SmashWiki:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Current requests: Here goes nada)
(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:


==Current requests==
==Current requests==
{{SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Berrenta}}
{{SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Serpent King}}
{{SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Nyargleblargle}}


[[Category:SmashWiki|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:SmashWiki]]
[[Category:Administration|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Administration]]

Revision as of 16:06, August 21, 2015

Policy.png This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.
Shortcut:
SW:RFA

This is the page for requesting adminship for SmashWiki.

Rules & Regulations

  • Only self-nominations are allowed. If you think that another member would make a good sysop, then you can convince them to nominate themselves. You cannot make a nomination on behalf of another user.
  • After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived.
  • Selections of sysops are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Users who wish to be promoted should demonstrate a steady commitment to this wiki, and be able to point to reasons that the sysop tools would allow them to do better editing.
  • Candidates should describe why the wiki should want them to be sysops, not why they want to be sysops on the wiki.
  • When supporting or opposing a candidate, give good reasons. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become a sysop carry far more weight than simple support/oppose.
  • Rollback status is not required for a successful RfA, but is highly encouraged. Users who only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the appropriate request.
  • Upon request, a prospective sysop may be given a scenario and asked his/her opinion on how s/he would handle it.
  • Users that have been blocked in the past, or who have previously made an RfA and failed, are no less eligible for adminship. However, such users should be able to demonstrate how they have improved since the block/previous RfA, lest their RfA find serious opposition.

Past nominations

  • For a list of all previous requests for adminship that ended with the candidate's promotion, please see this category.
  • For a list of all previous requests for adminship wherein the candidate was not promoted, please see this category.

How to nominate

If you have not had a request for adminship page before, follow this two-step process.

  1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
    {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username}} Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated.
  2. Click on the created red link, and add:
    {{subst:rfa|Username|reason for nomination}}

However, if you have had a previous request for adminship, follow this process instead.

  1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
    {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username (#)}}
    Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated, and where # is 2 for the second RfA, 3 for the third, and so on.
  2. Click on the created red link, and add:
    {{subst:rfa|Username|reason for nomination}}

Current requests

Serpent King (talkcontribsedit countRFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.

Hello, I'm Serpent King. I have been an editor here since March, and in that short time, I feel I have made significant improvements to SmashWiki. I've:

  1. Done extensive work with the pages on Melee's debug menu.
  2. Redone several pages that truly needed it, such as the Brawl Stage Builder section and List of flaws in artificial intelligence (SSBM) (I did SSB and SSBB too).
  3. Anchored the Brawl and SSB4 trophy lists and fixed the disambiguation and redirect pages linking to them (not without help on SSB4).
  4. Updated many, many links that were made out of date by the Classic mode, Master Hand, and Crazy Hand splits.
  5. Completed moveset tables for Melee characters.
  6. Uploaded and included all Melee's English crowd cheers.

"That's great and all, but what do you plan to do with sysop powers?" you ask? Well...

  1. I would love to gain access to MediaWiki. I know CSS extensively, so I feel like I could provide help there when needed (always discussing large changes, of course)
  2. Certain limitations of a normal user do tend to get on my nerves, particularly in moving pages: Users cannot move a page with over 9 consecutive capital letters in the title (what is that?), cannot move sub-pages along with the parent page, and cannot move a page over another page, even redirects.
  3. I do not plan to be liberal with bans, only banning those who obviously are vandals and not good faith editors.

