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.

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)

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.

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 two 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) 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. :)

Chack Jadson (13 admins + 14 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 9 February 2009.

Support

 * 1) Chack is an incredible user, the very picture of commitment and responsibility. I've watched him improve steadily since I joined. He was named Wookieepedian of the Month for his friendliness and helpfulness. Chack watches the recent changes for a fair slice of each day, generally whenever he edits, tagging nonsense and fanon for deletion and warning violators ahead of admin action, and was awarded rollback rights to this end. He writes good and featured articles, and has been named to the Inquisitorius in addition to being a founding member of the AgriCorps. Chack has taken each of these duties seriously, dedicating himself to each task he undertakes, and is selflessly committed to progress and cooperation across the wiki. I wholeheartedly believe he will execute the duties of administrator with more fairness as well as decisiveness than most would aspire to. Graestan ( Talk ) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Chack is always busy around the GAN and FAN, he's also showed great editing skills and is a kind and thoughtful member of the community — RC-1136 Hate Mail Here 08:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Grae. Chack's an extremely helpful and nice guy. Good luck, buddy. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 12:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) NaruHina  Talk [[Image:Anakinsolo.png|14px]] 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Even though I haven't had a great deal of interaction with Chack, being a fairly new member of both Wookieepedia and the AgriCorps, anytime that I did ask for his help or opinion I found him to be friendly, helpful, and most importantly, thoughtful. He likes to think something through before making a decision and I think that is an essential trait for an administrator. Cylka  -talk- 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) —Tommy9281 [[Image:Dark Side Master TotG.jpg|17px]] ( Peace is a lie ) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) "I have been in next to no conflicts with anyone" + backbone + integrity = ideal admin. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 17:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) CHACK ATTACK!  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 17:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Cavalier One [[Image:FarStar Logo.jpg|20px]]( Squadron channel ) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Chack is friendly and has a great attitude. A pleasure to work with both on the Inq and AC panels. I was happy to nominate him for WOTM, and I'm happy to support his adminship here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak support based on his answer to #20. j/k Chack would be a great addition. —Xwing328 (Talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Chack is a good guy. Glad we changed that darned rule... even if it came a few months too late :P (I know, I know, I wouldn't have qualified under the new guidelines anyway... but that's not what this is about) Chack deserves this, and I'm eager to see him execute adminship. If not now, than in the future. I'm assuming it's going to be now, though. 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13)  Grunny  (Talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Chack sure does do his bit for the site, both in reviewing and patrolling the RC. 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) I am a bit concerned about the age, but it's wrong to vote oppose because of that. He's a dedicated guy and loves the site. Also, ridiculously good answers to the questions. Cull Tremayne 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) You're just lucky I'm more forgiving than Kyle. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) I can't say anything that's not been said before other than I thoroughly endorse Chack for admin. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 17:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Per everybody else. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) He's WHY the Admin age rule was changed. jSarek 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) DC 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) How have I not voted on this yet? Full support for Chack. Wildyoda 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) -- Darth tom [[Image:Imperial Emblem.svg|20px]] (Imperial Intelligence)  19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Chack seems like a dedicated member to Wookieepedia, and would make a great admin. GroceryBag Grocery Store 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Chack would indeed make a great admin. Therefore, it is unfortunate that he will most likely be dead by Kyle's hand before he even gets the chance to take on the mantle of adminship.--Darth Oblivion 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) A fine choice indeed and I would not put it against him for not playing certain games. If that were the case, nearly all the admins would have to be removed. Now let's be realistic here. --  Riffsyphon  1024 09:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who has never played Jedi Outcast. --  Darth Culator  (Talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A
1.Why do you want to become an administrator? 2.In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator? 3.In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? 4.How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users? 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? 6.Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why? 7.What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? 8.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? 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? 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? 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? 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? 13.Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? 14.If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be? 15.Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full? 16.Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is? 17.Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to 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? 19.How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.) 20.Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.) 21.Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? 22.What's more important to you: consensus or policy? 23.Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * I love Wookieepedia. I absolutely adore this site (hope that doesn't sound too weird :P). I'm on a lot here, which may seem odd for a 16 year old, but makes sense if you think about it (unlike you all with jobs, I get home earlier, and such). Plus, I make time to get on here. That's how much I love this place. Anyway, to the question. Obviously, I would be able to help with vandalism, banning vandals or disruptive users, and deleting nonsense articles. I think that if I were appointed administrator, it would benefit the site as a whole.
