Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFA archive/Havac


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Havac (1 bureaucrat + 5 admins + 10 users/1 admin + 2 users/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends May 8, 2007.

Support

 * 1) Imp http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Go man, go! .  .  .  .  23:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yep. Too much personality. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 00:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Ulicus 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) At one point I thought he was one, actually, and was surprised to find out that wasn't the case. - Lord Hydronium 02:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) LtNOWIS 03:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Nod. --Azizlight 12:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Personality? So what? He's not a bot. I have never encountered this "dark side" of Havac. Chack Jadson 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  Lord Oblivion Sith holocron[[Image:Oldsith.png|20px]] 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. jSarek 06:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Even though he opposed the user I nominated to become wookieepedian of the month, he is a very good wookieepedian.--Windu223 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Darth Seth 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
Too much personality.-- Lord Oblivion Sith holocron 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Atarumaster88  23:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) *Good point. .  .  .  .  23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Worries more about how this wiki is viewed than the contentness of fanon-writing contributors, which IMO speaks of a lack of ability to hold practical benefits for Wookieepedia over it's image. Also insults fanon-writers. DarthMRN 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) *Fanon writers do not get insulted. They insult themselves. Thefourdotelipsis 05:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) **Oh, jeez. Not this. If you paid attention to my arguments in Votes for deletion/Breast, you'd know that I don't give a damn how this wiki is viewed. Again, look at my arguments on the other thread. If making general judgments on a general topic based on my experience with fanon and fanon-creating users -- while backing it up with statistics -- makes me insulting and elitist, then anyone to ever judge the merits of anything has been an insulting elitist. Please. Havac 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ***You might actually believe that removing fanon would be more of a boon than a loss, I'm not you, I can't know for sure, but this is a direct quote: "[Fanfics/writers are] obnoxious and juvenile and only clutters up the page with stuff no one reads but their friends, who could just as easily read it on the fanon wiki". Insulting is a given. You can't expect everyone to support you. I've had admins before who were a little too opinionated for my own good, and I'm not going to stand idly by as another one is inaugurated. Since you have such a strong support, though, I can only pray you prove me wrong. DarthMRN 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) ****I'm guessing you're not running for Admin anytime soon, Fourdot? DarthMRN 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) ****Calling something a "direct quote" and then making part of it up? Tut-tut-tut. Let's see the actual quote: ""The positive effect fanon on userpages has for many users"? Who the heck gets a positive effect from it? It's obnoxious and juvenile..." and it continues as you've said from there. He says the fanon itself is obnoxious and juvenile, and you've somehow left that bit out to make it seem like he's insulting users. That's low. - Lord Hydronium 23:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Unit 8311 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Accepted nomination on IRC. -- Imp http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/e/e5/ATATatarismall.png 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *Because it would allow me to help Wookieepedia more than I can now. I'm a responsible user and I'd be happy to have a bigger toolbox to fight vandalism, maintain the Wookieepedia, etc.
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *It depends. They are, fundamentally, people with extra buttons. They get to delete stuff, protect stuff, close consensus track votes, kick people on IRC. They're the people that the community trusts to wield those necessary powers. However, that act of community trust means that they become -- de facto or de iure, it doesn't matter -- community leaders. They're the people that users turn to when they need help doing something -- yes, because the user doesn't have that handy delete button, but also because they're someone the user trusts to solve problems and do what must be done (By which I do not mean killing younglings. Though we are enforcing COPPA now. Hmmm . . . ). So administrators take the lead in the community simply by being more visible.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) * See above -- it's some of both. They hold, by the grant of powers to them, a technical position. They're here to implement policy and keep vandals from changing every page to read "Penis penis penis". However, they also, by default, are people with prominence in the community -- usually something they had before they became an admin. But there's not a whole lot "political" that admins can do, really. I'm not here to seek more funding for Force Commander articles, and if I agitate for a more inclusionist policy, I'm doing that as a user and my admin status doesn't come into it.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *They should use it as they're supposed to. Stock answer, but true. It shouldn't be something to be lorded over other users, especially not as leverage in arguments. But there's nothing to tippy-toe around, either. Be humble and everything should run fine.
