Halo Alpha:Requests for Adminship/Devout Atheist

Halopedia > Requests for Administratorship > Requests for Adminship/Devout Atheist

Request for Adminship: Devout Atheist Submitted: January 1st, 2009, by CommanderTony Closed: N/A Result: Ongoing

Devout Atheist

Relevant Links

• Userpage
• Talk page
• Email user
• Contributions
• Edit count

Nomination

I, CommanderTony, nominate Devout Atheist for adminship at Halopedia.

I, Devout Atheist, accept this nomination.

Reason for Nomination

In the past few months, 'Atheist has made some outstanding edits, received the Halopedian of the Month award for December, and has reverted countless vandalism edits. He's one of the best examples of good editors on Halopedia, and i'd be proud to serve beside him as an Administrator.

Rawr,
General Tony, Administrator of Halopedia^Talk 1/1/2009

Support (15/3) sysop

1. Support - General Tony, Administrator of Halopedia^Talk 1/1/2009
2. Support - As per CT Halopediaman
3. Support - As per all above. Bioniclepluslotr 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - As per CT (You deserve this!) Subnova^Comm71_Intell 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support G35cpe 02:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - BAM! User:GEARS OF WAR 2
7. Support - DevoutAtheist all the way! —əґыţєґιιб
8. Support You will be one of the best! —This unsigned comment is made by Pillar (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

   Less than 50 edits. — Manticore [ Admin • IRC • HOTM • Bot ] 09:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

9. Support - You will do well. — Lt. [[Special:Editcount/Kougermasters|<span style="color: SeaGreen; font-family: Times #as a misunderstanding. Keep the language down a little too... Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)
10. Support ("As per..." is not going to work today) I am here now for a two years. A couple days ago I saw DA's contributions. The man works very hard to enrich this wikia and reverts bad edits. DA isn't giving any chance to spammers, vandals and other bad people to succeed their goal. He is one of the best Halopedians we have here. I saw the questions he answered, I think there are to many "against" votes based on one bad question he answered. I believe that he will be a great admin in my eyes. Black Katana ^{My Talk}_{My Editcount}^{My Work} 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - DA has been a hard worker at Halopedia for some time now. He's usually very active, has decent edits to his name, and has been a good role model to many new users, especially with his anti-vandalism work. He gets stuck into articles, making constructive edits to benefit the wiki. From what i've seen, he's been helpful to users, and I see DA as someone who would be a great addition to the administration. Tigerrrrr 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Atheist is an anti-vandal machine! FishType1 21:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - I may not know him well personally, but every edit I've seen of him has been to the highest standard, and his reports and reversions of vandalism and poor edits have been invaluable. --Councillor Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek 23:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Go ahead, remember! Right click ban!User:GEARS OF WAR 2

    Please don't vote twice... Commander DA

15. Support - As per CT and DA has been a valuable and loyal friend to me User:S-058
16. Support I have known Devout Atheist personally and hes a great, loyal friend to me. Also I now see that some have been inactive and one more admin wouldn't hurt Halopedia one bit. You have my vote! User:Halo Scout
17. Support A good friend and an excellent contributor. Honor Guard Spartansniper450 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Support A great contributor, he deserves the admin rights.--^{Odysseas-Spartan}53 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral (10/2) Sysop

1. Neutral - I don't think that another Administrator would be useful. The current ones are very good at their jobs, and the rollbackers (such as Devout) in theirs. So, it would be useless. I'm not against Devout. He deserves it, I want him to become an Admin, and he will if things continue like this. But it's useless. - Μητσάρας κι όποιος αντέξει 09:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want him to become an admin, why did you vote neutral? And I don't think extra admins would do any harm. BananaCat ^{Message Me}_Edits ^Stats 11:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Beacuse he is going to become an Admin, so I felt free to express my opinion about the site being "overwhelmed" with Admins. But if the RfA went bad for him, I would support him. - Μητσάρας κι όποιος αντέξει 11:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral I have conflicting thoughts regarding question seven. For now I will hold off from voting one way or the other. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 12:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What's in the content of question seven that's caused conflicting thoughts? Tigerrrrr 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral I haven't been on Halopedia for some time, and it's very hard for me to decide whether or not I should vote for him, and yet I lack confidence in him after observing to how he answer to some of the questions. MasterChiefPettyOfficer_{Spartan Contribution} 14:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this a bit further? It would be better for everyone. Also, I would like to remind everyone that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions below. Tigerrrrr 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been around Halopedia for a bit and haven't been catching up with things lately, I can't make a fair decision on whether or not to support him. I have nothing against him, yet I'm sure that his answers to some of the questions, or particular question, I find myself agreeing with Manticore and DragonClaws. MasterChiefPettyOfficer_{Spartan Contribution} 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral After some thought I'm agreeing with DragonClaws. Gunnery Sergeant McCallan 14:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral While Devout Atheist would make a great Adminship, we do also have many others. But, it think this website is turning into a little Beauracracy. Those don't exactly work in the best of ways. - 11:26 Jan. 10, 2009 Lt. Cronin
3. Neutral No position as of now.5ub7ank^(7alk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral I'll see what happens, so I'm sitting out. (No hard feelings DA). Colonel Comm| Mission| Papers| Commendations| H.Q. 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

