Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights

Wookieepedia
administration

Bureaucrats

Administrators

Rollback

Requests for user rights

Requests for removal of user rights

Administrators' noticeboard

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)
6. At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote.

Questions

1. Why should you be granted rollback rights?

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. At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote, three of which must be administrators.
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.

1. Why do you want to become an administrator?
2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
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?
6. Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
7. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
8. 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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to 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?
19. How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
20. Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
21. What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
22. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
23. 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?
24. What is your wiki philosophy?

Nominations

JangFett (3 admins + 10 users/1 admin + 3 users/1 admin)

Two week deadline from first request, voting ends May 29, 2013.

Support

1. Jangeth. Jangio. Jango. Jangston. Jango Bo Jangles. JANG. This guy is amazing. AgriCorps. Inquisitorius. Rollback. Leader of the site. Faithful editor. Long-standing (since 2008!) member of the Wook. The list could go on. And on. But I'll try to only cover a few in this nomination statement. Back when I first joined Wookieepedia, one of the first people I came in contact with was Jang. At our first real meeting, I knew there was something that set him apart from the run-of-the-mill on Wookieepedia. He stood out to me. I think the thing that struck me the strongest first off was the fact that although I was a noob who knew nothing (and I did act pretty noobish at the time, too...), he wasn't afraid to befriend me and show me the errors of my way. During times when I wanted to quit the Wook, Jang was there to give an encouraging nod. When I was being promoted and life was good, Jang was there to celebrate with me, even though the good things weren't always happening to him. To me, his character stands out as one of the greatest things you can mark down that is good about Jang. This guy is one of the most easy-going and friendly users I've ever met on the Wook; he really cares about people, and he's a good friend.
   
