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?

(3 admin + 5 users/3 admin + 4 users/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends on July 27.

Support

 * 1) Menkooroo is an excellent up-and-coming user who is active, helpful, completely trustworthy, and generally outstanding. Havac 05:56, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) [inevitable comment about candy] &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 05:58, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Good candidate. --Imperialles 05:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Not a candy vote, I just genuinely think that the rollback system works both ways. I know that in the past, speaking from my own experiences, that users who do not necessarily do a lot of anti-vandal reversion prior to getting rollback, can indeed take to that role after being given the button. That methodology certainly cannot apply to administration, of course&mdash;that would be foolishness, but in regards to rollback, where the actual power itself is so limited that it is also (not just, also) a token of esteem, as it has always been traditionally. Menk has demonstrated a dedication to the Wook that far exceeds that of many others, and obviously while this shouldn't be the incentive for him to take a more active role in anti-vandalism, I genuinely think that this is something that he will be using. The fact of the matter is that he does an absolutely immense amount of work on the Wook, and if we can do anything inoffensive and minor to help him on his way, I say by all means, because we all invariably profit by his presence and contribution. Thefourdotelipsis 13:39, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) After consideration, per 4dot. If we have people dedicated to the Wook who are often here, and here to make improvements, giving them the tools to do so better hurts no one and provides all sorts of potential benefit. - Lord Hydronium 00:44, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Rollback for me isn't a big deal. It's not like adminship, and I think it should be given to anyone who would find it useful and use it responsibly. For lack of a better word, I'll call it candy :P SoresuMakashi ( Everything I tell you is a lie  the truth  ) 09:24, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Tools which allow trusted users to better serve the community, not treats for the cool kids. Menkooroo falls within the first of my statements. —Tommy 9281 19:23, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:43, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I have no overriding concerns or complaints about Menkooroo as a Wookieepedian. Although my own interaction with him is admittedly limited, from what I've seen he seems like a nice enough person. But frankly, and this isn't a condemnation of Menkooroo himself in any way, but I've never believed in Rollback as obligatory "candy" that is inevitably granted to someone just because they're a nice person on the wiki. In my mind, Rollback is a privilege. It's something that is earned through related merit and demonstration of consistent and measurable anti-vandalism work. As point three of the Rollback requirements reads, They have demonstrated a need for the ability through extensive anti-vandalism work. I simply don't believe Menkooroo has demonstrated a need for this privilege through "extensive anti-vandalism work" at this point in time, which I feel his contributions bear out. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) A quick scan of Menkooroo's contributions shows very few reversions, and out of those, there are even fewer reversions involving the removal of vandalism or nonsense. So, per Toprawa. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 13:34, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Toprawa. Menkooroo is a great user, but rollback is not a reward; it's something that's earned, and by nature it's hard to get. Frankly, the belief that rollback (and even adminship to an extent) is candy baffles me.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 14:14, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Completely per Toprawa. Menkooroo is a great user with fantastic contributions, but he has done comparatively little work so far in the anti-vandalism category. I have absolutely no issue with Menkooroo himself&mdash;he has without a doubt one of the most exemplary attitudes of all the users on this site&mdash;I just don't see enough anti-vandalism edits in his edit history to warrant rollback rights. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 17:03, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per above, actually  JangFett  (Talk) 16:38, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per above. -- 1358  (Talk) 21:03, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) No-one is doubting that Menkooroo is awesome, but I don't see him constantly reverting vandalism and the like. To put it simply, he doesn't need rollback.  NAYAYEN : TALK 20:28, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Accepted by IRC. Havac 05:56, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

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.

Xicer9 (4 admins + 8 users/2 admin + 2 users/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends July 27, 2010.