 * 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) *Not significantly. I've been in discussions over policy before -- stuff like merging Anakin and Vader, stuff which gets heated on all sides with a lot of users drawn in. But nothing of a personal, one-on-one type. When I do get into those kinds of arguments, it's simply a matter of stating and restating and clarifying my position and pointing out flaws in the other side's position. It's not personal, and while I'll argue away, it's not something that I walk off steaming over, and taking a different side from me isn't something I'll hold a grudge over, even if I think you're badly mistaken.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *My work on Force Commander has me particularly pleased, since I took what was rather shoddy coverage of the game across multiple articles and improved all of them to the point that I feel the game is better covered than most sources on here. I've also done quite a bit of categorization work, which I think helps make Wookieepedia easy to use, even if it's something that doesn't get a lot of attention. However, I'd have to say I'm most proud of the Featured Articles that I've written. It's very satisfying to take a flawed article and bring it up to be judged one of the best, and it helps improve the quality of Wookieepedia as a resource tremendously.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * 14) *Deletion, anti-vandalism, and the regular stuff. What I'd like to do as well is keep an eye on the Consensus Track and VFD, which often don't have votes closed and implemented in a timely fashion.
 * 15) 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?
 * 16) *Very important, insofar as I think the subject is important and I can contribute. I look at every CT thread and VFD and vote on any issue on which I have an opinion one way or the other. If I don't, I'm not going to vote for the sake of voting. FA I'm of course very active in as an Inquisitor. Other stuff, like IDrive, I generally ignore because not much goes on with it for one, and because most of the IDrive articles aren't ones on which I have a specialty. I do my own IDrives, if you will, when editing up whatever articles I'm doing, and I think I do a lot more good that way.
 * 17) Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?
 * 18) *How is the question, isn't it? You can't really punish an admin. Ban them and they can unban themselves. Otherwise, you can give them a stern talking to. You can also de-sysop them and then ban them. Those are pretty much your options. So, you give them a stern talking-to if they do something they shouldn't, just like you would any experienced user who violates policy, and if they build up a pattern you take it to a de-sysop vote, which I think we've implemented, because they're clearly not cut out for the powers they have.
 * 19) 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?
 * 20) *I don't. It's just not something that I generally notice, and usually someone else gets there first. The only exception is if I notice someone doing something he shouldn't and I go to his talkpage to warn him and there's no welcome template. In that case I'll throw one on and leave a "You're new, so just so you know, please don't do X. Thanks a lot, hope you contribute well" type message.
 * 21) 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?
 * 22) *If it's a clear mistake? I'd restore it and leave a message telling them why. If it's not a clear mistake, but I think it is? I'd talk it over with them first, and come to a consensus over what to do. If we're horribly split, I'd take it outside, through a VFD or to another admin.
 * 23) 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?
 * 24) *I would treat it just like any other act of vandalism. A warning if it's a first-time, possibly innocent offense, and a short ban if it occurs after a warning to stop or it it's of a clearly malicious, will-never-contribute-positively type.
 * 25) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 26) *Under the same circumstances I'd consider blocking an unestablished user, ideally. Being around for a year doesn't make it any better to vandalize, vote-farm, or whatever. However, being a human being, I'd probably be more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt if they've contributed well in the past and this seems to be a one-time slipup. However, if I give them a warning and they do it again, then they haven't learned their lesson and they need a cooldown ban at the least, just like anyone else.
 * 27) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 28) *I would be Wookieepedia dictator for life. It would make deciding policy so much easier. Seriously? I'd implement some more stuff from Wikipedia:NOT, such as not an anarchy and not a bureaucracy.
 * 29) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 30) *Simple probability suggests it will never be exactly half-and-half. But if you want to know pessimistic vs. optimistic, I'm a sick blend of both.
 * 31) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 32) *We don't seem to have too many problems with it.
 * 33) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 34) *How did I accept this nomination, again?
 * 35) 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?
 * 36) *Vote-farming is bad, mmmkay? Beyond that? If you're a real user, you have just as much right to vote however you feel as does anyone else. But if you're here solely to push an agenda, then you're not contributing and you can get lost. And if you're not even on Wookieepedia but complaining about it from afar? Who cares, then? Talk all you want. You can't change anything unless you're here.
 * 37) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 38) *3 million in the GAR in the first year, with an unknown additional amount outside that. Yeah, didn't think I'd take that one seriously, did you?
 * 39) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 40) *Kyle Katarn. Closely followed by Obi-Wan Kenobi, Pernicar, Jolee Bindo, Kiel Charny, and . . . ah, hell, there are a lot of cool Jedi.
 * 41) Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
 * 42) *I love capitalism with a deep and passionate love.
 * 43) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 44) *Policy, because that's what is on the books to be enforced. But consensus is how you get policy. In the end, though, it all comes down to common sense.
 * 45) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 46) *I'm an Inquisitor here, a channel operator in irc.holonet.org, and I've done a decent amount of leadership stuff in my community.