None taken.=) Commander DA 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Same as Sub. ChurchReborn 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral As Jimmy was saying why have another administrator? I think the ones we have now are doing fine, another admin would just be another name to the list... No offense. Elite007 13:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral As per previous neutral voters. --Blemo ^TALK • _{CONTRIBUTIONS} • _EMAIL • _CALENDER • _MESSAGE

Against (3/1) Sysop

1. Oppose - Poor response to question 7. — Manticore [ Admin • IRC • HOTM • Bot ] 09:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - Per Manticore & I have seen no demonstration of leadership or moderation from this user, and I see those aspects as the most important part of being an administrator. - Ghost Sangheili ^[iTalk] _[iWork]
3. Oppose- Aggered with the ones above me. I also believe that he isn't ready as his file is only 2 months older than mine and I think we have enough Admins. Happy hobo -117
4. Oppose - Agree with the above, plus Devout's focus seems to be on spam and vandals, which is policed by all users anyway to some extent, through corrections and improvements of articles so I don't really see the point of a spam administrator. —This unsigned comment is made by Georgiastrings (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

   Less than 50 edits. 5ub7ank^(7alk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Wow CT, you sure were quick in opening this RfA! It was a good choice though. Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)

Poor choice of words + bad answer for one question and everyone goes against him... *sigh* Though I do see some people's points, DA usually just fights vandals/spammers, renames section headings and corrects grammar and spelling. However, we as a community should give him a chance. — Lt. Commander Kouger 15:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for answering the questions so poorly, I was on a time limit when I first saw them. By the time I went back to edit my answers, the page had been locked.Commander Devout Atheist 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing your answer after some users oppose/criticize you for it? GASP!! It's not my place to say anything but... I have to admit that it is a better answer. — Lt. Commander Kouger 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I mean to edit them a long time ago, but the page was closed almost immediately as I answered the questions, so I couldn't really do anything about until now. And I admit, some my first answers weren't that good, people have every right to criticize them.Commander Devout Atheist 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Poor choice of words + bad answer for one question and everyone goes against him" Did you seriously say that? I wouldn't call no more than 7 or so people "everyone." And he has the right to change his answers, all of them completely if he so chooses, that doesn't necessarily change opinions. - Ghost Sangheili ^[iTalk] _[iWork]

Many people here say we've got too many Admins if Devout gets that title, but I honestly think that Simon rjh has been quite inactive for some time, at least compared to other Admins. Maybe one more might work as guarantee.. Wing Commander Firestorm, Administrator

I agree, the "too many admins" argument is relatively weak in my opinion. - Ghost Sangheili ^[iTalk] _[iWork]

Ghost sangheili, I didn't mean it literally! Maybe I'm the one that used a bad choice of words... And as per you and Spirit of Fire, the "too many admins" argument is weak. — Lt. Commander Kouger 16:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then next time please articulate your point in a clearer fashion so that it may be properly addressed. - Ghost Sangheili ^[iTalk] _[iWork]

Honestly, you think we have too many admins? I agree that too many admins is not an excuse. I've known wikis that have had so many, that there was at least 1 online any time you visited. But, too many admins... I mean, put it this way: More admins = less vandals. I think that Devout is good with anti-vandalism. If he spots it, he can just revert and ban. I do a lot of anti-vandalism, but I always have to report, as do all many rollbakers. Also, Simon has been kinda inactive lately. Exactly what is the harm of having a big bunch of admins? It would give a 24-hour protection of the site, wouldn't it? Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)

You say he had a poor choice of words and indeed he could have said more but MY main concern is too many Admins. Yes some others may have more but I think 7 was pushing it and now you want 10? You say our argument is weak,I believe we already have CT who does DAs job. We dont need DA as an Admin, maybe just a rollback. Happyhobo-117

Um, are you kidding me? Even CT can't work 24-hours round the clock on here. Too many admins is n o reason whatsoever. What exactly is the harm of having too many admins, if we did? To put it simpler: More admins=less vadals. I myself seem to be using rollback more than I used to. I revert more and more every week. We are gaining vandals, and many admins are becoming inactive. Sometimes when I report a vandal, I need to wait for a bout half an hour before an admin comes to my help. And that's when I board blast all the admins. That's why we need more, and DA is a perfect example of an admin. In addition, CT can't always concentrate on anti-vandalism, as he's doing about 10 admin jobs at once. If there is more admins on the site, they can share work and so have more time for users and help when we need it. In addition, DA is an extreme vandal fighter, I mean, he fights more vandals at a time than I do, so if he's an admin, he can ban them at once. Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)

