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 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 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. :)

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.

Graestan (7 admins + 10 users/4 admins)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends (insert date).

Support

 * 1) With two bureaucrats (Greyman and myself) at a severely reduced level of activity for the foreseeable future, and with at least one bureaucrat practically a no-show, I feel that Wookieepedia could benefit from promoting another bureaucrat. This would increase the amount of active bureaucrats to three. I'm certain jSarek and Riffsyphon1024 could handle giving out the user rights candy when needed without the help of a third bureaucrat, but as I have stated repeatedly in past RFBs and RFAs: handing out powers should not be based purely on Wookieepedia's need, but also on the worthiness of the user in question. Graestan is a prolific editor, a responsible admin, and generally a great guy. We could use another bureaucrat, and I can think of no candidate more worthy. --Imperialles 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hell yes!  Madclaw Shyriiwook! 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I've been around long enough to know that Graestan can be trusted with bureaucrat status. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- —Tommy9281 [[Image:Red lightsaber.png|20px]] ( Peace is a lie ) 23:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) We need more competent and active bureaucrats with Imp and Greyman busy for a while. I think Grae has earned the trust of the community; he's dedicated, and he truly cares about all aspects of the site. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) supergeeky1 \ m / The Cantina 11:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) The good of the site is more important than any one person's political views, be they real-world politics or Wookiee-politics. Graestan is as impartial as any current active administrator can be reasonably expected to be, and people who vote against him based on their own biases should be ashamed of themselves. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 12:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Imp. The need is there, and Graestan has the chops.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 12:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Even though the nomination, I feel, comes a few months early, I know he'll make the site proud. I'm glad to see that Grae's worked hard to absolve any doubts I may have originally harbored, and after several MSN conversations with Grae in regards to a number of things, I believe that he is ready. With continual support from his fellow sysops, Graestan will only continue to do what is right for the site. Greyman ( Talk ) 13:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Love your last answer.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 13:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Sorry I caught this late or my vote would have been right up there at the top. I like to think I know Grae better than most people on this site, both as an editor and an actual person, and as such I feel I can personally vouch for the genuine person that he is. It has been my absolute privilege to get to know him during my time here as we have worked together, through both of our developments, to improve the quality of Wookieepedia. I can say with absolute authority that his motivations for doing anything Wookieepedia related come with the best intentions in mind. He's not spiteful, antagonistic, or moody, and he doesn't let negativity or personal grudges influence his decision making. Grae has done so much as an active administrator under the tutelage of some of our finest that I feel his work speaks for itself in regards to his worthiness of the holding the Bureaucrat flag. With that in mind, with an emphatic "per Culator," I feel anyone who thinks they can find any reason to vote against him needs to reevaluate their own childish biases and get over themselves. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Definitely. Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 15:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 13)  Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing  ( Oya Manda! ) 18:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) SFH 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) I believe that we can trust Grae with bureaucratic powers. Though I personally don't think we need anymore bureaucrats, I believe his nature to help others, resolve conflicts, and to just contribute a sheer amount of reliable knowledge to Wookieepedia makes him invaluable to the site, as well as a natural leader. It makes him an obvious choice for bureaucracy, and hell, he deserves it as well for all he has done for Wookieepedia. DC 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Seems right for the job to me. -- Colinmcev 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Per Imp. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Quite a trusted user in my experience. Would do this site well with a bureaucrat flag. --Charitwo 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Didn't even have to think twice on this approval. StarNinja99 [[Image:Tyvokka.jpg|15px|]] 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 21)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Ozzel 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think we really need more bureaucrats&mdash;it's a perfectly symbolic position that jSarek, Riffs, and the others are more than capable of handling. And, I must respectfully disagree with some of my colleagues by saying that I do not feel he is of a suitable demeanor to be a bureaucrat. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 17:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) *I'd like to point out that Riff hasn't used his bureaucrat powers in over a year and a half. