Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights

This page is for requests for user rights.

Voting will last two weeks from the date of nomination, ending at 0:00 UTC of the fourteenth day, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted the requested user rights.

Requests for rollback
Rules:
 * You may nominate another Wookieepedian (please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.

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.
 * 4) Registered users' votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted.
 * 5) Administrators' votes must have a 2/3rds supermajority for the request to be accepted. (Separated from user votes)
 * 6) At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote.

Questions

 * 1) Why should you be granted rollback rights?

Requests for adminship
Rules:
 * You may nominate another Wookieepedian (please ensure they accept the nomination first)
 * You cannot nominate yourself.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.

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 either are of adult age (18 years or older) or have one and a half years' worth of solid contribution to the site.
 * 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 contributions.
 * 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) At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote, three of which must be administrators.
 * 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.

JangFett (10 admins + 21 users/1 admin + 6 users/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends June 5, 2013.

Support

 * 1) Jangeth. Jangio. Jango. Jangston. Jango Bo Jangles. JANG. This guy is amazing. AgriCorps. Inquisitorius. Rollback. Leader of the site. Faithful editor. Long-standing (since 2008!) member of the Wook. The list could go on. And on. But I'll try to only cover a few in this nomination statement. Back when I first joined Wookieepedia, one of the first people I came in contact with was Jang. At our first real meeting, I knew there was something that set him apart from the run-of-the-mill on Wookieepedia. He stood out to me. I think the thing that struck me the strongest first off was the fact that although I was a noob who knew nothing (and I did act pretty noobish at the time, too...), he wasn't afraid to befriend me and show me the errors of my way. During times when I wanted to quit the Wook, Jang was there to give an encouraging nod. When I was being promoted and life was good, Jang was there to celebrate with me, even though the good things weren't always happening to him. To me, his character stands out as one of the greatest things you can mark down that is good about Jang. This guy is one of the most easy-going and friendly users I've ever met on the Wook; he really cares about people, and he's a good friend.

But maybe his character alone doesn't sway you to Jang's side. Well, then I have some more for you. Beyond his remarkable character, his editing on the Wook speaks for itself. His dedication shines through. His faithfulness stands strong. His love for the site is undeterred. His true understanding of the way the site works is staunch. He has served Wookieepedia tremendously through the AgriCorps and the Inquisitorius. In addition, he has proven his responsibility through his Rollback rights. As I'm sure his colleagues can attest, he is a great asset to all of the aforementioned groups. Furthermore, Jang is a regular on the IRC, staying in contact with the community at large and getting involved in site-related discussions. Truly, his leadership skills are a testament to the kind of person Jang is. On and on I could go, but I do believe two paragraphs should show at least a small example of how qualified he is. Let's change the name "Jang" to "Admin Rocky."&mdash; Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 00:00, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Not so sure about his character xD&hellip;but his work speaks for itself, just like Cal speaks for me. He has also been a rollbacker for almost two years. That's pretty sufficient by me. Fe Nite (talk) 00:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) <- Omicron (Leave a message at the BEEP! ) 00:21, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Han shoots first (talk) 00:33, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Let the haters be motivators, my gator. I AM INVINCIBLE!  IFYLOFD  ( Enter the Floydome ) 00:58, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Quite simply put, Jang deserves this. In my time here, I haven't really seen Jang get angry. He is a regular in the IRC channel and is always willing to help others. He's on here pretty much every night, always in a good mood. Since I started editing here on a regular basis, he is one of the people that made me feel welcome here. Active in pretty much every area of the site, I feel he has more than proven he can be trusted with admin rights (For a while I thought he was an admin). Seeing as i've more or less repeated what Cal said :P I leave with one question for you Jang, r u a sith or jedi master? Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Trip391 (talk) 01:49, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed. Corellian Premier Jedi symbol.svg Force will be with you always 02:45, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) DarthRevan1173 RevanTOR001.jpg (Long live Lord Revan) 03:20, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 03:26, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Jang pls Cade  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg  Calrayn  03:29, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) I've known Jang for five years now. I've watched the progression of this kid's development both as a user and a person day in and day out on IRC. I personally took him under my wing back in the early days of the AC, because I saw something in him that no one else did. Jang was a useless lump of raw material that no one wanted to touch, but I gave him a shot, and I'm so glad I did. He's worked himself into a community leader. As evidence of that, he's already had two people to whom I've spoken today who thought he was already an administrator. As we all should know by now, that's usually the telltale sign someone is ready for the badge. Jang cares about this wiki, and he's not afraid to speak up when he sees something or someone is crap and needs to be