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.

(11 admins + 17 users/0 admins + 0 users/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends September 6, 2010.

Support

 * 1) CC has contributed to Wookieepedia for over a year and a half, and in that time, he has established himself as one of his our best overall users. He's a great writer, reviewer, and leader. He's a member of both the AgriCorps and Inquisitors, has over 20 FAs and GAs (each) to his name, and is the founder of WookieeProject TCW. The site's resident TCW expert, he has almost singlehandedly turned the much-maligned TCW into one of our site's greatest strengths, by greatly improving many TCW articles and inspiring many others interested in the subject. But let's go beyond the numbers. He's mature, humble, dedicated, and helpful. In short, CC is absolutely one of the best users on this site, and a fantastic candidate for adminship.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:29, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Without even a moment's hesitation. CC has been an extremely substantial benefit to this site. I second everything Chack's said above; I couldn't put it better myself. CC deserves this. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 23:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Yep.  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 00:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) About time. :)  JangFett  (Talk) 00:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Chack all the way. CC is simply an amazing contributor, in just about every aspect. Xicer9 atgar.svg( Combadge) 00:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) 100%. Per everyone, and a great reviewer.&mdash; 00:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Entirely per Chack. SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 01:46, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) He pretty much runs a solid portion of the site. A very important portion, no less, considering current events with Star Wars. He's already a better admin than most of the admins this site has seen. Not only do I support CC, I have to publicly state that voting against him would be the surest sign of someone having their head up their ass. Graestan ( Talk ) 01:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, alright. I fully admit to having my head up my ass at times. CC is among a select few users who do great work and have yet to be admin'd. Go right ahead. --Imperialles 02:11, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Well, its about kriffing time!-- Doctor Kermit ( Complain. ) 02:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I Support CC7567 nomination for adminship. CC is a user that is very diplomatic in dealing with issues that a Admin needs. --Chairman Jack the BlackCOGskull.jpg 02:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Star Wars had clone emperors, I suppose we can have a clone admin. PROGRESS!  OLIOSTER  (talk) 02:22, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I've seen CC grown into a fine and valuable member of this community and I think that he will be a great admin. Cylka  -talk- 02:34, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Grae. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 03:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) CC has contributed to Wookieepedia for over a year and a half, and in that time, he has established himself as one of his our best overall users. He's a great writer, reviewer, and leader. He's a member of both the AgriCorps and Inquisitors, has over 20 FAs and GAs (each) to his name, and is the founder of WookieeProject TCW. The site's resident TCW expert, he has almost singlehandedly turned the much-maligned TCW into one of our site's greatest strengths, by greatly improving many TCW articles and inspiring many others interested in the subject. But let's go beyond the numbers. He's mature, humble, dedicated, and helpful. In short, CC is absolutely one of the best users on this site, and a fantastic candidate for adminship. ToRsO bOy 03:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't understand why some many nominations keeping missing question 20... So disappointing... j/k - I have much faith in CC as a new admin! --Xwing328 (Talk) 04:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) I remember when CC first came around and thinking who does this guy think he is making us read a hundred TCW articles on the GAN :P. CC has become a true leader on the site, setting the example for both new and some older users. He has an exemplary attitude and guides many new users on the GAN, FAN, and as project leader of WP:TCW. He's a true asset to Wookieepedia, and he'll be a true asset to the administrative team :-). Grunny  ( talk ) 05:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) He couldn't be any less of a worthy candidate.  NAYAYEN : TALK 06:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 07:24, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Now here's a guy that proves that you don't have to be eighteen to be a great contributor. CC has been active with both Ag and Inq, and a WookieeProject, with an outstanding number of FAs and GAs created under his watch, and in areas that are continually updating with new material. And he's seriously already got 23K edits under his belt? CC is simply a machine. --  Riffsyphon  1024 07:32, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Hell yes. Absolutely. -- 1358  (Talk) 12:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 15:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Everything I'd say has pretty much already been said. -  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 15:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Essentially per Grunny. CC has consistently shown, if only through his direction of WP:TCW, that he is an excellent leadership figure on the Wook. He's demonstrated sound organizational and management skills, and through his work on the nomination pages and with the TCW project he's shown he has a strong grasp of effective conflict resolution with every type of user, from the experienced to the noobish. And when it comes right down to it, he's not afraid to kick a few asses every now and then. :P CC is textbook admin material if there ever was such a thing. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:30, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Per above. --Tm_T(Talk) 17:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Though I don't have a deep relationship with him, from the edits I have seen him do and how he handles things, I am very happy to give him my vote. He has worked hard and handled difficult situations with a professional manner. (From what I have seen, as I do not know him very good) From what I have seen, he deserves it. Great Job.  DarthRage Leave a message after the beep