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) If I'm allowed to, I'd like to explain why my vote is here, and not elsewhere. First off, I'll say what will no doubt be (mistakenly) assessed as baloney, though it's anything but: Graestan is a great guy, a great contributor, and a superb Wookieepedian. If he were up for administration (again), I'd vote for him in a flash, and history will show you that I did. And I haven't once regretted doing so. However, in my opinion, "bureaucracy," in our terminology, requires someone who is naturally impartial, and more "detached" in a sense, and for everything that Graestan is, I must unfortunately say that's probably the one thing he's not. That's not to say that he's never impartial...in fact, he is, almost all of the time. But he does get invested, heavily, I feel, in both people and issues, which is, in a way, very good for progress. But it's not a quality I would look for in a bureaucrat. And I've been wrong, in the past, when it comes to voting on this position, but I've given this a great deal more thought. And look, this isn't to say that in a few months, I'd vote otherwise...in all likelihood I would, but I feel that this is maybe a bit before time. There's no denying there's a need out there, but I can't really think of anyone who's ideal for the role, and I just don't think that Graestan is right for this job at the moment. Thefourdotelipsis 08:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) For what it's worth, I think Grae is a fine editor, and though I've disagreed with him on some admin decisions in the past, I think he's generally a good administrator as well. However, I kind of have to agree with 4dot on the issue of detachment. The issue isn't bias in the way Grae talks about below. I believe him that he doesn't try to serve his own ends or hold grudges; in fact, having had more than a few arguments with him, I've seen myself how he can still remain fair later. But I also feel that he can get very emotionally invested in things, seeing insult in disagreement or debate. A bureaucrat is a moderator writ large; and that idea of "moderation" I feel takes a kind of impartiality that conflicts with the sort of emotional investment I've seen. - Lord Hydronium 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you think we need another bureaucrat?
 * 2) *Per Imperialles's (is it impolitic of me to choose how to execute matters of S and apostrophe?) comment above, I see an increasing need for active bureaucrats as well as active administrators. I view both Imp and Greyman as "get things done" sorts of fellows, taking initiative to make sure the processes of the site are patrolled and maintained correctly. As far as a bureaucrat goes, I often see a need for an objective mediator or someone to step into the middle of an IRC brawl with decisive action. This need grows with the absence and inactivity of a fair share of our current bureaucrats.
 * 3) How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
 * 4) *This is simple, to me: a bureaucrat makes a concerted effort to be a leader even among administrators. This involves looking at every situation objectively, not taking into account personal feelings or politics. These practices are something I've seen our bureaucrats do with regularity, while many users, regrettably including some administrators, have overly concerned themselves with cronyism and politicking in their dealings, always with unfortunate results.
 * 5) What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
 * 6) *I would certainly make a concerted effort to ensure that dealings between Wookieepedians at all levels are fair and civil. As an admin, I've seen my share of situations between admins where a third, neutral point of view was necessary in mediating conflict. Were I to be named a bureaucrat, I would be willing and able to step in accordingly, taking the interests of both sides into consideration while striving to find an acceptable middle ground. As well, I'd do my best to ensure that the needs of the community are met, making myself available wherever possible. And, of course, I'd be very enthusiastic about promoting new rollbackers and administrators to their positions.
 * 7) How many admins do you think we need?
 * 8) *More. I'm not sure how many, but the number of admins currently listed on the page can be misleading, when one takes into account the number of active admins, much less the number of admins who use the sysops tools, and even then the number of admins who use the sysops tools for more than whatever need should arise in their personal editing practices. Admins who patrol the site with regularity, maintaining the processes and getting things done when it is required of them, are highly valued, and certainly in demand at this time.
 * 9) How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
 * 10) *I'd normally say something like "not a lot," but with Greyman and Imp at least partially out of the picture for a while, and with the site continuing to grow in every way&mdash;including, unfortunately, conflicts&mdash;having someone around that is clearly designated as a leader would be a good thing in more than one way.
 * 11) What should happen to admins/bureaucrat candidates who disappear for awhile without warning, leaving many questions, projects, and that sort of thing hanging?
 * 12) *In all honesty, I consider it highly unconscionable to abandon your post for a prolonged period without either stepping down or making due announcement of your intentions. This is because an administrator serves the Wookieepedia community, and I certainly wouldn't expect newer users, or even established ones, to trust me or my usage of sysops privileges after disappearing for a prolonged episode. Indeed, I was the very user who first proposed a policy on admin inactivity, and while I had to make concessions of leniency in order for the proposal to pass, I stand by my assertion that taking off for a matter of months with no word and expecting to return to the same position on the site and in the community is rather selfish.

Final comment
As a bureaucrat, I would not by any means use my position in order to further my own objectives with the site. It has always been my intention to serve the site, the community, and most importantly of all, our readers. I stand by my statements that I would never intentionally abuse the processes of the site, and have never done so in the past. While I have had my share of conflicts with other editors in the past, as has virtually every other influential user on the site, I do not hold a grudge towards anyone whatsoever. This is not simply a tenet of my religious beliefs, but a fundamental part of the person I am. Everyone gets a second chance, and a clean slate, the next time I have dealings with them, unless it is clear that their intentions toward the site and its community are harmful, in which case I am prepared to do what is necessary. In any event, regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank everyone who contributes to Wookieepedia for their hard, free work to inform readers about Star Wars. Graestan ( Talk ) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Accepted nomination on IRC. --Imperialles 23:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)