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?

Chack Jadson (13 admins + 13 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 12 August, 2008.

Support

 * 1) Chack is a friendly, trustworthy editor, and is constantly reverting vandalism; giving him rollback will make this easier and will be to the site's benefit. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Lord Hydronium 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Ozzel 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) SFH 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Trusted users with rollback is always a good thing.  Madclaw Shyriiwook! 21:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Chack's one of those users who you figure already has Rollback. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, candy! Like candy! There, said it first! :-P Well deserved indeed. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Absolutely. --Charitwo 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Figures I'd get stuck by an edit conflict when I'm voting from the kriffing cell-phone. —Tommy9281 [[Image:Red lightsaber.png|20px]] ( Peace is a lie ) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) He doesn't have rollback candy yet? This is a situation that must be rectified. jSarek 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 22:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Goodwood  [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) indeed, well deserved, RC-1136  Copy 08:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Imperialles 10:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) --  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Graestan ( Talk ) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) DC 17:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Call him Rollback Chack.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 19:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Greyman ( Talk ) 12:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Borsk Fey'lya  Talk 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Active, friendly, and knowledgeable. 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Indeed, he's more than earned it. StarNinja99 [[Image:Tyvokka.jpg|15px|]] 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

 * Why should you be granted rollback rights?
 * So I can revert vandalism faster. That's pretty much it, although I like to think this indicates that I've earned a certain amount of trust from the community.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 19:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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. :)

Toprawa and Ralltiir (10 admins + 14 users/1 user/2 admins)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 13 August, 2008.

Support

 * 1) Having been a member of Wookieepedia for just under a year, Toprawa and Ralltiir has clearly emerged as one of the leading editors on the site. Toprawa is a very prolific editor who has distinguished himself as one of the leading reviewers on the GAN and FAN processes, and has written a respectable number of good and featured articles, all of very high quality. To this end, Toprawa has raised the bar on overall article quality, being named an Inquisitor and quickly establishing himself as one of the most diligent and steadfast of that body. He also does with great vigilance and decisiveness what many admins have been shrinking from lately: he patrols the recent changes page, reverting vandalism and warning those who make bad-faith or other ill-inspired edits, often curbing such activities without the need for sysops to block the perpetrators. The only misunderstandings in which he's been involved centered around other users letting personal pride get in the way of professionalism, and by no means have I ever witnessed Toprawa engaged in edit wars, subversive reversions, or other bad-faith editing behaviors, something he himself has been subjected to his fair share of, always taking it in stride and never letting it get the better of him. Furthermore, I have often witnessed Toprawa lending a helping hand to newer users and users new to the GAN and FAN processes, often making friends and proving invaluable in his assistance. Having seen the increased demand for a decisive, effective admin that would do the job correctly without abusing his sysop tools, I cannot think of anyone better fit for the role than Toprawa and Ralltiir. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *Won WOTM recently with many kind comments from supporters and those he's helped, too. Graestan ( Talk ) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) We need more admins of Toprawa's caliber. --Imperialles 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Madclaw Shyriiwook! 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) A get-things-done person. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Definitely. Grand Moff Tranner [[Image:Imperial Department of Military Research.svg|20px]] (Comlink) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Graestan and AdmirableAckbar. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely! -  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 17:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) supergeeky1 \ m / The Cantina 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) DC 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I still feel kind of uncomfortable supporting this mysterious Ralltiir fellow, but Tope? Hell yes.  Gonk  ( Gonk! ) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  19:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) He's raised the standard on FA quality big time Harrar 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Almost didn't vote for him because he seems to like my least favourite beer. 8) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Darth Culator (Talk) 03:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Muuuuuurgh 05:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 05:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cavalier One ( Squadron channel ) 07:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, and the big wheels keep on turnin. Per Graestan and Ackbar. Toprawa was the first to actually recognize my Force-sensitivity, working (alongside others) to help cultivate my skills while teaching me (in his own unique way) how to become a progressive contributor on the site. On several occasions, Toprawa has also, while using himself as an example, helped me avoid tarnishing me reputation with my fellow users. Informally taken under his wing, this young man has helped me advance as a writer while getting to know me personally and becoming my friend (not a term to be used lightly) in the process. There really isn't much left to say, so I'll hum the Golden Girls theme in closing. —Tommy9281 [[Image:Red lightsaber.png|20px]] ( Peace is a lie ) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing  ( You're all clear kid! )( Now let's blow this thing and go home! ) 00:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Borsk Fey'lya  Talk 07:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --Eyrezer 11:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Give the man the key to the executive washroom. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Besides your nitpicking on MK-09, your desire to have everything from WP:TOTJ and its mother make FA, and making me actually work to get through the FAN process, I feel you're not only fully capable but that you're also one of the best choices (if not the) from our most recent prolific users. Activity levels are high, and no one can question the amount of material you've churned out. And yes, I was joking about the first three items. Lighten up already. 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) T&R is selfless and represents many good things that this site needs. Granted he may not be perfect but then who is? And to think, today is 1 year since he started contributing as T&R. --  Riffsyphon  1024 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Toprawa is diligent, almost obsessive even, and has done a lot of good for Wookieepedia, this is not in doubt. However, I feel that he lacks a few things that, in my opinion, are vital to the success of a good administrator: humility, maturity, and the ability to find compromise. Toprawa needs to develop these things before I am able to support him for sysop rights. I'm sorry Toprawa, but maybe next time.-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Greyman ( Talk ) 12:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I will be happy to be proved wrong, but though I think Toprawa is qualified, I cannot wholeheartedly support this nomination. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Accepted nomination on IRC. Graestan ( Talk ) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questionnaire
1. Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * Since I began editing Wookieepedia last Aug 6 as a registered user, I’ve had so much fun doing this that I’ve stuck around this long. I browsed the site for a few months as an anon prior to that, and when I began reading some of our articles, I was convinced that I could help to improve the quality of things around here. It has never been anything but my intention to make this site the best thing it can possibly be, and I take pride in the product we put forth for the public to see. All I’ve ever been after was to help things around here, and I feel like I’ve made a lasting impression, through the good times and the not-so-good times.

