|
|
| Line 28: |
Line 28: |
| | | | |
| | ==Nominations for bureaucratship== | | ==Nominations for bureaucratship== |
| − | ===[[User:Pacitalia|Pacitalia]]===
| |
| − | '''(2/0/4) ending 06:50 <s>Friday December 30, 2005</s> Tuesday January 3 2006'''
| |
| − | :''Extended by [[User:Goobergunch|Goobergunch]] on 02:44, 31 December 2005 (GMT). The lack of activity in voting here seems to be because of the holidays, and I'm going to allow a chance for this to fix itself.''
| |
| − | Pacitalia's been helpful to a lot of people, and is very active on NSWiki. He gives constructive critism where due and praise where that's due, and he's a fabulous all-round guy ;). So, nominating Paci for bureaucratship. [[User:Liverpool England|LE]] <small>([[Wikipedia:User:NSLE|WP]])</small> | [[User_talk:Liverpool_England|Talk]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Liverpool England|C]])</small> 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)<br>
| |
| − | '''Support'''
| |
| − | #As nominator [[User:Liverpool England|LE]] <small>([[Wikipedia:User:NSLE|WP]])</small> | [[User_talk:Liverpool_England|Talk]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Liverpool England|C]])</small> 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)<br>
| |
| − | #Paci's done a great job, and is pretty active. I think he's earned it. <font color="blue">''[[User:Ceorana|→ Ceo]]\[[User talk:Ceorana|<small>squawk</small>]]''</font> 16:14, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | '''Oppose'''
| |
| − | #
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Neutral'''
| |
| − | #I could not justifiably vote either way, until someone explains what a bureaucrat actually does, or points to a page where this is noted. [[User:Gruenberg2|<font color="green">Gruen</font>]][[User_talk:Gruenberg2|<font color="red">2alk</font>]] 16:20, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | #:The wikipedia definition is at [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrats]]. <font color="blue">''[[User:Ceorana|→ Ceo]]\[[User talk:Ceorana|<small>squawk</small>]]''</font> 17:27, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | #::More interested in the NSwiki definition for now. [[User:Gruenberg2|<font color="green">Gruen</font>]][[User_talk:Gruenberg2|<font color="red">2alk</font>]] 17:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | #:::I think the powers include basically changing user names and rights, as well as just being held to higher standards in Nswiki. There's no real page that says that, but the bureaucrat log lists changes in user rights, and that's what it says on wikipedia, which runs on the same software. <font color="blue">''[[User:Ceorana|→ Ceo]]\[[User talk:Ceorana|<small>squawk</small>]]''</font> 17:59, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | # It is not that I am not pleased with Paci as a sysop (I am very much so) but rather that I do not see why these extra powers should be given to him, specifically, and why they should be given to him now. I'll also wait for the word from Goober on this decision, which will weigh very heavily on my decision on how to vote. It should be noted that I really like Pacitalia, so that is completely not an issue. UPDATE: my abstention is going to reflect Goobers vote in this case then. --[[User:Knootoss||Knoot]]|[[User talk:Knootoss|KNOO<small>talk</small>]] 22:54, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | # I'm not going to vote. However, I'll note that a bureaucrat has exactly one power that a sysop doesn't have; the power to create new sysops and bureaucrats (and set bot flags, but anybody running a bot on NSwiki had better talk to me first). User rename changes cannot be done without database-level access, as Wikipedia's tool is not part of the standard MediaWiki distribution. --[[User:Goobergunch|Goobergunch]]|[[User talk:Goobergunch|?]] 03:27, 24 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | # I've not been active enough to be aware of the nominee's strengths or weaknesses, so I can't vote in favor. However, given the relatively minor additional power involved, I would like to be on record as not opposing this nomination. [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 02:37, 3 January 2006 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Comments'''
| |
| − | * I'm surprised at your sentiments after I blasted you above for your own nomination. Thanks for nominating me, though - I'm honoured! --[[User:Pacitalia|<font color="navy">Paci</font>]][[User_talk:Pacitalia|<font color="green">'''talk'''</font>]][[User:Pacitalia|<font color="red">ia</font>]] 07:11, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | **[[Wikipedia:Commonwealth English|Commonwealth English]] speakers are always good. :P [[User:Liverpool England|LE]] <small>([[Wikipedia:User:NSLE|WP]])</small> | [[User_talk:Liverpool_England|Talk]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Liverpool England|C]])</small> 07:16, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
| |
| − | *This vote has reached the end of the extention. Is it going to be extended again, or is it finished? '''''[[User:Ceorana|<font color="#00CCCC">→ Ceo</font>]] \ [[User talk:Ceorana|<font color="#0066CC">squawk</font>]]''''' 22:26, 5 January 2006 (GMT)
| |
| − | ** I'll get to it once I've had a chance to log in and such. Although more people voting wouldn't be a bad thing either. --[[User:Goobergunch|Goobergunch]]|[[User talk:Goobergunch|?]] 22:43, 6 January 2006 (GMT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | '''Questions for the candidate'''<br>
| |
| − | :'''1.''' People expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
| |
| − | ::'''A'''. I spend a lot of time on here (but not too much ;) ) so I know much of the general dispute that goes on here between users, as well as the ability to catch vandals and linkspammers when I see it happening. I'm the kind of guy who will defend his argument until the only way to go is a compromise, but that does not mean I can't see the other side - and that is a big reason why I prefer to be fair and clear-headed when mediating disputes. Most of my attempts at engaging the community involve linking other users to NSwiki articles for reference - I think the more people that know the Wiki is here and open to everyone, the more users will sign up and contribute. Plus I'm pleased to see the quality and quantity of users' work is increasing steadily; that is a very good sign for the health of this Wiki. I feel that I meet these standards because a lot of people trust my judgment and ask for help or advice on their editing or styling, which is nice to see. I'm always happy to lend a hand.
| |
| − | :'''2.''' Why bureaucrat? Why not simply remain sysop?
| |
| − | ::'''A'''. A good question - I feel, generally, that I have worked hard and served the community well enough to qualify for that extra responsibility. It's not my intention to influence others to vote for me here, so if people feel strongly enough that I should be elevated to a higher position, I hope they comment and vote on this topic. Still, as I said, it's not up to me, in my mind, whether I go up the ladder here - but up to the users that are pleased with the way I worked as a sysop.
| |
| − | :'''3.''' If voted in, do you anticipate having the main consequence of that being that you would have extra responsibility in setting user rights, or do you feel that it would mainly serve as a promotion in recognition of work as a sysop?
| |
| − | ::'''A'''. I have a feeling that many people would vote me in based on the latter, but I would prefer it would be for the former - and as such, people would be able to trust me with those extra responsibilities.
| |
| − | [[Category:NS MetaWiki|{{PAGENAME}}]]
| |
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."
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).
