YPPedia:Requests for adminship/Sagacious

Sagacious

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (2/4/1) ending 03:55 May 20th (UTC)

Sagacious (talk • contribs) – Above all else, when I look into voting for or against administrators, I look for constistency, I look for intent, and I look for ability. Icemeister (Sagacious) has shown in-depth knowledge of how the Y!PPedia works, and is more than competent with wiki markup. There have been issues in past with unilaterally doing things that later on proved regrettable, but I think he's improved recently. He's also generated some decent content, so I'm quite happy to plunk his name down here. Ponytailguy 16:52, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted. --Sagacious ^(talk) 17:53, 13 May 2006 (PDT)

Support

1. Nominated the guy and all that --Ponytailguy 16:53, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
2. I'd been considered nominating Sagacious, but because I nominated myself fairly recently, I wasn't sure how it would be taken. Kudos for this one, Teeg. :) Sagacious has proven to be a good overall improver of the YPPedia, and I more than forgive his occasional overstep.

Oppose

1. Oppose. The attitude taken on some of the talk pages (example, see the history at Image talk:Terminology.png) isn't exactly the attitude I'd want to see coming from an admin. --Thunderbird 17:19, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
2. While Sagacious' editing skills & spelling are wonderful, his demeanor could use a fair amount of work. Attitude issues have been pointed out numerous times in his talk page (If you need examples with links, I'm happy to PM you privately, Sagacious.) and even in forum discussions about the wiki. Perhaps it would be helpful if before you hit Save page on comments and even changes, you would think on whether your comments/opinions are being shared in a clear, gentle manner which allow the readers to understand your viewpoint while still feeling that your stated view is personal and that they are welcome to have & share a separate (or the same) opinion. Heck, I even sometimes ask someone for an opinion on my wording just to make sure I'm not coming across unintentionally mean/abrupt. Sharing & discussing thoughts & ideas are what the wiki is all about, but putting thought into your presentation so that others are not discouraged or feel dismissed is very important as an administrator. Always remember to be willing to listen even if you disagree because collaboration is the only real way to get things done on a wiki. Take time to breathe before jumping in to edit an article that someone has just created/is in the middle of learning to fix, especially if it's a newcomer. When I see evidence of enough improved demeanor along these lines, I would be happy to support your nomination. --Guppymomma 21:24, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
3. Oppose. To put it bluntly, I would not feel comfortable having Sacagious as an admin, due to the comments made about my work on the pirate page portraits on his user page in April. I also feel that his forum posts are not indicative of the mature tone required of an Admin, and ambassador of the YPPedia. --Featherfin 06:49, 14 May 2006 (PDT)
4. Sagacious displays great skill with the technical aspects of the wiki and shows an obvious desire to improve the wiki for everybody. However, his "edit first, ask questions later" tendencies, which have been pointed out to him several times, along with his rather brusque demeanor in his article comments lead me to oppose his nomination. While he has certainly progressed from his early days of editing the wiki, where his participation in certain discussions fanned the flames of anger rather than quenched them, his comments still read as very gruff. Unfortunately, the role of admin has become more about being a good representative of the wiki to the game community as a whole, especially when new and/or inexperienced users go crying to the forums that "the wiki people were being mean to me." Like Yaten below, I suggest he works on learning to communicate clearly in a purely textual format. Enhancing his skills at non-confrontational dispute resolution would also be a good step towards becoming an admin.--Fiddler 12:44, 15 May 2006 (PDT)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Since my personal interaction with Sagacious is limited, I'm not comfortable voting one way or the other on this nomination. While he has at times been a bit testy, I don't believe he has an ounce of harmful intent. He has been helpful and fairly consistent with his edits, and he is active during a part of the day when many of the other administrators are asleep. These observations merit a weak support, but the comments made by some of the other editors sway my opinion. I'd advise Sagacious to spend a bit more time improving his manner on discussion pages—as others have pointed out, non-verbal messages are easily misinterpreted. I mention the above concern solely because, whether merited or not, YPPedia administrators often get blamed for inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or other errors throughout the over 3,000 articles within the YPPedia, and administrators need to remember to be calm, collected, and thoughtful before refuting any such claims. --Yaten ^talk 19:42, 14 May 2006 (PDT)

Comments

• With regards to the issue of attitude: On the wiki (and internet in general), it can often be difficult to express the tone of comments and messages. They could be in a positive or negative tone depending on how it is read and how the reader interprets them. I try to make my messages come across in a positive tone - however sometimes they may not be interpreted in that way and it is rarely my intent to convey a negative tone in messages. Having had no one point this particular issue out to me before, I've been unable to directly resolve it. I do accept that my comment in that particular instance could have seemed to be in a negative manner and I apologise. --Sagacious ^(talk) 17:53, 13 May 2006 (PDT)
• With regards the portrait images/Userpage thing - This is another example of where tone is hard to decipher on the internet. I have a slightly odd sense of humour - and having read back on the edits to my Userpage - I still see how they were not intended to offend. To explain in detail - the bit bout Featherfin being busy while I was away was to suggest I had some catching up to do. The *twacks delete button* was to imply I no longer needed to do those portraits. Although at the time I was somewhat irked - I later rectified my Userpage to minimise any misinterpretation.

It is sad to see things like this brought up. I didn't realise some of you had issues with my messages or actions in this way - and quite honestly I'm a little disheartened by some of the comments. Confidence-- --Sagacious ^(talk) 08:34, 14 May 2006 (PDT)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I anticipate helping with the deletion of pages (mainly images, in addition to the standard expired Vanity & Proposed Deletion pages), continuing dealing with vandalism and pointing new YPPedians in the right direction. I currently revert articles where necessary, and I can only assume I'll continue to do that aswell.

2. Of your articles or contributions to YPPedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I've been trying to think for a while now on a page I could majorly develop to demonstrate my full editing skills. So far, pretty much every idea I've had, when I've looked into them, have already been done or there are features that already fufil the concept. My general spelling and grammar patrols, infobox additions and cleanups are my current contributions that I feel quite pleased with. Images are also an area I like managing, mainly portraits. New release updates are also a contribution I feel pleased with overall. I'll continue to ponder on an idea for a page to develop.

3. If you get adminship, do you promise to be cautious with major edits and seek consensus before doing? (Added by PTG)

A. Amen - where do I have to sign?