2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * In many ways, the administrator acts as the “face” of Wookieepedia. He is the one whom other users approach when they have a problem, be it technical, a question with how something works, or a conflict of interest with another user, and it is his responsibility to reach a resolution. He must have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the site, as well as a strong rapport with its userbase.

3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * I think it would be naïve to answer anything but “both.” They must be able to face technical problems head on and be able to solve them, be able to efficiently maintain the site, as well as understanding that any action they take carries a political weight given their status. They set the political precedent for other users.

4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * Going along with the idea that the administrator sets the tone of political precedent for the site, it is his responsibility to make sure that the established attitude is one of civility and cooperation for all. While the administrator carries the banner of power with him wherever he goes, he must remember that Joe User looks to him to set the example. Perhaps taking an “everyman” approach would be nice, but the fact that the administrator does hold this position of power creates an influential element for him that cannot be ignored and really must be wielded fairly and without bias.

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?
 * Of course. I would be lying if I said I haven’t had conflicts with several users during my career, and I think this would naturally apply to anyone who edits here. It’s the nature of the beast. Conflicting visions are inevitable, and it shows the quality of one’s character by how they work with others to come to a resolution that works for everyone involved. Not everyone is going to get along all the time, but whether or not you like someone shouldn’t influence your behavior on the site. Just because you might not go out and get a beer with someone at the end of the day doesn’t mean you can’t work with them when it comes to business. I can say definitively I’ve had my fair share of conflictions with a few users around here, and I’ve worked hard to smooth over ruffled feathers to the point where we *can* work together.

6. Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Naturally, I’m particularly proud of my first passed FA, the Wampa article. I had come across the article in its original shape, which was pretty dismal, to be honest, and I worked hard for a few months through both the GAN and FAN process to get it to status. That was my first foray into the world of the FAN process, and I’ve never looked back since. It was a lot of fun, and it led me to begin reviewing articles myself until I was eventually elected to the Inquisitorius, where the majority of my contributions lie.

7. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * I’m a frequent RC patroller, having earned Rollback rights in that respect, so I enjoy watching over the most recent changes made and anticipate being able to stop vandalism at the source. At the same time, I’ve observed a good amount of harassment, be it motivated edit conflicts, edit warring, talk page rants, what have you, which I’ve taken the initiative on several occasions to hand out a “non-admin warning” to the individuals in question, asking them to stop before an actual admin had to step in and things would get ugly. As a frequent participant in TCs and CTs, I would find it appropriate to help maintain and manage these forums both in progress and at their conclusions.

