Quantcast Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship/Archive - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki
Recent changes Random page
GAMING
Entertainment
 
Star Wars
Star Trek
Transformers
 Muppet Wiki
Digimon Wiki
Marvel Database
See more...

Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship/Archive

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Ottens (2/1/0) (June 2004, unresolved after >14 days)

I'm not sure if he wants to be an administrator, but if does (or can be persuaded), I feel he would make a great addition to the team. -- Redge 12:21, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Well, I wouldn't mind... (means, accept, yes... ;) Ottens 17:41, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Support

  1. Redge (implicit from nomination -- Michael Warren)
  2. Dan Carlson

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Addition of too much non-canon info and speculation to articles without references, suggesting lack of familiarity with MA policies. Judging from Talk:Excelsior class, reluctant to accept his POV as speculation. Plus, I don't really see the need for additional admins at this time.-- Michael Warren 15:48, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Neutral/Comments

  • Comment: Note that I wouldn't feel offended or something when you think I wouldn't make a good admin, or for the simple reason that MA doesn't need any more admins [for now]... :) -- Ottens
  • Michael: I understand your point, concerning the addition of non-canon information. And yes, I made some mistakes concerning the Excelsior class page, but do note that that's the only occassion where I included non-canon information, and when other members commented me on it, I removed virtually all non-canon information. Ottens 17:43, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • I think the Excelsior should be seen as an exception, as several people have been known to make mistakes there. Besides, IMO Ottens' extensive knowledge on various subjects would make him very suited to assertain the canonaty of articles as an admin. -- Redge 13:37, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)
  • Michael: You think I added those pages on purpose, just to annoy you? :S Ottens 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I don't think that this is what Michael thinks. His reasoning, and I agree with this, seems to be that an administrator should be aware of our policies and act accordingly. The creation of more than 30 articles not allowed by our canon policy shows, IMO, that this is not the case here. This is nothing personal. -- Cid Highwind 12:28, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • Apoligies. I misunderstood. Ottens 12:34, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • It seems that this one has been rejected (unresolved after 14 days). I will archive this suggestion later, unless some of you still want to discuss. -- Cid Highwind 12:28, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

[edit] Captain Michael K. Bartel (3/0/1) (July 2004, successful after 7+ days)

Aside from being one of the most active non-admin Archivists, Mike's been very helpful in hammering out our still-vague canon policy. He's also been good at judging the canonicity of submitted material and whittling away the superfluous information. -- Dan Carlson 20:52, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Accepted.--Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:22, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Support

  1. Dan Carlson
  2. Redge 01:26, 24 Jul 2004 (CEST): After taking some time to examine Mike's entries and background, I say he has extensive knowledge of StarTrek (which is my chief criterium), but also has hamered on the canon policy when all seemed forgotten (which I like) and is one of the first to come up with good references (which I like even better). So I say Mike disserves to be an admin, and would make MA proud!
  3. I agree with Cid's concerns re: policy and Mike's compliance therewith, but support the nomination. I would ask Redge to remember that knowledge should not be the criterion for judging nominations, but the nominee's ability to deal with the responsibilities of the post. Admins do not decide what is and is not suitable, the community as a whole does that. Admins are 'janitors', not 'supervisors' -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:42, Aug 11, 2004 (CEST)

Oppose

Neutral/Comments

  • I don't oppose this nomination, but noticed in the past that Mike sometimes is a little 'uneven' when it comes to the compliance with our policies and guidelines - including some strange comments on his user page that were later deleted. If Mike comes to accept the (necessarily) rather slow process of building a wiki, he would make a good addition... -- Cid Highwind 12:02, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)
  • Michael: I feel that extensive knowledge is also an important criterium, since it allows for recognizing canon from non-canon, factual errors, etc.. -- Redge | Talk 17:35, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Except that, that is a job for any user. Not just admins. As I say, admin nominations should be judged on their suitability to do the job, not what they know. (Oh, and FYI, it's criterion (pl. criteria)) -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:27, Aug 12, 2004 (CEST)
      • Ok, good point. And pardon my English, I've only been using it a year or 6. -- Redge | Talk 19:40, 12 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Okay, this has been left open much longer than it should've. Sorry about the delay! -- Dan Carlson | Talk 17:11, Sep 10, 2004 (CEST)

[edit] SmokeDetector47 (3/0/0) (May 2005)

I do not know if they are interested, but their close adherence to the policies of this site (so far as I have been able to tell), and their penchant for writing detailed articles that attain featured status cannot be ignored. A commendable contributor and an asset that deserves recognition, should they accept. I expected that they would have been offered this position in the past, but it does not seem to be so. -- Dmsdbo 15:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accept. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Dmsdbo (from nomination)
  2. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cid Highwind

No objections after seven days. Discussion closed, awaiting bureaucrat action. -- Cid Highwind 15:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

[edit] Gvsualan (7/0/0) (May 2005)

In my opinion, has a good understanding of the policies&guidelines. Is not afraid of helping with the "boring" maintenance tasks (renaming images, for example). Last but not least, wants to be an admin... ;) -- Cid Highwind 12:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Cid Highwind (implicit from nomination)
  2. Strong support -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support -- rebelstrike 14:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, a consummate professional and intelligent contributer. Someone I truly feel comfortable having the reigns of MA. — THOR 14:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support -- His comments and extensive knowledge of how things are meant to be done on MA are both signs that he should be an administrator already, IMHO. zsingaya 18:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support --Defiant | Talk 02:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. While we do disagree on some formatting issues, Gvsualan has shown a professional attitude and willingness to take care of problems such as page deletions and PNAs almost immediately, which would make him a perfect admin. He also has a solid history of quality contributions. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No objections after seven days. Discussion closed, awaiting bureaucrat action. -- Cid Highwind 14:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

  1. Neutral -- I am not against this nomination, but I question whether or not their are others who would be more beneficial as administrators on this site. He still performs an excellent job. -- Dmsdbo 15:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defiant (6/0/0) (May 2005)

I hope it doesn't seem too arrogant of me, but I want to be an administrator and feel that I would make a good addition to the team. --Defiant | Talk 10:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accept.

