Wookieepedia:Requests for user rights/RFR archive/Cade Calrayn

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

Cade Calrayn (7 admins + 14 users/2 admins + 7 users/0)

Two-week deadline from first request; voting ends on March 10, 2013.

Support
  1. I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Cade is quite possibly the wiki's most diligent and frequent RC patroller. You need a pretty quick trigger finger to beat him to reverting nonsense edits. Anyone who spends any amount of time in our IRC channel knows it's a regular thing to see Cade alerting the admins on duty of some developing trouble that needs handling before anyone else is even aware of what's going on. I think it's high time we deputize this man and set him loose on the mean streets with a shiny new Rollback badge. He has earned this distinction. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:50, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Fo realzies, y'all. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 21:58, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  3. I'm just going to quote myself on IRC: "you know I was sitting on the toilet five minutes ago and I had the exact same thought". 1358 (Talk) 22:01, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  4. So my whipping boy is gonna get rollback. The boots shall continue. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 22:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  5. JangFett (Talk) 22:41, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Stake black msg 22:45, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  7. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 22:55, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Motion to slap Cade for being nominated for Rollback. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:57, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Can't tell you how many times i've been beat by Cade trying to revert vandalism and nonsense :P Supreme Emperor (talk) 23:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Tope. Cade seems to have a lot of time on his hands, plenty of it he uses to fight vandalism here and has done so for months, so... yeah. Winterz (talk) 23:19, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  11. 501st dogma(talk) 23:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 23:31, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  13. He's earned it. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:43, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  14. Hanzo Hasashi (talk) 23:46, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  15. Per above. Cade is a good one when it comes to watching for vandalism and nonsense. Sure, maybe his temperament may have some "rough edges," but that is usually good in a case like this. A person with rollback has to be strong enough to do what is necessary. I think Cade has that ability. Go for it, Cade.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 02:31, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  16. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 02:36, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  17. Baby step on to the elevator... -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:44, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  18. Hunterj | My talk 18:46, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  19. Because it has been explained to me elsewhere why and how the site needs this more than Cade does not need this, I lend my support. Character judgment is the deciding factor only when all other factors are equal. Karohalva (talk) 20:21, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  20. Nahdar Vebb (talk) 16:16, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
  21. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 00:51, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm going to keep this simple, I just don't think think this is an appropriate move. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 02:46, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per CP & Karohalva. Rokkur Shen (talk) 03:28, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. I like Cade, but I do think he's too hard on anons and a little too quick to revert. Menkooroo (talk) 03:46, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Love ya, bud, but per Menk. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 17:24, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  5. I don't feel it appropriate to give the power to revert edits quicker and easier to someone who's received two 3RR warnings in the past six weeks. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:30, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to say that I didn't deserve those 3RR warnings, but I do believe they are kind of being taken out of context. The second warning specifically, as it was a reminder from Jang about the 3RR rule after an encounter with a fanon-creating user, and the first warning was more of a semi-personal conflict with a new user with whom I had negative interactions with. This isn't me asking for any vote changes, I simply wanted to explain the warnings. I do believe, however, that I've changed since those warnings, as I have made it a point to explicitly avoid 3RR, finding admins on the IRC or leaving messages on the vandalism-in-progress page rather than continue an edit war, and I've avoided interacting with the previously mentioned user as much as possible to prevent conflict. Six weeks is a lot of time here on Wookieepedia, and I don't think those warnings should necessarily color anyone's opinion of me. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 14:19, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
      • You say you've changed, and I'm willing to believe you. But I need to see proof in the form of your actions over a sufficiently long period, and the time since the last warning (23 days) isn't enough that I could possibly be convinced right now. Contrary to what you said, I think that six weeks isn't a lot of time at all for someone who's approaching three years with Wookieepedia in a couple of days. In the event this nomination fails and you do continue to show evidence that you've changed in regard to your past edit-warring behavior, I would likely be willing to support you on a second attempt around June or so, but I just don't have sufficient data to be convinced right now. —MJ— Council Chambers 00:08, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. I tend to be very lenient with rollback, but Master Jonathan's comment has convinced me that now is not the time. jSarek (talk) 04:50, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  7. I was about to vote in support, but per jSarek by way of MJ. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 05:16, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per MJ. DarthRevan1173 Revan Headshot (Long live Lord Revan) 09:52, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Otherwise yes, but there's just too much of overly aggressive reversion without any comments given already. And per MJ. (: – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 09:01, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
Neutral
I don't often edit so I'm no wizened sage of import (hence this abstention) but I don't consider him temperamentally suited for this tool. Karohalva (talk) 22:11, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • In light of old news which is new to me, I hereby object to my objection. Karohalva (talk) 19:38, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  1. I really don't know what to think. Cade is a good guy, helpful etc., but I must admit I don't agree on some of his movements, especially the image removal and the redlinks removal. He indeed does a too fast work, giving other user little to no chance to finish or correct their WIPs. It may be good in case of massive fanons or harder personal attacks, but can cause some really negative effects too, as with some of my edits. So, I have to stay neutral here. I think he should think over what and how quick he reverts, after it, no problem about the rollback at all. --XXLVenom998 (Surprise me!) 14:01, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, you could slap an Inuse tag on whatever article you may be working at. If that's not on a page, edits are free and open. — DigiFluid(Whine here) 14:05, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand me. I am talking about those edits which are reverted in a short time. Otherwise, I don't want to post a WIP tag on every page which I plan to make an edit on. And what about the redlink pages? --XXLVenom998 (Surprise me!) 16:06, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
        • Those redlinks were removed because vandals were spam-creating nonsense pages on them. As for the images, I was under the impression that it was unofficial site policy, and intend to start a CT to make it official. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:09, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
          • I'm talking about the pages listed in the Appearances sections of TCW episodes. If they appeared in the episode, but don't have an article yet, it's fine to leave the redlink there, both in order that others can create an article for it, and to mark that they appearaed in the episode. About the pictures: please do not enforce stupid policies, that is just nonsense, adding images to scrollboxes neither do any harm, nor interests of policies. I think thats exactly why you are a question mark to get the rollback: I think you are too impatient and intolerant. Please get over these things. --XXLVenom998 (Surprise me!) 16:43, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
            • Cade- It's discouraged, but sometimes images make their way into scrollboxes if there's no more room in the article. I honestly don't see what the big deal is about it. If you want to discuss it more, you could always start an SH. JangFett (Talk) 19:14, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
              • Yeah, um, XXL, if it's policy, it is to be enforced no matter how stupid you may think it is. Now, Cade was under the impression that it was unofficial policy, which is generally treated the same as official policy around here. Secondly, images in scroll boxes do typically look out of place and usually make things look crammed and just off. Also, try being a little less harsh yourself. If you want Cade to be more patient, you need to be yourself. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 19:19, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
                • I have nothing to argue with Cade, he is a great member. I said the POLICY was stupid, not him. I only had a disagreement on the fact itself. I didn't want (and didn't do in fact) any personal attacks, I have no offense with him. I only want these things to be voted on, because this policy makes absolutely no sense, and is not put down in writing either. Sorry if I was misunderstable, sorry Cade! :) --XXLVenom998 (Surprise me!) 19:33, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Optional candidate Q&A
Comments