regulated. Unfortunately, that passion causes some who find themselves on the wrong end of an argument with him to come away with a grudge. It's unfortunate because it's that same characteristic that makes the best caliber of administrator. There's a nice Winston Churchill quote that's been tossed around the Wook a few times in the past, but I think it's especially appropriate here: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." If you're an administrator and you don't have someone who dislikes you, it means you're probably not doing a very good job. That's just the nature of life, politics, and Wookieepedia. To Jang's credit, he passes that test. The overriding reasons for opposition here seem to be a) Jang doesn't like TCW; b) He acts silly on IRC; c) He opposes Menkooroo's CTs and QOTDs, and c) Jang doesn't like TCW. None of which are anything more than your people's petty, personal reasons to pick a nit with him. Digi, JMAS, and Menkooroo, you probably represent the Three People on Wookieepedia Who Hate Jang the Most (Naru would be the fourth), so your responses here are not unexpected, though I think they've succeeded at showing how deeply personal and subjective your opposition is. I encourage those who have not yet voted to seriously take their comments with a strong grain of salt and recognize Jang for the positive asset he is to Wookieepedia, not as the user who earned the ire of these unfortunate souls for daring to get in debates with them. Jang is a goof and a clown on IRC, and that's why we love him. I'm probably the one person who has seen his antics regularly in their most natural state, and there have been times when I have questioned his maturity. But I can say with observable authority that he has never allowed that behavior to spill onto the wiki (excluding April Fool's Day, which was created for people like Jang). If there is anyone who should be opposing him based on his IRC goofiness, it's me, but I also know with absolute certainly that Jang knows how to switch gauges. When it's time for business, he turns it off. He wouldn't be in the AC, Inq, a Rollbacker, and going for Admin if he didn't. Jang, I want you to know how proud I am of you that you've turned into such an excellent Wookieepedian, and more importantly, a friend over the course of time we've gotten to know each other. You've put in the blood, sweat, and tears to deserve this honor. Good luck. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:40, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) *I really didn't want to write anything more on this page, but since Tope's completely misrepresented my post and ignored most, if not all, of my points about Jang's maturity, I'll just encourage everyone to take his comments with a grain of salt too. In fact, take everyone's comments with said grain and vote however you and you alone feel. Menkooroo (talk) 09:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) *Like Menk, I wanted to put in my vote and walk away from this one. But I won't allow comments like "People on Wookieepedia Who Hate Jang the Most" to stand. I said nothing of the sort, feel nothing of the sort, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth in the future. Moreover, I find it extremely distressing that, willingly or inadvertently, you've completely ignored or misrepresented the concerns of other contributors. This is a venue in which we're to express support or concerns, and rather than 'politely disagree and here's why,' or 'abstain from comment,' you've opted for 'belittle both the concerns and the concerned.' That this kind of attitude is coming from an admin/bureaucrat is astonishing. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 12:48, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Nahdar Vebb (talk) 07:17, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Jang's reign will bring about the destruction of the world as we know it and he will rule from the ashes with an iron fist and slay all those who oppose him. Jang will make Sauron look like an a poor little undesired puppy. So yeah, I'm totally in. On a more serious note, yes Jang is very much capable and deserving of this position and I find this argument about he openly hating TCW rather lame and irrelevant. This claim of his open hatred for the show hasn't interfered in any way with his work and contributions and what is the problem with enjoying some of the April Fools perks? It's not like he ever vandalized that article besides in that special day. As for immaturity, I think if you start knowing him better, you'll understand that it's more superficial and he can as mature as anyone can be if so is needed. You shouldn't just blame him because he decides to be less serious on a channel that isn't supposed to be that serious to begin with. I say we give him a shot! Winterz (talk) 08:09, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Despite Jang's rabid hatred for TCW, I feel I should point out that the majority of his status articles are from the TCW source material. I also do not believe that personal dislike of a section of Star Wars is relevant to him being granted SysOps. - Sir Cavalier of One FarStar.svg( Squadron channel ) 11:59, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) BangFett will do a bang-up job, I'm sure. He'll bang the vandals back to oblivion and bang those nonsense pages like no one before. He'll make a bang good leader on the site and I'm bang proud to support this nomination. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 14:06, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Alright, I've given it some thought and am placing my vote here. I find myself agreeing with Trak below the most, yet Tope makes a valid point when he says that Jang knows how to switch gears when it's time for serious business, and I think that negates many of the otherwise valid concerns below. The only real concern I have at this point is his tendency to vote against practically every single TCW QOTD candidate, and QOTD kind of blurs the line between fun and serious. But while that is annoying, I haven't seen that spill over into the serious areas of the wiki, which is the important thing. I would like to see Jang ease up somewhat on the QOTD voting and other expressions of TCW hate if elected as an admin, as this is not entirely appropriate behavior for an admin, but it doesn't affect my vote because as I said, he doesn't let it spill over into the