[edit] Support

  1. Defiant (implicit from nomination)
  2. Species8472 - I've looked at some of Defiant's work and seen that he knows a lot about Star Trek. His work is correctly formatted, I think he would make a good administrator.
  3. Support -- Defiant really knows his stuff and his episode summaries are excellent. I hope he remembers the people who supported him on his way to the top! -- Rebelstrike2005 21:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support - not updating the count, though. I don't think you can vote for yourself... :) -- Cid Highwind 12:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, fantastic contributer of both content and images; impressively willing to accept criticism and incorporate as opposed to disregarding the input of others. — THOR 14:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support - I was surprised to learn that he was not already an admin -- Dmsdbo 15:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Excellent contributions, plays well with the rest of the community, and most important of all, actually wants to do the job so much he nominated himself. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No objections after seven days. Discussion closed, awaiting bureaucrat action. -- Cid Highwind 20:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

[edit] Kobi (7/0/0)

Already is an admin on MA/de. Operates a bot on MA/en, being an admin here would avoid some of the problems encountered. Cid Highwind 14:53, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong support Jaf 14:57, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • indeed it would be helpful, thanks for the support -- Kobi - (Talk) 15:34, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Cid Highwind (from nomination)
  2. Jaf
  3. Support (I thought Kobi was already an admin here!) -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:03, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  4. AmdrBoltz 04:45, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support --Shran 07:34, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support --Patricia 09:20, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support (sorry, I'm late - can't see everything) -- Florian - ✍ talk 20:00, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

[edit] AJHalliwell (6/0/1)

I am nominating AJHalliwell because he seems to have a good graps of MA protocol, also is a value member of the MA community in my opinion. Furthure more he is consitantly on (atleast that I have viewed) durring the 12:00am to 4am timeslot when an admin is despertatly needed to ward away vandals, and take drastic action. (Suggestion by User:Kahless)

accept, graciously. - AJHalliwell 17:29, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Kahless (implicit from nomination)
  2. Cid Highwind 12:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jaf 13:49, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  4. Shran 17:38, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tough Little Ship 18:11, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  6. Scimitar 22:06, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

  1. I'm not necessarily against it, but I'm not necessarily for it for the reasons stated in the nomination. I still think there are several aspects of our policies that are not yet understood by the user, as well, the timeslot is not always void at those hours. --Alan del Beccio 12:25, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • A suggestion - in case of problems with "understanding policies", could you perhaps try to work them out with AJ on his talk page or something? -- Cid Highwind
    • I've made several suggestions. I'm also now having to make a note to him about not blanking pages, which seems to fortify my point, as was just done on Irina Karlovassi. --Alan del Beccio 15:58, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • BUT that could have just been an accident. I don't believe he does that often (if at all, with the exception of this one time). And, if that is the only thing he does or did wrong, then that still pales in comparison with everything he's contributed to MA, especially with protecting against vandalism, as pointed out above by Cid Highwind. AJ has strong support from this blue skin, that's for sure. :) --Shran 17:47, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
        • I appologize for that, it was my last edit before I went to sleep and I most certainly did not mean to blank the page. If you look into the time historys, just before the edit I uploaded Image:Irina Karlovassi.jpg, which I meant to put onto the page and add a note about her being from the 20th century (like I'd just done for Miklos Karlovassi.) It blanked for some reason, but I'd left and didn't notice. - AJHalliwell 17:29, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shran (6/0/0)

He has a very good understanding of the Policies, he rarely makes mistakes, he has made hundreds of edits to the pages (1211 main article, non-minor edits, an average of 12 major edits a day from June 18 to September 23), plus he has a couple featured articles. He seems to be one of the top contributors who has not been nominated for administratorship.--Tim Thomason 11:27, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Tim Thomason (implicit from nomination)
  2. Support- seems like a fine idea. -Platypus Man | Talk 15:31, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support - I was surprised that he allowed me to edit and conclude the summary of "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" and to collaborate on "These Are the Voyages...". I support this officer's promotion in rank, as long as I get to see him walk the plank first! --Defiant | Talk 15:43, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. I probably see the "reverted edit of x, changed back to last version by y" message from him more often than anyone, and I remember at least one or two occasions where someone was vandalizing and he had to wait for an admin to show up. Plus, he takes things quite seriously, unlike yours truly. --Schrei 15:47, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. He smells ok. Jaf 15:49, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  6. Support. I'm still a newbie, but I have certainly been impressed. --Fenian 07:15, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap, I don't believe this, lol! Truth be told, I'm not entirely sure if I'm ready for administratorship (mainly b/c I don't know yet what all it entails, aside from being able to revert easier and block/delete), but I wanna thank Tim for nominating me and everyone else for their support. I really appreciate it, everybody. :) --Truly, From Andoria with Love 02:39, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

PS to Defiant: Just remember, it's retract plank, not remove plank. ;-) --From Andoria with Love 02:42, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Aww, they've forgotten me. Oh, well. :P (Truth be told, I forgot about this myself until a few moments ago, lol!) --From Andoria with Love 03:34, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