I'm very active. I get on almost every day to check my watchlist and the recent changes. I'm also active at night, so I can provide another layer of protection during those nightly hours. Also, as someone who understands wiki markup, CSS, programming, and Smash very well, this just makes sense. Serpent King (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Support

  1. You've been an extremely active, professional, and helpful user since you joined. I think that this is a great idea. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 07:20, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    Why thank you! Serpent King (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  2. You're highly active and very levelheaded and diplomatic, both very important traits for the role an admin has, IMO. I also believe that your intended usage of admin powers would be extremely helpful. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 09:20, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    To elaborate (because looking at my vote, it seems a tad vague), you tend to do a lot of janitorial work as far as a user can (i.e. Move drafts, Mark pages for speedy deletion, report vandals to a lesser degree). Thus, I think you'd use admin tools correctly, efficiently, and often. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 15:55, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
  3. You're a helpful guy, and your work on the debug menu pages was awesome. I feel you'd be able to ease into administration easily, being just as helpful yet better :) F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  4. Your edits are pretty impressive I must say. Smashworker101 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
  5. You were a nice guy when I got here, you're a nice guy now. I feel like your edits speak for themselves here. I personally think you'll do great. LittleMacmain97, the World Circuit is mine! (Talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
  6. The only thing going against you is that you haven't been here very long. But I don't feel that's a reason to prevent you from becoming an admin, since you've proven to be a very active and helpful user. John NessHeadSSBB.png PK SMAAAASH!! 11:02, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
  7. This wiki could benefit from having a few more active admins in my opinion and you would be one of the best people for that. MarioIsTheBest (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
  8. Strong support You have been around for a while, you are very willing to help, and you are very patient with other users. Ganonmew (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
  9. I can't say much, because I don't know you that well (I don't really know a majority of the people on this wiki, though, so...). That being said, from what I've seen in the recent changes, you've been helping complete the wiki as a whole a lot. Kudos to you, sir. Changing the head icon used. No biggie.Aidan, Master of Speed and AuraPer Request, for User:Aidanzapunk. 14:51, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Oppose