serious areas. I'm willing to give him a shot, and if for some reason the opposers are right and us supporters are dead wrong, we have a process to fix that (though I highly doubt we will ever need that here). &mdash;MJ&mdash; Comlink 16:56, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) I am disappointed but not especially surprised that people are voting against Jang due to their personal biases and claiming that it's because they're concerned about his. I hate TCW too, but I've never gone on any unilateral anti-TCW rampages because contrary to popular belief I'm not a psycho, and neither is Jang. What Jang is is passionate about his work, which is something we don't see often enough these days. I believe it will benefit Wookieepedia to make Jang an admin, and I honestly don't believe his detractors have the best interests of the site in mind. In conclusion, I'll quote Ron Swanson: "Of all my co-workers, he's one of a small number whom I don't actively root against. Ah, there I go getting all sappy." -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 17:42, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) While the opposition certainly has some valid points, I'm quite frankly not convinced that they are severe enough to prevent Jang from becoming an administrator. His dislike for TCW is definitely not a valid reason to oppose the nominee &mdash; QOTD is one of those fun votes where you're allowed to vote however the hell you want, and opposing him for downvoting TCW quotes is nothing but a poor attempt at coming up with a reason for opposing. He has never damaged the wiki due to his dislike for TCW. April Fools is a completely different matter and I'm sure you all know the day is about joking. Changing Filoni's article on this one day, once a year, is not a big deal. I'm sure everyone here, including Jang, have made some sort of enemies, and I can agree that Jang probably has quite a few, it's not necessarily a sign of the issue being on his end. Jang is very involved in Wookieepedia affairs; he's there when something happens. TCW article do attract lots of new editors who aren't necessarily familiar with our policies, and while Jang's reversions might be a bit harsh on the occasion, it's not a sign of him being bad at what he does &mdash; I would suggest the opposite actually. He interacts with tons of people and especially new editors, and it's only natural that sometimes the relationship just doesn't play nice. I can't say I've ever seen a case where Jang has been rude towards a new guy. Now that I've hopefully addressed the concerns of the opposition, I'd like to tell you why Jang is a great choice for admin. I've worked and interacted with Jang for over 4 years now, first as a new user, then as an AC, and we've really grown into friends. Get to know him and you'll see he's a very nice guy; while I admittedly did have some clashes with him back in 2010-ish, I believe he's definitely matured and I'm glad to support him in this RfA. Outside the wiki, I've played Minecraft quite a lot with him, staffing a server together with him. He's co-operative, diligent, and committed. And his Wook career speaks for itself. The guy has over 20,000 edits, a number of status articles to his name, and he's a member of the AC and Inq. Jang /is/ one of the most involved members on the site; I don't even remember the last time he took a break. All this outweighs, in my opinion, the points the opposition has provided. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should make one of the most committed users on this site an administrator.  1358  (Talk)  19:36, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) I am a man of few words and since the people above me have already stated my sentiments, I shall simply vote in favor. Gal-icon.jpg  OLIOSTER  (talk) 20:13, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Hunterj | My talk 20:22, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23) You will do well, my friend!&mdash; 20:28, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 24) I'll support. However Jang, I'm gonna keep an eye on you to make sure you give some of the novices a chance. ;) 501st  dogma ( talk ) 21:46, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 25) Back in 2009, Jang nominated his first article on the GAN. I was the one who first responded to the nomination, and I ended up being the most vehement opponent against the article. Neither he nor I were quite "there yet" in terms of article writing, and I certainly wasn't "there yet" in terms of mature, respectful user interaction. I remember that it continued in that vein for a while, with me constantly pushing him, pointing out errors in his articles, definitely more than I should have. Yet, he stuck it out and didn't shy away, even though I crossed the line in criticizing him more than once. The reason I bring up the past is because sometime in the last four years, something changed. Maybe it was that he kept on writing articles, and was open to new ideas and advice. Maybe it was that he was admitted to the AC and then the Inquisitorius. Maybe it was that he made himself available on IRC, where I got to know him better over the years (yes, it's been that long). Back in 2009, I didn't think he would go anywhere. I still can't believe that I would think that of anyone, but that's what I clearly remember. I'm very happy to say that he's proved me entirely wrong. It is Jang's clear potential for growth that is his strongest asset, and those who have been around to see it will say the same. Today, I see a user and friend who is a regular presence on the site, contributes to its growth in terms of status articles, and is heavily involved in the community in a positive way. Jang is opinionated&mdash;hell, I still disagree with him in some areas (you can guess where)&mdash;but I am disappointed that his having opinions would be a factor in opposing his candidacy. I have seen a clear propensity in him for being able to put aside his opinions when doing so is necessary; his reviewing contributions to the FAN and GAN pages are but one example, and he is receptive to other ideas based on my own interaction with him. Those who have taken the opportunity to get to know him will agree when I say that he is dedicated, level-headed, and one of the community's most involved members. He deserves to be able to further serve the community as an administrator.  