Support

 * 1) Simply put an amazing user. Major contributions in forms of article writing and reviews, all while keeping a very helpful tone. A prime candidate for adminship. --Imperialles 06:04, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Exceptional candidate for admin. Havac 06:05, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I've seen him do nothing but good work. Menkooroo 06:05, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Menkooroo stole my words on this. --Tm_T(Talk) 06:25, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Active in the community and on the wiki, helpful, with a record of improvement. The qualities we look for in an admin. - Lord Hydronium 06:30, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 10:49, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) *Speaking earnestly and from experience, while I understand caution about rushing things, there is such a thing as waiting too long to nominate someone for adminship. Xicer might not be here in a year, or he might not be as active or whatever; I firmly believe we should give people the tools to contribute the most they can to the site when they most can. In my opinion, Xicer's already shown himself to be as capable, if not more capable than many seasoned admins and new recruits. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:54, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Prime candidate. Xicer always acquits himself with the utmost courtesy and humility, and his continually reasonably attitude puts many of our current administrators to shame. He demonstrates a lot of the maturity and quality I think has been lacking in the elements of the administration at times, and frankly he is more of a "leader" than a lot of users who laughingly bequeath that title upon themselves. Xicer is an invaluable resource to the Wook, and one with an actual brain in his head&mdash;he is a genuine contributor first and foremost, and that's another asset that he has over a lot of other admins. This isn't to say that "Oh, these people weren't really suitable, so he is," but to me, Xicer truly comes across as a user who has all the requisite humility I like to see in anyone granted sysops, and he really gives off that administrative vibe, to a degree that I'm surprised he wasn't made an administrator sooner. I've never seen any untoward behavior from him at all, and he continually demonstrates the ability to deal with other users as though they're actually human beings as well. To me, that's an administrator right there. Also, I hear now that he supports breasts, so that's a major thumbs up. Thefourdotelipsis 13:29, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) After thinking about this for a while, per 4dot. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 16:41, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  IFYLOFD  ( Floyd's crib ) 00:45, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) I think that many folks forget that adminship is a position of service to the community, not a badge of honor or superior authority. Leaders, yes, but servants to the masses, first and foremost. Xicer is trusted and well-respected, why not allow him to serve the site in a greater capacity than he already does? Not as though anybody can use these things to take over the galaxy or anything... —Tommy 9281 19:28, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't see why his obviously good and reliable work on the Wook needs a "time-bound verification". 00:51, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13)  00:53, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Xicer, you're a fantastic contributor and prolific writer here, but I think it's too early for this. I'm not trying to discourage you in any way, I just feel perhaps you could wait another year before you're nominated for adminship.  JangFett  (Talk) 06:10, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Jang. It is far too early; Xicer's only just received rollback one month ago, and I haven't seen much in the way of leadership since that point in time. Xicer is not someone who is wholly unworthy, but I can't place my vote behind such comments as "prime candidate" and "exceptional candidate" when there does not seem to be a legion of newbies who look up to Xicer and ask him for guidance. Those would be the qualities of an "exceptional" admin candidate. I also have some concerns regarding the userboxes at lower right on his page. "This user supports breasts" and the like. As above userbox states, user happens to be male, but user could show some serious improvements in good taste and, as much as many of my colleagues hate the terminology, be a little P.C. before we're awarding what to sensitive new users is an instant "respect me and look to me for guidance" tag. This isn't a "no, not ever," it's a "not now." Some more growth is required before I'd ask my fellows to bestow this upon Xicer. Graestan ( Talk ) 11:53, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) *You are naturally entitled to vote however you like, but this really seems to me to be clutching at straws. Opposing because of a humorously intended infobox? Really? As for the whole leadership deal, I frankly don't see the relevance of your argument at all. Admins are janitors, not politicians. They are here to enforce policy, not gain popularity. I realize this might simply be a case of conflicting views on what adminship entails, but I do hope you won't take offense, as this really is not intended as any sort of attack. In conclusion, I do hope you'll reconsider your stance. Xicer is a valuable asset to the site, and the faster he gets sysop rights, the faster we get to reap