   But maybe his character alone doesn't sway you to Jang's side. Well, then I have some more for you. Beyond his remarkable character, his editing on the Wook speaks for itself. His dedication shines through. His faithfulness stands strong. His love for the site is undeterred. His true understanding of the way the site works is staunch. He has served Wookieepedia tremendously through the AgriCorps and the Inquisitorius. In addition, he has proven his responsibility through his Rollback rights. As I'm sure his colleagues can attest, he is a great asset to all of the aforementioned groups. Furthermore, Jang is a regular on the IRC, staying in contact with the community at large and getting involved in site-related discussions. Truly, his leadership skills are a testament to the kind of person Jang is. On and on I could go, but I do believe two paragraphs should show at least a small example of how qualified he is. Let's change the name "Jang" to "Admin Rocky."—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 00:00, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
2. Not so sure about his character xD…but his work speaks for itself, just like Cal speaks for me. He has also been a rollbacker for almost two years. That's pretty sufficient by me. Fe Nite (talk) 00:12, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
3. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 00:21, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
4. Han shoots first (talk) 00:33, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
5. Let the haters be motivators, my gator. I AM INVINCIBLE! IFYLOFD ^{(Enter the Floydome)} 00:58, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
6. Quite simply put, Jang deserves this. In my time here, I haven't really seen Jang get angry. He is a regular in the IRC channel and is always willing to help others. He's on here pretty much every night, always in a good mood. Since I started editing here on a regular basis, he is one of the people that made me feel welcome here. Active in pretty much every area of the site, I feel he has more than proven he can be trusted with admin rights (For a while I thought he was an admin). Seeing as i've more or less repeated what Cal said :P I leave with one question for you Jang, r u a sith or jedi master? Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:02, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
7. Trip391 (talk) 01:49, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
8. Agreed. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 02:45, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
9. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 03:20, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
10. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 03:26, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
11. Jang pls Cade Calrayn 03:29, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
12. I've known Jang for five years now. I've watched the progression of this kid's development both as a user and a person day in and day out on IRC. I personally took him under my wing back in the early days of the AC, because I saw something in him that no one else did. Jang was a useless lump of raw material that no one wanted to touch, but I gave him a shot, and I'm so glad I did. He's worked himself into a community leader. As evidence of that, he's already had two people to whom I've spoken today who thought he was already an administrator. As we all should know by now, that's usually the telltale sign someone is ready for the badge. Jang cares about this wiki, and he's not afraid to speak up when he sees something or someone is crap and needs to be regulated. Unfortunately, that passion causes some who find themselves on the wrong end of an argument with him to come away with a grudge. It's unfortunate because it's that same characteristic that makes the best caliber of administrator. There's a nice Winston Churchill quote that's been tossed around the Wook a few times in the past, but I think it's especially appropriate here: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." If you're an administrator and you don't have someone who dislikes you, it means you're probably not doing a very good job. That's just the nature of life, politics, and Wookieepedia. To Jang's credit, he passes that test. The overriding reasons for opposition here seem to be a) Jang doesn't like TCW; b) He acts silly on IRC; c) He opposes Menkooroo's CTs and QOTDs, and c) Jang doesn't like TCW. None of which are anything more than your people's petty, personal reasons to pick a nit with him. Digi, JMAS, and Menkooroo, you probably represent the Three People on Wookieepedia Who Hate Jang the Most (Naru would be the fourth), so your responses here are not unexpected, though I think they've succeeded at showing how deeply personal and subjective your opposition is. I encourage those who have not yet voted to seriously take their comments with a strong grain of salt and recognize Jang for the positive asset he is to Wookieepedia, not as the user who earned the ire of these unfortunate souls for daring to get in debates with them. Jang is a goof and a clown on IRC, and that's why we love him. I'm probably the one person who has seen his antics regularly in their most natural state, and there have been times when I have questioned his maturity. But I can say with observable authority that he has never allowed that behavior to spill onto the wiki (excluding April Fool's Day, which was created for people like Jang). If there is anyone who should be opposing him based on his IRC goofiness, it's me, but I also know with absolute certainly that Jang knows how to switch gauges. When it's time for business, he turns it off. He wouldn't be in the AC, Inq, a Rollbacker, and going for Admin if he didn't. Jang, I want you to know how proud I am of you that you've turned into such an excellent Wookieepedian, and more importantly, a friend over the course of time we've gotten to know each other. You've put in the blood, sweat, and tears to deserve this honor. Good luck. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:40, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
