Wookieepedia:Requests for adminship

This page is for requests for adminship. Voting will last two weeks, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted admin status.

Requirements
There are some basic things to consider when nominating a fellow Wookieepedian (or yourself) 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 have had at least some major article creations.
 * 4) They have dealings with other users on a regular basis in a fair, restrained, and constructive manner.
 * 5) They have demonstrated an understanding of the community's methods of operation.

Keeping in mind we won't choose admins solely on number of contributions, here is some info that may help with decisions (taken from the stats page on Nov 14, 2005):

Current top ten contributors
Please see the Wookieepedia stats page for more recent numbers.
 * 1) JustinGann - 12,485 total article edits.
 * 2) Riffsyphon1024 - 10,858 total article edits. (Admin)
 * 3) Kuralyov - 5,895 total article edits.
 * 4) MarcK - 5,621 total article edits. (Admin)
 * 5) Azizlight - 4,370 total article edits.
 * 6) StarNeptune - 3,895 total article edits. (Admin)
 * 7) QuentinGeorge - 3,816 total article edits. (Admin)
 * 8) SparqMan total - 3,399 article edits. (Admin)
 * 9) Aidje - 2,993 total article edits. (Admin)
 * 10) Imperialles - 2,930 total article edits. (Admin)

Administrators votes must be unanimous to be accepted.

Azizlight (12/1/0)
Two week deadline (ends January 31, 2006)

Support

 * *Raises hand* --Azizlight 14:17, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. In my mind, I honestly thought he was already an admin.  :D  WhiteBoy 00:51, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * "Project Delta Sauce" is admin-worthy by itself. Then there's the fanon hunt, which was a genius idea (I have a burning hatred for fanon, and he made it easier to kill). So, definite support. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:21, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Whether we waive the six month rule or not, I say definately Azizlight. QuentinGeorge 09:03, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. We're too young and too in need of good, reliable admins to get hung up on a six month rule. jSarek 10:22, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Waive the six month rule, and let Aziz loose on all the fanon! =Þ StarNeptune 18:44, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, ignoring six month rule for now. &mdash; Silly Dan  18:48, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --MarcK [talk] 00:04, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:09, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. About time! --Imp 13:33, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I think he'd be a good admin (and let's face it we need more admins, so I'd say "%&¤# the six months rule!" too) KEJ 14:52, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Screw the six month rule. "When the rules don't work, you break them". Han Solo, The Last Command. -- SFH 15:39, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Kuralyov 00:43, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose. Give it another two months for the six month rule.  WhiteBoy 01:43, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * As of today, I have been a Wookieepedian for 6 months. --Azizlight 00:31, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Adamwankenobi (1/2/1)
Two week deadline from first request (ends January 20, 2006)

Support

 * 1) Adamwankenobi 05:05, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Azizlight 05:49, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) No offense Adamwankenobi, you are a good guy, and a good contributor, but in my opinion I don't think you would be a suitable admin. Mainly because of the edit wars you have started in the past (one of them fairly recent). Sorry again, please don't take offense. --Azizlight 05:49, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. I am mostly interested in being an admin so that I can help to prevent the increasing number of vandals to the site. But, as far as edit wars, most of the edit wars I have been in involved both reverts and discussion. I attempt to discuss while reverting. We all have our strong opinions, which is why myself and others end up in these little disputes. Adamwankenobi 06:08, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Riffsyphon1024 14:39, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

 * 1) KEJ 15:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC) Given that we need more admins to fight vandalism, i support iff the candidate ceases to engage in edit wars
 * There are some much better candidates for admins, such as Silly Dan, jSarek, Kuralyov and Sikon. --Azizlight 23:31, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * If they run for adminship, they'll have my support as well KEJ 13:31, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Azizlight, since those are all more than qualified users. However, they are not seeking admin status. And we do need more to fight off vandals, who seem to be increasing everyday. I even came close to nominating myself, but I was worried I'd somehow upload a virus of some sort onto the Wookiee...plus I accused some other users of voter fraud during the Great Edit War on Palpatine's page. So for now, I say take what we can get...if he stops some of his edit wars. -- SFH 23:45, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

jSarek (13/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request (ends January 27, 2006)

Support

 * 1) Support. jSarek 05:34, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. QuentinGeorge 05:37, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. SFH 05:40, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. StarNeptune 05:52, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Imp 13:22, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) troppuS. --MarcK [talk] 13:23, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) S'port. KEJ 13:29, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) jSupport. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  14:32, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Aye  &mdash; Silly Dan  02:06, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Yup. WhiteBoy 03:43, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support of course. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:15, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) sUpport :-) --Azizlight 11:24, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Yah! Or yes for those who that might be confusing. Kuralyov 01:18, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

 * I've debated doing this for a while, but until now haven't jumped in, knowing that I don't devote as much time as some others do to this site; for me, it's very much a hobby (albeit a fun, addicting one) that takes a back seat to other things in my life. However, it also has occurred to me that a part-time admin is better than none at all, and seeing my name mentioned above has made me finally decide to throw my hat into the ring.  My qualifications?  I've been a member under this screen name since 27 April 2005, in which time I have made over 2,600 edits; I have created several articles of a size I would consider major, including Things to do, Talon Karrde, Allania Jakien, Miltin Takel, and Klaus Vandangante (as well as Chimaera and Voren Na'al, created while I was still just an IP address); I have made significant edits to existing major articles (notably Lando Calrissian, Jan Dodonna, and the Tonnika sisters); I have consistently had, at least in my opinion, fair, restrained, and constructive dealings with other users; and though my understanding of how a wiki operates is by no means completely thorough (adding pictures and creating templates are still all but virgin ground for me, for instance), I believe what I do know is sufficient to perform most expected duties of an admin. jSarek 05:34, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Definately yes from me, JSarek. IMO, you've been a valued, prolific contributor and you haven't engaged in any edit wars..... yet. ;) QuentinGeorge 05:37, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Kuralyov (6/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request (January 31, 2006)

Support

 * 1) --MarcK [talk] 00:51, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 00:52, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Azizlight 00:53, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Adamwankenobi 01:59, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:02, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Imp 19:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/comments

 * I wasn't really tempted, but the seemingly increasing acts of vandalism make me think we need more admins. And then I saw my name be mentioned there, so I figured why not. I've been a member for 6 months and 1 week if I've done my math right, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm not very ambitious and I get along reasonably well with people here, I'd like to think. But bottom line, I hate vandals. Kuralyov 00:50, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * You're one of the most qualified users on this website. You are a shoo in. -- SFH 00:52, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * 100% support. Kill the vandals. Metaphorically speaking. (But only because we can't literally kill them.) &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  02:02, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)