  1. Weak oppose: I'd rather wait 'til you have SSB4 - after all, it is the focus of 80% of the Wiki's active users. RickTommy 09:23, 26 July 2015 (EDT)
    I do not personally think this is a valid reason to oppose an RfA. Obviously having a game would help deal with misinformation, but only the blatant stuff tends to need admin intervention (vandals usually don't go for the subtle stuff), and research into the major SmashBoards topics is probably enough to cover the rest. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Free 10:58, 26 July 2015 (EDT)
    SSB4 is less than a 3rd of this wiki. Besides, I have enough to go on just based on our articles and my watching the competitive scene. Serpent King (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (EDT)
    I would say that Melee is perhaps the favorite Smash game for most SmashWikidians since 2014 despite Smash 4 being the thing as of right now, with Project M having a cult following on here as well. I'm more of a Brawl and Smash 4 person myself, and like Toomai and Serpent King said, not having Smash 4 isn't that big of a deal when it comes to getting adminship. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Restful 22:49, 26 July 2015 (EDT)
  2. Given your answers below, I stand Neutral, leaning support. Whilst, on the whole, the application and you answers are good, I have two main concerns. Trivially, there's your time spent on wiki - a mere few months. More significantly, your answer to the latter question and your submission strike me as slightly water-spined, which I would rather not see in an admin. ScoreCounter 17:33, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    Upon further consideration, I'm moving to oppose to block. I just don't see this as quite at the standard I'd like. ScoreCounter 08:12, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
    Can you give me a reason? Serpent King (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
    It's more of a "Whilst I'm quite sure this guy could become an admin, and a good one at that, there's not quite enough evidence for me to be 95% sure" sorta thing. If this RfA were to be passed, I'd have no qualms with it, it's just I don't think theres enough there for me to say "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", which is always a good standard to use. And since I'm not Scottish, I can't say "Not Proven" - It's either Guilty or Not Guilty, I'm afraid.ScoreCounter 18:02, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
  3. I'm officially changing my vote to oppose on the grounds I listed on my previous vote under "neutral". You have presented basically nothing of relevance that adminship would do for you or for the site other than "I guess I could help". That's not enough, and upon further consideration I feel I have to adjust my vote as a result. Miles (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
    Well Miles, if you think about how unproductive or unhelpful other admins are to the wiki, like OT, Serpent King is eager to help, and unlike most users, he has a pleasant demeanor about helping. Ganonmew (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
    10/10 bro. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Beagle 18:00, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
    Well thanks, Dots. Speaking of which, Miles, you were not too productive on the Marth (SSB4) page, even if your intentions were good. Serpent King is maybe the closest thing we have to a productive potential admin, but Nyargleblargle is arguably better. I'm again, voicing the strong support I have. Miles, your intentions on the wiki are good, but don't be a hypocrite. Ganonmew (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. While you've more than proven yourself as a content editor, I've yet to really see anything resembling conflict resolution or user dispute handling from you, which is a necessity for an admin role. Furthermore, out of your posted reasons for wanting admin-level powers, you a) don't specify what MediaWiki things you'd actually want to change; b) give a generic statement about bans that doesn't really say much; and c) give a very minor reason in terms of page moves, which are easily done with a few extra steps yourself or with assistance from an existing admin. You haven't done anything to demonstrate that you would be a bad admin per se either, but that's not enough for me to feel like I can support your RfA at this time. Miles (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    For MediaWiki, I don't actually have anything in mind right at the moment. I only meant that my knowledge of CSS could be beneficial through MediaWiki. Should something go wrong, I'd be able to help fix/improve it. Serpent King (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    That just sort of solidifies my initial point: you aren't demonstrating a clear reason why you should be admin yet, just vague "I guess I could help with this" kind of statements. You're a good contributor to the wiki, but that alone doesn't equate to readiness or need for adminship. Miles (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  2. Neutral. You're arguably the two best non-admin users on this wiki so far this year along with Nyargleblargle and while I do think you and the latter have great adminship potential, I'm going to have to agree with Miles that you need to show dispute handling a bit more since basically every RfA on this wiki "needs" this quality. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Vampire Killer 11:16, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  3. You're a great editor and you've helped a lot with some projects that people like me have been too lazy to continue with, and you seem to know what you're doing around here more than enough. You just haven't fully shown your need for admin powers, and you're a rather new user (logs say you joined four months ago), so you might want to give it a bit more time before requesting admin powers. Scr7Scr7 sig.png(talk · contribs) 14:54, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  4. Neutral. This RfA reminds me of my own first RfA: strong/knowledgeable mainspace editor, but stays out of disputes and doesn't truly show deservance of admin tools other than a "won't abuse them". Toomai Glittershine ??? The Interspacial 21:08, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
    I'm actually going to have to argue that every user on this wiki except for Omega Tyrant and Megatron1 actually have some difficulty with handling disputes. We're not that perfect at it. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Handy 21:13, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
  5. I personally don't see short track record as a legitimate reason to oppose an RfA (IIRC Omega Tyrant became an admin within less than 4 months of being a user); so long as the candidate is knowledgeable, competent, and willing to work with/against other users, track record is decidedly negligible, so I won't put that against you. What I will put against you however is why you need admin capabilities to handle disputes. Plenty of "normal" Wiki users have shown that they are willing to opine their points regardless of who they're arguing against (now admittedly, this may not be good for new Wiki users, but "new" doesn't always equate to inexperienced). Based on your responses the only thing I see adminship doing for you in the dispute area based on what you say is giving you the confidence to argue in the first place, and at that point you're abusing scare tactics, which is something I don't want in the administration.
    Toomai and Miles pretty much said anything else I would have to say; you don't really pinpoint anything admin specific that you need (outside of a page moving gripe. I'm talking about stuff in regards to vandals and spam pages, you don't engage in a witch hunt for them. You say you will, but talk is cheap. Show us that you will, and most importantly prove that you won't abuse them.), and while you are one of the Wiki's best contributors, you really aren't as in touch with other users as admins should be. So overall, I'm neutral, leaning very slightly to support. - EndGenuity (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
    In what way am I abusing scare tactics? Also, how am I to prove that I won't abuse sysop powers without actually having them? Serpent King (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
    I didn't mean to say you were abusing scare tactics, but rather that you seemingly would; to me, the comment "Truth is, I am never going to gain these (dispute) skills without being given this chance." reads as "I can't settle or partake in user disputes properly unless I become an admin and try it", implying that the only way you can be confident or competent enough to handle a dispute is by assuming the power of a higher up. Then hypothetically, you think you can force your opinion better on dissenting users because most users would (rather unfortunately) be inclined to listen to an admin than a "newbie". That seems a lot like swaying people with power in fear of being hurt; you scare them, ergo scare tactics. If it means something else, please enlighten me.
    As for your second point...well, just don't be too condescending. Don't do stuff like warning blocks or page protections just because you are not fond of the way a user is doing something. If it is harmful to the Wiki that's another story. Just be reasonable and don't jump the gun in any disputes you happen to get into. - EndGenuity (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
    I must solidly disagree. Forcing my opinion is not really my thing. I will argue my case, of course, but I will never use my power in a way that implies "agree with me, or be banned". Serpent King (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (EDT)
    I'm with Serpent King. He is not condescending unlike Miles, OT, or Brian, and I know he wouldn't abuse his power. Also, Miles and Brian (mostly Miles) shove their opinions down our throats, so there is some hypocrisy there. Ganonmew (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (EDT)
  6. Neutral: I primarily say this because of a lack of true administration-worthy skills such as conflict resolution. You have done some spectacular things for the wiki in your time here, but you don't even have rollback and I can't see much in your logs that show you recognizing or dealing with vandals. If you show this, maybe I'll reconsider my vote if this is still open. DarkFox01DF01Sig.pngAll aircraft breakaway! 19:59, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
  7. 0% Well time goes by and I'm starting to see that you're one of the best RFA candidate. I think you just need to show a bit more on disputes, although not everybody is perfect at this, and can be difficult. Your edits are mostly great. Great, helpful, and amiable editor. Nothing negative to say. You just need only one thing. You may also need to look at your weak points as an editor. Luigi540 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2015 (EDT)
  8. Neutral, leaning towards support - Based on my interactions with you and my observations on how you interact with others, you're generally a very helpful, impressionable, and amicable contributor to the wiki, and have dedicated a massive amount of time to improving pages and building on weak areas around the site. You've also made efforts to improve in areas where you previously lacked in, such as user disputes, which shows that you don't ignore feedback and are willing to improve. I still think you need a little more experience before I can move my vote to support, though. Keep it up! --Timson622222 (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Comments