 * 18) Deserves it. ~ SavageBob 02:34, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Additional generic admin compliment, CC! -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 03:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * CC is an OK candidate, but I think it's too early for this&mdash;he has some growing to do beforehand. --Imperialles 02:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *I would like to become an administrator because it is one of the best and most effective ways to help the site. Since I joined, I have been able to see just how much Star Wars knowledge Wookieepedia promotes, and that has encouraged me to make the site the best it can be. I do not specifically see becoming an administrator as an answer to balancing the limited rights of regular users; rather, I see it as a responsibility to help the site in a different way.
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *The role of an administrator should be to both maintain order and promote the site's functionality. There are many sides&mdash;technical and otherwise&mdash;to both objectives, but above all, administrators should be the ones mediating user-based conflicts and ensuring that the site is safe and appropriate for everyone. That being said, they should have a proper understanding of the site's policies and enough experience to match it, and they should also be good roles models whom new users can look up to.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) *Not to be clichéd, but it's a balance between both. Administrators support the site by handling wiki-based functions such as deleting unnecessary articles and protecting articles that require protection, but they are not only users with more maintenance rights than others. Rather, they are something more than that: it is the ability to interact and cooperate with others and be trusted by the community as a whole that defines administrators.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *More "power" should not make administrators more important than regular users. Administrators are simply users with more responsibilities to the site, and that should not give them more importance or preference; in the end, their voice in community discussions is just as equal to that of other experienced users.
 * 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) *I have definitely been in disagreements with other users during my time here&mdash;not any full-blown conflicts, but ones that were significant enough to warrant discussion and then later became a bit heated. As much as possible, I make sure to handle situations in a way that I do not have regrets about my behavior afterward. I find it a necessity to remain as open-minded as possible in disputes, as it is important to see the other side's views, whether one agrees with them or not. Discussion is the best solution to problems, and it has proved to be the most effective way to resolve disputes. I do not feel that becoming an administrator will change my methods to solve these user-based problems, as I consider them to already be quite effective.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *I am proud of being a writer of and reviewer for this site's promoted articles, and from a personal standpoint, I have accomplished much in my time here, from writing bounty hunters to epic battles alongside others whom I've grown to befriend. However, I am most happy with the simple fact that I am a part of this community. Wookieepedia has been an extremely enlightening learning experience for me, both in the field of writing and in the field of interaction with others. I am glad that I decided to join the site, and I anticipate continuing to help the site in whatever ways I can.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * 14) *While I want to do what I can in all areas, I envision myself mainly assisting in countervandalism, monitoring the recent changes, and working to resolve user-based conflicts. I also intend to do what I can in the Trash Compactor and Consensus Track threads to make sure that the community stays on track.
 * 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) *I feel that being involved in CTs, TCs, RFUs, and other functionality-based items is essential to ensure that Wookieepedia works well, since we can't achieve anything if we don't work together as a community. I also believe that promoting Wookieepedia as an online encyclopedia through its featured and good articles systems is of equal importance, as that is our purpose here: to facilitate Star Wars knowledge. I therefore try as much as possible to be involved in both systems through the Inquisitorious and AgriCorps review panels.
 * 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) *I believe that they should be treated on a case-by-case basis. If an administrator performs actions not covered by policy, then he or she should be given the chance to explain their reasons for doing so. If an administrator repeatedly abuses his/her privileges despite concerns raised by others, then the community and/or the rest of the administration&mdash;depending on the situation&mdash;should decide if the administrator's actions are too far out of line and take appropriate actions to resolve the issue.