  • Comment: I already voted (actually nominated) so this comment isn't "neutral" and has nothing to do with Shran directly. It seems that Shran has been nominated for almost a month now, and has a unanimous 5-0 vote. I gather from the policy pages and archive that a nomination has to be "on the table" for at least seven days unanimously and at least fourteen days for consensus. I understand the "at least" part but the vote was unanimous and it's been about 4 voting periods now. I believe the next step is an administrator should archive this and contact a bureaucrat, and the bureaucrat should sysop Shran into admin status. Of course, if an administrator has a problem with it, I guess they should give their opinion and vote against or whatever, and then the nomination can wait another couple weeks.--Tim Thomason 01:07, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not saying this to win support or help my case or anything, but I feel I need to point out that with both Alan and A.J. gone for an indeterminate length of time, we are currently lacking two administrators. Not to discredit those admins still available, but I'm sure another one would be helpful during this time. Like I said, I'm not saying it for me, I just felt I should point this out. --From Andoria with Love 07:10, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I completely missed that earlier. Done now. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:14, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: With power comes great responsibility. And with diplomacy, I only want to reassert that reverting edits with an opinion of 'the descriptions of the episodes are not necessary' isn't in the spirit of a Wiki. Remembering that this isn't just Shran's wiki or Funkdubious' wiki but a community of like-minded Star Trek fans. Of course, vandalism should always be reverted, and we all will help report any articles we've found to be vandalized. --Funkdubious 18:26, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Nobody (0/5/0)

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

  • Despite claims to the contrary, Mike still seems to have some problems with our policies, most notably the canon policy and the copyrights - which are, in my opinion, the two most important policies this site has. Examples: Talk:Hippie, Talk:MACO, other copyright violations, all with related discussions elsewhere, including user talk pages and Ten Forward. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Browsing through Mike's talk page shows that within the few months of his contributions he has earned nothing but comments where to find MA policies. Since administrators are supposed to be prime examples of archivists I feel Mike is unsuited to become sysop -- Kobi - (Talk) 12:52, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above. Also, considering there has been at least 4 major copyright violations in the past ~10 days, and just as many, if not more, reminders about not doing it, on just as many separate occasions, it is quite clear he refuses to follow our policies. Did I mention he fondness towards resorting to name-calling as a means to resolving conflicts? --Alan del Beccio 13:03, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I, too, agree with all of the above. Mike has commited numerous copyright violations (the latest discovered can be found here), cursing out users, has been generally disruptive (as Alan said above), and is currently having problems accepting our canon policy. Alan and I have tried to reason with him, but he seems intent on ignoring our policies. --From Andoria with Love 13:10, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Mike needs to learn how to take criticism gracefully -- or if that wouldn't work, how to take it at all. When I was a new user, it took me a long time to come to terms with those who aggravated me here, now I work with them daily -- and dozens of other, more aggravating people. I focus on the parts of the work I like, and can manage, without violating the policies and guidelines, and if I can't keep an exchange with another user civil, I usually stay out of it, or seek a third party -- rather than cutting to the chase and cussing out the other contributor, the third party, anyone who might have a comment, etc. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

[edit] Neutral/Comments

If I may make a note of something, I have little real interest in becoming an Administrator. I wanted to bring the issue up to get a gauge of the environment. If by chance, I would've actually been voted in (fat chance of that) at least it would've added my point of my view into the status quo and maybe have made a difference.

The name-calling, the trolling, as someone has said, has been exaggerated. The thin-skinned passive-aggressiveness that passes for civility here is disgusting. If anyone has been offended, remember, you took the first swing. Although I try not to reply in kind, the debates can get frustrating. Any issues of policy I'm willing to listen to and discuss as long as it doesn't get out of hand and turn into a rant or flame-war.Mike Nobody

The fact you would nominate without real intent is indicative that you can't handle the job. Other than that, I don't know much about you, other than what I read on this page, and I see unresolved disputes -- which, from Wikipedia experience, I can confidently say is a bad thing to have among admin. In any case, there are plenty of admin right now. Assuming Vedek Dukat continues to grow and be a team player and vandal handler, I think he'd be my choice for admin in a couple months. --Broik 06:22, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
To Mike: Somehow, I knew you weren't serious about becoming an admin. And if by "taking the first swing" you mean defending M/A policies, then you're right; we generally like to do things right and by-the-book around here, and when someone conflicts with our goals, we do tend to get a little defensive, especially when that someone continually creates conflicts on the same subject. As for this "thin-skinned passive-aggressiveness" you speak of, I'm sure it would seem to you as being aggressive since we're not telling you or doing what you want to hear or want us to do. You, on the other hand, have not even been passive aggressive -- not once has any of us wrote to you "What the Hell is your problem?" or "Give me a !@#$ break!" Several of us have attempted to reason with you, but you just won't back down. And when we try to discuss policy with you, you seem to just want to ignore it or argue with it and stick with your own misguided views of our policies and do your own thing, which we just can't have that here.
And to Broik: I, too, think Vedek Dukat could become an admin candidate if he continues to serve the community as he is doing. I don't think we've had any problem with him either, have we? Also, Tim Thomason might also make a good admin; I might nominate him myself soon. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • See what I mean? But, at least I agree, Tim Thomason would make a good Admin. As for my own capabilities, yes, I can handle the "job". The debates get tiresome, though. Mike Nobody
    • You can't even handle the most basic aspects of the common contributors job of contributing original work. In fact, those of us who keep tabs on such matters cannot trust you or your contributions; how can we trust you with synops privileges? Having that kind of reputation preceeding you, and constantly building upon it, rather than attempting to "conform" to the most basic rules, is hardly becoming for any contributor, much less an admin. --Alan del Beccio 07:16, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to get off topic, but when I read the comments about myself, I had to say something. :P I'm flattered someone would say that, so thanks, but for the record there were problems with me, namely that I started off as a quasi-vandal (remember the "(Name) is an element" articles and pointless redirects?) and little things like my template change (see user page) that are part of the learning process. But anyway, I'd definitely rather see Tim be an admin than Mike, though I don't think we need any admin right now. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:37, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vedek Dukat (11/3/2)

