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?

(10 admins + 13 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends on June 14th.

Support

 * 1) Jang is a great guy. He is an excellent contributor, with a wide knowledge of especially the Clone Wars. He has written several GAs and FAs, and he is an active reviewer on both the GAN and the FAN. He has recently been selected into the AgriCorps review panel, which shows how dedicated Wookieepedian he is. He is also very friendly, IRC-regular. Reverts much vandalism and speculation and warns vandals. Ideal candidate. I see no reason why he shouldn't be granted this small tool. Also per the "why not" doctrine. -- 1358  (Talk) 18:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Bandwagoning! Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:15, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) For sure. Somebody's gotta keep an eye on the TCW articles. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 18:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Nice trend in great current users getting rollback. Graestan ( Talk ) 18:40, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Grae. And, candy. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 18:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) "Why not" principle referenced, check. Obligatory candy comment, check. Cue obligatory "limited powah" comment. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 18:49, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 18:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Candy! Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 19:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  NAYAYEN : TALK 19:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Actually been thinking about nominating him myself.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 19:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 19:56, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  20:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Grae. And since no one else has done it yet, in response to Culator: it's POWAH! Un limited POWAAAH! Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 21:07, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Certainly. Grunny  ( talk ) 21:33, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Hmmyes. Thefourdotelipsis 23:12, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Havac 05:08, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Cavalier One FarStar Logo.jpg( Squadron channel ) 07:16, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Jang has come a long way to have earned this Rollback nom. The "Why not?" doctrine doesn't apply here, because Jang has indeed earned this right. He's done very well to shed the so-called "noob" label that I think followed him around for a time when he first joined the site. He's vastly improved his editing and Wook acumen, he's refined his article-writing a great deal, and the AC was glad to admit him as their newest member. Well done, Jang. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:16, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:58, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 20)  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  18:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) —Tommy  9281 18:43, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 22)  OLIOSTER  (talk) 20:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) I thought I'd already supported, but apparently that was one of the twenty other things he's currently nominated for. :) ~ SavageBob 01:01, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Nomination accepted via IRC. -- 1358  (Talk) 18:12, May 31, 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 two 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.

Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (4 admins + 13 users/0/0)
Two week deadline from first request, voting ends June 16, 2010.

Support

 * 1) Hard worker, falls under the current two-years-if-under-18 rules. Floyd is a guy who holds up his end of the bargain. Started a WookieeProject that was in the freezer back up to full steam, singlehandedly at first. He writes articles of status (20 Featured and 44 Good), he reviews articles of status, and he patrols the recent changes. Was awarded rollback and inducted into the Inquisitorius. Well-liked and well-behaved. WOTM. The truth of the matter is, we do need more administrators, the current list being much shorter than it was a year ago, and many of those nowhere near as active as they used to be. Floyd is the perfect candidate to fill the gap. Graestan ( Talk ) 21:23, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed. Thefourdotelipsis 23:31, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I couldn't agree more.  NAYAYEN : TALK 23:33, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I always used to think he already was an admin. Xicer9 [[Image:atgar.svg|20px]]( Combadge) 23:34, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) *That is when you know it's Time. Graestan ( Talk ) 23:51, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I find his current lack of adminship disturbing. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 00:08, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Grae and Tranner. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 00:13, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Tranner.  Pranay Sobusk  ~  Talk  18:30, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- 1358  (Talk) 18:31, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  JMAS  Jolly Trooper.png Hey, it's me! 18:37, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) —Tommy  9281 18:43, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Hodgepodge supports this.  OLIOSTER  (talk) 20:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Tranner, naturally. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 20:26, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Nice Inqvote Tommy :P —Xwing328 (Talk) 05:11, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15)  05:18, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Imperialles 18:37, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 *  CC7567  (talk) 00:44, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above. ~ SavageBob 00:57, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

 * 1) Why do you want to become an administrator?
 * 2) *I want to become an administrator because I want to be in a better position to help the site. Oftentimes I notice crap articles created, but there's no one in IRC to help. Its situations like that that I want to be able to take care of when needed
 * 3) In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
 * 4) *An administrator had several roles: being the face of the site, a helpful guide to new users, a mediator in conflicts, and being someone who is able to ensure that the site runs correctly and smoothly.
 * 5) In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
 * 6) *Both. Obviously they have a technical position, being able to block people, delete articles and the like, and they also have a political position since they are the face of the site.
 * 7) How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
 * 8) *Admins should use their power for one reason and one reason only: to help the site. All in all, their contributions are not more important as the average user's, despite their powers.
 * 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) *Editing-wise, I haven't been in any real conflicts in the past. However, if something like that occurs in the future, I will try and talk things out peacefully.
 * 11) Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 12) *I'm proud of all my articles, but the one that stands out to me most is Tam Elgrin: the first article that I wrote that got to status. It taught me a lot about the GAN/FAN process and what is required of a status article.
 * 13) What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * 14) *Mostly the day-to-day jobs of an admin: deleting nonsense articles, resolving conflicts, using my powers for unspeakable evil, etc.
 * 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) *Very important. One should always be involved in the community and its workings, and processes like CT and the article nomination pages are very important for the site.
 * 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) *I would take it on a case-by-case basis, and allow the admin in question to state why he/she did what he/she did. However, if they continue to violate policy they should be approached and warned and if they still continue, an RFRA might need to be used as a last resort.
 * 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) *Welcoming users I see in the user creation log is something I do quite often. When I do see a new user or an IP on the recent changes, I usually check to see whether the user in question has a history of vandalism or other things of that nature.
 * 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 I made a mistake, then I'm fine with it, as long as I was told about it beforehand. If a similar situation occurred with another admin, I would approach the admin, just to make sure that undeleting the article is the right way to go.
 * 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) *Although its a little more personal when your own userpage is vandalized, I would treat it like any other vandalism case; check to see if they guy has been warned before, and either warn or block the user in question.
 * 25) Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
 * 26) *Under the same circumstances I would block any other user. If a user has a good history and track record on the site, that's all well and good, but if they break a rule or vandalize something they can't be treated any different than someone who is not as established. If the user in question has been warned and hasn't stopped what they are doing, a block is in order, no matter how long they've been here.
 * 27) If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
 * 28) *There's not a lot that I have a problem with on the site, although I dislike the nominations limit for users on the GAN/FAN pages.
 * 29) Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
 * 30) *Half-full, unless the glass is filled with poison. :P
 * 31) Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
 * 32) *I think its OK as it is. It gives admins enough flexibility and leeway to deal with things how they see fit.
 * 33) Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
 * 34) *I already am. :P
 * 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) *As long as they are active and productive users here, I have no problem with it.
 * 37) How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
 * 38) *The Clone Wars didn't happen. It was all a dream.
 * 39) Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
 * 40) *Uh... Kyle Katarn?
 * 41) What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
 * 42) *Policy, but consensus dictates policy.
 * 43) Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
 * 44) *I'm a member of the Inq. Off-site, I've been captain of sports teams and the like.
 * 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?
 * 46) *Off with their heads.
 * 47) What is your wiki philosophy?
 * 48) *Kick ass, take names. That's my philosophy.

Comments

 * Accepted nomination via IRC. Graestan ( Talk ) 21:23, June 2, 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.