Say that there is an ongoing edit dispute between two established users, concerning a certain point of how pages should be set up - say, a trivia section, and what qualifies as trivia. Should this start causing a problem, would you assist in resolution, and if so, how? ScoreCounter 09:03, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Yes. I would reference this on the talk page and attempt to act on this policy as best as I could. Serpent King (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
Second and last question - how would you react in a situation like the above where there is no relevant policy, both in the resolution and aftermath of the dispute? Sorry, I just like being sure before I vote.ScoreCounter 16:13, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
It would depend on the dispute. If it were something really simple (such as obvious falsehood) I may act as I see fit and leave a note on the talk page. If it is more complicated, I may create a poll on the talk page discussing the issue to allow other editors to give their opinions. In the end of either scenario, all parties would be notified of the change (or lack thereof) via their talk page. Serpent King (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

I remembered looking through Omega Tyrant's RFA, he only had 700 constructive edits before applying. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 21:44, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

I am a little confused about the "you've only been here for 4 months" argument. While it's true, I personally feel like in that 4 months, I have done 8 months worth of work. I do know the "ropes of SmashWiki" quite well actually. I understand fully what good content is and what bad content is. I have read and understood all of our policies and take steps to enact upon them as best I can. Now I do understand why my lack of dispute handling skills is an issue for you guys. Truth is, I am never going to will find it difficult to gain these skills without being given this chance. An admin will need to settle disputes a lot more frequently than a normal user would, and frankly, a user's voice is small in that regard, despite what SW:YAV says. Thank you for hearing me out. Serpent King (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Here's what I feel about electing admins, I feel that a sysop only need to know the Wiki policies thoroughly and remind users when they're violating any policy and still makes a lot of contributions. User disputes should be handled by a Bureaucrat. This is a reason why a lot of RfAs fail because people are looking for dispute handling within candidates and much of us didn't really have it. We even had two sysops who started user disputes, not trying to resolve them. Now we only have two active admins right now and we recently had a user who's been violating SW:1RV and SW:NPA and an admin wasn't online at the time. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is made in America 00:58, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Why is it absolutely necessary for a potential administrator to be able to quickly and reliably solve disputes as if these things even happen often (which doesn't seem to be the case)? Chilex (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