CC7567  (talk) 22:25, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, I doubt I have any clout here but Jang's articles are quality --Sith my ride&#39;s Return (talk) 22:32, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 27) Per Olioster.-- Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  02:19, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 28) I'm staying out of the drama. After reviewing feedback on his extensive archive of talk pages, I can surmise that he responded fairly and consistently to users over the years, even as some became aggressive. Calm under pressure is a noted skill for this position. I understand that Jang may have a bias in regards to certain content, however he has produced many quality articles in his positions on the Wook, and I hope that he would continue to represent that level of excellence as an administrator. --  Riffsyphon  1024 03:05, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 29) Same as Oli.  Commander Code-8  G'day, mate 06:07, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 30) There's not much I could say that hasn't been said already by others. Jang has matured over the years to the point that he has become an excellent candidate for the job, and I see no reason why he shouldn't become an administrator. In this vein, I echo the sentiments expressed above, specifically those of Xd1358 and CC7567. Now I've read the objections proposed by those opposed to this nomination, and, frankly, I don't think their objections are valid upon closer inspection. (Here I echo Riffsyphon's comments, with which I completely agree. The evidence speaks for itself.) I've had the privilege of working alongside Jang when I was a member of the AgriCorps and the Inquisitorius, and I look forward to working with him when he joins the ranks of the administrators. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 15:37, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 31) Jinzler (talk) 21:36, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * 32) -  Princess   GLG  00:49, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Absolutely not. In my few years at this site, virtually all I've seen come from Jang is mindless TCW hate&mdash;ranging from the unimportant (chatter on IRC) to the outright obstructionist (you can count on a neg vote regardless of the quality, just because s/he doesn't like the subject). While this is a very specific example, I think it's very indicative of Jang's attitude in general; someone who puts personal preference ahead of everything else. That someone in this mindset should potentially, down the line, be responsible for not only maintaining a site dedicated to impartiality, but also for settling user disputes that may well be personal on some level? This is not someone who should be admining. &mdash; DigiFluid(Whine here) 00:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) *"...the outright obstructionist (you can count on a neg vote regardless of the quality, just because s/he doesn't like the subject). While this is a very specific example, I think it's very indicative of Jang's attitude in general; someone who puts personal preference ahead of everything else." Funny. That sounds exactly like you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:23, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) **Funny. I don't think Digi is the person we're considering for adminship or that that was very classy, Tope. We're here to be honest with our thoughts about Jang, and saying that a user who believes that someone who's not ready for adminship is himself not ready for adminship doesn't further that discussion, now does it? Actually, if Digi does see those traits in himself, that would put him an a pretty good position to say whether or not someone who behaves as he does is fit for the position. Any case, let's stay on target, as it were. (Hi, by the way. :D) NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 05:51, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) ***If we're talking about what's funny, I find it rather hilarious that you have retired from Wookieepedia from your own volition (If any one doubts me, see the "User left" template on Naru's user page), yet you always return exclusively for debates and votes such as this. If you want to be involved in such discussions, fine. But please have the decency to take that template off your page and do some actual work. Otherwise, you are the one not being "very classy." If you're going to leave,  you shouldn't come back just to stick your nose into matters that particularly interest you.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 12:01, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) ****So what if I have that on my page? I've stopped contributing regularly due to a number of factors, but I have been a Wookieepedian for years. I am very familiar with a number of issues that we continue to discuss and if I see one come up I may visit and try to help by putting my two cents in. More than that, I return for more than debates. I am watching a number of pages that I would still like to maintain, and I have found that I am enjoying the time I spend on Wookieepedia more enjoyable since I made the decision to do that. My decision to stop writing new articles regularly does not affect my investment in Wookieepedia any more than anyone else who has had to leave for personal reasons before me, and if you're trying to say that it has, I'll let you know now that you're wrong. I'll point out again that we're here to discuss Jang, not Digi, not me, or anyone else. Attacking the messengers instead of what they said isn't very Admin-like, and I hope you realize that it won't get anything anywhere. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 23:16, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Is Jang's quality of work on articles excellent? Absolutely. But being an Admin is much more than just quality work on articles, or participation on the Ing, or AC. An Admin should be unbiased and level-headed in their decision-making and dealing with other users, per Requirement 6, which I think is the most important of all of them. Jang is neither unbiased nor level-headed when it comes anything TCW-related or from any other source material he doesn't happen to be fond of, or in his interaction with other users. There is also the question why do we need another admin? Are we short on admins? -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 02:10, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) *Yes, as a matter of fact we are. Many, many of the admins are hardly editing due to whatever instances have come up in their lives. Activity levels have dropped dramatically, and some are inactive altogether. Another admin definitely could be used. There is a shortage of admins right now. As for Jang's view on TCW, it is true that he does not like TCW. But I can't think of any recent happening where he has let that opinion interfere with his work on the Wook.