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?
 * As someone who spends as much time on Wookieepedia as I do, I find it as much a responsibility as an enjoyment to participate in CTs, TCs, and the like. While my opinions don’t always mesh with everyone, I think it’s important that users who are most active on the site express their opinions so that all users are presented with several ideas.

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?
 * Not necessarily. If there is a blatant lapse in judgment, then yes, but there are always going to be occasions when something unique arises where an administrator must “think outside of the box,” to apply the most overused cliché of all time, to something and decide the best course of action to take. In terms of sanctioning, the administrator in question should be warned if the matter involved malicious intent, he should confer with his fellow administrators on what should have been done, and he should take the high road from thereon out. People are going to make mistakes, and it’s how they learn from them that tests their true mettle. Of course, if you’re going to block someone, the intent behind it is always important. It should be done as a preventive measure, as damage control, before things escalate, not out of any premeditated agenda.

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 make it a practice to welcome new users I find in the RCs with the Welcome template onto their talk pages. It’s a good practice that breeds acceptance and an invitation to contribute something meaningful to the site. When I find a user I’ve not interacted with much consistently making quality edits, I’ve typically made an effort to encourage their progress, particularly newcomers to the FAN and GAN process. I think I’ve done a lot to help these newcomers feel comfortable with putting their work forward for the community to see, which can understandably be daunting at times. As far as welcoming anonymous IPs, I can’t say I’ve encountered a situation yet in which I’ve noticed a certain IP making a large number of quality edits, but in that situation I would invite them to register a username and join the community.

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?
 * First of all, I would approach the other in question to understand what happened exactly. If I acted rashly, then that’s fine, and I would simply ask that they explain to me my mistake. I’m not sure I would ever go behind someone’s back and just reverse a significant change like that, because that’s how problems arise. I would talk to the person and get their permission before I did anything.

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?
 * My userpage has been vandalized before. I was pretty disappointed, but I understand it happens, as with any form of vandalism. If the edit was purely malicious vandalism, I would block the person. Sometimes users edit other’s pages without understanding that they aren’t supposed to, and in that case I would leave a heads-up warning on their talk page telling them that this sort of practice isn’t kosher without the other’s permission.

13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * I don’t think someone’s being established should have a significant effect on why someone *shouldn’t* be banned for an offense. If anything, the established user should know better not to commit violations of policy, and so they should be held to a higher standard. I regret that I’ve seen several instances in which established users have engaged in pure bad-faith edit warring, either as a motivated way of getting what they want, or baiting someone else into trying to start trouble. A scenario like this would be grounds for blocking, I feel.

14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * Without sugar-coating this one, I think the GAN process needs a lot of help.

15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * As long as it held Budweiser, it wouldn’t really matter.

16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * I think the plan we’ve got in place is pretty solid, and it works. I particularly find valuable the places in which administrative autonomy comes into play, most notably vandalism.

17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * It’s crossed my mind.

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?
 * I think they should become familiar with how the site works and become familiar with the established users of the site, particularly the administration, before expecting to make any changes. They’re more than welcome to share new ideas, maybe ways how they do things someplace else, but Wookieepedia is its own body. Your status someplace else doesn’t give you any special rights to come in here and start throwing your weight around. Learn how we do things here, and go through the appropriate channels.

19. How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * The Clone Wars never happened, you’ve all been lied to, so any answer here is irrelevant.

20. Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * Anikin skywankler.

21. Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
 * Actually, I did sign up for the YCL’s newsletter once upon a time. I don’t know if that counts.

22. What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * I tend to believe that we have an established policy on certain things for a reason, and it should be followed unless and until we come to a *consensus* to change the policy.

23. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * I’ve had several leadership opportunities as far as work experience. Foremost among them would be as a high school baseball umpire. For those of you familiar, and those who aren’t, high school baseball is extremely competitive. People – the fans, coaches, players – everyone wants to *win*, and sometimes it drives them to do and say things they would never imagine themselves doing. It can get pretty heated out there, and it’s the umpire’s duty to remain coolheaded and to maintain control. I’ve had my fair share of arguments, and I’ve ejected a good number of people from games, but never without justification. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:12, 30 July 2008 (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 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.