Wikia

Memory Alpha

Memory Alpha:Nominations for administratorship

Redirected from MA:NFA

40,422pages on
this wiki
Discuss73
Memory Alpha  AboutPolicies and guidelinesAdministrators → Nominations for administratorship

Please read the full policy on becoming an administrator before nominating someone for administrator privileges. Nominations submitted on this page are considered for at least seven days; during this time, both Administrators and registered members may express their opinions and vote. Unregistered members may not vote. Nominations must be unanimously approved in order to be accepted. Nominations that are unresolved after fourteen days will be rejected. Past nominations, both rejected and accepted, can be viewed here.

CapricornEdit

I keep forgetting that Capricorn isn't an admin. I know, as Cid put it in the last admin nomination, that sysop powers aren't a "merit badge" we hand out, but I think that Capricorn can, and should have already been, entrusted with these powers awhile ago. At the very least, I think Capricorn is just as tired of waiting for an admin to do something around here as I am with having to ignore those jobs since I would have no time to do anything else. I think entrusting Capricorn with sysop powers is the best solution to these, and many other problems, not to mention a smart move all around. - Archduk3 03:59, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

SupportEdit

  • Support. I do not see any reason they should not be one, and personally believe they would do well. 31dot (talk) 08:11, April 3, 2016 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

I'd like to oppose this nomination, as I find Capricorn to have been persistently negative and abusive, qualities which I don't think should be encouraged. --Defiant (talk) 08:29, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your claims. 31dot (talk) 09:16, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The examples are many, imo. Capricorn seems to have a gross misunderstanding about the naming of articles, seemingly under the impression that scripts aren't allowed to be used for naming articles at all, and has repeatedly dogged me when I've created pages whose names are allowed for by the policies and guidelines, opposing the very existence of such pages just because their naming is based on script sources. One notable example is when he submitted submersible infrastructure for deletion, not only despite its naming being allowed for by the policies and guidelines, but also despite myself and others repeatedly trying to explain that to him. This misunderstanding continued with him suggesting that Xindi-Reptilian blade should be moved because no source specifically says "Xindi-Reptilian blade", just "Reptilian blade". That's a highly irrational suggestion, considering that a major percentage of the articles on MA consist of ones that follow the format "(full species name) (item)" when, in reality, the species name has either been abbreviated when directly associated with the item or not used at all. This kind of fundamental misunderstanding of our article-naming conventions is not a good sign in a potential admin, as it implies he would continue these disruptive edits but with the added resources of adminship. Also, as for the negativity of his comments, whereas I've seen him persistently crack down on new articles, not once have I noticed him say anything encouraging about new pages; his edits appear to be at least mostly about what should not happen, rather than focusing on the positive contributions of the community. --Defiant (talk) 10:04, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Oh I accept that script names are allowed alright, I just don't think because they're allowed you can use any old string of text and be immune from consequences. The submersible infrastructure deletion turned (or at least should have, some people seem to skim posts and think an assault on their integrity is underway) on the question if that was in fact a proper name for the facility, not on whether script sources were allowed. And regarding the xindi-reptilian blade, well, I think I've said it as good as I can on the talk page, if your argument for having a page instead of adding the thing to unnamed technology is completely based on it having a specific name, then the least you can do is actually call it that. But since annoyed Defiant flat out refuses to consider nuances at this point I am apparently the disruptive one.
But this seeming grudge aside, the last few lines in that post offer a good starting point for my own playing devil's advocate with the idea idea of me becoming an admin.
Bluntly, there is probably some truth to the perception that I'm cracking down on other's contributions. Here's the situation: my life outside the site is very unpredictable, with time for hobbies being something that comes and goes. And while I've been around for a looong time now, I've often been absent from the sites for days or a few weeks or on rare occasions even longer periods. In more recent years, I might appear more active, but really what I'm doing a lot of days is taking a peak at my watchlist and the recent changes page, and then acting on things I see. I absolutely prefer adding stuff myself, but periods where I don't have the time are more common then ever as I'm building my life. Years ago I would have been awol during those periods, now I try to keep an eye on things. (another aspect of Defiant's criticism lies in that I have set myself the task of giving every new page a look. Defiant is actually not the first editor to suddenly make a lot of articles and subsequently feel targeted by me, Lakenheath had the same reaction. But I am not apologizing for this: I'm no Sulfur, but regardless a whole damn lot of good improvements have come from this systematic attempt to catch issues with articles early on, and if I've occasionally put one up for merge or deletion that's only a fraction of the good I've done with that, adding categories, correcting the tense, improving wording, etc are the more typical actions)
So, there I am having naively laid my soul bare in the interest of having a fair discussion (and somehow in the oppose section no less, but consider me neutral). The truth is, I'm just not dependable when it comes to being around every day, given the facts of my real life that just can't be helped. I'm still scrambling to imagine out what me being an admin would actually look like, so I'm not sure how much of a downside this would be. I absolutely don't mind being made an admin if it's believed that that would help the site. And I sure as hell would take those powers seriously, and not abuse them to push my will upon people I disagree with like Defiant fears. But honestly as flattering as the nomination is my ego isn't stirred. I was perfectly happy not having a merit badge, and would not mind in the least for things to stay as they are. Nor would I mind for things to change, and I'm kinda sympathetic to the idea that the site could do with another administrator. In the end, even though I'm the topic of the discussion, all I can really say is do what you think is best. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:31, April 2, 2016 (UTC)
What Capricorn describes regarding being able to be on site is exactly the reason I think we should not only have another admin, but that it should be Capricorn. I don't think I'm going out on a ledge here when I say pretty much every admin here has RL stuff "get in the way" of being here, and based on the number of admins still editing, it seems to me that for more than half of them have little to no time to even look at MA these days. I also don't think admins should be omnipresent for too long, since it gives one a sense of distance that really, really helps when the shit is hitting the fan here in one regard or another. Hell, if I had more time to deal with MA stuff there would be a whole other version of this site online right now and I'd be doing my damnedest to make sure MA and wikia never interacted again. That said, what Capricorn is already doing is mostly what an admin does; the merit badge just gives you a few tools that makes those jobs easier to do, and I don't think that the examples Defiant mentioned are anything beyond questioning the context in which those terms were used, if not necessarily in the most tactful way. I don't know of anyone who has been around as long as Capricorn has and not been a bit tactless from time to time though, and, regarding adding another admin, I would ask: "if not Capricorn, then whom?" - Archduk3 22:20, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Capricorn, firstly, I'm not annoyed; was just asked what examples I could give and tried to present them as best I could. I absolutely not only tolerate nuances but welcome them. For example, I have no issue with you personally, and strongly believe you're likely a great guy in RL; I just have a bit of a problem with the notion of you becoming an admin, since I don't think you show enough know-how on MA. That's hardly the be-all-and-end-all of the universe, however, as others have pointed out. I actually also agree with you not apologizing for targeting new articles; that would be completely fine with me, as long as it didn't keep demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of our article-naming conventions. Because that's how it currently is, my fear is that, if you were given admin options, you might make a lot of accidents, only for other users to then notify you essentially, "Er... that wasn't quite right...." My fear is definitely not that you would "abuse [admin powers] to push [your] will upon people [you] disagree with." --Defiant (talk) 23:23, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

CommentEdit

I will abstain.--Memphis77 (talk) 08:40, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards supporting but I'd like to hear from Capricorn first. 31dot (talk) 09:15, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki