Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights

This page is for requests for user rights.

Voting will last two weeks, at which time, if the vote is affirmative, the nominee will be granted the requested user 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 creations.
 * 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) Bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for adminship to be accepted.
 * 11) 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. :)

Gonk (16 users + 5 admins + 1 bureaucrat / 0 users + 0 admins + 0 bureaucrats)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 24 August 2007.

Support

 * 1) Accepted nomination via IRC. For true! Thefourdotelipsis 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Edits aren't everythong - Gonk has performed magnificent work in the co-ordination of improving articles with the goal of achieving GA and FA status for them.--Goodwood 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Gonk's edits are a lion. jSarek 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Responsible (although neutering would be funny)--Eyrezer 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I was just talking to Gonk about this yesterday. It's about time. Great attitude, very committed to improving the site. A leader I can follow. - Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) He's always helpful, he's very committed and his contributions are simply great. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) And how is 1500 edits not enough? Bah! Knight this man already. Darth Maddolis 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. Here's to you, Gonk. --School of Thrawn 101 09:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Definitely. Per SoT. -- [[Image:AckbarSig.jpg|40px]] dmirableAckbar  ( It's A Trap! ) 09:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) All right, you guys have a point. And I did say that I knew edits weren't everything. And please remember to update the vote count when you vote.  Chack Jadson  Talk 12:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Gonk. Gonk. Gonk ko kyenga see. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes. #28. [[Image:The Death of Ki-Adi-Mundi.jpg|40px]]  Jediknight19bby  ( Jedi High Council Chambers! ) 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) SFH 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Like candy. Very expensive candy.--Darth Oblivion 04:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Azizlight 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per #12. Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Joker1138 ( Mandalore ) [[Image:MandalorianSymbol.jpg|25px]] 10:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Greyman ( Paratus ) 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) supergeeky1 [[Image:BobaFett.jpg|20px]] The Cantina 22:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) What I said before about the candy.--Darth Oblivion 22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Imperialles 13:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1,500 article edits, 2,800 total edits. Yes, I know edits aren't everything, but still, I don't he's ready.  Chack Jadson  Talk 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat.--Darth Oblivion 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Until Big Red gets what's hers from Gonk. :-P Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) A god should need no additional powers! &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Neuter

 * 1) Please don't neuter me. I like my genitalia.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this motion. Darth Maddolis 09:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) He must not be allowed to reproduce. (Note: This is not a neutral vote)--Darth Oblivion 04:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
1. Why do you want to become an administrator? You mean, besides ops in IRC? ;) Mainly so I can have more tools with which to combat the endless stream of vandals and fanonists we attract. That, and it seems like I spend a lot of time hunting down admins to do stuff I could just as easily do.
 * Do I have to explain myself? Thefourdotelipsis 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you don't get it, but Gonk's edits are large edits, and quality edits. Large improvements to pages don't have their own counter. - Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Graestan, I think you might be in the wrong sub-section with this comment. --School of Thrawn 101 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to comment after votes... I let votes (and their accompanying quips) have the vote subsections to themselves. I was responding to Mr. Jadson's comment. -  Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no I got it...it just looked (originally) like a response to a Gonk in the way that it was formatted. --School of Thrawn 101 05:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is that last opposition vote...just plain nonsense? If it is just me, feel free to ignore this comment.--Goodwood 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator? See #3

3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? In an ideal world, strictly technical. In an ideal world, admins wouldn't have to hand out discipline, and admins' stances on issues (like CTs) wouldn't necessarily influence how non-admins vote. But that's an unreachable ideal, even in the most egalitarian hippie online communities. So admins need to be prepared to perform both types of functions competently. I feel like I've demonstrated what sort of "political Wookieepedian" I am, and while I do have a lot to learn about the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikia, I know enough about it to feel like I can handle it. (Otherwise I would never have requested my own wiki!!)

4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users? If we're talking about a simple disagreement with established users who obviously aren't vandalizing, then admins shouldn't "use" their power/stand or even threaten to. When it comes to pure opinions, mine are as valid as User:l33tF3tt's.

5. ''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?'' I've been in maybe three or four actual "conflicts," none of which were major and all of which are entirely resolved. When I'm the one in the wrong, I accept it and move on. When I'm not, I state my position as clearly as possible and move on if that's not enough. I don't attach enough of my ego to my Wookieepedia presence to take stuff like that personally, even when it's intended that way. Only once has another user caused me stress, and the way I dealt with it was to get feedback from uninvolved users, to see how they would react and get suggestions.

6. Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why? Well, obviously Bureau of Scouting and Exploration Services. I created that one from nothing and now it's likely to become an FA. I also liked my meager work on stuff like Exovar's Emporium and Elrood, and as far as adding material is concerned, I will probably continue to specialize in WEG-era stuff. I am also happy to have been a part of the FA nom process cleanup and consider myself to be a reasonably dedicated Inquisitor. (Even Ataru would agree I'm far from the laziest of us.)

7. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Fanon is my Favored Enemy. That and vandalism will likely continue to be a primary emphasis. I intend to enforce REF tags as much as they need to be enforced. I suppose I'll do more closing/moving of forum threads and stuff as I learn how.

8. How important is it for you to be involved in things such as CT, IDrive, FA, and other community-centered items that involve discussion and voting? I've been involved with FA for some time now and that'll only intensify if I am an admin. I also patrol the Knowledge Bank and in the past I've had to harass admins to delete certain threads there. Beyond that, however, I should probably state for the record that I have both a full-time job and a life&mdash;but my time here is likely to remain pretty much as it has for the past several months.

9. ''Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?'' I think admins have enough leeway to interpret the policies with some flexibility. That said, if an admin oversteps his/her bounds, I trust that someone will complain about it, and another admin will look into it. I do think admin mistakes/abuses have to be confronted.

10. ''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?'' I generally leave the talk-page welcoming to others, unless the newbies come into IRC. On those occasions when I have welcomed someone, it was because they were using an anonymous IP but making a lot of genuine contributions; these are the sorts of anons I want to see usernames for. Likewise, if an anon makes an edit I deem to be erroneous but well-meant, I will compose a more welcoming sort of warning on his/her talk page.

11. ''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?'' Let me put it this way. Now that we live in the age of the Legacy comic series, I have this feeling that one day we actually will have a "Darth Awesome." So I'm pretty conservative about recklessly using the speedy tag. (That's not sarcasm either. It's already come up once; ask Jorrel.) Otherwise, though, I have confidence in most admins' ability to distinguish content from crap. So I wouldn't undelete something unless I had proof it was legit, and if I did, I wouldn't hesitate.

12. ''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?'' A warning is all that's necessary. If the vandal in question was an established user, perhaps a polite exchange of ideas would be called for, but such things shouldn't be a big deal. Articles are more important.

13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? They'd have to be pretty extreme and obvious. This is the sort of circumstance where the policy (and the violation thereof) should speak for itself, and not require arcane interpretation.

14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be? I can't really think of anything substantive. I do think the notion that we aren't exactly an encyclopedia (more of a reference) has merit, but that's really just semantics.

15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full? A glass is always empty by the time I'm through with it. Unless it contains Zima.

16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is? I think it's mostly pretty balanced. I think permabans send the wrong message ("We hate you as a person" or, worse yet, "We are giving in to our overdeveloped sense of vengeance"), and that very-long-term bans send a better one ("Come back in eight years when you've matured a little") and achieve the same result. The only person for whom I could ever see myself supporting a permaban is SuperShadow.

17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat? I hardly ever leave the Wookieepedia IRC chat.

18. 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? As long as they're already established users, I assume good faith. But the recent "First Strike" debacle proves that we can't assume good faith from not-so-established users.

19. ''How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)'' None. They were all holograms. Seriously, how else do you explain LFL never making a single actual clonetrooper costume?

20. ''Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)'' I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this, considering that Kyle and I are rival gods.

21. Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

22. What's more important to you: consensus or policy? No fair mixing in real questions with silly questions. Policy is important for obvious reasons, and we all rely on it&hellip;a lot&hellip;to resolve certain issues. That's as it should be. However, as the wiki evolves, certain policies established in the "old days" must be reconsidered and occasionally revised. Change is natural and unavoidable, especially on a wiki. (And you can't stop the change, any more than you can stop the suns from setting.) I guess I would say, consensus by a nose. It IS a flawed process, but that's why we have bureaucrats.

23. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)? I've been a teacher for almost ten years. Hobby-wise, I do a lot of gamemastering. (D6, baby.) Web-wise, I've administered a moderately-busy discussion board and taken on a newbie-tutoring role in a few other online communities.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 11:59, 10 August 2007 (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.