13. Nahdar Vebb (talk) 07:17, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely not. In my few years at this site, virtually all I've seen come from Jang is mindless TCW hate—ranging from the unimportant (chatter on IRC) to the outright obstructionist (you can count on a neg vote regardless of the quality, just because s/he doesn't like the subject). While this is a very specific example, I think it's very indicative of Jang's attitude in general; someone who puts personal preference ahead of everything else. That someone in this mindset should potentially, down the line, be responsible for not only maintaining a site dedicated to impartiality, but also for settling user disputes that may well be personal on some level? This is not someone who should be admining. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 00:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
   • "...the outright obstructionist (you can count on a neg vote regardless of the quality, just because s/he doesn't like the subject). While this is a very specific example, I think it's very indicative of Jang's attitude in general; someone who puts personal preference ahead of everything else." Funny. That sounds exactly like you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:23, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
     • Funny. I don't think Digi is the person we're considering for adminship or that that was very classy, Tope. We're here to be honest with our thoughts about Jang, and saying that a user who believes that someone who's not ready for adminship is himself not ready for adminship doesn't further that discussion, now does it? Actually, if Digi does see those traits in himself, that would put him an a pretty good position to say whether or not someone who behaves as he does is fit for the position. Any case, let's stay on target, as it were. (Hi, by the way. :D) NaruHina ^Talk 05:51, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
2. Is Jang's quality of work on articles excellent? Absolutely. But being an Admin is much more than just quality work on articles, or participation on the Ing, or AC. An Admin should be unbiased and level-headed in their decision-making and dealing with other users, per Requirement 6, which I think is the most important of all of them. Jang is neither unbiased nor level-headed when it comes anything TCW-related or from any other source material he doesn't happen to be fond of, or in his interaction with other users. There is also the question why do we need another admin? Are we short on admins? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 02:10, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
   • Yes, as a matter of fact we are. Many, many of the admins are hardly editing due to whatever instances have come up in their lives. Activity levels have dropped dramatically, and some are inactive altogether. Another admin definitely could be used. There is a shortage of admins right now. As for Jang's view on TCW, it is true that he does not like TCW. But I can't think of any recent happening where he has let that opinion interfere with his work on the Wook.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 02:19, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm going to speak frankly here: Jang is one of the most combative and immature users on the site, and he has been for years. He constantly engages in petty actions, and he's never shown the slightest sign of growth. Things like voting down every single The Clone Wars QOTD candidate, creating "meh" as a voting option in several CTs, consistently using April Fools Day as an excuse to slander the Dave Filoni page, and leaving the comment "I prefer quality over quantity" on this NewsNet article (which I took to be a dig at Lee and deleted out of disgust) are just basic examples of the kinds of actions that are the norm for Jang on Wookieepedia. Easy-going and friendly are not character traits I would attribute to him, and he's not exactly a model INQ, either. Sure, he's a member of the INQ, but before I left the Inquisitorius he was reviewing one, maybe two noms a month. I always got the feeling that he treated INQ membership as a status symbol rather than a responsibility to the community. Since RFR nominations are the place to talk straight, I'm going to outright state that I can't think of a worse candidate for adminship. Jang has a lot of growing to do before he's ready. Menkooroo (talk) 02:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
4. I have nothing against Jang, and as an editor, he is a wonderful contributor. However, his behavior on IRC, along with any voting here and the almost rabid hatred of TCW gives me pause. If he could throttle that back some and try to avoid being far too eager to slander Filoni every chance he gets, I would consider supporting him. As it stands now, though, I do not think he meets the criteria of what an admin should be, and I feel as though he would not conduct himself properly. As I said, I mean absolutely no offense, but I feel that now is not the right time for Jang. Perhaps in the future, should some of the troubling aspects be dealt with, but now? Unfortunately not. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:47, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
   • I was going to stay out of this, but I'd really like to know something. What does not liking TCW have to do with Jang being an admin? We all have things we don't like; that doesn't mean we can't be successful on Wookieepedia because our views are different. If I was to say that I didn't like aliens, would I be ostracized and removed from the position of administrator?—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 03:52, May 22, 2013 (UTC)
     • The thing is, I feel that this attitude may get in the way of his duties. I'm afraid that the power may go to his head and he'll find a chance to abuse his position. In short, I don't think he's mature enough for the responsibility, and while one's likes and dislikes shouldn't factor into the equation, I've seen it drive his behavior. I'm afraid that it may drive him to be overly harsh and far too quick to exact punishment when only a warning would suffice. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:55, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Leaving this here for now. I've seen a lot of good out of Jang, but I can't disagree with some of the concerns raised above, and some of the Q&A responses below give the appearance that he might be trying a little too hard to convince people that he'll make a good admin. I'll sleep on this tonight and give it more thought tomorrow when I'm well-rested and my slow DSL connection isn't being hogged by my GPS map updater trying to download a 3.3 GB file. —MJ— ^Holocomm 04:05, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Optional candidate Q&A

