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)

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) 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.

(6 admins + 11 users/1 admin + 1 user/0)
Two-week deadline from first request, voting ends October 17, 2012.

Support

 * 1) I could go on for years about this guy, but we don't have the space or time for all that. I will say that within moments of his arrival I knew that this man would be ideal for adminship, because like me, he has proven through action that he wholeheartedly desires what is best for Wookieepedia. I personally have worked him to the bone during his time here, and never have I witnessed anything less than positivity and good nature from him. Master Jonathan is and has been an incredibly hard and selfless worker who for years has been willing to perform unglamorous tasks in order to both improve and promote Wookieepedia. Whether it be implementing and updating new templates for our TFN citing, organizing our table at Celebration VI (and traveling to Orlando to help run it), taking care of bot requests, copy-editing any and every article whose author requests his pair of eyes, or keeping a watchful eye on and updating our longest FA in the original author’s absence, MJ does a huge amount of work that’s already largely administrative in nature and incredibly beneficial to the Wook to boot&mdash;the kind of work that would definitely be aided by administrative abilities. Jon’s friendly and knowledgeable, and his interactions with others (including new and unregistered users who are making mistakes) are always respectful and positive. The nail in the coffin, as it has always been said over the years, is when someone mistakes a user for an Administrator when they aren't one, a title that has been associated with MJ more often than he's probably aware of. When he receives his administrative tools, I have no doubt that he will use them in such a way as to keep improving both the site and the community.  —Tommy  9281  Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 14:31 UTC 
 * 2) Tommy's right on the money. When MJ offered to organize our CVI table, I was unable to think of a better user to represent us. "Dedicated" doesn't even begin to describe him; as cliched as it may sound, Wookieepedia is in his very blood. Menkooroo (talk) 14:53, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I honestly can't remember seeing MJ negatigely interact with anyone, and he's clearly well-suited for the responsibilities of adminship.  Cade   Calrayn  StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit.svg 14:59, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  Exiled Jedi  Oldrepublic crest.svg (Greetings)  15:03, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm surprised he hasn't been made an admin long time ago...--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 17:56, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. Master Jon works extremely hard, and if he has access to extra tools, so much the better for us. Corellian PremierRobotech.jpg along the watchtower 22:14, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed. 501st  dogma ( talk ) 22:19, October 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) He had it coming.Winterz (talk) 17:47, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Heck yes. Even before CVI, I was wondering why he hadn't been nominated yet.  He did a lot of work behind the scenes for CVI and would no doubt do it all again for CVII.  He does a lot of work behind the scenes overall and it's about time that he be given some more buttons to play with.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:58, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 10)  Clone Commander Lee  Talk 09:01, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I'm damn surprised this hasn't already happened. Per Trak and his great assistance in representing the wiki at Celebration VI. Full support. --  Riffsyphon  1024 09:05, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Why not? :) grunny &#64; wookieepedia :&#126;$ 04:51, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Of course. MasterFred Commerce Guild.svg(Whatever) 05:14, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Go Johnny go. (: – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:&#126;$ 14:14, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Is there still room on this bandwagon? jSarek (talk) 08:34, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Without reservation. Model user. ~ Savage BOB sig.png 18:35, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Jonathan's best quality is that he has integrity. He doesn't suck up to anyone or try to be someone he's not to get people to like him, and he's not intimidated by or afraid of anyone. He stands by and does what he believes is right without playing the politics game while owing favors to no one. He and I haven't always seen everything eye to eye, but I respect him for his strength of character. I believe he constantly looks at what's best for Wookieepedia, not necessarily for himself. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:15, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I'll probably be the only one out here, but I just don't see this as a good idea. Granted, MJ's work at CVI was great, but adminship is not an award. I just don't see the wisdom in giving the ability to undo administrative actions to someone who has previously worked to make the job of the administration more difficult. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 02:55, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I have no personal issues with you, Jonathan, so please don't see this oppose vote as something against you personally. It's also not my intent. I think you're a great Wookieepedia that is quite helpful, i.e, copy-edits and such. What you did at CVI was a great thing, but I do see this nomination being a result of that, as what Culator said. I thought about this nom for a while now, hence why I haven't voted last week. I wanted to think about what could you do as an admin, and I instantly thought of the abusefilter and other policies. I'm afraid that if you're given admin, those administrative-related abilities might get abused. Who knows, maybe I am overthinking that, but then again I saw it as an issue when you brought them up. At the moment, I think you could do more to help others. Giving out copy-edits is a great start, and it must feel great to see other users come to you for them, but I don't see any other "leadership" tasks that you undertake on the wiki itself. Maybe if I see your presence better here, I'll consider voting for you.  JangFett  (Talk) 04:03, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * It's not that I want to be an admin per se, but that it was offered to me. If others feel I can be more productive on the site by being able to help with admin tasks, then I'm happy to help out in that regard.
 * 1) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * Administrators are nothing more than regular users who have a few extra buttons. Admins help keep the site clean by blocking vandals, etc. when appropriate, but in most other respects they are equal to regular users.
 * 1) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * As I said above, admins are just regular users with extra buttons, so in that regard it's mostly a technical position. However, there is a bit of a political aspect to it as well, mainly because admin is an elected position, but also because new users may "look up" to the admins as leaders.
 * 1) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * Again, they are equal to regular users in most regards. Power should be used only when the matter cannot be resolved without the admin hat, i.e. blocking someone or protecting a page should only be done when it is apparent that there is no other method to resolve the situation. I believe that if the situation can be resolved without resorting to admin tools, it should&mdash;and that includes speaking to potential problem users without the admin hat on if possible.
