NSWiki:Admin nominations
|
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."
Contents
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 09:38, 19 April 2024 (GMT)
Liverpool England
(0/2/1) Ending 05:28, Friday December 30 2005 (GMT)
Self-nom. I'm an admin at the English Wikipedia, but to be honest this is just to see what the community thinks about me. I'll take all comments into consideration, and don't mind if this vote fails. LE (WP) | Talk (C) 05:34, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Support
Oppose
-
If that's your reason for self-nominating... wow. I'm not impressed. --Pacitalkia 06:35, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- I don't doubt that you'd be good as an administrator, but scrolling through your contributions, you don't seem to have many for pages that aren't yours. → Ceo\squawk 16:14, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
- I don't see why someone who shows such disregard for the purpose of a meta page - this is not intended to be used as 'just' some acid test of popularity - should be afforded admin status. I have no problem with this user, and they a reasonable quantity and quality of edits, but the reasons presented here for their self-nomination are inadequate. Gruen2alk 16:20, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Neutral
Comments
- Answers to three standard questions would be mostly the same as at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NSLE. LE (WP) | Talk (C) 05:34, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- And no, I've never been involved in editing disputes on NSWiki. I'd say a good contribution of mine (not many, not here at least) is Template:TOCright, which was blatantly copied from Wikipedia. LE (WP) | Talk (C) 05:42, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- I'm changing my vote to neutral on further thought of this - LE's contributions to Wikis have been damn good and his LEAOR articles (on the weather systems) are top-notch material. I seemed to ignore that when I opposed his nomination, but I still wish he'd have put more effort into his self-nomination. :) --Pacitalkia 08:16, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Nominations for bureaucratship
Pacitalia
(2/0/2) ending 06:50 Friday December 30, 2005
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. LE (WP) | Talk (C) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Support
- As nominator LE (WP) | Talk (C) 06:50, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- Paci's done a great job, and is pretty active. I think he's earned it. → Ceo\squawk 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. Gruen2alk 16:20, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- The wikipedia definition is at Wikipedia:Administrators#Bureaucrats. → Ceo\squawk 17:27, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
- More interested in the NSwiki definition for now. Gruen2alk 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. → Ceo\squawk 17:59, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
- More interested in the NSwiki definition for now. Gruen2alk 17:50, 23 December 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. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 22:54, 23 December 2005 (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! --Pacitalkia 07:11, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
- Commonwealth English speakers are always good. :P LE (WP) | Talk (C) 07:16, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
Questions for the candidate
- 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.
