Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights

This page is for requests for user rights.

Voting will last two weeks, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted the requested user rights.

Requests for adminship
Rules:
 * You may nominate another Wookieepedian (please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.

To view past requests, see the RFA archive.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating a fellow Wookieepedian for adminship.


 * 1) They have an account under a screenname.
 * 2) They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki.
 * 3) They are of adult age (18 years or older).
 * 4) They have demonstrated they are willing to take on additional responsibilities to make the community better.
 * 5) They have had at least some major article creations.
 * 6) They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained, and constructive manner.
 * 7) They have demonstrated an understanding of the community's methods of operation.
 * 8) Registered users' votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for adminship to be accepted.
 * 9) Administrators' votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for adminship to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)
 * 10) Bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for adminship to be accepted.
 * 11) Additionally, the nominee may be asked a series of questions by users. While it is not required to answer them, it is strongly encouraged since it may affect how others decide and vote on the RFA.

Questions
Here are some general adminship questions. They are 100% optional, so feel free to answer all, some, or none of them. :)

Lord Hydronium (2 bureaucrats + 6 admins + 5 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 3 May, 2007.

Support

 * 1) Imp http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 10:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) For a TBT hating slob, he's pretty classy. .  .  .  .  11:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Like REALLY EXPENSIVE candy. jSarek 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) For the Cowering Ortolan! (and a great Wookieepedian too). --Azizlight 11:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Sikon 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) SFH 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Absolutely. Havac 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Most def support for Lord H3O+. Atarumaster88  22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 22:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Hooray for Lord H3O+. BambookidX 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) I need to be less absent-minded on the IRC. I think this took place right under my nose. Oh and yeah! I know what the chemical formula for hydronium is too! Really! Cull Tremayne 13:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *So I can increase the number of things I can do to help the wiki run. I've been getting more involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff recently, branching out into helping archive pages, make navigation templates, and so forth, and I think that admin powers will let me do more things like that. Plus vandal-fighting powers; I won't need to go into IRC or wait until an admin's around before a move vandal can be stopped, or a spam page deleted.
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *Administrators are editors, like any Wookieepedian, who can do more things than most when working on the wiki. Like any good superhero, they use their powers to prevent vandalism, delete pages and images that aren't needed, resolve conflicts, close votes that have finished, etc. Basically, their role is to make the wiki run smoother.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) *Is it cliche to say a little of both? Obviously, there's the extra buttons, but administrators do serve as the representatives of the Wookiee and have a certain voice within the community.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *On most things, they're exactly the same as any other user: votes, regular edits, etc. When they bust out the POWAH, that gives them an advantage over regular users that they need to use fairly, and only as the situation warrants.
 * 9) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * 10) *I'd say I've been in one actual "edit conflict" (that is, where myself and another user were both actually editing the page), but after one round of that I took it to the talk page. Generally, I try to take any disagreement over the content of a page to the talk page or the user's talk page. Of course, that discussion itself can be, er, sharp, but it'll get hammered out there, rather than interfere with the article. I've actually had my mind changed by some of these, so it's not a complete bust.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *All my FAs, to some extent; Pre-Republic era, as my first, and Ossus, as the one where I compiled a bunch of sources into one cohesive whole, I think I'm most pleased with to some extent.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * So, basically thinking about what I've needed to ask admins to do before or thought would be easier as such, deleting spam pages, blocking vandals, and the occasional blasting a redirect for a move. Really, any of the myriad assorted little things that come up and I think, "An admin would be useful here".
 * 1) How important is it for you to be involved in things such as CT, IDrive, FA, and other community-centered items that involve discussion and voting?
 * 2) *FA I've become really involved in since the Inqs, and I try to be quite involved in CT. IDrive, I'm sorry to say I've never been involved in (though I did once expand an article after it failed to reach ID, so that's sorta involved).
 * 3) Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?
 * 4) *Policy doesn't cover everything, and that should always be considered. Users don't get a free pass for clinging to the letter of the law while violating the spirit. However, when you're going outside policy you need to be especially careful that you're doing it fairly, which may often mean getting a second opinion. And if an admin is doing improper things, within policy or not, then that should be dealt with.
 * 5) What is your policy, if any, of welcoming new users? Should you welcome a new user, do you look at his/her contributions beforehand? What about anonymous IPs?
 * 6) *The one time I tried welcoming a user, SFH got there first. :P But usually, even if I don't welcome, I check anons' edits to see whether they're contributing or not (and to judge whether a questionable edit should be taken in good faith).
 * 7) How would you react if someone undeleted an article you'd mistakenly speedied? Under what circumstances would you consider it appropriate to undelete an article mistakenly speedied by another administrator, if any, and how would you approach this task?
 * 8) *If it was my mistake, I'd be glad someone caught it. If I felt that it really should be speedied, I'd talk it out with them. Reverse situation, if I thought they had made an actual mistake (that is, not something I just personally disagreed with), I'd undo it and leave a note on their talk page. If I just disagreed with it, I'd talk to them first.
 * 9) How would you react if your user page was vandalized? Under what circumstances would you block the offender? Is there anything else that you would do in this situation?
 * 10) *Warn them, and if they've been making a pattern of it, block them. Same as any other vandalism, except my watchlist would warn me.
 * 11) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 12) *Well, the circumstances for blocking would be the same as for any user, though established user violations would be more along the line of 3RR, NPA, and whatnot, rather than vandalism, so generally the blocks would be more of a cooldown nature than a permaban.
 * 13) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 14) *Bring back the borders and drop the rounded corners. :P Policy-wise, I think we might be a bit too lenient on obvious vandals who clearly are just trying to disrupt; when I see somebody replace an article with a bunch of profanity or slurs or whatever, and the only thing on his talk page is "Please use the sandbox to experiment", I have to raise an eyebrow.
 * 15) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 16) *Half full...of air!
 * 17) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 18) *To tell the truth, I've never looked at our block policy until now, but everything on there is stuff I've thought was common sense anyway, so I'm cool with it.
 * 19) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 20) *I am now, though I didn't even know how to use IRC before a few months ago.
 * 21) How do you feel about people who already have some influence on other Star Wars communities (TheForce.Net, StarWars.com) trying to change policies here?
 * 22) *If they're hear as contributing users, then they should have as much say as anybody (no more, though). But Joe Mod sniping about Wookieepedia from his blog is as important as anybody else ranting on the Internet, and frankly, can cram it. If actual official people from LFL had a problem with us (like, people with a say), then of course I'd say we'd need to worry about it.
 * 23) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 24) *19 kilometers.
 * 25) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 26) * Kol Skywalker Kyle Katarn.
 * 27) Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
 * 28) *Independent here. You can't tell who I'm going to vote for, G-men!
 * 29) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 30) *Common sense. Maybe a cheap answer, but it's true; if policy leads to something the community feels is nonsensical, then clinging to policy isn't doing the Wookiee any good, and if the community all wants to vote for something completely out of line with our role and purpose, then policy can be an effective way of curbing that. Since consensus can change policy, since ultimately the Wookiee is people, not rules, and since I'd like to think our top contributers tend to be sensible people anyway, I'd say that consensus usually takes the trump card, though.
 * 31) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 32) *I'm an Inq here. That's sort of like leadership, in the sense that you do things amongst your cabal group that everybody then hates you for.