I wouldn't normally do this, but I think I've combated enough vandals (BTW only reason Bentbrain and I had such a long convo was because I was afraide he'd keep vandalizing...) I've gotten sick of waiting for an admin to get on. A recent wave of particularly insidious vandalism involving moving episode pages -- and now apparently editing the resultant redirect (for example, "Covenant") could have been averted had I been an admin. Basically, that's all I'm asking for; I've never considered myself the admin type, but if it means I can get rid of vandals and prevent this (crap) from happening, I'm all for it. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:01, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Support. I'll admit I'm a newbie, but the good Vedek's work was one of the first contributors I noticed. He strikes me a civil and prolific, and cares about this project earnestly without going nuts about it. Sounds like a good guy to have on the button. I second. AureliusKirk 20:42, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Similar to AureliusKirk's comments (interesting name incidentally), except I'm not much of a newbie any more. I'm not sure about the early contributions issue, but he seems to understand the rules and regulations part, so the inexperience can be overcome. :-) I third. Weyoun 03:06, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks to me like the Vedek's got a case of the watched pot that never boils, meaning the obvious support from Shran and near-support from others who aren't voting to support this indicate he'll be an admin eventually. In response to Tim Thomason, though, I don't think self-nominating is a sign of anything but impatience. Personally, I support this because I don't think tenure should be a factor in adminship and, aside from the "not yet" arguments, I see no reason he shouldn't be an amin. I guess his previous foulplay can be analagous to B'Elanna Torres becoming Chief Engineer when Carey had been there longer; if you've got what it takes, you deserve it. Sloan 05:52, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I have not been on Memory Alpha for awhile and am not entirely familiar with the vandal issues and such, but the roster everyone has mentioned looked really helpful and the changes to the main page are certainly welcome! Everyone who has commented, with the exception perhaps of Platypus Man, sounded positive but said the same thing about the length of time. Well this is longer than a week, as Tim says, and I think he deserves a shot based on the available evidence. Makon 09:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Changed my mind because I think Vedek Dukat is someone I trust and would like to see go somewhere. I'm probably wasting my time by voting, since it's a policy of unanimity, but I might as well show my support. --Broik 10:29, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I've been here quite a while now (a year, on the 17th December). I've seen people become admins, such as Shran, and I've then witnessed how much good they've done for the site. Watching his edits and how he managed the recent vandal, amongst other things, I believe he's got the knowledge and the character thats needed to help out more around here. I don't think his earlier transgressions should be held against him forever, should they? Zsingaya Talk 22:05, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Let the man have a chance already! He got off to a bad start but has kicked arse ever since and shown he's a valuable member of the community. He listed the vandal fighting as reasons he wanted to be an admin because he was stressed out over the BS, but from what I've read on here he genuinely wants to and can help with administrative issues including (but not limited to) vandalism. Ben Sisqo 00:35, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm getting into this a bit late, but my vote is support. I think the Vedek would be a good admin, as he has extensive knowledge and has definitely shown that he is a good member of the community since he shaped up, and I think that making Vedek an admin would only be an asset to the site. --Starchild 02:10, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Support: I know it's been about a week since I first voted to oppose, and most of the voting is pretty much over already, but it should at least be on record that I've been leaning toward the good Vedek's side lately. My initial objections were based on experience and history (as Shran has agreed to object to below). His early vandalism isn't that bad, I guess, if you assume that he was just trying to get rid of red links and didn't fully understand the policies. His recent history has been pretty much spotless, he has become a very well-known member of the community (8 users wanting him for adminship is pretty high compared to the archives, plus the recent edit war based on one of his user pages), and he has taken the most-likely failed nomination for administratorship in stride. His experience is still the only thing I find wrong, but like his self-nomination, shouldn't be enough to prove he isn't qualified for adminship. He has been here two months now and I'm sure, avoiding any catastrophe, will still be here two months from now. I admit, I may have been a bit biased in my first vote (I tend to sway on the pro-Gvsualan side), so I hope this will rectify things a little.--Tim Thomason 17:01, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Support. Oh, what the hell. I've talked with him now and then and he seems to have his head on straight. I think I would still prefer to wait one or two more months before seeing him become an admin, but I guess now's as good as time as ever. Like Tim said, his vandalism wasn't really vandalism, and he had cleaned up his act and then some since then, so yeah. All's good. --From Andoria with Love 19:05, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I know the Vedek on a personal level and believe him to be a fine person. I have faith in his integrity to use the admin power responsibility. Although I'm not sure what the bad blood is between him and Alan del Beccio (essentially, Alan's argument comes down to the Vedek being new once you remove the personal reasons), but I do know Dukat has my support to become an admin. --PRueda29 21:39, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. After forcing myself to read the way-too-lengthy debate - which in normal cases for an admin is a bad sign, since they're supposed to be community leaders and a problem with the community is a problem with the leader - and I simply find myself seeing the glass half full. I'm sure some people want to err on the side of caution and deny his adminship, but it's like they say on Wikipedia - be bold!
In the end, it was Gvsualan's vote that changed my mind, however, as I found many arguments lacking in substance - judging his knowledge of Star Trek, which none of us can presume to know, or how many edits he has made is irrelevant. It reminds me of a quote I once saw on Wikipedia: "If I can inspire 10 users to each make 1,000 edits, it's better t han making 10,000 edits myself." The fact that Dukat is a "welcoming committee" is a positive trait, as it shows he cares about the community, which is quite a welcome contrast to Gv's rather blunt (no offence)way of dealing with people. I also think Dukat has shown himself to be an asset, so I give him my support, even if I'm just pissing in the wind since I doubt Gvsualan will ever change his mind, whether it's a month or a year from now. Anyway, I've said my piece. Roar 00:09, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Ditto... Well, aside from the part about Alan convincing him and all that, since I'd voted already. Well said . --Broik 00:20, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Although I don't know him that well, he seems alright. What the Hell.--Mike Nobody =/\= 03:42, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Oppose. No offense, but if blocking vandals is the only reason you have to want to be an admin, then I don't think you should be. Sure, you could block quicker, but then it would be like wasting the other responsibilities of an admin. Also, as you yourself said, you lack the experience. The Duty Roster is a nice idea, but it isn't enough in my eyes to vote for you to be an admin. If someone can convince me, I'll strike my vote, but I'm sticking with this for now. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • ↑ (That's an upwards arrow if you can't see it.) I would have said the same, but after reading the Vedek's comments below, I thought otherwise. Weyoun 03:06, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Like Shran says below, I think it is a bit early for Vedek Dukat to be thinking of administratorship. I nominated Shran after almost 4 months of good non-vandalistic edits (started early June, nominated late September), whereas Vedek Dukat started in mid October and is now being nominated (by himself, which is something that makes me not so sure) not even two months later. Also, he himself admits that his early edits are a little bit "pushing the envelope." The Duty Roster has been well accepted by the community, and I admit yesterdays episode-moving guy needed to be combatted (I did all I could when I showed up an hour later, so it wasn't just Cid, Shran, and Alan), but I think he should stay a couple more months before he gets administratorship.