Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFA archive/AdmirableAckbar

< Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights | RFA archive
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was successful. Please do not modify it.

AdmirableAckbar (17 admins + 16 users/0/0)

Two week deadline from first request, voting ends 31 May 2009.

Support
  1. At the January 25th Mofference, I put forth a proposal that in place of being over 18 years of age, a candidate for administrator may substitute two years of notable service to our site. There were two users whose positions of prominence on the site spurred me to push for this legislation, and one of them has already become an administrator since. The other, AdmirableAckbar, has for just over two years now been a supremely productive, constructive, and committed member of the Wookieepedia community. Acky, as he has come to be called, is the epitome of backbone. He will not hesitate to state his opinion or pursue the execution of site policy whenever he feels it is necessary. An author of something like seventy-five featured articles as well as numerous good articles, Acky has been deeply involved in the processes of article quality review, having served as an Inquisitor and personally conceived the AgriCorps. There is no reason whatsoever in my mind that Acky should not already be an administrator. Graestan(Talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. I have always found Acky to be a mature, intelligent, and level-headed member of the Wookieepedia community. I can think of few others who would use their new tools as well as him. Cylka-talk- 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. As a user he helped me more than once with various subjects. I'm sure as an administrator he can bring even more usefulness to the site. MauserComlink 18:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Graestan and Cylka. OLIOSTER Sith Emblem 18:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 20:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Proud to support my fellow under-18er. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Grae and Cylka. An excellent choice. Grunny (Talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Felt I just had to vote. One of the bestest best users around. Thefourdotelipsis 22:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per Grae and Cylka. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 22:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Long overdue. Ackmaster Flash, congratulations. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 23:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  14. Naturally, per Grae and Cylka. Good job, Ackbar. :) CC7567 (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Floyd. Acky has deserved this for a long time, and would gotten it earlier if it wasn't for the age limit. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. We were basically just waiting for this day (or a day two weeks ago, as the case may be). jSarek 09:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  17. To quote... myself back on Jorrel's RFA, it's about bloody time. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 11:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  18. Heh! One of those you presume is already an admin. --Eyrezer 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  19. The perfect Wookieepedian. Someone who welcomed me into the community, offered encouragement, helped me out with info on FAs out of his own volition and proved a fine partner in crime while we attempted Nom Anor (I hope one day to right my wrongs and work alongside this diligent researcher and excellent artist of prose once more!). He deals with problems such as talentless anons and erring users the way any Wookieepedian should, proving that he is deserved of adminship, and has shown that he has a keen understanding of all facets of Wookieepedia. Wholehearted support for an excellent user who has written roughly 12% of the FAs on the site. -- —Harrar (Villip) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  20. Like Chack and, ehrm, myself, who were also affected by the rule, it's about time. Acky's a great user, has been a great user for the duration he's been here, and will likely continue to be a great user. Sorry for the self-service there. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  21. Per everyone else. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  22. About time indeed. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  23. Absolutely. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  24. Indeed the day has come. It has been well deserved on Ackie's part. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  25. It's a trap! How did nobody else think of this yet? :-P Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  26. Excellent choice. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  27. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  28. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 22:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  29. About time. Havac 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  30. DC 00:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  31. Master Gump(The name's Forrest) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  32. Two years too late. --Imperialles 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  33. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 07:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
  • Accepted nomination on IRC two weeks late! Graestan(Talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank everyone for their kind words and encouragement. I just thought I'd note that I hope to have the questionnaire finished and posted by tomorrow evening. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Questions
  1. Why do you want to become an administrator?
    • Because I think it would benefit the Wookieepedia community, and because I like handling things myself, rather than having to rely on others to do it.
  2. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
    • An administrator has many roles: anti-vandalism work, dealing with troublemakers and policy-breakers, preventing and resolving conflicts, answering queries. They need to have a level and objective head, and need to be knowledgeable about the site and be clued in about what’s going on at a given time.
  3. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    • I have to go with the somewhat clichéd “both.” On the one hand adminship is purely a set of tools and is thus technical, but on the other, it shows that a given user is trusted by the community and can be approached with questions, etc.
  4. How do you feel admins should use their power/stand in comparison with other users?
    • Admins are privileged users who’ve been elected to have their powers; that doesn’t mean they’re always right or are more important than regular users. Though obviously that’s not entirely how they’re treated and thought of. Comments like “you shouldn’t talk to an admin like that,” or something similar, are not uncommon. They’re obviously innocent enough comments and I don’t think any means anything by them, but it gives the wrong message to new users; it should be “you shouldn’t talk to a user like that,” or whatever.
  5. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