the benefits (so to speak) of his administrative work (hypothetically speaking, of course). I believe you made a similar point in the recent CT to lower admin age (if I am not misreading you; in that case I apologize). --Imperialles 13:29, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) **No one is questioning Xicer's value as a user. I figured that Imp of all people would understand that as a bureaucrat, the person who is physically assigning the sysops flag, I just want to make sure there is zero regret each time I am called upon to perform my duty. I am simply waiting until I am one-hundred-percent certain Xicer is ready, and in the meantime I am trying to provide a little of the thought that went into why he may not be. I am simply being realistic to say that adminship is a leadership position. Graestan ( Talk ) 22:09, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Jang. Good user, but adminship is not a reward; it takes time to earn and I don't think we have a need for a sudden increase in the number of admins.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 14:14, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Not wait another year, but a few months or so. -- 1358  (Talk) 21:03, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) My initial reaction to this nomination was a touch of surprise as I foresaw this coming further into the future, perhaps four or five months hence. As far as one-on-one interaction with Xicer, I do not have much of this type of exposure to him. What I have seen of him as a user, a member on IRC, and an Inq do illustrate potential but also pause. His ascension has been marked and noted, and I commend him for his thus-far dedication to the wiki. My most substantial concerns, however, have not been resolved since his nomination into the Inq. I agreed to his nomination then feeling that the potential outdrew the concerns for that role, but adminship is a much more serious and demanding position in the community that can have effects site-wide. He is an unproven user with regards to conflict resolution; with long-term usage of rollback and the Inq, largely in part due to his recent ascension; and with the ability to be self-independent and possess individualistic thought. I also note that there are other issues that have even been brought up in some of the other recent RFURs about maturity that apply here, as well, although not to the same extent. Frankly, there are too many unknowns about him that play directly into his ability to be an effective administrator. The largest point about the user himself is when dealing with users in tense situations; I've yet to see an overt situation arise with him whereby he needs to resolve it so we can see his mettle. I just do not see enough to outweigh this, as of now. I'm sure these points will undoubtedly prompt a desire to wiki-lawyer, but please respect the voting area and do not bother. It must be emphasized that I would not be opposed to him in the future and, would in fact, welcome his nomination after I can see my primary concerns at least marginalized. &mdash; Fiolli  {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *I contribute to Wookieepedia because I want to make this place the most comprehensive and accurate Star Wars encyclopedia out there. That cannot be achieved without some form of organization, and so I feel like I will have a better chance at improving the site with administrative tools at my side. Basically, I feel like becoming an administrator will enable me to do better what I, and all of us, are already doing: making this place a great, reliable repository of information.
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *An administrator is there to perform the necessary duties to make this site function on a daily basis. While their primary role involves the organization of Wookieepedia, an administrator is also someone people look to for guidance. Administrators should always assist those in need of help and mediate disputes. While regular users often perform these duties as well, administrators are put in position where they are seen as leaders by newer users and will be requested to play these roles.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) *A bit of both, really. They are meant to use the tools they are given to preserve the integrity of this site and make sure everything is running smoothly. Administrators are also put in a leadership role though, and many users will see them as the epitome of a Wookieepedia contributor. The great thing about Wookieepedia, of course, is that we have a wonderful community. Any of our regular contributors can represent best qualities of our site, but administrators are the people other users know they can rely on when they first join the site.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *Administrators are there to use the tools they are given for the benefit of the site. They shouldn't treat themselves as being more "important" than other users. Being an administrator isn't about status, it's about helping the site function.
