Difference between revisions of "NSWiki:Admin nominations"

Revision as of 22:32, 1 March 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 23:31, 27 April 2024 (GMT)

Swilatia

(3/0/1) ending 02:05, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Don't forget to update the vote tally!

Swilatia (talk • contribs) has been a great contributer to NSwiki, both in cleanup work and in taking initiative to Be bold. He's responsible for the creation of Template:Infobox NationEx, Template:Infobox City 2, and probably a few other templates, as well as general janatorial cleanups to a wide variety of pages that expand well beyond ones relating to Swilatia and close attention to meta pages and talk pages. I think that he would do a great job as sysop and use the powers responsibly and effectively. For the reasons stated above, I hereby nominate Swilatia for sysopship. –|–– Ceo \ rant 02:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance here:

I accept --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 12:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Support

1. As nominator. –|–– Ceo \ rant 02:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
2. Support, given he seems to know his way around table code (which I hate). I'd suggest extending the vote a week, though: does Pacitalia now have the authority to do that? Gruen2alk 14:31, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

   I don't see why we need an extension, personally....the vote is fairly clear-cut at the moment. --Goobergunch|? 02:32, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

3. He answered my questions maturely and thoroughly, and they were the right answers. That's what we need - another sysop who is ready to do things both by-the-book, and take risks as a last resort. I change my vote to support. The vote ends on Friday, though, so I think we'll wait until closer to then. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 18:42, 1 March 2006 (GMT)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I can't say support or oppose basically because you're unknown to me - I've seen you editing around here but I just haven't looked at your work or gotten to know you, so if possible, Swilatia, would you consider talking with me for a while on an IM client? I'd hate to call it a job interview but I just can't reasonably vote for someone when I don't know them. I'd have a few questions for you, but nothing too serious. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 01:33, 25 February 2006 (GMT)
   
2. Per Paci, don't know you too well. LE (WP) | Talk 01:44, 25 February 2006 (GMT)

Comments/Questions

• Goobergunch can give the official tally, but around 430 edits. –|–– Ceo \ rant 02:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
  • 445 edits since 17 July 2005. --Goobergunch|? 06:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)
• Although we probably don't need another sysop, I think Swilatia will go above and beyond mundane tasks and use the powers to significantly improve NSwiki. –|–– Ceo \ rant 02:19, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Some generic questions for Swilatia:

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

I will problaly have to see that later when I gain the status, if I do. My only wish on NSwiki is to simply improve it. --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 12:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

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

Usually I think the most useful contributions I have made was the creation of new infobox templates, as then any user can easily have a infobox of a certain type --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 12:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

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?

I have not been yet in any editing conflicts --Swilatia (Not Swilly!!) 12:57, 24 February 2006 (GMT)

Nominations for bureaucratship