--Tim Thomason 05:39, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • In response to Sloan, obviously we shouldn't judge on "tenure" per se, but, hypothetically, you shouldn't show up for a week, make awesome contributions, and then nominate yourself for adminship. It specifically says on Memory Alpha:Administrators#Becoming an administrator, that "it is expected that a nominee for administratorship be a registered member of the community for at least several months." This is to prove that you are committed to the project and will stick around. As for "self-nominating," while it is an alright thing to do if the community "forgets" that this page exists (it happens), I, personally, think that you should be nominated by another user, as it shows, even more than "Support" votes that you are accepted as a valid member of the community. Any one-week guy or near-vandal could nominate themself ("ahem" Mike Nobody). However, that was not my opposition to the nomination (the "tenure" thing was), and isn't (and shouldn't) be used to oppose someone. It's just a personal gripe that I threw in there (in parenthesis, which is my way of saying something to "the side," if anyone has noticed).--Tim Thomason 06:24, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • (Sorry, had to butt in.) It should be noted that Defiant became an admin on self-nomination, with a vote of 6/0/0, so that doesn't change anything about a candidate's merits. --Broik 10:29, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Vedek Dukat's nothing like Mike Nobody - I know that's not what you were saying, but just so it's clear. It seems that he nominated himself in exasperation and probably wouldn't have done so normally, but realized it was too late to take it back. Sloan is probably right in any case: Vedek Dukat is a question not of if but when he will become an admin. Not that I necessarily think it should be now, but someone (Weyoun, Shran, myself) would have and probably will do it sooner or later. --Broik 06:34, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • If it's a question of when rather than if, why not now? I realize it's important to be here a while and gain people's trust, but Shran, Tim and now you have essentially said the same thing: he's qualified but it's premature - sentiments I agree with to an extent (see original comment) but don't think should be automatic grounds for disqualifying him. The fact is Memory Alpha would benefit from him being an admin, in terms of leadership, maintenance and vandal fighting, and that's enough to convince me that he's qualified. Sloan 07:15, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose. I have thought about it, and the more I think about it, I cannot bring myself to say "We should make him an administrator right now!" While I, too, grew frustrated when dealing with vandalism I couldn't do anything about, I knew that, sooner or later, everything would be made right again by an admin. Granted, nobody likes to see articles defaced, especially for several hours, but the fact remains that it will be corrected. And what of the times when vandalism occurs and the good Vedek isn't around (let alone any administrator)? Do we nominate whoever was around to take care of the vandalism while waiting for an admin? I don't believe someone should be voted as an admin just because they were around when a vandal struck and were not able to do anything. As for Vedek himself, I cannot get by the fact that his first contributions themselves were on the verge of vandalism -- that coupled with his inexperience seriously makes me wonder if he is ready to tackle administrative duties. It's not a matter of trust -- it's a matter of experience and history. Because those qualities are somewhat questionable at the moment I cannot bring myself to support his becoming an administrator right now. (Not to mention, he should have had an unquestionable membership for at least several months -- several being more than 2 or 3, but not many, according to the dictionary.) That said, Vedek has been doing a magnificent job in the past month or so and has become, as everyone else observed, a team player... if he keeps it up and if he has patience, I believe another nomination in a few more months will be in order. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:16, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm sorry, but Dukat is still too new-- with the simple fact being that he has less than 900 contributions! Compare that to our last new Admin initiated, Shran, who I might add, had not only made a name for himself with an impressive number of contributions both in quality and quantity (who comparatively has almost 6900 contributions!)-- I don't believe Dukat has even begun to the scratch the so-called surface that our current admins did to earn the title.
To clarify, the majority of our current administrators have an understanding of, accessibility to, and the reputation in the areas of knowledge, resources and ability in policies and diplomacy, and above all the full realm of Star Trek lore that I think Dukat lacks. Aside from making himself a self-appointed "welcoming committee" and making and implementing the "Duty Roster" (which I am not sure is exactly "innovative"), I have not seen where he has the contribution "range", resourcefulness, and overall knowledge on the subject-- much of which is quite evident in his user contributions-- is that of what one might expect of an administrator. From what I can tell, his work consists mostly of cosmetic work, a few episode summaries, lots of redirects and a lot of talk page contributions-- at least in relation to previous up and coming nominees contributions. Above all, unlike previous nominees, I see a noticeable lack of "stand out" or rather, exquisitely researched and well written articles on any one specialty or contrarily, any wide variety of subjects.
Aside from that, as he has clearly admitted to vandalizing in the beginning (evidence appearing in the first handful of comments on his talk page that didn't make his archive), I have also noticed, in addition to that, he rather seems (or has the tendency to seem) to enjoy "walking the line" of questionable behavior/contributions in the past two or three months that he has been here, including using our talk pages for idle chit-chat or "slinging mud" against those that oppose his views (notably against me, many times for no reason whatsoever), for encouraging vandals (ironically), and for showing a lack of seriousness to otherwise straight-forward format of this site -- referring to some of his so-called humorous or "inappropriate" content added to articles.
Understandably with the absence of myself and User:AJHalliwell, there has been a few more holes in the Admin coverage for a few more hours than usual in a day, but that is (or in my case was) only temporary and really, with that now recovered (now that I have returned more permanently, and the anticipated return of AJ) that does not seem to feed the need of requiring us to christen in a new Admin, as his reasoning for self-nomination indicates. If an Admin is supposed to be some sort of "model" of our community-- be it personality, encyclopedic mind or resource access, and not because we need another "vandal buster"-- then noting his lack of experience, apparent subject knowledge and questionable behavior (that I noted above), I think he needs more time than a few weeks of legitimate contributions here to earn becoming an Admin, and as well, I ultimately think he needs to build himself a bigger repertoire in his contributions (both in quantity and quality) before he gets my vote. --Alan del Beccio 21:00, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - His vandalism to start with is one reason. Also, as he has stated himself, he is still not very aware of "the rules and responsibilities of an admin".
His edits just now are fine (if not very many), but I only fear what kind of insulting response the other users here might get if his nomination is unsuccessful (luckily, this doesn't seem likely). --Defiant Administrator | Talk 21:24, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Umm, didn't he say that he doesn't hold it against anyone if they vote against him? You might wanna check your facts before you make a comment. --PRueda29 21:36, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
He did say that (on the bottom of this page, actually), but he also has a habit of making personal attacks or derogatory "nicknames" as he did just recently on Talk:Story arcs (which he kinda apologized for). I didn't see that before I changed my vote earlier, or I wouldn't have supported, but it kinda scares me, because I really thought he was beyond that type of behavior.--Tim Thomason 21:49, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Deratory nicknames? He apologized on that page for saying: "In all fairness, Alan, let's be honest: you need glasses. You don't see the point in many things, be it a barnster, a duty roster, or a story arc. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:40, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)" That's a little harsh, but no harsher than what Alan del Beccio said on this page. --PRueda29 22:13, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral/Comments