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 02:19, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I'm going to speak frankly here: Jang is one of the most combative and immature users on the site, and he has been for years. He constantly engages in petty actions, and he's never shown the slightest sign of growth. Things like voting down every single The Clone Wars QOTD candidate, creating "meh" as a voting option in several CTs, consistently using April Fools Day as an excuse to slander the Dave Filoni page, and leaving the comment "I prefer quality over quantity" on this NewsNet article (which I took to be a dig at Lee and deleted out of disgust) are just basic examples of the kinds of actions that are the norm for Jang on Wookieepedia. Easy-going and friendly are not character traits I would attribute to him, and he's not exactly a model INQ, either. Sure, he's a member of the INQ, but before I left the Inquisitorius he was reviewing one, maybe two noms a month. I always got the feeling that he treated INQ membership as a status symbol rather than a responsibility to the community. Since RFR nominations are the place to talk straight, I'm going to outright state that I can't think of a worse candidate for adminship. Jang has a lot of growing to do before he's ready. Menkooroo (talk) 02:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) I have nothing against Jang, and as an editor, he is a wonderful contributor. However, his behavior on IRC, along with any voting here and the almost rabid hatred of TCW gives me pause.  If he could throttle that back some and try to avoid being far too eager to slander Filoni every chance he gets, I would consider supporting him.  As it stands now, though, I do not think he meets the criteria of what an admin should be, and I feel as though he would not conduct himself properly.  As I said, I mean absolutely no offense, but I feel that now is not the right time for Jang.  Perhaps in the future, should some of the troubling aspects be dealt with, but now?  Unfortunately not.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:47, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) *I was going to stay out of this, but I'd really like to know something. What does not liking TCW have to do with Jang being an admin? We all have things we don't like; that doesn't mean we can't be successful on Wookieepedia because our views are different. If I was to say that I didn't like aliens, would I be ostracized and removed from the position of administrator?&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 03:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) **The thing is, I feel that this attitude may get in the way of his duties. I'm afraid that the power may go to his head and he'll find a chance to abuse his position.  In short, I don't think he's mature enough for the responsibility, and while one's likes and dislikes shouldn't factor into the equation, I've seen it drive his behavior.  I'm afraid that it may drive him to be overly harsh and far too quick to exact punishment when only a warning would suffice.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 03:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I am swayed by the opposition. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 11:43, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not going to bore you by describing all the times that Jang and I have fought. The list would be rather long, and it saddens me that we don't get along since we end up interacting on the site a lot. I am going to provide two points for why I’m voting against his candidacy, but I want another thing to be crystal clear first. While I'm flattered that Toprawa thought to include me as the fourth ranger of the "Three People on Wookieepedia Who Hate Jang the Most," I have to confess that I don't hate Jang. That was completely unfair. I'm sure that no-one on this side hates him. Sure, he can be impetuous, immature, and I could never be his biggest fan, but I don't hate him and I never could, for one big reason: we’re similar. If Toprawa wouldn’t mind me using a quotation from him to illustrate the point: “[Naru] cares about this wiki, and he's not afraid to speak up when he sees something or someone is crap and needs to be regulated [less strictly]. Unfortunately, that passion causes some who find themselves on the wrong end of an argument with him to come away with a grudge.” You can disregard “someone is,” but I left it in for completeness’s sake. Jang and I are both highly passionate about how we communicate our ideas, which has lead us both astray in the past between ourselves and in our discussions with others. We both try to be nice guys outside of when we’re arguing points, but we also like to tell jokes when it would probably be best to stop. We tell our true feelings on the CT and vote or conscience, whatever it may be and no matter who may disagree with us. We both argue those positions to the fullest. So I don’t hate Jang. Nonetheless, in real life, I’ve always said that if I had a twin, I don’t know which of us would kill the other first, and that sentiment pretty much describes what’s happened between Jang and me. We end up at each other’s throats when we’re on the clock. From my perspective, it’s usually been caused when one of us misunderstands the other, or when one of us wants the other to do something&mdash;be it including something in an article, or explaining a point&mdash;and the other doesn’t want to do it. Both cases devolve into long threads wherein we lobby for dug in positions in a defensive environment. Both of us have started arguments like this with the other that got heated because of our natures and became disruptive. Our interactions on this site have been a two way street. He may see it another way, but from my POV that’s no cause for a grudge, and I don’t have one. On to my objections.