Requests for bureaucratship
Rules:
 * Admins may be nominated here purely by another admin or bureaucrat. (please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.

To view past requests, see the RFB archive.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating an admin for bureaucratship.


 * 1) They are an administrator.
 * 2) They have actively contributed for at least a year to the wiki.
 * 3) They have actively taken on additional responsibilities to make the encyclopedia better.
 * 4) They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained, and constructive manner.
 * 5) They have have a deep understanding of the community's methods of operation.
 * 6) Registered users' votes must have a 3/4ths supermajority for bureaucratship to be accepted (Only users who have been registered for over a month&mdash;from the day the nomination is put forth&mdash;are counted).
 * 7) Administrators' votes must have a 3/4ths supermajority for bureaucratship to be accepted.
 * 8) Bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for bureaucratship to be accepted.
 * 9) Additionally, the nominee may be asked a series of questions by users. While it is not required to answer them, it is strongly encouraged since it may affect how others decide and vote on the RFB.

Requests for rollback
Rules:
 * You may nominate another Wookieepedian (please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.

To view past requests, see the RFR archive.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating a fellow Wookieepedian for rollback rights.


 * 1) They have an account under a screenname.
 * 2) They have actively contributed for at least six months to the wiki.
 * 3) They have demonstrated a need for the ability through extensive anti-vandalism work.

Questions

 * 1) Why should you be granted rollback rights?