Star Wars Fanon:Requests for adminship

Pertinent
Quick Links

Administrators

Bureaucrats

Requests for bureaucratship

This page is for users to place requests for adminship (RFA), which are elections held to elect new administrators. An Administrator is a user with more privileges than a regular user; administrators have rollback rights, deletion rights, protection rights, and also have the duty to enforce the rules, assist all users, enforce blocks, and maintain organization throughout Star Wars Fanon. A list of the current administrators can be found here.

See the archive to view previous requests for adminiship election details.

Rules

The following are the rules for requests for adminship:

1. Users must have 100 mainspace edits to be nominated for adminship and/or to vote on a nominee, per the voting policy.
2. Users may not vote for or against themselves, but they may nominate themselves.
3. Users must have at least a majority vote (51%) from the voting registered users in order for their nomination to pass.
4. Users must have at least a majority vote (51%) from all administrators in order for their nomination to pass.

Users may only vote once per candidate, which is logical; if they are going to oppose a user, however, they should provide a solid concrete reason. A support vote adds one tally to the net votes of a nominee, and an oppose vote subtracts one tally; a neutral vote does nothing, mathematically. Users who have been barred from voting may not vote if their punishment is still ongoing, and, as the voting policy states, vandals and sockpuppets may not vote either.

To set up a request for adminship of a nominee or of oneself, a user must provide the following format:

=== [[User:Username|Username]] (+/-#) ===

==== Support ====

==== Oppose ====

==== Neutral ====

==== Comments ====

==== Questions ====

Questions can be asked by any user. Any and all appropriate topics are open for questioning.

Candidates

Sakaros

Support (+4)

1. On June 2nd, 2012, I became the most recent user voted admin for Star Wars Fanon. Since then, five of the six active admins at that time have stepped down, as well as a number of inactive admins. Currently, TK-999 is the only other administrator, and given that he's only made a half dozen or so edits in the last year, I think even he would agree it's fair to say he isn't very active here. For some time now, I've been essentially the only Bureaucrat and Administrator of Star Wars Fanon, running the admin team with a few Moderators. I think it's time for that to change.
   
   Sakaros is a longtime user of Star Wars Fanon. He's known for his vast collection of articles, the sprawling Golden Empire narrative, and his still-Untitled New Sith Wars series, and he's won Best Author in the 9th and 13th Wiki Awards. More saliently, however, he's been a Moderator for over a year—you can see that vote here, and quite frankly, everything I said when nominating him there still applies. He's put his Moderator power toward the good of the wiki, and it's time to acknowledge that his great responsibility deserves a little more power. We're at the point where Sak knows how and when to block reasonably, and he doesn't need to come knocking at my door for permission every time. It will make things easier around here, and, honestly, as I'm working my way up IRL (yikes, amirite?), I don't have the time to sit around watching the Wiki Activity as much as I used to. That doesn't mean I'm not at all—nor does it mean I won't ever be in the chat, although my time there is a little more limited too, but Sak also manages to hang out there relatively often—but it is better to be safe than sorry, and Sak is the perfect person for the job. Savage¹¹³⁸ 02:55, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
2. Per Sav. I'm confident in Sakaros' ability to provide direction and enforce the policies of the wiki. Sebolto^Talk 22:10, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
3. I've interacted with Sakaros for a long time and found him to be nothing but exemplary. His writing accomplishments are considerable, and he's known for being helpful as well as generally sound on policy-related decision making. My only gripe with him is that Rin is and always has been a Mary Sue. ;) Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:35, July 3, 2018 (UTC)
4. Can I even vote here anymore? If so I strongly support this. I liked this idea years ago and I like it now. - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 02:01, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Sakaros has accepted this nomination via Chat. Savage¹¹³⁸ 02:55, June 24, 2018 (UTC)

Questions

Even though I have already voted for Sakaros, for the sake of enlightening the public, I have questions for him (some questions adapted from The Mighty Wook's standard litany). Now, without further adieu, I call Sakaros to the stand.

1. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator?
2. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
3. 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?
4. How do you feel that SWF can improve its sense of community?
5. Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how?
6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user?
7. If you could change any one thing about SWF, what would it be?
8. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full?
9. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
10. Do you feel the current image policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is?
11. What's more important to you: consensus or policy?
12. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)?
13. What is your favorite lawyer joke? Mine is below:

A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked, "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?" "Of course not, dear," replied the mother, "Why would you think that?" "The tombstone back there said... 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"
—source

Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:42, July 3, 2018 (UTC)

Ooo, a request for response to interrogatories. All right, I'm game. Here we go:

1. In your opinion, what is the role of an administrator? Okay, bear with me, because I'm going to get metaphorical here. I think admins are like grade school teachers (yes, Sav, I know, that sentence was a simile, not a metaphor; it's coming). They have the power to correct students (users) who break the rules, but an incumbent obligation to teach the rules and explain them in sufficient depth that students are capable of following them in the first place. Additionally, a teacher whose first response to rule-breaking is detention (blocking) is probably going overboard unless it's an egregious offense. They're in a genuine position of authority, unlike the hall monitors (Moderators), but aren't the principal (Bureaucrat) either. Plus, any good teacher will be extra available for a transfer student (new user), and won't just be a passive, "come to me if you need help" type—he'll make an effort to find issues before they become problems and get everything back on track.
2. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position? Technical. Although Admins are elected by the community, I see it like appointment to the Supreme Court; once you're in, the only recourse is impeachment. To the same point, I think Edmund Burke is instructive: "Your [admin] owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."^{Used with genuine respect, Ed} Admins are obliged to enforce the policies neutrally and fairly; if users have a problem with it, the solution is to change the policy, not the admin.
3. 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'm pretty stress-free, fortunately; I've usually gone to Sav when I've witnessed (or been on the verge of becoming part of) an edit war.
4. How do you feel that SWF can improve its sense of community? This is a fascinating one for me, given my previous statements on the matter. In that same vein, I think forcing community will backfire horribly; even too much pressure can much more easily push new (or established) users away rather than drawing them in. I did like it in the old days when the Wiki Award hosts would post on all active users' walls to notify them about the WAs, but that was obviously a massive time investment. I think a lot of modern SWFanon users just want to do their own thing here for the convenience of the Wikia templates and technology, and that's okay. That said, I think users can build community by helping new users out. I make article corrections, enforce the Image Policy, etc., but I'm a Moderator; that's my job. The Editing Policy allows any user to make rules-based changes, and I think that's okay, but I also think users doing so should leave a message on the author's Message Wall (e.g. "Hey, I'm X, I just changed Y on your article Z for [reasons]. Here's the policy [link], if you have any questions ask me, etc."). Threatening consequences is overstepping for someone who isn't on the admin team, but helping out isn't. Relatedly, users can also funnel stuff to the admin team that's above their level or comfort zone addressing; users shouldn't be "tattling", if you will, but although Sav and I are an effective one-two punch of administrative vigilance, we can't see everything and we can't be here all the time, so extra eyes have been handy now and then.
5. Do you think admins performing actions (I.e. deletions, blocks, etc.) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? Tricky, because some of the policies are very (deliberately?) vague. For example, the second and third Participation Guidelines are "Be civil" and "Don't be disruptive"; there is such a gaping vacuum of interpretational room in there you could park a whole new policy and have room on the sides. I think the bigger issue is the use or abuse of discretion in applying the policy. For admins who are far too trigger-happy, as mentioned above I think the appropriate remedy is a RFRUR. I think it can be left to the Bureaucrat's discretion whether the admin's admin powers are suspended in the interim before the vote is final (e.g., an admin might be left with admin powers when the complaint is "Suckaros keeps deleting my images just because they don't comply with some f****** 'Image Policy'. Let's get rid of him!", but an admin might have his powers suspended pending the vote if the complaint was, "I asked Sakaros what 'licensing' is and he said 'I wrote you motherf*****s a tutorial; read it, dips***' and then said I should print it out and suggested several creative orifices in which I could stick it to learn it by osmosis").
6. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user? I think users are like dhampirs; if they make it past their first forty days, they're probably going to be okay (I am also a vampire geek; look it up). That said, I have seen users get (and deserve) cooldown blocks when they got into heated arguments. I've only once seen or heard of a veteran user going from "okay guy" to "Whoooooooooooa, dude, the line was way back there, you must've gotten a running start to cross it by that much"; once they're established, I think there are plenty of chances to intervene and get them back on track if things start going south as long as the admin is paying attention.
7. If you could change any one thing about SWF, what would it be? I would make users register before they could edit. Sav and I have had long philosophical debates about this, but I think registration a) is not burdensome, b) weeds out far more trolls than random vigilantes of helpful editing, and c) provides a method of contact (through automatic email notification upon Message Wall posts) if they do something wrong and an admin has to leave a message. With unregistered users, frequently our only recourse is a block just as a "get his attention" technique because there is no other way to get an anon's attention.
8. Would you look at a glass to be half-empty or half-full? Half-empty. I would observe the angle from which it had been drunk to determine whether the drinker was left- or right-handed, see if there were makeup or chap stick smears and how deep (to tell how much bottom lip the drinker puts on the glass, or even has), and note the position of the resting glass to see with what caution (or lack thereof) the drinker returned it. It's elementary, my dear Ataru.
9. Do you feel the current blocking policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is? I think it's a little too restrictive in that it technically mandates following the steps, 1-6, regardless of context. For example, if a new user joins and starts posting racial epithets, I'd be totally comfortable with a permanent ban on the first shot, no second chance, do not pass "GO", do not reach 200 edits. Admittedly, the Content Policy provides for a perma-ban for pornography and at least contemplates "Skip directly to block" for the others, but perhaps that's the issue that needs to be addressed: conflict between policies. In this case, incidentally, I'd apply the specific controls the general and go with what the Content Policy says.
10. Do you feel the current image policy is too restrictive, not restrictive enough, or OK as it is? Just right! I concede I am a huge advocate of the Image Policy and I've invested substantial time in it, but I think as long as users put in the effort, it really isn't that hard, especially with an admin or a seasoned user who will help them along and answer questions. In much the same way as the first pill costs $1 billion to make and the second costs $.50, the first image is the hardest to source and license; once users understand how everything works, it seems a lot simpler in retrospect.
11. What's more important to you: consensus or policy? To the extent that there's a conflict between the two (which I don't concede), policy. Nulla poena sine lege scripta et certa. Users have the power to change policy (other than Big Wikia policies) by consensus vote; if there is a consensus, then the policy will change. But grumbling alone isn't enough to abandon the policy, because to do so is to abandon the "rule by the community" principle to which we all (more or less) subscribe.
12. Have you had any previous leadership experience (in your community, on the web, etc.)? Oh goodness, how much time do you have? Student organization leadership dating back to high school, teaching grade school, head and senior instructor positions at different martial arts schools, board of directors of a nonprofit, Moderator here...oh, and I'm a commissioned officer in the United States Army, so, you know...there's that.
13. What is your favorite lawyer joke? You know, I don't really have a favorite, but I can make one up:

President Reagan said, "The nine most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'. A modern-day Soldier would say the ten most frightening words in the English language are, 'I'm from the JAG Corps and I have some questions'."

Sakaros^Talk 22:36, July 3, 2018 (UTC)

A question I have is this. Star Wars Fanon is based heavily on Wookieepedia, from style to tone to structure and policies. Do you think it would benefit Star Wars Fanon and the community you want to help build to find its own voice and structure, free from the structure of an encyclopedia, in order to thrive into the future? - Brandon Rhea ^(talk) 02:03, July 4, 2018 (UTC)