers has been worked out, and I hope to continue to do that while being an administrator.

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.