Nominating myself was done out of frustration at once again being unable to do anything but while someone went around vandalizing, but here are some things to consider:

Pro

  • Team player - I've gotten along with everyone ever since I "shaped up" and started being a legit contributor
  • Innovative - I came up with the Duty Roster on my own, and I set the current discussion on Main Page/temp (now obsolete) into action
  • Reliability - The e-mail I have assigned to my MA account is for the office, and as I seem to spend more time there than not lately, I can usually be here within five minutes to block vandals if someone uses the "E-mail user" link

Con

  • Inexperience - I haven't been here that long and probably am not as familiar with the rules and responsibilities of an admin as you'd like me to be
  • History - Admittedly, I did start out as a quasi-vandal because I had just discovered MA and didn't take it seriously

Like I said, the only reason I want this is so I can do something other than say "shame on you" when a vandal comes along. Dunno how the community will react. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:14, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I didn't get off to a very good start at M/A, either, nor was I here very long before I was nominated for administatorship (about four or five months, I think). Because Vedek's contributions since his "quasi-vandalism" has been exemplary, I am almost motivated to vote in complete favor of his becoming an admin. However, I think I would like to wait a little while longer before seeing him become an admin (one or two months maybe?). Also, if the only reason he was nominated was the hope of providing further defense from vandalism, I'm afraid, as Platypus said, that just won't cut it... although Vedek did provide good reasons why he should be an admin. So, I'm kinda torn between supporting and opposing, so I will have to remain neutral, at least for the time being. --From Andoria with Love 21:12, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Question regarding Platypus Man's opposition. Is there a finite number of Admin positions available? If infinite, or the number is high enough that all positions aren't likely to be filled in the forseeable future, how is an Administrator focusing on a specialty any kind of waste of resources? Like I said, I'm a newbie. Merely curious. AureliusKirk 21:21, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Re: Platypus/Shran. I would of course be glad to pitch in with other things, such as maintenance, cleanup and decision making. However, I didn't want to bee all fake about it and pretend that was my motivation. But I wouldn't blame anyone for voting against this because I know I'm not the most qualified candidate. Although for the record, the term quasi-vandal was to discriminate things intentionally done to push the envelope from writing "OMGWTFLOL" on a page. :P In any case, vandal fighting is what I want most because it gets very frustrating, and that latest wave was not cleaned up until several (I think six) hours later through the combined efforts of Cid, Shran and Alan. I get tired of going "Well gee, I hope someone shows up soon..." Re Aurelius: There is no quota on the number of admin, although as the expression goes you don't want too many chiefs. I think the concern is not about the proportion but rather the cons I listed. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:33, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Interesting arguments on all sides. It appears that, in the end, the only thing in question is whether or not Vedek Dukat has been around long enough. While I don't know how much of an issue that normally is here, on Wikipedia they are very particular and regularly say, "Well, I don't think so-and-so has been here long enough" or "You only have 1500 edits, maybe when you get to 2000" or something like that. As for me, essentially everything Shran said, sans being nominated himself, goes for me as well - including the almost voting in favor. --Broik 06:28, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment True, having an extra admin on hand when a vandal strikes would be nice, but what about the times when there are 5 admins on and we don't need an extra? Like our Andorian pal said above, it will always be fixed eventually, but it will happen. Now, I'm pretty sure that we can't do this, but I think it would be a nice idea to have an emergency-admin, a person who would only have admin "powers" in an emergency, kinda like the ECH. Another idea would be a semi-admin, who could only block vandals and revert pages, but nothing else. I'm not saying that you, Vedek, wouldn't help with the other admin duties if you were told to do so, but I don't see you striving to do them. I've been on longer than you, and I'm still not sure if I would be ready (or willing) to be an admin. I still find myself not doing certain things that I could do to help, simply because I'm lazy. An admin can't do that. You should feel compelled to do the boring things that go along with being an admin, not just blocking vandals. I'm not saying that you're not a "team player" -- you are. I'm not worried about your quasi-vandal beginnings -- you've obviously changed. You're a good MA member, but not quite an Admin. Not yet. If you needed more justification on my viewpoint, there ya go. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:52, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Wow, I got more support votes on this than I thought! Broik hit the nail on the head with his observation about nominating myself and then thinking differently, because even though I think I could handle being an admin, I suspected as much about the lack of... credibility, for lack of a better word, since I have experience with other Wikis and being an admin but I don't think "tenure" is the right word either. Anyway, once again, I don't blame people who voted against it, and thank you to those who voted for it. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 21:08, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain: I'm tired of flip-flopping on this issue, so I decided not to vote at all. My gut instinct told me to oppose, mostly because his earliest incidents messing up my element pages, to his derogatory "Vulcan" statements to another user (the V-word shouldn't be used negatively). But, I tried to legitimize my argument by talking about the valid point of "experience and history." Vedek Dukat has made a lot of friends and is quite the figure in this community, however his behavior has recently shown some "degeneration" that makes me afraid that if he became an administrator, he might think he has free license to make all sorts of idle chit-chat and "friendly" name-calling. Anyways, it's turning out to be a battle between the "old-timers" of late 2004 to early 2005, and the new comers of mid to late 2005. As I come from the "middle aged" area of early to mid 2005, I guess I'll just back off and watch them duke it out.--Tim Thomason 22:01, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think you might be mistaken about the battle, as Zsingaya indicated that he has been around a long time and Shran is a current administrator. But I'm a newcomer, so I don't know. Anyway I, like most people, was hoping to wash my hands of this debate, but I wanted to step in to clear the "V-word" up. Being the nosy lurker I am, I remembered seeing Dukat say somewhere that it was just a nickname, and I found the proof here. Dukat said, "I meant 'Mr. Vulcan' to be a nickname, not an insult ... opposites who coexist peacefully more or less ... he did ask me not to do it, which is why I've stopped." Sloan 01:01, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain (Neutral): I'm with Tim on this one. I had no idea about the remarks he made recently (at least, if I did, they didn't click in my head), but at the same time, I've come to know him (his personality, anyway) a bit through IM's, and he's been taking the whole thing in stride. I dunno, maybe my acquaintance with him is clouding my judgment, I'm not sure, but to be on the safe side, I'm dropping out of the voting all together. --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (another one): Whether you are for or against this nomination, it should be alarming how much discussion this needs. To be an admin, it should be a clear "yes." With a few oppositions, a couple of objections turned support turned abstentions, and so many "mild" votes, it is clearly obvious that this need wait. That's why it has to be a unanimous vote: it should be clear. If a vote needs discussion and people being convinced, then I don't see it as being 100% good idea. Well, sorry good Vedek, but it appears that the will of the Prophets is not with you. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:30, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Thomason (5/0/0)

