Difference between revisions of "NSWiki:Admin nominations"

Revision as of 09:05, 24 September 2006

See existing administrators.

To view previous nomination votes, see NSwiki:New admins and NSwiki:New bureaucrats.

Please use wikipedia:Requests for adminship as a guide for nominating and formatting, as well as the pages linked above.

Most importantly, an admin should have thorough knowledge of NSwiki and should visit meta pages often. It is preferred if the admin has had a large amount of edits (In the top 20% of editors), and contributes on a relatively regular basis.

As the Wikipedia guide linked to above indicates, only users who are registered and logged in can vote and/or be nominated.

If you don't know whether to nominate a user as a sysop or as a bureaucrat, go with "sysop" by default. If a user has been doing well as a sysop, then nominate him/her as a "bureaucrat."

Rules

Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with NSwiki policies. Administrators have no special authority on NSwiki, but are held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of NSwiki. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on NSwiki long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities.

Nominations remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the nomination. Bureaucrats may extend this when consensus is unclear (because consensus is subjective, bureaucrats have some discretion, but the threshold on this page is roughly three-quarters support). Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent discussions that generate ill will; however, a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. If your nomination is rejected, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again.

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments/Questions section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

Nominations for sysopship

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

Current time is 05:34, Thursday, 23 May 2024 (GMT)

Aridd (2/0/0)

Expires 21:43, Monday, 11 September 2006 (GMT).

Aridd's helped a lot, especially in sports articles, and is taking responsibility for things like welcoming users, moving incorrectly titled pages, and other general sysoppy chores. He's also shown that he's a good worker and a good editor, and he's written a lot of good articles. It's time to give him a promotion to sysop. Ceoran_ta 21:43, 4 September 2006 (GMT) (this nomination made on behalf of Gruenberg per his request by telegram)

Candidate, please indicate your acceptance/declination here:
Thanks for the vote of confidence! Yes, I accept nomination.

Support

1. Support per nom. Ceoran_ta 21:43, 4 September 2006 (GMT)
2. Support. As noted, this is a nomination I intended to make...but I forgot how to do the date thing. ~Gruen2alk 21:53, 4 September 2006 (GMT)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments/Questions

• My only concern is whether we need that extra sysop right now. Our only problem now is database errors, since we have eradicated autovandalism, that being linkspamming. Perhaps the lack of voting on this nomination is a sign that either (a) we're the only truly active users, regardless of position, around here, or (b) most users recognise that, for the size of our community and the level of activity, we don't really need the extra help at the moment, therefore, out of respect for Aridd (who, in my opinion, has proven himself an important and invaluable member of the community), they are just not voting instead of outright opposing the nomination. As is procedure (convention) for bureaucrats, I neither support nor oppose Aridd's nomination, but I also am neutral on the preceding concerns. I appreciate Aridd's concise responses to the questions below, as well. 1,337 edits since 29 October 2005. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:13, 23 September 2006 (GMT)
  • We don't need any extra help? Have you seen Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, for example, lately? I don't think we need many sysops at all. But we do need some active ones. I appreciate people have times when they can help more, and when they can help less, and I mean no slight on those who have given time to NSwiki, but right now, not many of us are doing that much - including me. Aridd is an active user, and I trust he'd be an active sysop. And we definitely do need more of those. ~Gruen2alk 13:05, 24 September 2006 (GMT)

Some generic questions...

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A For the most part, I'd continue contributing as I have been doing (including tidying up articles, categorising, reverting vandalism, leaving suggestions in the talk pages of new contributors...), but I'd be up to dealing with other specific tasks if there's a need.

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

A Some articles which I started because I felt they'd be needed/useful (List of Ambassadors to the United Nations, List of international airports, Olympic Games), including categories and templates, in the hopes of making NSwiki tidier easier to navigate (Category:Economy, Category:Heads of State or Government, Category:Universities, Template:TLDs, Template:National Football Teams...). Maybe I'm obsessed with categorising, but when I see articles dealing with the same topic as it pertains to different nations, I always think it'd be nice if readers could access them all through a category or a template.

On a more personal note, I've put quite a bit of work into articles about my own nation, and was rather pleased to finally get History of Ariddia done.

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 No, no conflicts. Even when I've been annoyed at something and pointed it out, the author has generally appreciated the input. (I'm thinking mainly of this.) The only problem is when there's simply no response at all. In which case I usually make what edits are necessary to tidy things up, without contradicting what an author obviously wanted to convey about his or her own nation, and I leave a notice in the talk page in case of input or reactions.

4. What do you think the goal of NSwiki is?

A. As an encyclopedia, to be a repository of data about the fictional NS world (and of course the game itself), in encyclopedic form (which means NPOV, and a certain tidy, legible, third person format). Which is why I've edited articles to make them tidier, more NPOV and what I call more "encyclopedia-like".

Also, of course, NSwiki is an (unofficial) extension of NationStates, so the goal is for contributors to have fun while contributing.

5. What does consensus mean to you? (aargh, that sounded way too much like a standardized test question...)

A. Mainly, not going around forcing edits and delving into edit wars. In keeping with NPOV, contributors should be able to agree on the content of an article. Which also means that sysops don't go around imposing their interpretation on everyone else, but try to take part in reaching an agreement to resolve disputes. (Is the test over? :p)

Nominations for bureaucratship