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 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) Bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for bureaucratship to be accepted.
 * 9) 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.

jSarek (9 admins + 3 bureaucrats + 12 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 24 August 2007.

Support

 * 1) Now that I have resigned as BC, I would like to nominate jSarek to succeed me. - Sikon 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) A worthy successor, IMHO. He'll get the job done. Darth Maddolis 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Chack Jadson  Talk  14:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not absentee. I would say more like "lurking"...I pop up when needed. :p  Though I disagree about the number of BC's we need, I have since regretted voting against you last time.  I aim to remedy that now. WhiteBoy 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If it is Sikon's wish. I hope jSarek isn't going to shut down the GA page. [[Image:The Death of Ki-Adi-Mundi.jpg|40px]]  Jediknight19bby  ( Jedi High Council Chambers! ) 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Eyrezer 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Thefourdotelipsis 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) There is no better candidate for this IMO. Long overdue. --Azizlight 11:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Jon haz lett me no choice but to vote for him. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 14:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Jorrel [[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]] Fraajic 21:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) If I were to choose anyone to represent all of the Wook, it would be jSarek. - Graestan  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( This party's over ) 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Good choice. Fnlayson 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) A fine representative of the Wookieepedia community and an awesome dancer. :) --  Riffsyphon  1024 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Ozzel 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Joker1138 ( Mandalore ) [[Image:MandalorianSymbol.jpg|25px]] 10:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) -- [[Image:AckbarSig.jpg|40px]] dmirableAckbar  ( It's A Trap! ) 11:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Imperialles 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) JMAS 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) SFH 20:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Greyman ( Paratus ) 23:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A
jSarek 13:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Bleh, I've evaded the ninja death squads before... and I'll do it again! :
 * 1) Why do you think we need another bureaucrat?
 * 2) *Because, of the four we had, one (Sikon) just resigned, one (Imperialles) is largely absentee, and another (WhiteBoy), while not exactly absentee, isn't a regular presence, either, leaving Riffsyphon1024 our only regularly present bureaucrat. It's long been my contention we need a minimum of two active bureaucrats, with three preferable and a few more not a bad idea.  Thus, we really do *need* another one, whether it's me or not.  In fact, more than one more would not be a bad idea.
 * 3) How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
 * 4) *The ability to give admin and bureaucrat powers to another user is an important responsibility but not one that's likely to be particularly controversial, since we have a well-established method for the community to choose who will become an administrator. The veto powers are another matter; they must be used with caution.
 * 5) What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
 * 6) *Picking up Wookieepedia groupies who dig the bureaucrat robe. Oh, and giving admin powers to those with successful RfAs.
 * 7) How many admins do you think we need?
 * 8) *Adminship shouldn't be a big deal. The tools and authority vested in the position should be provided to users who demonstrate dedication to Wookieepedia and sound judgment, as determined by the community through the RfA process.  A hard number of admins is a bad idea, as we decided here.
 * 9) How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
 * 10) *I think I've addressed this pretty well in the first question, but to elaborate: Bare skeleton-crew minimum of two, preferably no less than three, with four or five being closer to the ideal.  More if Wookieepedia grows beyond its current size and RfAs become more frequent.
 * 11) How often do you think bureaucrats should use their veto power on RFA?
 * 12) *Exactly as often as is needed, no more, no less. Generally, I think that would be pretty sparingly; my voice shouldn't be loud enough to drown out the community except in pretty egregious circumstances.
 * 1) Do you have pictures of dance moves at Celebration IV? How did this experience make you feel? :-P
 * 2) *Rumors persist that some who were present to witness my dance moves managed to elude my ninja death squads and make a clean escape. If those rumors are true, some might even have photos.  Of course, if they post any, my ninja death squads will know EXACTLY where to go . . . jSarek 15:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

--Azizlight 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless you, Azizlight. --School of Thrawn 101 05:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I accept this nomination. However, as I stated in my first nomination to this position, "I should plainly note up front that I am probably one of the least technically sophisticated admins we have . . . It's simply not my area of expertise, and if anyone thinks that such knowledge is important to have in a bureaucrat, than they should vote against me. That having been said, I'm grateful you guys thought of me for this position, and I'll get to the questions in a bit." jSarek 10:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

Questions

 * 1) Why should you be granted rollback rights?