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. :)

Gonk (10 users + 1 admin/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 24 August 2007.

Support

 * 1) Accepted nomination via IRC. For true! Thefourdotelipsis 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Edits aren't everythong - Gonk has performed magnificent work in the co-ordination of improving articles with the goal of achieving GA and FA status for them.--Goodwood 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Gonk's edits are a lion. jSarek 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Responsible (although neutering would be funny)--Eyrezer 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I was just talking to Gonk about this yesterday. It's about time. Great attitude, very committed to improving the site. A leader I can follow. - Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) He's always helpful, he's very committed and his contributions are simply great. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) And how is 1500 edits not enough? Bah! Knight this man already. Darth Maddolis 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. Here's to you, Gonk. --School of Thrawn 101 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Definitely. Per SoT. -- [[Image:AckbarSig.jpg|40px]] dmirableAckbar  ( It's A Trap! ) 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) All right, you guys have a point. And I did say that I knew edits weren't everything. And please remember to update the vote count when you vote.  Chack Jadson  Talk 12:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1,500 article edits, 2,800 total edits. Yes, I know edits aren't everything, but still, I don't he's ready.  Chack Jadson  Talk 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Neuter

 * 1) Please don't neuter me. I like my genitalia.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this motion. Darth Maddolis 09:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
1. Why do you want to become an administrator? You mean, besides ops in IRC? ;) Mainly so I can have more tools with which to combat the endless stream of vandals and fanonists we attract. That, and it seems like I spend a lot of time hunting down admins to do stuff I could just as easily do.
 * Do I have to explain myself? Thefourdotelipsis 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you don't get it, but Gonk's edits are large edits, and quality edits. Large improvements to pages don't have their own counter. - Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Graestan, I think you might be in the wrong sub-section with this comment. --School of Thrawn 101 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to comment after votes... I let votes (and their accompanying quips) have the vote subsections to themselves. I was responding to Mr. Jadson's comment. -  Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no I got it...it just looked (originally) like a response to a Gonk in the way that it was formatted. --School of Thrawn 101 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator? See #3

3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? In an ideal world, strictly technical. In an ideal world, admins wouldn't have to hand out discipline, and admins' stances on issues (like CTs) wouldn't necessarily influence how non-admins vote. But that's an unreachable ideal, even in the most egalitarian hippie online communities. So admins need to be prepared to perform both types of functions competently. I feel like I've demonstrated what sort of "political Wookieepedian" I am, and while I do have a lot to learn about the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikia, I know enough about it to feel like I can handle it. (Otherwise I would never have requested my own wiki!!)

4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users? If we're talking about a simple disagreement with established users who obviously aren't vandalizing, then admins shouldn't "use" their power/stand or even threaten to. When it comes to pure opinions, mine are as valid as User:l33tF3tt's.

5. ''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?'' I've been in maybe three or four actual "conflicts," none of which were major and all of which are entirely resolved. When I'm the one in the wrong, I accept it and move on. When I'm not, I state my position as clearly as possible and move on if that's not enough. I don't attach enough of my ego to my Wookieepedia presence to take stuff like that personally, even when it's intended that way. Only once has another user caused me stress, and the way I dealt with it was to get feedback from uninvolved users, to see how they would react and get suggestions.

6. Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why? Well, obviously Bureau of Scouting and Exploration Services. I created that one from nothing and now it's likely to become an FA. I also liked my meager work on stuff like Exovar's Emporium and Elrood, and as far as adding material is concerned, I will probably continue to specialize in WEG-era stuff. I am also happy to have been a part of the FA nom process cleanup and consider myself to be a reasonably dedicated Inquisitor. (Even Ataru would agree I'm far from the laziest of us.)

7. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Fanon is my Favored Enemy. That and vandalism will likely continue to be a primary emphasis. I intend to enforce REF tags as much as they need to be enforced. I suppose I'll do more closing/moving of forum threads and stuff as I learn how.