 * 2) *Point 1: I defy you to find one regular user on this entire wiki who dislikes Trak Nar, thefourdotellipsis, Grunny, Riffsyphon1138, Atraumaster88, Green Tentacle, SFH, Xd1358, Tommy9281, LtNOWIS, Enochf, jSarek, or Eyrezer (omission here does not mean I think someone out there hates you) in a serious way that leads to regular disruption. To say that someone’s contentious past, the proliferation of grudges over the years, is a sign that someone is ready, responsible, and mature enough for a position of leadership is shocking. While I actually agree with the Churchill quotation, the act of creating grudges is not what one should be looking at when judging someone’s leadership qualities. Instead, one should remember that leadership is the act of handling relationships and focus on how the person in question deals with those grudges. How do they channel those poisoned relationships into something positive or negative? How do they go about attempting to resolve the situation in a satisfactory manner? The fact that Toprawa wants to name three people with whom he believes with conviction that Jang has a poisonous relationship&mdash;even if I don’t agree that they really were poisonous because I don’t see animosity actively maintained by both sides&mdash;is a very bad thing. This cannot be written off as normal. Jang has relationships with users that are consistently negative. Instead of working to improve these relationships through delegation, mediation, hashing out the problem with them directly and off-site, or doing anything to fix the problem, Jang has done nothing but continue with them. He has maintained these so steadfastly that they are considered a status quo.
 * 3) *Point 2: Please see this screenshot I took of Jang contacting me in the IRC. He did this in the open, public #wookieepedia channel. It was not a private conversation and I need no permission from him to share it with you. This conversation was in the immediate wake of my posting Forum:NB:Hk's warning, and it is very telling. I felt the subject of the Noticeboard posting was a situation gross enough that I was compelled to write the report, and this was Jang's response. He felt that because Toprawa was an administrator and I was not, my opinion on his handling of the matter was unimportant. So unimportant, in fact, that he felt comfortable telling me, the person with the thankfully unemotional grievance, what he thought about what I had done while saying that he had not read more than a few lines of what I had had to say beforehand in front of everybody else. He thinks that Administrators are an end-all authority on what is right and wrong, and that they are inherantly above criticism. That is not a healthy attitude for an administrator, and someone who would ignore what someone said and actively disregard them before passing judgment on any situation to give official opinions as an administrator. Even if he distances himself from these statements, I remind you all that they were candid and made in September 2012. Even if these statements do not accurately represent his feelings in general, why did he write this to anybody before reading what the person had to say? If it was because the opinion in question was mine, he was deliberately disregarding me because of our past encounters and digging at me to feed our sour relationship. As I said above, leadership capacity must be judged by how one deals with relationships, and I cannot support Jang because he has shown me that not only does he maintain bad relationships with people who he believes are “crap,” as Toprawa puts it, he fosters them. I believe he would continue to do so as an admin, and I, for one, cannot trust him to not use Administrative powers in that pursuit. For that reason, if I had no others, I could never vote for Jang to become an admin. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 18:05, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) **Although I know it will serve no purpose explaining these things to you, Naru, I feel like such blatant foolishness deserves to be clarified. I really don't care if you respond to what I am going to say, because I don't plan on responding to you in turn. First of all, WP:A is not a policy page. Nor does it say that the administration is not an authoritative position. It simply states that admins are equal to regular users in regards to the same rules they enforce. They are not above the law, in other words. Adminship is an authoritative position. That's just a natural fact. There isn't a single thing Jang said in that IRC log that was incorrect or inappropriate. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:33, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) ***Telling me something will always serve a purpose, because I will read it and I will respond and we can talk about it. Tope, I direct you to question 3 in this section: "In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?" The answer is not set in stone. In your view, Toprawa, it is a political position of power. In my view, it is a technical position and I say that we, the userbase, elect those we believe can serve our best interest as leaders, not autocrats. A leader is someone who manages relationships. An authoritarian position is one from which a person may command another to do things. The are by no means associated automatically. A leader is not someone who carries an authoritarian position, but someone who is a leader may occupy an authoritarian position. WP:A is Wookieepedia's official definition for what an administrator is and what one's duties are, and it's pretty basic stuff. It's not "policy" only in the sense that it's not a rule, because it's a definition. Not acting in accordance with the page is a sign that one should not be an administrator. That is a natural fact. If you don't believe he was acting inappropriately by giving an official opinion to a party that felt something is wrong without even reading what that party had to say in an attempt to fully understand the issue before passing judgement, I don't know what else to say to you. NaruHina  Talk Anakinsolo.png 20:57, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) From what I know, Jang is a good editor and a valuable asset to the community. Personally, I have nothing against him, but the comments in this section have convinced me he is perhaps not yet ready for adminship.  