I will say that just because something doesn't happen very often, it does not mean that we should not be equipped to handle it. At the same time, while I do so everyone's point about not having much history with editing disputes (I do have some, actually, just buried in my massive content contributions), I do not see myself struggling to handle any editing issue that may arise. Serpent King (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Not to be unnecessarily rude or anything but I personally think that Serpent King is the best RfA candidate I have ever seen on SmashWiki since I joined. All the other RfAs haven't come close to this one, and we might actually have a new admin in years. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Knee 11:08, 31 July 2015 (EDT)
I thought it might help my case if I had a chart of edits. The only things on this chart are those that have at least 20 edits currently (In case you are wondering and do not want to do the math, the chart covers 3524 of my 3560 edits, not including this one). Serpent King (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2015 (EDT)
We can add Debug menu to the list of accomplishments. Serpent King (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

Okay I'm going to be completely honest here: I don't know what to do with this RfA. I'm mostly making this comment to say "I'm not ignoring this", but I feel I should also lay out what exactly my dilemma is.

As it currently stands, we have a bunch of newer/inexperienced users in the support section (typical for most RfAs), a pair of opposes from older users (which in my opinion are weak at best), and all the "old hands" in the neutral section all essentially agreeing with me. Normally, by now I would have decided "maybe later, but not yet" and failed the RfA. The main reason I haven't is that we currently have two active staff members and 440 active users - that's 220 users per admin. Now obviously the rollbackers take some of this responsibility, but that's still really high. And conceptually, two people can't break ties, so having three might make discussions resolve better.

So yeah, I'm a bit stuck. It would benefit the wiki to have another active admin, but I don't want to lower the bar just to do so. I'll keep trying to come to a decision here; you guys can comment on this blurb if you want. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Jiggy 00:04, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

To keep it short and simple, I would say that Serpent King isn't ready to be an admin yet but I would like to wait for 6 months and he'll be likely. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Ocarina of Time 00:19, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
I'd like to weigh in and say that since the beginning of this RfA, I have been trying my absolute hardest to get some experience with user disputes, most notably with the whole Marth (SSB4) situation. Serpent King (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2015 (EDT)
That mentality is a little concerning to me. Just because a user hasn't been around for a year doesn't mean that their opinion doesn't count as much. If the reasons aren't valid and don't address enough, that's a different thing entirely. SW:YAV. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Well, too late for the inb4. People are opposing just because of Serpent King's relative newcoming to the wiki. He may not be as experienced as Brian or Miles, but he isn't rude and his intentions are good. Also, he actually helps the wiki. Ganonmew (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Ganonmew: That's not just experience. I'm kinda questioned about that. If I'm right, most candidates (including failed ones) that I saw, have some core problems that prevented them from being promoted to admin. I believe that some of admin's requirements (such as dispute handing) are either quite difficult, being questionable, or lackluster from other user's pov. Not everybody is perfect. Luigi540 (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

It seems that how this is going so far, the supporting side argues that Serpent King will do just well enough as an admin regardless of how experienced he is or how well he does in disputes. The opposing side argues that he does not have enough experience while the neutral side is quite frankly not too sure about him being admin. Either way, SmashWiki RfAs are really tough like what Luigi540 said. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Mushroom 20:16, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

Do RfAs usually take this long? Here's the deal, me as a sysop will do the following things:

  1. The wiki gets vandal protection day and night (mostly night, but I do get on during the day too)
  2. I can help more with the maintenance tags that are spiraling out of control (move, delete, speedy delete, etc)
  3. Gives the wiki 3 admins, therefore always leaving one to break ties (as Toomai said)
  4. Gives the wiki an overall third hand with dealing with our massive userbase