8. 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? I've been involved with FA for some time now and that'll only intensify if I am an admin. I also patrol the Knowledge Bank and in the past I've had to harass admins to delete certain threads there. Beyond that, however, I should probably state for the record that I have both a full-time job and a life&mdash;but my time here is likely to remain pretty much as it has for the past several months.

9. ''Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?'' I think admins have enough leeway to interpret the policies with some flexibility. That said, if an admin oversteps his/her bounds, I trust that someone will complain about it, and another admin will look into it. I do think admin mistakes/abuses have to be confronted.

10. ''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?'' I generally leave the talk-page welcoming to others, unless the newbies come into IRC. On those occasions when I have welcomed someone, it was because they were using an anonymous IP but making a lot of genuine contributions; these are the sorts of anons I want to see usernames for. Likewise, if an anon makes an edit I deem to be erroneous but well-meant, I will compose a more welcoming sort of warning on his/her talk page.

11. ''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?'' Let me put it this way. Now that we live in the age of the Legacy comic series, I have this feeling that one day we actually will have a "Darth Awesome." So I'm pretty conservative about recklessly using the speedy tag. (That's not sarcasm either. It's already come up once; ask Jorrel.) Otherwise, though, I have confidence in most admins' ability to distinguish content from crap. So I wouldn't undelete something unless I had proof it was legit, and if I did, I wouldn't hesitate.

12. ''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?'' A warning is all that's necessary. If the vandal in question was an established user, perhaps a polite exchange of ideas would be called for, but such things shouldn't be a big deal. Articles are more important.

13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? They'd have to be pretty extreme and obvious. This is the sort of circumstance where the policy (and the violation thereof) should speak for itself, and not require arcane interpretation.

14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be? I can't really think of anything substantive. I do think the notion that we aren't exactly an encyclopedia (more of a reference) has merit, but that's really just semantics.

15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full? A glass is always empty by the time I'm through with it. Unless it contains Zima.

16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is? I think it's mostly pretty balanced. I think permabans send the wrong message ("We hate you as a person" or, worse yet, "We are giving in to our overdeveloped sense of vengeance"), and that very-long-term bans send a better one ("Come back in eight years when you've matured a little") and achieve the same result. The only person for whom I could ever see myself supporting a permaban is SuperShadow.

17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat? I hardly ever leave the Wookieepedia IRC chat.

18. 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? As long as they're already established users, I assume good faith. But the recent "First Strike" debacle proves that we can't assume good faith from not-so-established users.

19. ''How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)'' None. They were all holograms. Seriously, how else do you explain LFL never making a single actual clonetrooper costume?

20. ''Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)'' I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this, considering that Kyle and I are rival gods.

21. Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

22. What's more important to you: consensus or policy? No fair mixing in real questions with silly questions. Policy is important for obvious reasons, and we all rely on it&hellip;a lot&hellip;to resolve certain issues. That's as it should be. However, as the wiki evolves, certain policies established in the "old days" must be reconsidered and occasionally revised. Change is natural and unavoidable, especially on a wiki. (And you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.) I guess I would say, consensus by a nose. It IS a flawed process, but that's why we have bureaucrats.

23. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)? I've been a teacher for almost ten years. Hobby-wise, I do a lot of gamemastering. (D6, baby.) Web-wise, I've administered a moderately-busy discussion board and taken on a newbie-tutoring role in a few other online communities.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 11:59, 10 August 2007 (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.

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.

jSarek (1 admin/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 24 August 2007.

Support

 * 1) Now that I have resigned as BC, I would like to nominate jSarek to succeed me. - Sikon 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A worthy successor, IMHO. He'll get the job done. Darth Maddolis 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I accept this nomination. However, as I stated in my first nomination to this position, "I should plainly note up front that I am probably one of the least technically sophisticated admins we have . . . It's simply not my area of expertise, and if anyone thinks that such knowledge is important to have in a bureaucrat, than they should vote against me. That having been said, I'm grateful you guys thought of me for this position, and I'll get to the questions in a bit." jSarek 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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?