Now that the ruckus caused by our last two nominees has died down, let's try this again, shall we? :) Now, some of you may look at this as returning a favor, but I am really nominating Tim because he has a good understanding of our policies (which Mike Nobody seriously lacked) and a ton of experience and contributions behind him (which Vedek Dukat lacked). He also has no questionable history (which both Mike and Vedek lacked). He also knows the content, and also knows the responsibilities entailed with being an admin, having founded the wikipedias for the DC Animated Universe and the Hercules and Xena TV shows. He has also been made an admin on the X-Files wiki. This and the above reasons make him a perfect candidate for administratorship here at Memory Alpha. --From Andoria with Love 21:28, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea this was coming, but I graciously accept.--Tim Thomason 21:36, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Shran (implicit from nomination)
  • Sure, go for it. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:23, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine with me :) Renegade54 13:45, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me, too. --Galaxy001 04:44, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at Tim's recent contributions, both regarding content and "administration", he seems to have a good grasp of our explicit and implicit rules, guidelines and other conventions. -- Cid Highwind 13:03, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Comments

  • There's no serious reason to oppose this, but we should discuss the question if we need more admins first. --Memory 22:05, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Memory might be right, although I haven't paid close enough attention to Tim's presence to know if he's on when vandal-busting is most needed. BTW Shran, I think you mean we both had the questionable history, don't you? :) Either way, Tim also has the other qualifier an admin needs that Mike lacked: getting along with people. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:12, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I was here when that page-moving vandal was around, the one that Vedek nominated himself over. I did my best at putting the bad page titles on the Immediate delete page and moving pages back once they were deleted. [1]. But there is more to being an administrator than banning people (which I don't hope to do unless absolutely necessary).--Tim Thomason 22:35, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, don't get me wrong, that's not the only thing admins do. But at this point in time I think it's the only area we're deficient in, and for the moment, things seem to have died down. As I said (more than once), I would take back my nomination if I could. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:46, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, this discussion isn't about whether we need more admins, nor should there be such a discussion. This is about whether or not Tim is suitable to be an administrator. Not voting or basing your vote (even a neutral vote) on the perception that we have too many administrators is not a valid argument, at least it should not be. And what about in the future? Can nobody else become an administrator now because "we have too many"? That doesn't really seem fair to me. --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • In one week, we've only gotten two votes? I guess I should bring this to people's attention by adding unneeded comments -- like this! Let's get voting, people! :-P --From Andoria with Love 13:29, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • All right, I've cast my vote. Ooops, this is uneeded.  :)--Galaxy001 04:45, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)

No objections after seven+ days. Discussion closed. -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vedek Dukat (null)