Stake black   msg 18:26, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Sorry, Jang may be enthusiastic editor (I've seen him do plenty good in my time here) however too often I've witnessed him being a tad overzealous, illogically reverting/modifying users edits only to have a another experienced editor almost immediately revert Jang's edit followed by having to waste time justifying to Jang exactly why his edit was such an illogical move to begin with. Unfortunately, his immaturity is frustratingly evident when dealing with both established & new users; while I believe his jovial nature is in good faith, he doesn't know when to let up which can often be mistaken by new users as arrogance, an unwillingness to be helpful or in some cases as being purely combative. I can't see how his elevation to adminship will be of benefit to the wider user base. "I've got a bad feeling about this". Rokkur Shen (talk) 02:32, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Leaving this here for now. I've seen a lot of good out of Jang, but I can't disagree with some of the concerns raised above, and some of the Q&A responses below give the appearance that he might be trying a little too hard to convince people that he'll make a good admin. I'll sleep on this tonight and give it more thought tomorrow when I'm well-rested and my slow DSL connection isn't being hogged by my GPS map updater trying to download a 3.3 GB file. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Holocomm 04:05, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * Moved to support. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Comlink 16:56, May 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I would vote support, but I'm far too busy... bein' delicious. Judge Fudge (talk) 23:31, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *Basically I love the Wook, plain and simple. Since I was offered the privilege of becoming an administrator, I see it as a productive way to continue my support for the wiki. For the past few years, I learned how to become a better leader in the community. I feel that rollback helped me become more familiar with specific administrative-related tools. The tool itself allowed me to revert any sort of vandalism quickly and help keep the wiki clean. Likewise, the new tools that I will receive will be treated with foremost care and respect.
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *Administrators, like rollbackers, are users and contributors of the wiki. The difference is that administrators have extra tools that help keep the wiki clean of vandalism and disputes (such as edit warring). However, those new tools must be appropriately used. Any sort of abusive actions with those tools is not what an administrator is.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) *Technically speaking, administrators do have certain tools that users do not possess. Administrators can be seen as leaders of the Wiki, but that is not always the case since even users that do not have admin tools can be leaders.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *We are Wookieepedians, all of us. Rollbackers and administrators may have tools to use when appropriately taking action, but we should be seen as equal.
 * 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) *One thing that stands out is the reappearance of an anonymous IP editor from Argentina. A stressful action of his/her&mdash;random worded edit summaries, such as "fiofw3." Of course, the right action to take is to let the IP editor know via his/her talk page. That does not work, since the editor most likely does not understand English. Xd would then normally block the IP. Due to it being a dynamic IP, he/she would evade active bans and ignore the warnings from the previous IP. I normally keep an eye open in the Recent Changes, which I often patrol, and, if I see the same editor again, I report it to Xd. In the future, I will be doing the same thing. As for edit warring, that should always be avoided. You do not want a "wiki-wide" dispute, and I have seen one of those before. The first step is to resolve the matter via talk page. Compromise and try to settle respectfully. High tensions and aggravations lead to 3RR warnings, or, worse, blocks. Taking action via the administrators' tools should always be the final and last resort&mdash;never first.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *I do mean this, and he knows too (:P), if it were not for CC's WP:TCW, I probably would not be in the position I am in. Yes, believe it or not, certain aspects of TCW (which can be seen via my FA/GAs) allowed me to become more active on the wiki. Since 2009, I feel that my writing and general leadership have definitely improved, and I owe many thanks to CC and others that have helped me throughout the years.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * 14) *Anything that is helpful for the community, be it the reported vandalism or the requested protection page. Caution will be taken for everything, since accidents do happen (such as a speedy deletion for an article that is actually canon). It is important to understand and know the certain administrative abilities, such as Abusefilter, before doing anything. Like being a first-time writer on the Wook, take small steps and do not jump all in at once. I know, I have learned my lesson.
 * 15) How important is it for you to be involved in things such as CT, FA, GA, and other community-centered items that involve discussion and voting?
 * 16) *For me, I do see it as dedication to the Wook. Reviewing&mdash;be it on the FAN/GAN, or CAN&mdash;is very important. While writing and expanding article are just as crucial, I feel that reviewing definitely increases one's writing ability. Knowing from experience, my awful writing from 2009 changed dramatically if compared to today. I owe it all to the help from reviewers that read my articles. Granted, Wookieepedia is not an English school, but I for one learned how to strengthen my understanding of grammar, thanks to addressing objections. Besides these benefits, voting is what moves these articles along. Without the help of active reviewers, the FAN/GAN/CAN pages will be completely huge and a mess. Likewise, the decision making and community consensus of the Wook&mdash;SH, CT, TC, Mofference&mdash;offers more work for Wookieepedians. Those who review articles or contribute to consensus show passion and dedication.