    • I’ve been in a number of conflicts, though not really any time recently, and mostly with users who aren’t with us any more. I’ve definitely been caused a bit of stress from time to time, but I wouldn’t see that as a negative; it just shows I care. I’ve generally dealt with any conflicts through discussion, and when that failed, seeking a third party opinion from others. I can’t see it being particularly different 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?
    • Countervandalism, conflict resolution. Most of the other chores are already carried out by others, but if there was something in particular someone wanted me to cover, I’d be all for that.
  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?
    • I think it’s very important. I’ve been involved in GA and FA almost since I joined, and I suspect that had I not, I wouldn’t be here right now. With all due respect to those who aren’t involved, FA is, to me, what the site is all about. CT and TC are also important, and I think all administrators should be involved in those processes.
  9. Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?
    • I think it’s fine, within reason. If in doubt, the blocking administrator should consult with others before carrying out the block. But a bit of flexibility is essential, with users who skirt policy without actually breaking it, or who violate the spirit of policy if not the letter. That said, administrators shouldn’t abuse the leeway, to block innocent users they have qualms with. As for punishment, I’m not really sure it should exist, bar a talking to with other admins. If someone repeatedly abuses their privilege then an RFRA can be considered.
  10. What is your policy, if any, of welcoming new users? Should you welcome a new user, do you look at his/her contributions beforehand? What about anonymous IPs?
    • I generally don’t welcome new users, unless they’ve impressed me. If I’m posting a warning on a talk page that doesn’t yet exist, I try to add a welcome template. But I think that the practice of mindlessly adding {{W}} to a bunch of new user’s talk pages without looking at or commenting on their contribution should be phased out. I’ve welcomed a few IPs in the past whose contributions stood out (for an IP, anyway), but the same applies as above.
  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?
    • Well, if I deleted something because it was unsourced and, say, it had a source that I just didn’t see, in that case I would be fine about it, though I’d sort of expect the undeleting admin to notify me at some point, before or after. If I’d made a decision to delete something based on subjective criteria, like if I felt we didn’t need an article on “rendezvous point” or somesuch, and someone undeleted it without consulting me, I’d be a little ticked. Generally, I think it’s best for anyone undeleting an article to first contact the deletor, if they’re still on the site. Otherwise, to be honest it looks like the undeleting admin is looking for a fight.
  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?
    • I’d simply revert and warn, and block if it persisted. I wouldn’t consider it any different to any other vandalism. But if I become an admin, I’ll just lock my page to stop that from happening, so I don’t see it becoming an issue.
  13. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
    • If he or she broke policy. “Established” is irrelevant; someone can be on the site for years but not actually contribute and be a complete dickhead, as we’re all aware. If someone is a … “good,” or “top” or whatever … user, who contributes greatly and doesn’t have a history of policy-breaking, then I would consider giving them the benefit of the doubt where I wouldn’t otherwise, because of those virtues.
  14. If you could change any one thing about Wookieepedia, what would it be?
    • I would like to introduce a Blocking for Stupidity clause to the blocking policy. Well, not exactly, but I think that users who consistently fail to do simple things like categorize properly or the like should be blocked, even if they’re good faith contributors. There’s nothing to say this can’t be done under current policy, mind you.
    • I’d also like to hold re-elections for anyone who holds a position on the site and was never elected in the first place.
    • I do realize that’s more than one thing. My apologies.
    • EDIT: oh, and I think we should get paid.
  15. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
    • Depends on the situation.
  16. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
    • I think it’s okay.
  17. Have you ever considered becoming a regular visitor to the Wookieepedia IRC chat?
    • I already am, unfortunately, though not as much as I used to be. I think it's important for an admin to be at least somewhat present in IRC if they're active, so that other users get to know them better.
  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?
    • Anyone and everyone (possibly excluding VIPs, who I’ll get to in a moment) joins the site with the same amount of ability to change things as anyone else. Someone’s status on another site is entirely irrelevant to everything on Wookieepedia. Such people should be banned if they violate policy the same as everyone else, even if they have the potential to sully the site’s name within their own communities. In the cases where groups of users from another site gang together about an issue and users join solely with the intention of trying to enforce the gang’s preference about something – like, say, if a group of users wanted to change the Exile’s or Revan’s gender, or wanted to disrupt a CT – perpetrators should be dealt with as severely as possible.
    • In the case of authors or other VIPs (meaning actual VIPs, not just anyone who’s done enough to earn a Wookieepedia article on themselves), they should be treated the same as everyone else in regards to changing policy or violating policy – we don’t change our policies because High-profile Author X wants us to or will really hate us; we won’t waive the sourcing rules for High-profile Author X; and we will block High-profile Author X if he or she continually breaks policy, regardless of who he/she is. But that said, I think extra effort should be made to be respectful towards authors editing the site; we don’t want to scare them away, which makes us look really bad.
  19. How many clones do you think fought in the Clone Wars? (Note: You are wrong no matter what answer you give.)
    • One.
  20. Who is the most awesome Jedi of all time? (Note: The only correct answer is Kyle Katarn.)
    • A cross between Kyle Katarn and Kyle Katarn.
  21. Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
    • Not yet.
  22. What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
    • Policy. Consensus is obviously important as it creates and alters policy, but some core policies thankfully stand firm regardless of what consensus says.
  23. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
    • Nothing major. I’ve captained a football team and led a few things in school.
  24. 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?
    • Banned means banned; any attempts at sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry should be dealt with as severely as possible.
    • Users who have left the site is slightly different. If you want to make a big song and dance about leaving and add the template to your page, I take that to mean you are no longer interested in or part of the site. So if you then arrive out of nowhere and vote on an RFA or a CT or TC, you’re trying to influence the site without being a contributor, which should be frowned upon. As Culator suggested recently, I think the single issue voters policy should apply to any users who haven’t edited in the main namespace in three months, or even one.