 * An administrator is a status symbol somewhat. New users (and even some users who have been here for a longer time) tend to look up to administrators. I know I did. Admins provide a guiding light, helping these users, as well as leading the community as a whole. As Toprawa once said, administrators are the face of the community.
 * While I think they hold both, I believe the political position is more important. They do, of course, have technical powers, having the power to delete/block/etc. Having said that, I think the political aspect of their position is key. As I explained above, admins are larger than life sort of figures who lead the rest of Wookieepedia.
 * They should use their powers to protect pages, delete nonsense and block vandals as much as is needed. However, no administrator should go around boasting about the fact that they are an admin. Simply put, they shouldn't hold it over others, and use their powers to do things like lock a talk page where they are in an argument with another user. Such a thing could be grounds for an RFRA.
 * Believe it or not, I have been in next to no conflicts with anyone (besides trolls and vandals, which doesn't count :P) The few minor conflicts I was in were resolved very peacefully. I try my best to not get in arguments with others, and thought I'm not always successful in this, I like to think I have been in very few conflicts. I understand that not everyone gets along, and I know not everyone will like me. That's ok. If we can just work together, and avoid fighting, the site will be much better for it. In the future, I'll hopefully continue to avoid as many conflicts as possible, and when I am in one, to get it resolved amicably, and to not carry a grudge towards the other user.
 * I'm proud of all my FA/GAs, but the ones I'm most proud of would be Grievous, Joruus C'baoth and Cay Qel-Droma. Grievous is a major character, and I'm very proud that I was able to bring him to features status. Joruus was the first character article I did myself (Grievous and Bane had been previously featured) and it took a ton of work to get him there. But I was able to deal with all the objections, and eventually it got featured. Cay Qel-Droma I like because I feel it's one of my best articles. I like his character, and I'm glad I was able to FA another (relatively) major character. And it was my first contribution to WP:TOTJ.
 * I think I'll be helping with deleting articles and banning users quite frequently. As a recent changes patroller, I see a fair amount of vandalism, and as an admin, I think I would be banning vandals and deleting their nonsense articles a lot.
 * I think it's very important to be involved with those things. That, along with IRC, is how you interact with the community, and get to know one another. I am very active on the FA page, being an Inquisitor, fairly active on the GA page as an AgriCorps member, and active in CTs as well. Before I started hanging out on IRC, I got to know users on these pages.
 * I think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I support the idea of the elastic clause; just because one thing isn't specifically mentioned shouldn't mean it's not allowed if it would benefit the site. Generally, I think said admin should be given a talking-to, which would be a warning of sorts, and they should explain their decision. It might be they made a mistake, or they genuinely felt this was best. If it happens many times, though, I think they should be put up for RFRA. Though I'm generally a firm believer in policy, they are times where policy can, and should, be stretched a bit.
 * I rarely welcome users; we seem to have it covered with several users working to welcome anyone who edits here. Good job, guys. As for welcoming users, I suppose there's really no reason to check their contributions, unless you are suspicious that they might be a vandal. The same applies for IPs, pretty much.
 * If someone undeleted an article I'd deleted by mistake, well, I'd thank them for catching my mistake, but I would also want to know why they didn't first approach me. I'd discuss it with them, likely on IRC, and explain why I deleted it. I would also warn them to not undelete anything in the future without contacting the admin who deleted it. If I saw an article that had been deleted and I thought should be kept, I'd talk to the administrator who deleted. I'd be very polite, and bring up my points. Hopefully once of us would convince the other and the article would recreated/left deleted. People make mistakes.
 * Well, my userpage has been vandalized several times. I just shrug it off, thank whoever it was that reverted the vandalism, and go off on my way. I would block the offender if they had vandalized other pages, or had vandalized nothing else but added something really obscene, or done something like uploading porn. I'm sure you can think of situations where vandals go too far. Overall though, I'd treat it exactly like they had vandalized any other page, and not go too hard on them because it was my userpage.
 * I think one look at the Jack Nebulax drama explains this. If that user was edit-warring frequently, getting into arguments constantly, making personal attacks, and just being a complete jerk, then I think I'd be justified in blocking them. No amount of contributions can make up for being disruptive, argumentative, and downright rude.
 * I really have no idea. Maybe create a Galactic Empire here, with me at the helm? :P If there was one thing though, I guess it'd be the ability to strip inactive admins of their power a lot quicker. Users who just up and leave with no warning and then try to keep their power get on my bad side. Overall though, that's a bit unrealistic, and it's not a big issue.
 * Half-empty, I suppose. I'm a bit of a pessimist.
 * I guess its okay as it is. If this passes, I will do some more reading up on the policy, since I've never had to worry much about that before. I do think we should have the freedom to ban users clearly intent on making trouble without a warning, or at least after only one warning, and that the ban should be a long way. In that way, I feel it can be a bit restrictive, but overall it's pretty good.
 * Yes, I think I've recently become a regular visitor. I had been a member here for a long time before I began using IRC, and it's just in the past few months that I've become what I considered a fairly regular visitor (I'm certainly no Culator :P).
 * Quite frankly, I hate it. They need to understand that just because they are established users somewhere else doesn't mean they can waltz right in and expect everyone to bow to them. If take the time to become a respected user here, and are humble about it, then yes, they can have their say. But for someone to just walk in and act like they own the place right off the bat really bugs me. Unless they're Leland Chee.
 * Quadrillions. Alternatively, Brazilians.
 * Luke Skywalker. I've never played any of the video games with Kyle in them. Sorry.
 * Nope. I can't vote yet, remember? :P
 * I'm somewhat of a stickler for policy, so I'd have to go with that that. However, policy decides consensus, and so policy is a close second. When a policy is outdated, ineffective or largely disliked, it's time to get together and form a consensus about it. If the community feels it should be changed, so be it. You can't have policy without consensus in a democracy.
 * Some things at school. Nothing huge, but I think I know what it means to be a leader. Wow, do I use :P a lot.

Comments

 * Accepted nomination on IRC. Graestan ( Talk ) 01:53, 27 January 2009 (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 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) 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.