 * 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've never been in any major conflicts, but most of my minor conflicts probably occurred in when I first joined the site and I was still learning how this place functioned. I think the first few weeks after I joined I was a bit intimidated by other users whenever I was confronted about an issue. I grew to familiarize myself with the community, however, and now whenever something comes up I try to use the proper channels, such as contacting people on their talk pages or even over IRC.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *Heh, now this is a difficult question. One of my favorites is Zevulon Veers, although that may be more due to my interest in the character. I was very pleased with how Ord Antalaha, my first planet FA, turned out as well, mostly because it covered a little known topic and was definitely in needs of a cleanup before I began working on it.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * 14) *I already patrol the Recent Changes quite frequently, so I imagine I'll be out looking for vandals and the like, as well as checking for pages that need to be deleted. I'll also try to perform what maintenance duties I can, and I'm available on IRC if anyone needs something done.
 * 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 am already active on the FAN page, since I am also an Inquisitor, so I find these types of things important. I try to read and vote on every new CT that comes up and voice my opinion. This is the kind of stuff that any regular user should be encouraged to do, and I love taking part in the community so I try to involve myself as much as possible.
 * 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) *It depends, really. There are going to be times when an administrator has to do something for the sake of the site that's not specifically covered by a certain policy. That said, an administrator has to be really careful when it comes to working around policy, and if they go too far, then the community or the rest of the administration needs to step in.
 * 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 haven't really welcomed new users in the past, and chances are somebody has already beaten me to it. I do, however, often check the contributions of newer users and I especially look at the edit histories of IPs for anything suspicious.
 * 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 someone undeleted something that eventually turned out legitimate, then no harm done. A legitimate article is a legitimate article. If I wanted to undelete an article that had recently been speedied, I would try to contact that administrator via IRC or talk page first to discuss my reasoning.
 * 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) *I would confront the user via talk page or leave a warning. A block wouldn't be necessary until the act was repeated after several warnings or attempts to contact the user. If the user had a history of vandalism, then I would still try to confront them at least once before choosing to block them. My userpage isn't any more important any other user's, so blocking after the first attempt just because what they did offended me would be silly. If I am on IRC, I may also notify other admins to be on the watch for similar acts of vandalism.
 * 25) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 26) *This is something nobody looks forward to but it must be done. An established user should not be given special treatment, and if they've been here that long, then they should already have been familiar with the policies here. If they performed an act deserving of a block and disregarded all previous warnings, then the deed must be done.
 * 27) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 28) *I might've said the FAN limit, but that's recently been lifted. So I guess nothing really.
 * 29) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 30) *Half of both.
 * 31) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 32) *I think it's fine, and I agree with most of the consequences for the specific offenses.
 * 33) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 34) *I already am. I'm usually on everyday for most of the day.
 * 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) *I don't think it should matter what type of influence somebody has on another site. They're as valid of a contributor here as anyone else. If they disrupt the wiki, then they face the same consequences as everyone else and should't receive special treatment one way or the other.
 * 37) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 38) *None. The whole thing was a hoax.
 * 39) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 40) *That guy with the lightsaber and a few questions.
 * 41) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 42) *Well, consensus creates policy, but sometimes the community can't always come to a consensus. Policy trumps consensus, and most policies are there for a good reason. So policy, but I have to say that it's often a fine line.
 * 43) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 44) *I'm a member of the Inq here, and I had a moderator position on a forum many years ago.
 * 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?
 * Eh, if you're gone, you're gone. I have little tolerance for those who deliberately try to disrupt the wiki after they've already chosen to leave or have proven themselves incapable of playing by the rules here. It's understandable if someone takes an extended leave of absence and decides they want to start being an active contributor again, but if they only come back to say, vote on a specific CT or RFUR to make a point, and then leave again, they should be confronted.
 * 1) What is your wiki philosophy?
 * 2) *Strive to make this the best damn Star Wars encyclopedia out there and have fun doing it. That's really it.
 * 3) *Apologies for not getting to this questionnaire sooner. Boy, I didn't think it would take this long. =P

Comments

 * Accepted nomination via IRC. --Imperialles 06:04, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for comments that it's too early . . . he's been an active user since November/December 08. How long does it take? Havac 04:36, July 14, 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.