Difference between revisions of "NSWiki:Admin nominations"

Revision as of 20:07, 11 December 2004

See existing administrators.

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

Please use wikipedia:Requests for adminship as a guide for nominating and formatting.

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 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Rechze (4/0/0)

Made many useful contributions, and is one of the not-so-many users looking beyond the border of their own articles and making generally useful improvements and contributions where the opportunities present itself. I think this user has the willingness, as well as the capabilities, to make a good sysop. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:37, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Accept, "would make a good admin": I suppose dedication, in fine tuning articles, and alacrity in seeking to work with and contribute to the inherent system. — ℜechze| ♞talk 10:01, 8 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Support

1. As in nomination, provided the nomination is accepted -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:37, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
2. User has become very active and helpful lately. → Fris Θtalk 18:17, 11 Dec 2004 (GMT)
3. Low edit count, but very helpful and productive (esp. in WikiJanitor tasks) user. --Goobergunch|? 21:39, 11 Dec 2004 (GMT)
4. User is known and productive member of the community. -- Wilem Engelking 00:01, 12 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments/Questions

• 288 edits since 23 October 2004. --Goobergunch|? 23:33, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
• I've been quite pleased by this nominee's performance as a wiki community member, but I'm concerned by the relatively low number of edits, as well as timing issues. The Wikipedia standard, such as it is, calls for typically 1000 to 2500 edits before many users will consider them for the position. Obviously, this is a new wiki with many fewer pages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a similar demand. I'd like to hear from the nominee (assuming s/he acccepts) explain why they would make a good admin before casting my ballot. → Fris Θtalk 01:19, 8 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Wilem Engelking (Ars Longa) (4/0/0)

This user, too, made many useful contributions to NSwiki, displaying the ability to improve the works of others as well as making efforts to communicate to others and with the willingness to do sometimes tedious meta-work if needs be, showing a commitment to NSwiki. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:37, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Thank you, Knoot. I accept the nomination. -- Wilem Engelking 09:50, 9 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Support

1. As in nomination, provided the nomination is accepted -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 21:37, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
2. User has become very active and helpful recently. → Fris Θtalk 18:17, 11 Dec 2004 (GMT)
3. Low edit count, but very helpful and productive (esp. in WikiJanitor tasks) user. --Goobergunch|? 21:37, 11 Dec 2004 (GMT)
4. In accordance with a long tradition of doing so, I'm going to support myself. -- Wilem Engelking 00:01, 12 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments/Questions

• 143 edits since 20 October 2004. --Goobergunch|? 23:36, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT)
• I've been quite pleased by this nominee's performance as a wiki community member, but I'm concerned by the relatively low number of edits, as well as timing issues. The Wikipedia standard, such as it is, calls for typically 1000 to 2500 edits before many users will consider them for the position. Obviously, this is a new wiki with many fewer pages, but that doesn't mean there isn't a similar demand. I'd like to hear from the nominee (assuming s/he acccepts) explain why they would make a good admin before casting my ballot. → Fris Θtalk 01:19, 8 Dec 2004 (GMT)
  • I have knowledge of the policies, workings and etiquette of the wiki, open mind, and, as I believe, an ability to handle disagreements. Regarding the timing, I have to agree that my participation is indeed non-systematic. -- Wilem Engelking 09:50, 9 Dec 2004 (GMT)
• I'd like to remind both candidates that they are wiki members too, and may cast votes for themselves.

Nominations for bureaucratship