Wookieepedia talk:Requests for user rights/RFA

Time requirement
I note neither of the current nominees (StarNeptune & Azizlight) have been part of the wiki for the six months mentioned in the eligibility criteria (unless it was as an anon). However, as this is a relatively new wiki, a lot of our best contributors joined less than six months ago. I suggest the admins waive that requirement until, say...the New Year? &mdash; Silly Dan 01:18, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Wookieepedia is fairly young, but I think it's a good requirement to have. What do y'all think?  BTW, StarNeptune started June 9th, and Azizlight started July 17th; so they'd both hit it soon - one month for StarNeptune and two months for Aziz.  I think we can just go with our current admins until then.  WhiteBoy 01:49, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, we should waive the requirement. Otherwise only Shadowtrooper and I would be eligible. The wiki was pretty damn small 6 months ago. We were still deciding what the wiki was going to have in it.-LtNOWIS 01:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but like I said we don't have an urgent need for new admins. WhiteBoy 01:54, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I still favour the six month rule, but agree that it might be an idea to waive it at the moment, since the wiki is relatively new. QuentinGeorge 04:47, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I request that we waive this for now. The wiki is about to undergo mass chaos from sites like Fark or Slashdot and we must be on our toes. I request that both the adminships of Azizlight and StarNeptune be accepted immediately to deal with the emerging threat. Also they're just both great contributors and monitors. Hell, we could make more while we're at it. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:27, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to toot our own horn, but I think the five of us just weathered the combined assault of Fark, TFN and SciFi.com without much trouble. We few blocks and some quick reverts. I support WhiteBoy's suggestion to keep this rule in place. --SparqMan 20:01, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I think six months might be a little long - the community can usually get a feel for a person in three or four months, and if they HAVEN'T gotten such a feel, then they're free to vote "no." Regardless of that opinion, though, I think it's especially important to be lenient about the rule when we're still getting our feet under us.  As it stands now, we have nine administrators, five of which are actively involved in the community, patrolling over 10 thousand registered users and an unknown number of anons.  All it takes is a small confluence of events - several asleep because of their time zone, a few deciding to run errands, a few otherwise occupied - and there's nobody to maintain the site for several hours.  I think we should be quite liberal with administrative functionality with users who've demonstrated their commitment to Wookieepedia, especially now when we're young and growing fast, resulting in many of our best members being trapped on the wrong side of the six month wall. jSarek 01:04, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * First, let's all remember what administrators can do that a normal user can't: 1) lock/unlock pages (useful for edit wars), and 2) ban users/IP addrs (useful for vandalism).  For the most part, it's no big deal.  Any user can do most of what needs to be done to handle most of vandalism.  Aside from that, admins are expected to monitor a few things more closely than the normal user (higher level of responsibility), but all the tools are available to Joe AnonUser.  Second, with this in mind I don't see the urgency in needing admins.  StarNeptune hits six months in a few days, and Aziz hits it in about a month.  One reason for the six month rule is proof of longevity.  Honestly, I actually think that is kinda short, but wanted to keep it that short because of how young we are.  I think we should make sure someone is going to stay around for a while ("in it for the long haul") or why bother making them an admin?  If the nature of wikis wasn't inherently self-policing I would say we need more admins.  But when anyone can revert vandalism in a matter of seconds, I say we can be more descriminating in who we select to be admins.  WhiteBoy 02:31, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that being an admin is no big deal is exactly the reason I don't think we should be that discriminating about it. If theywind up not being around for the long haul, is that a particularly big deal?  It's easy enough to make another.  The only real concern is that they're not going to abuse the power, and typically someone won't be making several months of diligent, constructive edits just so they can lock pages and ban people.  If someone IS sick enough to do that, then a Sysop can rectify the situation without too much difficulty (and I DO think that Sysop status should be a little on the discriminating side, though at least one other admin should probably have the privelige in case you should get hit by a stray turbolaser or something).  Reverting vandalism isn't particularly difficult, but it still takes time and energy.  It's better to be able to cut vandalism off at the source with prompt bans of the offending parties. jSarek 03:02, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support a second sysop position for such cases as demonstrated by Sarek. My own house was glanced by a tornado last month and thankfully we only lost siding. Imagine if it was worse, it can happen. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:41, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Who can vote?