1. Why do you want to become an administrator?
   • Basically I love the Wook, plain and simple. Since I was offered the privilege of becoming an administrator, I see it as a productive way to continue my support for the wiki. For the past few years, I learned how to become a better leader in the community. I feel that rollback helped me become more familiar with specific administrative-related tools. The tool itself allowed me to revert any sort of vandalism quickly and help keep the wiki clean. Likewise, the new tools that I will receive will be treated with foremost care and respect.
2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
   • Administrators, like rollbackers, are users and contributors of the wiki. The difference is that administrators have extra tools that help keep the wiki clean of vandalism and disputes (such as edit warring). However, those new tools must be appropriately used. Any sort of abusive actions with those tools is not what an administrator is.
3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
   • Technically speaking, administrators do have certain tools that users do not possess. Administrators can be seen as leaders of the Wiki, but that is not always the case since even users that do not have admin tools can be leaders.
4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
   • We are Wookieepedians, all of us. Rollbackers and administrators may have tools to use when appropriately taking action, but we should be seen as equal.
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?
   • One thing that stands out is the reappearance of an anonymous IP editor from Argentina. A stressful action of his/her—random worded edit summaries, such as "fiofw3." Of course, the right action to take is to let the IP editor know via his/her talk page. That does not work, since the editor most likely does not understand English. Xd would then normally block the IP. Due to it being a dynamic IP, he/she would evade active bans and ignore the warnings from the previous IP. I normally keep an eye open in the Recent Changes, which I often patrol, and, if I see the same editor again, I report it to Xd. In the future, I will be doing the same thing. As for edit warring, that should always be avoided. You do not want a "wiki-wide" dispute, and I have seen one of those before. The first step is to resolve the matter via talk page. Compromise and try to settle respectfully. High tensions and aggravations lead to 3RR warnings, or, worse, blocks. Taking action via the administrators' tools should always be the final and last resort—never first.
6. Of your articles or contributions to Wookieepedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
   • I do mean this, and he knows too (:P), if it were not for CC's WP:TCW, I probably would not be in the position I am in. Yes, believe it or not, certain aspects of TCW (which can be seen via my FA/GAs) allowed me to become more active on the wiki. Since 2009, I feel that my writing and general leadership have definitely improved, and I owe many thanks to CC and others that have helped me throughout the years.
7. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
   • Anything that is helpful for the community, be it the reported vandalism or the requested protection page. Caution will be taken for everything, since accidents do happen (such as a speedy deletion for an article that is actually canon). It is important to understand and know the certain administrative abilities, such as Abusefilter, before doing anything. Like being a first-time writer on the Wook, take small steps and do not jump all in at once. I know, I have learned my lesson.
8. 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?
   • For me, I do see it as dedication to the Wook. Reviewing—be it on the FAN/GAN, or CAN—is very important. While writing and expanding article are just as crucial, I feel that reviewing definitely increases one's writing ability. Knowing from experience, my awful writing from 2009 changed dramatically if compared to today. I owe it all to the help from reviewers that read my articles. Granted, Wookieepedia is not an English school, but I for one learned how to strengthen my understanding of grammar, thanks to addressing objections. Besides these benefits, voting is what moves these articles along. Without the help of active reviewers, the FAN/GAN/CAN pages will be completely huge and a mess. Likewise, the decision making and community consensus of the Wook—SH, CT, TC, Mofference—offers more work for Wookieepedians. Those who review articles or contribute to consensus show passion and dedication.
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?
   • Before making actions, use common sense and knowledge. There should be a reason for anything, but confrontation does not help.
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?
    • Like anon IPs, I would wait a bit before placing the welcome template on the user's talk page. Normally vandals or those who ignore warnings (such as the Argentinian) have dynamic IPs or use proxies, so not knowing who you are welcoming is not wise. Once you know the user edits in good faith, you may welcome him/her to the wiki.
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?
    • Basically, you do not want confrontation or display aggressive actions. Talking it out, via talk page or IRC, is the correct way of knowing what the reason was. If the decision were made and the article should be undeleted, stating the reason is appropriate. Also I am often reminded of this policy.
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?
    • Thanks to Havac, no anon IP could vandalize my userpage, since it is semi-protected. Following the administrative way, my userpage might be fully protected. However, say I will not fully protect it and a registered user vandalizes it, I will revert the edit and warn the user via talk page. You never want to block the offender, unless the user contiunes to vandalize userpages and ignores warnings. You want to use the tool when appropriate. Blocking without warning does not solve anything.
13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
    • Policies must always be followed and established users should not be exempt from them. If an established user fails to adhere to a policy or engages in disputes, then so be it. However, as I said previously, you do not want to block first. Talk it out beforehand.
14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
    • Ugh, Wikia, please no more random gadgets or pointless crap.
15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
    • Of course
16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
    • Seeing from current administrative actions, I see it being properly functional as is.
17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
    • I am a regular on IRC. At anytime, you may contact me on IRC. I'm Jang|Away, Jangeth, or anything with "Jang."
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?
    • Seeing that I do participate on TFN, I treat both the Wook and TFN separately. We are both independent and functional Star Wars websites. Our policies here are for Wookieepedia.
19. How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
    • 5303802308239567
20. Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
    • Superman?
21. What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
    • Even though both could be seen differently or independently, consensus is definitely important. Getting the community working together and creating policies via consensus.
22. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
    • Of course. For many years, I have participated in various forums and became an administrator in several. Of course, not as relevant, but I have learned to understand the tools given to an admin and using them appropriately. Likewise, I have familiarized myself with Wiki administrative tools via my own test Wikia here. I am also an OP (or an administrator) on Xd's Minecraft server.
23. 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?
    • I do feel sad when an established user leaves the Wiki. Even if the user may have not "influenced" the Wiki, he or she definitely contributed to the Wook in good faith, which, to me, is highly regarded.
24. What is your wiki philosophy?
    • First and foremost, all of us have different views and certain likes and dislikes. If I were to say "nope, I will not allow this on the site because I hate it," then what good would that do in the long term? As an example—yes, TCW is not my favorite, but that does not mean I oppose it completely (please see my FA/GAs. 50% of them are TCW-related), nor would I shrug off the remaining half that I do not like. TCW is canon and the wiki itself is dedicated to expanding and creating articles that are canon (likewise non-canon). Improving the wiki is on my mind, but not in a negative way. I am highly dedicated toward the Wook in a respectful, positive matter. If I were not, then why would I be here?

Comments

• Nomination accepted via IRC.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 00:00, May 22, 2013 (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—from the day the nomination is put forth—are counted).
7. Administrators' votes must have a 3/4ths supermajority for bureaucratship to be accepted.
8. At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote, five of which must be administrators.
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.

Questions

1. Why do you think we need another bureaucrat?
2. How do you see the difference between an admin and a bureaucrat?
3. What will you use your new status for if your nomination succeeds?
4. How many admins do you think we need?
5. How many bureaucrats do you think we need?
6. What should happen to admins and bureaucrats who disappear for awhile without warning, leaving many questions, projects, and that sort of thing hanging?