 * 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) *Before making actions, use common sense and knowledge. There should be a reason for anything, but confrontation does not help.
 * 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) *Like anon IPs, I would wait a bit before placing the welcome template on the user's talk page. Normally vandals or those who ignore warnings (such as the Argentinian) have dynamic IPs or use proxies, so not knowing who you are welcoming is not wise. Once you know the user edits in good faith, you may welcome him/her to the wiki.
 * 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) *Basically, you do not want confrontation or display aggressive actions. Talking it out, via talk page or IRC, is the correct way of knowing what the reason was. If the decision were made and the article should be undeleted, stating the reason is appropriate. Also I am often reminded of this policy.
 * 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) *Thanks to Havac, no anon IP could vandalize my userpage, since it is semi-protected. Following the administrative way, my userpage might be fully protected. However, say I will not fully protect it and a registered user vandalizes it, I will revert the edit and warn the user via talk page. You never want to block the offender, unless the user contiunes to vandalize userpages and ignores warnings. You want to use the tool when appropriate. Blocking without warning does not solve anything.
 * 25) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 26) *Policies must always be followed and established users should not be exempt from them. If an established user fails to adhere to a policy or engages in disputes, then so be it. However, as I said previously, you do not want to block first. Talk it out beforehand.
 * 27) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 28) *Ugh, Wikia, please no more random gadgets or pointless crap.
 * 29) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 30) *Of course
 * 31) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 32) *Seeing from current administrative actions, I see it being properly functional as is.
 * 33) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 34) *I am a regular on IRC. At anytime, you may contact me on IRC. I'm Jang|Away, Jangeth, or anything with "Jang."
 * 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) *Seeing that I do participate on TFN, I treat both the Wook and TFN separately. We are both independent and functional Star Wars websites. Our policies here are for Wookieepedia.
 * 37) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 38) *5303802308239567
 * 39) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 40) *Superman?
 * 41) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 42) *Even though both could be seen differently or independently, consensus is definitely important. Getting the community working together and creating policies via consensus.
 * 43) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 44) *Of course. For many years, I have participated in various forums and became an administrator in several. Of course, not as relevant, but I have learned to understand the tools given to an admin and using them appropriately. Likewise, I have familiarized myself with Wiki administrative tools via my own test Wikia here. I am also an OP (or an administrator) on Xd's Minecraft server.
 * 45) What is your attitude towards users who have quit the site or have been banned, but still continue to attempt to influence the site in any way?
 * 46) *I do feel sad when an established user leaves the Wiki. Even if the user may have not "influenced" the Wiki, he or she definitely contributed to the Wook in good faith, which, to me, is highly regarded.
 * 47) What is your wiki philosophy?
 * 48) *First and foremost, all of us have different views and certain likes and dislikes. If I were to say "nope, I will not allow this on the site because I hate it," then what good would that do in the long term? As an example&mdash;yes, TCW is not my favorite, but that does not mean I oppose it completely (please see my FA/GAs. 50% of them are TCW-related), nor would I shrug off the remaining half that I do not like. TCW is canon and the wiki itself is dedicated to expanding and creating articles that are canon (likewise non-canon). Improving the wiki is on my mind, but not in a negative way. I am highly dedicated toward the Wook in a respectful, positive matter. If I were not, then why would I be here?
 * 49) I have one question r u a sith or jedi master 1358  (Talk)  12:45, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 50) *yes  JangFett  (Talk) 22:34, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * Nomination accepted via IRC.&mdash; Cal Jedi Infinite Empire.svg (Personal Comm Channel) 00:00, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * The general warning I'm about to give might be overkill, but it is in the interest of stopping the tidal wave before it hits shore, so to speak. I would like to remind all voters of WP:CIVIL. There has not yet been any behavior requiring administrative response, but (putting it bluntly) since people are becoming more and more personally involved in voting, the general tone of recent comments suggests that there will be problems soon. We all have opinions, but out of respect to others in the community&mdash;and particularly out of regard to the candidate&mdash;please present those opinions respectfully. Please, take a moment to calm down and read through your comments (multiple times, I might add) before posting them. Jang deserves a constructive and respectful voting process regarding his candidacy, whether you are against or support.  CC7567  (talk) 21:06, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second CC's call for respectful comments all around. Everyone is free to vote however they like, and attacking users for having opinions that don't align with yours or falsely accusing them of basing their grievances on personal biases does nothing to further the discussion. If everyone can act maturely and keep their comments focused on Jang and Jang alone, then this RFR won't have to degenerate into pointless mudslinging. Feel free to respond to this comment --- open discussion is part of a democratic process --- but keep it classy. Menkooroo (talk) 00:59, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

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.
 * Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals.

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 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) At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote, five of which must be administrators.
 * 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.