I have gotten better at user disputes over the last month (yeah, I started this mid July!) and I believe I now show a need for sysop powers, especially in that I need to be able to deal with vandals overnight. Miles pops in every now and then, but that's not enough. I'm there almost every night, all night. I hope this changes things. Serpent King (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2015 (EDT)

I've just created a running list of all my major contributions to the wiki. Thought it would help here. Serpent King (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2015 (EDT)

These were pretty impressive contributions, but I'm not sure if that is proof that you can handle yourself as an admin. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The NES 15:54, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
The idea was to show dedication through edit volume, and note that my edit count isn't just all minor stuff. SerpentKing (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (EDT)

Alright. I give up. This RfA is 2 months old now, so clearly this is a stalemate. I officially withdraw this RfA. SerpentKing (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2015 (EDT)


Nyargleblargle (talkcontribsedit countRFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Hi, I'm Nyargleblargle. Since I joined in early April, I've made over 1,800 edits to the mainspace and hundreds of file uploads intended for the mainspace. Eight of my most significant contributions include:

  • Creating most of the existing Smash 4 moveset subpages (Not without a little help from Toomai)
  • Creating most of List of character biographies
  • Creating Miiverse (universe), which was the source of dozens of red links at the time
  • Spearheading the creation of Official Custom Moveset Project (with the template being designed by Miles)
  • Playing a significant role in coding Template:TournamentPlacementRow and its header counterpart, as well as implementing it on a few Smasher pages
  • Uploading over 100 Smash 4 idle pose images and playing a large role in splitting the idle pose pages
  • Helping to anchor Smash 4 trophy pages
  • Creating the menu templates for every game except Brawl

I've also been trying to do a lot of janitorial work, such as tagging pages for speedy deletion, reverting vandals, and moving pages once consensus is reached. Becoming an admin would allow me to increase my efforts by deleting pages (with consensus, of course) and blocking vandals.

While I recognize that I've only been on this wiki for a few months, I have been very active (being on the wiki for 3+ hours per day at my peak back in June), giving me a lot of time to learn the ropes of this wiki and learn from my mistakes. I also recognize that I've lacked dispute resolving experience in the past, but I'm very active on talk pages and have been trying to improve my skills. Plus, despite the policy, it can be very difficult to settle a conversation for good if you're not a beraucrat.

Thank you for your consideration. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (EDT)


Support

  1. You're a very useful user, I can see you becoming a good admin. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:36, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
  2. Strong support You and Serpent King both have made significant contributions. I wish you the best of luck. Ganonmew (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
  3. Reading that reply you made to that first comment, sounds like a logical approach to settle disputes. Also, you were a trustworthy contributer, so I'm sure you'll be a trustworthy admin. I wish you the best of luck! Berrenta (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
  4. Support. You've been a big help to this wiki, plus it wouldn't hurt to have a few more admins. Good luck! John NessHeadSSBB.png PK SMAAAASH!! 09:15, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  5. Strong support You're a great contributor, and I have to agree with Berrenta that your response to the below question is a very logical one. You know what you are doing, and I have yet to see you abuse rollback. You also seem to have a thorough understanding of each smash game. Best of luck to you. Serpent King (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  6. Per Ganonmew. Kudos to the both of you. Changing the head icon used. No biggie.Aidan, Master of Speed and AuraPer Request, for User:Aidanzapunk. 10:13, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  7. Strong support. You are an amazing editor, and I really think that you becoming an admin is a very good idea. Your edits are incredible, and you've been so helpful here that the wiki wouldn't be the same without you. Plus, Smashwiki could benefit from a few more admins. LittleMacmain97, the World Circuit is mine! (Talk) 10:38, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  8. Support, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Levelheadedness, an understanding of a situation, a high presence and no evidence of water-spine. No objections. ScoreCounter 12:37, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  9. Strong support. You are kind, trustworthy, A useful editor... I see you becoming an excellent admin. Plus, we could do with having an extra administrator around to fight (and block) the vandals/trolls. Good luck! INoMed-sig.png INoMed (Talk) 07:13, 27 September 2015 (EDT)

Oppose

  1. ...

