SmashWiki:Requests for adminship

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.

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, however, 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 and moved to an appropriate subpage.
• 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.
• 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. Also, support comments that reference only edit count carry almost no weight in the selection process.
• Rollback status is not required for a successful RfA, but is highly encouraged. However, users who only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be refused and 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.
• If a user has been blocked for any reason (except an IP auto-block or a wrong button click), s/he must wait a period of at least four months from the expiry of his/her ban until s/he may even be considered for adminship. Even after this time period has passed, the user should be prepared to answer questions about his/her block.
• For users that have had previous unsuccessful RfAs and are planning to open a new one, consider the reasons that the previous nominations failed. Has anything changed about you that would make a new nomination successful?

Past nominations

• For a list of all previous requests for adminship, please see this category.
  • 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 2 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:rfa1|Username}}

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.
   Where # is 2 for the second RfA, 3 for the third, and so on.
2. Click on the created red link, and add:

   {{subst:rfa1|Username}}

Current requests

The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination of a user for adminship. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

	This RfA was closed as failed.
	Reason:	User withdrew nomination --Shadowcrest 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Toomai (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

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

Well then, how to start...I have no idea actually. Beginnings are not one of my strong points...Well, I guess I could give a list of my strong points:

• I'm generally good at the neutral point-of-view thing, and don't ever remember a time I started an argument online.
• I'm on here a lot. Recently, I've been on over an hour a day.
• I know a lot of crap stuff when it comes to the Smash Bros. games, and if I don't know something, I do the research.
• I know when to use serious business and humourous business.
• I have extreme spelling and grammar skills. (aka XtrEEM skillz)
• I'm an admin at the Banjo-Kazooie Wiki (which is kind of small) and the Mariology Forums (which have petered out recently). (Yes, I'm aware that off-sife admin-ness probably doesn't mean anything. But I stiff feel I should point it out.)

Is all that good enough for me to make a difference as an admin? I would think so.

...and, um, I suppose I've run out of things to say. Discuss, I guess. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure now that I didn't think this through enough. (Which is odd, since usually it only takes me one or two days to decide something.) So this RfA has been withdrawn. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

• ...

Oppose

• Slight Oppose While you do seem very smart, I don't believe you have very many admin-like qualities. You don't really deal with policy, and you don't have experience with user conflict.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, policy isn't exactly my strongest suit. But I'm working on it; I realize it's important to get policy right every time. And you're right about user conflicts too; while I certainly think I can handle one should it come up, I've never really dealt with one before here. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I haven't been around often, and seeing your explanation above and your bid, it seems you are not one who can solve user disputes. It seems that you would only be an average admin, not a extraordinary one. (Feel free to persuade me; this is only from observations.) Friedbeef1Screech 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral with lean towards support. You're great at editing the mainspace of this wiki, and you've added exceptional information to the site. That being said, though, I've yet to see evidence that you can deal with user conflicts. I'd say that that's the most important thing you're yet lacking. Miles (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. As Miles says, you're clearly an excellent editor, but until I see some admin-like contributions from you (i.e. ones which display a better than average grasp of policy, knowledge of how to handle user conflicts and mediate, etc.) I'm hesitant to support your bid for sysoption. Or, to come at this from another angle, given that you don't seem to have been involved in user conflicts, etc. (which indicates that getting involved in such areas is not a part of your standard operating procedure, so to speak) I'm not sure exactly why you would need sysop tools (in so far as anyone can need sysop tools) in order to continue doing the great work that you're already doing beyond the ability to delete vandalism and block vandals as a matter of convenience (since the current group of admins is sufficiently active to deal with most of that), and just about anyone is essentially competent to use del/block/prot. – Defiant Elements +talk 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I really can't say. Seems qualified, but I don't know your history well enough. You doesn't enter enough debates/arguements to prove that you're good at solving disputes. Gutripper^Speak 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral You definitely contribute in a good way and such, but right now I think a Rfr would be better at this moment because I'm curious to know how you would react if certain scenarios arise such as a dispute. ClonedPickle 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

---