Is this a vote for the current admins to support or oppose a new admin, or can any regular user add their support? If it's admins-only, I'll move my comments here. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  01:27, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I say everyone votes. May have to change that later as Wookieepedia grows, but for now I think that should work.  Thoughts?  WhiteBoy 01:40, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I definately favour everyone voting, but I think, perhaps to prevent any potential disasters, someone should also need at least one admin vote (or unanimous admin vote?) or something like that. QuentinGeorge 04:47, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see Whiteboy has already added that. My bad. :) QuentinGeorge 04:48, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * All the more reason we should have more admins. Trusty ones at that. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:38, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moffs and Grand Moffs
Just a light-hearted suggestion not to be taken seriously, but perhaps we could informally call our admins Moffs and our founders Grand Moffs, it would be kind of funny :-) No? --Azizlight 08:46, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Grand Moff Riffsyphon1024
 * Grand Moff WhiteBoy (or Supreme Moff perhaps?)
 * Moff Aidje
 * Moff QuentinGeorge
 * Moff SparqMan
 * Moff StarNeptune
 * I'll only support it if our meetings can be called Mofferences. --SparqMan 04:24, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Held on the Moffship, natch - Kwenn 23:33, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Though this is unlikely, what if MoffVanko becomes an admin? Also, clearly WhiteBoy would have to be Executor.--MarcK [talk] 23:35, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we call them Vigos instead? :D Adamwankenobi 23:56, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * Vigo Riff? Not catching on. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya, Grand Moff Riff sounds much better ;-) --Azizlight 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Suck up. :P -- Riffsyphon1024 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship Question
I'm not really ready for being an administrator yet but I'd like to be someday. I joined at the beginning of December (I think) and when the six month mark hits this place will have a lot more people who have been here for six months I imagine, so when do you guys plan to cut off new admins? I realize it's hard to tell the future but has this been discussed at all? Also, I'm sure a few people seeing this might be rolling their eyes because I ruffled a few feathers when I first got here but I'm working on that.--DannyBoy7783 04:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominating yourself
I wonder if we should not allow self-nominations any more. Kinda like nominating yourself to WOTM, ya know? Thoughts? WhiteBoy 19:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I say let people nominate themselves for both. If they want to make a fool out of themselves let them.--DannyBoy7783 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin Question
Is the rule that all admins must approve a candidate always going to stay in effect? With the ranks continuing to grow I can see approval of individuals becoming problematic with so many voices. I never got a response to my question above which relates to this. If there is a cutoff at some point then I imagine this is not a big issue.--DannyBoy7783 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe this should be a topic at our next meeting. I have no idea if there is a cutoff or not. StarNeptune 19:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the rule that it's got to be unanimous because of the fact that it will be limiting...not just anybody can be an admin. Admins are looked up to in the community, so they're kinda a role-model for the rest of the community.  WhiteBoy 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misunderstanding me WhiteBoy. I asked the question because of Darth Culator but it could apply to anyone in the future. I'm not arguing for him or against him I'm just using him as an example. He has 11 yes votes and only 1 no. If the ranks keep growing it will become increasingly hard for individuals to get unanimous approval. I'm saying a majority or 90% of admins or something when the ranks get bigger. I'm not an admin and it doesn't make a big difference to me but it seems to me that the more admins you have the harder it is for hopefuls to get approved. Is that right? If an obviously large majority approves why should one lone dissenter be able to block it. It was different when there were like 5 of you but as time goes by more and more people are going to eligible. I see the point of a unanimous decision but I think that system is a tad flawed.--DannyBoy7783 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simply the bureaucrats should just have the veto authority. It would limit the potential opposers, and put it in the hands of responsible, reliable admins. -- SFH 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how you look at adminship. Some may view adminship as simply having the ability to lock pages, ban people, etc.  I view the admins as not just having more privileges but also more responsibilities.  They are leaders in this community, and while not perfect they are to be looked to as examples for the proper conduct.  As such, I think it should not necessarily be an easy thing to become an admin.  We should use proper discrimination in choosing our leaders.  Another way you might look at it is this: just as we are (and should be) picky in which articles are our Featured Articles, we should be picky in which users are our Featured Wookieepedians.  :p WhiteBoy 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and point out that Memory Alpha has an even stricter policy. There the vote must be unanimous among all voters...not just admins.  