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Another case of an excellent contributor who I'm not sure has made clear what kind of admin they would be. At this point I don't feel like I can say whether you'd make a good one or not. Your answer to my question gave me a mixed vibe, so that didn't really help make my decision the way I'd hoped. Miles (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    have to know, what about the answer didn't you like? Serpent King (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    Dodging the point about how to resolve a dispute aside from "look at the strength of the arguments and their counterpoints", which is overly vague, and lack of response to the part of the question regarding when Nyargle had an opinion on the subject. Miles (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    I don't intend to be disputatious, but for clarity, my original answer was intended to represent all three situations (it's likely that I would have presented a comment by that point). I'd try to avoid personal bias to a reasonable degree. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 19:55, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    The point I was getting at is that as an admin, you are expected to resolve disputes, including ones in which one has a personal investment in the results. Your answers are inoffensive but also (in my opinion) kind of sidestep the point, hence why your answer was not "wrong". It merely didn't convince me to change my starting point of "neutral" to support or oppose. Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  2. Neutral: Per Miles; akin to Serpent King, you are a very competent user with not much to show for possible usage of admin powers. Your cases are very similar. DarkFox01DF01Sig.pngFooooox! 20:22, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    I don't get why people keep saying that. I can provide nightly protection of the wiki, while NB can provide daily. We've both dealt with vandals enough to understand what to do if one should come lurking. As there are currently only 2 active admins on this wiki, posting vandals on the admin board will not quell the vandal until an admin finally does show up. More trustworthy and competent admins means more protection, and I personally think we both meet these criteria. Serpent King (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
    Now that I've looked into more detail regarding edits, I understand where you come from. I'll see what I think about this. DarkFox01DF01Sig.pngTeam Dark Fox, reporting for duty! 20:39, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
  3. Neutral: I'm in a tether totter for this. While you are a userful, nice editor with great thinking and one of the best rfa candidates, you seemed to have very few core problems, as noted from some other old users. Disputes for instance, while not everybody is perfect. I looked at your answers about disputers and your answers seems to be questionable. Now if you look at the users who successfully passed the rfa, they have great disputes control. Or in case for Unknown the Hedgehog, a user who failed the RFA, he has a good trait like being a sociable person who keeps their cool. Any of your positive traits that links towards your disputes, would be a boon in your RFA. Right now, I'm not sure if I can trust you as a admin. My opinions will change if you demonstrate your positive traits that links to your disputes. Luigi540 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
  4. Neutral, not been around long enough and more of a contributor rather than admin in my eyes. As many have said, not a huge bunch of reasons you really fit the slot of what admin is. I'd support, although I believe you are a better contributor than an admin. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2015 (EDT)

Comments

General question: Suppose there were to be an edit war between two well-respected users, User A and User B. The two have an disagreement about the content or layout of a page, and after other users contribute to the talk page discussion, no clear consensus is reached. How would you, in an admin role, act upon the situation if a) you agreed with one of the two positions; b) you disagree with them both; or c) you have no strong opinion on the subject at all? This isn't a test question with a right or wrong answer or anything; I just want to gauge how you'd handle a situation of this sort. Miles (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

In all cases, I'd probably look at the strength of the arguments and their counterpoints, and make my decision based mostly on that, with some small compromises made to accomodate the other half if possible. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:58, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
Could you please elaborate on what action would be involved as a result of "making your decision"? Miles (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
Modification (or lack thereof) of the layout/content according to the edits. Actually, I forgot to mention that if the edit war violated SW:1RV, I'd probably issue warnings (and blocks if it was ridiculously intense) to those who made, well, more than one revert. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