 * 1) 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?
 * The only one I can remember off the top of my head is from two years ago, when I had a disagreement with a new editor over how to interpret a Rebel Force book with regard to the disposition of Ferus Olin's body. A couple reverts on the article led to this discussion on my talk page. After a couple of rude posts from him, I chose to temporarily disengage before I lost my temper and sought assistance from an admin on IRC. warned him for his rudeness and helped me see that it could go both ways, and so I compromised with him.
 * I'm sure there have been other conflicts in the past, but at this moment, I don't recall any off-hand. I think that's mostly because I tend to stay in low-drama areas of the wiki for the most part. In conflicts, I would always strive to reach agreement when possible, making compromises when necessary. Where deadlock is reached, I would take the issue to the larger community for further opinions, and am more than willing to surrender if I find myself in the minority on an issue.
 * 1) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I would have to point to Young–Elders war, which is my only FA. I'm also pleased with the effort in getting Wedge Antilles to FA status after the nominator disappeared, though that was largely a team effort.
 * 1) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * I usually keep recent changes open when on Wookieepedia, so most likely I'll get more involved in vandal-fighting (blocking and deleting), though other than the GNAA attacks a few months ago, it seems like there isn't as much vandalism as there was a few years ago. I would also monitor Requests for protection and handle requests there. I also have some knowledge of the AbuseFilter and other MediaWiki stuff and would be able to help some in that area.
 * 1) 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?
 * I feel it's important, not only for me, but for all admins to be active in site processes. That said, there are quite a few such processes, and one certainly does not need to involve themselves in every single one, otherwise one could easily burn out from overload. I monitor CTs, TC, the SH, and user rights elections, which is enough for me. I rarely venture into GAN and the like, but I do poke my head in occasionally to keep myself apprised of what's going on.
 * 1) Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?
 * Not if there's a good, sound reason behind it. It's important to point out here that we have some stuff for which we have no policy at all (e.g. ProtectSite and the AbuseFilter), and so really one just has to use common sense. Did the action benefit the wiki? Is it causing unnecessary harm? If the answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, then it's fine.
 * 1) 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?
 * For registered users, I wait for an edit and then look at it. If they're editing in good faith, however misguided, then I welcome them, accompanied by a gentle notice or warning about their errors, if appropriate. Vandals would just get a warning and then a block, no welcome. For anons, my general rule is to welcome after three good edits.
 * 1) 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?
 * Per Administrative autonomy, the only case where this would be appropriate would be an unverified or presumed fanon article is actually found to be canon. If someone did it to me and didn't tell me why, I would pose a neutral question to them on their talk page or in IRC to find out why they did it before re-deleting it. In the case of me performing the undeletion, I would explain my reasoning in both the undeletion summary and directly to the deleting admin, again either by talk page or IRC, whichever is more convenient at the time.
 * 1) 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?
 * My user page has been semi-protected for a few years now, so I haven't had to deal with that. I'd probably laugh, and if I was the first to catch it, just follow normal vandalism procedures (revert and then warn or block as appropriate). I wouldn't treat it any differently just because it was my user page.
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * The criteria are the same regardless of how established a user is, but new and established users usually find themselves blocked for different reasons. While new users are typically blocked for clear-cut policy violations, established users are more likely to be blocked for more subjective stuff like personal attacks and long-term problems. That said, a first offense is a warning, and for established users familiar with policy, that alone may be enough to make them step back and say, "I screwed up," so that a block is not needed. But if the behavior continues, the block should be issued regardless of the age of the account.
 * 1) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * I'd stage a hostile takeover of Wikia and get rid of all of their stupid crap. First on the list would be the death of the Wikia skin.
 * 1) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * If those options are correct, then yes.
 * 1) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * I think it's fine as is.
 * 1) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * I used to be a regular in IRC a few years ago, but I don't visit much anymore. I'm slow to type responses, being that I'm a perfectionist and often tweak a single-sentence reply half a dozen times before submitting it, and a live chat environment makes me feel too pressured to respond now. That said, I still pop my head in for Mofferences and occasionally when the mood suits.
 * 1) 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?
 * I feel proposals should be judged on their own merits, not on who proposes them. That said, the less familiar someone is with Wookieepedia, our community and existing policies, and the history and reasons behind those policies, the more likely the proposal is to be "off-target" and get voted down as a bad idea, and repeated such proposals could warrant a block for disruption.
 * 1) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 1 < x < &infin;, where x is the number of clones.
 * 1) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * Clearly Luke Skywalker, since everything from the NJO to FOTJ features Luke prominently and puts Kyle in the background. I mean, if Kyle was that awesome, wouldn't they give him more "screen time"?
 * 1) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * Consensus. Policy usually governs what goes on, but if consensus disagrees with policy, then the policy ends up getting changed. So ultimately Wookieepedia runs on consensus.
 * 1) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * Other than being in charge of our CVI booth, not that I can think of right now.
 * 1) 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?
 * In terms of users who quit the site, my answer to #18 stands, with one modification: users who were once active are more likely to be familiar with what goes on, but depending on how long they've been inactive, they need to read up on what's gone on since their departure, else they may propose something at odds with a change that was made two months ago. As for users who have been banned, that's a different story; they should not be involved with the site at all, and any proposal made by them should rightfully be deleted as ban evasion. However, if a user who is not banned independently resubmits the proposal because they think it's a good idea, then we're back to #18 again.
 * 1) What is your wiki philosophy?
 * I guess it would be that every edit and action should be an attempt to improve the site.

Comments

 * Accepted nom via email.  —Tommy  9281  Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 14:31 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) 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.