I'm not going to try to make people change their votes, but I would like for those who opposed to re-evaluate the situation. The questions below are by no means what govern whether you are accepted or not. They do reflect how a user can take to administration, yes, but there isn't exactly any right or wrong answers. I see many users opposing due to a poor response to question 7? I don't see much wrong with it. Maybe a poor choice of words or a confusing explanation, but I see what he means. I can apply his answer to the wiki, and I can see that his answer reflects a good portion of the wiki at times. To me, his answer to question 7 has only pointed out the majority of editor's views towards the administration and who they should listen to. I can understand maybe a cause for concern or confusion due to the answer, but I don't understand why it is enough to make someone oppose? Let's not forget my own RfA. Many users started opposing me due to a "playful nature" that was picked up from one of my answers. Yet this answer hasn't made me a bad admin.

So in short, I would like to state that these answers, to me, don't reflect the user's admin abilities. If anything, it reflects the experience they've had at the wiki. Their experience to date is what causes these answers. After reading his answers more closely, I have seen potential in DA, not a cause for concern, and it's given me more reason to support his RfA. Tigerrrrr 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you HaloDude. That is more or less what I'm trying to point out. Just because he answered his question 7 a bit poorly, means that we have to oppose him? Give me a break... Also, the too many admins reason is also ridiculous. I mean, what's wrong with having just one more admin for god's sake? It wouldn't do any harm, only offer the site more protection. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)

My comment has nothing to do with the "too many admins" scenario. I'm simply saying that a poor answer isn't a reason to instantly oppose. Had he answered that question better, he'd likely have less oppostion. So it bugs me that one poor answer is enough for people to instantly make up their minds. Tigerrrrr 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I started the to many Admins thing on Simons vote, I still supported him. Or was the guy at the same time as him?User:GEARS OF WAR 2

HaloDude, I know that the too many admins thingy isn't what you're sying. However, I do agree with your point. Nìcmávr ^(Tálk)

Questions

Nominee, if you accept the nomination, please answer the following questions. It is advised that voters check the nominee's responses before voting.

1. When did you join Halopedia? - I joined Halopedia on May 25, 2008
2. What do you believe are your most valued contributions to Halopedia? - I do my best to maintain the consistency of Halopedia articles by reconfiguring pages, renaming sections; I also work hard to correct grammar and spelling errors on Halopedia pages. I also remove spam and personal opinion whenever I find it.
3. What do you believe are your most valued technical contributions to Halopedia? - Unfortunately, I have not made technical contributions to Halopedia, I have mainly focused on editing.
4. What do you believe are your most valued contributions to the community? - I created a Facebook group for Halopedians, in effort to connect halo.wikia users all over the Internet, and am hoping to start more groups on different social networks. I also do my best to welcome and help new Halopedians as to ease their transition into this community.
5. Do you administrate any other Wikia? If so, which? - I do not administrate any other Wikia.
6. If you are administrated, what changes do you propose? - I honestly do not see any real problems that can be fixed, my main concerns are spam and vandalism, and these come from users, not the site itself. If I do become elected, I will look for ways to better fight vandals and prevent spam.
7. To the best of your understanding, what does administratorship entail? - Administratornship, to me, is a chance to have a bigger effect on this community, because from what I see, Admins, when they speak, they are heard. They also are the final authority here at Halopedia, it's up to them to block/delete vandals and spammers, delete unwanted pages and polls, and control the rights (such as RR) of other Halopedians.
8. To the best of your understanding, when will you be able to check Halopedia after you are administrated, in the event that you are? - I do my best to get on the site daily and dedicate at least one hour to this site.
9. What communities are you associated with online, Halo and otherwise? - I go on the Bungie forums occasionally, and have spoken to Bungie about some of my concerns with Halo 3. I also go on ZBTZ forums, a site for managing forum sites.
10. What is your familiarity with the Halo universe? - I am an avid player of the Halo Trilogy games, and I have read several books, including Halo: Fall Of Reach.
11. What is your familiarity with Wikia and Halopedia policies? - I am aware and understand Halopedia's policies and rules, and Wikia standards in general.
12. What is your relationship with the Halopedia community and current administration? - I keep in contact with most of the Admins, and whenever I have a problem or question, I don't hesitate asking or notifying them.
13. How may users contact you? - I keep in touch with most of my friends here on Halopedia (nearing 300 now), and am always quick to respond to messages of any kind.