I know the Vedek told me not to do this, but I think he deserves a chance since it's been a while now. He continues to act in ways befitting an admin, creating the Article of the Week page and singlehandedly redesigning the AotW process. He's worked at streamlining the Babel categories to maximize the page's usefulness, helped with the changes to the main page (which were initiated at his request), and assisted many new users, both on MA and through IM/email. We all know his duty roster of course, and I think he's made a complete 180 since originally joining MA. I'm not nominating him as a "reward" or "favor" - he's shown he can be trusted, and I honestly think MA will be better for it if we make him an administrator. Weyoun 04:34, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh guys, can't you give me a chance to respond to the nomination before voting goes into full swing? It's normally a formality to go "You like me! You really like me!" and accept graciously, but this horse never let the gate because I decline the offer, having asked you not to do this. Thanks Weyoun, now I look like the guy who just got fired and declares he's quitting!
Last time, I made MA history by garnering the most votes and most heated debate (as well as the most hanging chads - ahem, Shran and Tim) of any nomination. Now I'm going to do it again by becoming the first person to reject his nomination. I prefer to remain the Dennis Kucinich of MA - right on most issues but not necessarily taken seriously. ;) The example Cid was referring to is a good one: We are "legally" not allowed to use images from the Star Trek Fact Files according to the admins, but I had the nerve (read "balls") to question whether Paramount actually cares. As an admin, I couldn't say things like that, one reason I prefer to remain one of the little people.
But for the record, Cid, you didn't vote on the last nomination so you're not opposing this "again". :P --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 10:11, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Weyoun 04:34, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  2. I know he didn't support me, but I really do think both of us would be great admin. Jaz 05:04, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  3. Talk about a good sport. Way to go, Jaz. Anyway, I eventually backed the Vedek last time and he's only gotten better since then, so my vote is the same. --Broik 05:15, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  4. Similarly, I supported the controversial nomination last time (which was I believe simply a mistake on his part) and these arguments only further convince me that he is deserving. Makon 05:49, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  5. Go for it. --Galaxy001 05:53, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Hmm, that was quick - in fact, a little too quick, especially if the Vedek even told you not to try this at the moment. His last admin nomination, which was the most controversial we ever had, was archived less than a month ago. In that discussion, several problems were addressed, and Vedek Dukat was asked to work on them and try this again later. I think that less than a month is not enough for this, especially considering that in that time, I noticed him second-guessing standing policy or comments by other admins that were made in regard to such policy more than once. Sorry, but I have to oppose that again. -- Cid Highwind 08:50, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaz (2/2/2) (Withdrawn by Jaz)

This is a self nomination. I have been an archivist here for about ten months, but it is really in the past month that I have stepped up my contributions to Memory Alpha. My work has shown I am committed to upholding our policy, especially canon policy. About a week ago I spent about an hour reverting the work of a vandal, to restore our articles. I have also done a lot of the nitty-gritty work, such as adding pictures to our novel pages, fixing common spelling mistakes (by searching for mispelled versions of commonly used words at MA), and welcoming new users and IPs. I hope you will consider my self-nomination - for I only ask so that I may further my ability to help. --Jaz 00:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • Support. Obviously. Jaz 00:53, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Great contributions. I've been on here for a lot of the day and he has contributed to a large variety of articles. Jaz is ready to take on sysop rights. :) --Galaxy001 06:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My vote probably does not count for much because I don't know what sysop is, but he seems like a strong contributor. I hope I am not starting to sound like a yes-man. Makon 05:49, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  • Mild oppose. I don't want to sound like a sore loser, because it honestly has nothing to do with my feelings or Jaz personally, but I think he should wait a while. According to the Wikicities stats, he joined on April 23 of last year, but even 9er (a very new user) had more contributions than him as late as two months ago. I really like the enthusiasm I've seen from him (450 of his 850 edits were in January of this year!), but I'd like to wait a while before we make him an admin. I realize that edit counts are not the sole determining factor, but I'd like potential admins to demonstrate consistency, as the recent burst of persistence seems to have started a few weeks prior to his nomination (he's usurped my "welcoming committee" role :P). I'll change my mind if someone else can convince me otherwise. (On the side, I think he's a bit too anti-apocrypha -- or pro-canon if you're a Republican -- for my taste, but that's personal feelings and not voting rationale.) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:40, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose. I sort of hate for my first vote on an admin to be an oppose, but looking at the stats page Vedek Dukat put out shows that Jaz has less than 200 article edits, and almost as many edits on non-article pages like User pages, talk, etc. To me that speaks to a user who is more interested in the being an admin/managing the site than actually contributing content. There's also the policy point for admin nominations that says they should have contributed to "several hundred" articles. Admins have to demonstrate thorough knowledge of MA policies not just by commenting on them, it seems, but by creating content and editing content according to those policies. Jaz isn't quite there, esp. compared to the work of current Admins. Until there are more articles under his belt I consider this nomination a little premature. Logan 5 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In my defense Logan, the Stats page is over 2 months old (see Ten Foreward), and if you check my contributions you will notice I have around 1500 edits now. Jaz 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected on that count and will consider revising my vote to Neutral. However, I still have some concern that so many of your contributions are to non-article pages, and that actual article edits are mostly minor edits or additions of templates and other organizational type edits rather than serious content contribution. I think there needs to be a demonstration of content-creation, not just content-labeling, in order to convince me there is a full understanding of how policies work on content, not just how they work on site structure and rules. If you've got at least a few major content efforts that I can look at and just missed on your contributions page please note them and I'll check them out. Logan 5 18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Except you have recently demonstrated that you are not ready to be an admin with your rude comment on Q's talk page, calling it "vandalism" and "slander" (which should have been libel anyway :P) when all he did was strike an oppose vote on the nominations for featured articles once your concern - an image copyright issue - had been addressed. True, he should have left a message on your talk page, but your response was inappropriate and inflammatory. You also lashed out at a new user (I forgot which one) who had edited your user page - copyediting spelling/grammar errors, changes I would welcome if it was my page, especially considering you left the changes the user made - blabbering on about policy. I think it's best if this entire issue just goes away so we can move on to better, more important things. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-

That user was Carboni. Why don't you check out his user page and see what he has to say about that "outburst". Jaz 01:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-

Which shows that Carbonari has a lot more patience than you, nothing less, nothing more. Your comment on the talk page was way overdone considering you left his changes intact afterwards... You didn't even thank him. :P --Vedek Dukat