If we have four active admins on this wiki (including Serpent King and Nyargleblargle passing their current RfAs), I would probably suppose that this should clear out the lack of admin problem. Should OT be back active, I personally think five active admins would be too much for a low-medium-ish sized wiki, although useful if admins can make sure other admins don't become too powerful and stuff. I just wanted to put that out. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Sigma 17:44, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

Considering the numerous amount of users on this damn thing, I don't see how having 5 leaders (I stretch that word's definition) would be considered too much. Changing the head icon used. No biggie.Aidan, Master of Speed and AuraPer Request, for User:Aidanzapunk. 10:15, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
Other large wikis may need many times more admins than said five. For example, the Mariowiki has 20,000+ articles and many users are guaranteed to edit on a daily basis, so maybe they do need many admins to keep things running. SmashWiki is a medium-sized wiki, not small and inactive like Wikibound, but not huge and traffic consuming like Wikipedia is, so personally three or four active admins is pretty viable already. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Yoshi 10:46, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

As I write this comment, there is a vandal on the wiki who needs to be blocked. No one is there to block this guy. It certainly would not hurt anything to add two more admins. John NessHeadSSBB.png PK SMAAAASH!! 11:56, 25 August 2015 (EDT)

Do RfAs usually take this long? Same thing can be said for SK's. Ganonmew (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

Mine, yes. Not 100% on Serpent Kings, but I believe so. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Just looked Miles' up. Started November, 2008 and ended December 2008. By that timeframe, you're still young, but I'm not. SerpentKing (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
@Nyargle: I'm talking about them in general.
@SK: If so, why is yours not over already? And there is no one opposing Nyargleblargle's, so it should end by now. Ganonmew (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Toomai said that he doesn't quite know what to do with mine. Nyargle's honestly hasn't run long enough to make a sound decision. By the way, this conversation is in the wrong place. It should take place in the talk page. SerpentKing (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2015 (EDT)
Nice to know. Sigh. Ganonmew (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2015 (EDT)

For posterity's sake, I'd also like to add splitting Crowd to the list. Nyargleblargle (Talk  · Contribs) 18:14, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

And merging the ladder pages into Ladder (technique). Nyargleblargle (Talk · Contribs) 09:43, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

No opposition ye and a bunch of Support votes. Yet this still seems like the wiki is undecided on this RfA. Hmm. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Arwing 21:34, 5 September 2015 (EDT)

To be fair, it's only been just over two weeks. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 21:38, 5 September 2015 (EDT)
okay, now it's a little more ridiculous. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 08:09, 14 September 2015 (EDT)
You may have seen that I withdrew mine. SerpentKing (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2015 (EDT)

So its been a month now and looks like its also going nowhere. For the supportive side, we once again have mostly users who are very active but have been on this wiki for only around a year or less while we have not so active but more experienced users on neutral with no opposition yet. Otherwise, this could be seen as a stalemate and it wouldn't be over for months unless if more users share their opinions. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Mega Man 19:59, 22 September 2015 (EDT)

Personally, I'd think that the more active users have a better idea than the less active users, even if we aren't as experienced. After all, we see what happens more than the inactive users do. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 21:13, 26 September 2015 (EDT)
Miles is also a fairly active user since Smash 4's release and an admin himself, but yes, he's not as active as Serpent King and Nyargleblargle in comparison. Dots (talk) 60% tech skill, 30% crazy, 10% you name it. :P The Gangnum Style 10:05, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
I'm admittedly considering requesting bureaucrat status just as a result of these RfAs sitting around idle for so long. I respect that people like Toomai can have other things come up in their life and aren't around 24/7, but at the same time it's awkward to leave things like this hanging. Miles (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
Are you SURE that you want to do a Request For Bureaucratship? INoMed-sig.png INoMed (Talk) 12:33, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
I said I was considering it, nothing more. I don't want to sidetrack the conversation here beyond that. Miles (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (EDT)
We really do need another 'crat (although, as you probably can guess, i'm not particularly fond of the idea of you being one), but let's get some more admins first. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 13:14, 29 September 2015 (EDT)