 * 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) *I used to welcome users from time to time before Wikia's automatic welcome system was set up. Right now, I don't welcome users very often, although I do believe that doing so gives new users the necessary materials to learn about this site and its policies. As far as user contributions, I mainly only use them to check if a user has a repeated history of vandalism. The same goes with IPs, though to a somewhat lesser extent. While I do agree that all contributors should be made welcome here, I don't believe that specifically welcoming a user from an anonymous IP just because he or she edited Wookieepedia is a uniform practice when that person has not shown a certain commitment to contributing to the site in a proper manner by registering as a user.
 * 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) *If another administrator undeleted an article that I had previously deleted, I would ask the user for his or her reason for doing so in order to better understand the situation. If I was in error, then I'd be happy to reverse my mistake. If I see that another administrator mistakenly speedied another article, I would contact him or her, explain the situation, and ask for permission to undo the mistake. In either case, if a disagreement arises, then I would discuss the matter with the other party until an agreement is reached.
 * 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) *If my user page is edited by someone else, I would revert the edit and clarify the error in the user's ways like how I would even if the user page was not mine. If the user made the edit simply because he/she did not know that he/she weren't supposed to do so, then that is understandable, but if the user shows a clear intention (and history) of hurting the site, then I would take the necessary actions to prevent him or her from continuing to do so.
 * 25) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 26) *If a user clearly violates policy or causes disruption, then he or she should be blocked; no amount of experience can make up for it. I find it disappointing when someone with a history of promoting the site performs ill-based actions, but it is even more disappointing because those with experience should know the site and its policies better than others would.
 * 27) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 28) *Nothing important or outstanding comes to mind. I feel that the site functions well enough as it is, and CTs are always the answer when it does not.
 * 29) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 30) *I'd say half-full as long as it's not filled with acid; otherwise, there wouldn't be any of the glass left. :P
 * 31) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 32) *I believe that it is fine as it is; it works well, and it gives administrators the leeway they need to treat situations on a specific case-by-case basis.
 * 33) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 34) *I believe myself to already be one; I'm on IRC quite often when I'm editing. I would like to maintain that activity, as an administrator should be in IRC as much as possible to help others resolve problems speedily in real-time.
 * 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) *All users, no matter their outside contributions, are more than welcome to share their ideas here if they feel that they will help. While outside contributions are noteworthy, however, every user should come here expecting to be granted the same, fair amount of voice. In that way, outside contributions can be irrelevant if the user who has made them acts out of bad faith here.
 * 37) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 38) *As many as Rex needs to kill those droids. No question about it.
 * 39) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 40) *Ya know, either of those dudes who fought Obi-Wan with lightsabers?
 * 41) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 42) *To me, policy comes first simply because it is what mainly keeps Wookieepedia working day to day; it is much more often used than consensus and takes precedence because it was established by the community for a reason. However, when properly reached, consensus takes precedence, as it changes policy to reflect the site's needs at a given point in time. Consensus is therefore second, but a close second at that.
 * 43) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 44) *I have gotten experience in leadership in some varying outlets, including on a still somewhat active forum that I administrate, and that in particular has taught me most of what I know about dispute resolution.
 * 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 feel that activity, commitment, and proper understanding of the site are the necessary requirements for participation here. A user returning from a leave of some sort who does not show a clear intention to become an active contributor once more should not deserve the same say in site matters that is allotted to those users that have earned it through simple activity and contributions.
 * 47) What is your wiki philosophy?
 * 48) *A site's quality, both in appearance and functionality, is determined by the cooperation of its users. Above all, wikis should be able to promote knowledge on a subject as best and most effectively as possible, as that is what they were created for&mdash;and they should also be places where people can enjoy coming together to facilitate knowledge on a shared interest.  CC7567  (talk) 02:06, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * CC is under 18, but he's been here over 18 months, so he's eligible. Also, he accepted over IRC.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 23:29, August 23, 2010 (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.