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 {{{1}}}.

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 In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.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

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

CalculatinAvatar

Back to RFA.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/CalculatinAvatar|action=edit}} Vote here (6/0/1) ending 07:35 8 May 2006 (UTC)

CalculatinAvatar (talk • contribs) – I have been consistently impressed with CalculatinAvatar since he first joined us four months ago. He has displayed meticulous attention to detail, a strong commitment to accuracy, and his comments in the talk namespaces are always clear and well considered. Although his edit count is small, his contributions have been of consistently high value. I believe that as an administrator, he would be an even stronger asset to the project. --April Arcus 21:25, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --CalculatinAvatar 01:30, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Support

April Arcus 21:25, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
Mercifull 09:33, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - Quality editing by a user who I dont think has fallen out with anyone at all.
Steelviper 11:42, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - An exemplary Battlewikian. Not afraid to dive in and do some of the dirty work (any help over in the TOS and 1980 sections are greatly appreciated). Outside of an odd case of confusing violent agreement with Merv I can't think of any disturbances that CalculatinAvatar has been involved in. I'm sure he'll handle the mop with care and skill, and I had considered nominating him myself. I suppose it would be selfish to tank an RFA for the sole purpose of having someone succeed on "your" nomination... so I must support.
Spencerian 12:42, 1 May 2006 (CDT) I'm sure that Day would like to stop mopping; we need a fresh Mop Boy, and CA has shown the right muster. Hope your arms are ready; the place has a bigger floor now...
Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:57, 1 May 2006 (CDT) - After a long sleep to think about it, I support the Rfa.
Mazzy 13:35, 7 May 2006 (CDT) In favor. He helped me with something I didn't know how to fix. If thats the way he works then he is an asset. Admittedly my only knowledge. But it made a good impression.

Oppose

Neutral

The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:58, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Comments

Well, I'm really confused on this one: I like CA, and he's pretty good at stuff, but, hmm, well what I'm asking is; you've done good work making pages fit with out standards, and spelling and grammer, but what things do you feel you've done that showed your discretion and/or ability to contribute quality stuff? What are several major debates which you feel you contributed Administratorish (I know that isn't a word :) ) aspects in? What insight have you provided that no one else has? I'm not sure how to vote. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:58, 1 May 2006 (CDT)
I've added this as question 5--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 18:13, 4 May 2006 (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. I am most involved in grammar, punctuation, style, diction, linking, and (to a lesser extent) spelling changes. I also tend to fact-check articles dealing with comparisons between the reimagined series and our reality (e.g. Kinetic Energy Weapon, Naturalistic science fiction, and Assassination). I have particular interest in the application of Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad, Battlestar Wiki:Island of Misfit Images, and Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions.

I sometimes check the text quality of TOS or 1980 articles, but my unfamiliarity with their content hinders substantive changes.

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

A. Assassination and Galactica type battlestar occur to me, but those are pretty much just larger cases of the same prose clean-up edits as the majority of my contributions. That said, I am pleased that, in my assessment, I improved the readability and accuracy of each.

I poke at articles more than I compose them, so those are some of my larger changes.

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 had edit conflicts in the past, and I tend to deal with them by citing sources or finding out I was wrong when looking for sources. Sometimes I simply provide a more clear justification (e.g. "Normally I wouldn't revert a revert, but sentences end in periods.") or decide the other person has a better point or one of which I was ignorant (e.g. "punctuation order (that had occured to me, but i didn't really like the impression they gave. that said, i can live with them.)" after April's change tagged "Those are real quotes, not scare quotes.").

4. What can't you do as a standard contributor that administrator-ship would enable or allow you to do?

A. block vandals (especially those annoying numeric accounts), grammar check protected pages

5. What is creative input that you feel has distinguished you? What specific debates do you feel demonstrated your grasp of the facts and ability to lay out and moderate a good arguement?

A. (I'm sorry about the delay in this answer. I moved back home from the dorms and had to fix the internet connection I found broken when I got here.)

To be honest, I don't really provide much creative input. I mostly copy-edit.

As to a debate demonstrating a grasp of the facts, I'd point to Talk:Life Forms of the Twelve Colonies#Coffea.

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. ----

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 03:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship

About RfA

Current nominations

CalculatinAvatar

Archived requests

See also