WhiteBoy 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally see your point and I'm not saying I disagree per say. What I mean is that if there are 5 admins it is easier to get 5 people approve you. Perhaps down the road if there are 25 or 30 admins it wouldn't be so easy but is that really fair to admins down the road? I'm just throwing this out for discussion. Something to think about--DannyBoy7783 18:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well when we already have more admins, there's less need for new ones and so it should be harder. -Jaymach Ral'Tir 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I just have a difference of opinion then. Wouldn't be the first time :) --DannyBoy7783 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I agree that it will be harder to get a unanimous vote among 25 admins than just 5. At this point, I don't see a need to change the rule, but time may change that.  I've been wrong before and will be again.  :)  WhiteBoy 23:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving past nominations
I think we should institute the practice of archiving past RFA/WOTM nominations. There's really no reason not to, and it makes it immensely easier to view past nominees (as opposed to digging through the [long] page history). If you think it's a good idea, I could even make this policy retroactive by pulling out and creating new pages for all the past nominations and discussions. Thoughts? RMF 05:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no real reason not to...I say go for it. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done with both archives. RMF 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How Many

 * I may have missed something but...how many admins are we aiming at? I mean, are we after a specific number, or are we just going to let nominations/approvals keep going until everyone's an admin? :) QuentinGeorge 07:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree we could slow down now. Also the votes should truly be restricted to those who have had a long presense here, or at least enough time to see the patterns of the person been voted on. I can see one favoritism vote right now that's not associated with the actual help he's done. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a magic number that we need, tho I do think we are fine right now. Another thought...as there are more admins, it will become tougher to become an admin (because of the unanimous rule), so it will inherently slow down.  WhiteBoy 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hah!
And I thought "0/0/0" meant "fill in the date here." *smacks forehead* Thanos6 14:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's support/oppose/neutral. - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realize that now. :) Thanos6 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin?
I think I might make a great admin. Kowakian 1 03:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we have a rule here that users need to have been around for at least six months before they can be eligible for admin status. -- SFH 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't been around long enough, and spent much of your first week engaging in edit wars, insulting other users, and using sockpuppets. What makes you think you're admin material? &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Optional Questions
These new questions seem like such a good idea for making decisions about admins that I wonder if we just can't make them mandatory? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the question idea too, but maybe not everything has to be written in stone to be done. Precedent sometimes is as effective as policy. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 03:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Percentages?
I have also thought about applying a percentage of votes to a support or oppose side. For example say a user goes for adminship. He/she gets 9 votes for, and 2 votes against. Would it be helpful to apply a percentage to get a better idea of where we stand in a vote, compared to the supermajority number of 3/4ths or 75 percent? In this case he/she would have 81 percent for and 19 percent against. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Percentages sound good. Havac 21:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin voting
Forgive what is probably a stupid question, but how does one nominate for and vote for admins? I'm curious for curiosities sake, and also would be interested in nominating at some point. Cheers. --Darth Windu 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To nominate, the first thing to do is to leave a message on the user's talk page, or contact them in some other way, in order to make sure he or she accepts. Then, you edit the "Nominations" section of the RFA page: as shown by the comments hidden in the code, you write in:

===USERNAME (0/0/0)=== Two week deadline from first request, voting ends DD Month Year. ====Support==== ====Oppose===== ====Neutral==== ====Comments====

with the username and end date changed as appropriate. You would also add your signature to a numbered list under "support" as so: #. The (0/0/0) at the top is a vote counter, which doesn't update itself: update it as needed. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lower than Administrator?
What exaztly does an administrator do? and is there a thing right under administrator for people under the age of 18?Gyasz Kudeb 04:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rollback rights are now available, but there currently isn't a policy that deals with requests for those since they came out quite recently. G .He (Talk!) 05:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the works! --Imp 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)