SmashWiki:Requests for adminship

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Revision as of 14:30, November 7, 2008 by smashwikia>Sky2042a (clean up)
Jump to navigationJump to search
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, 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

Archive 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.
Failed This RfA was closed as failed.
Reason: While Cheezperson is an active editor, the comments in the oppose section speak to why he is not presently to be promoted to sysop. Most notably, his lack of any major back-end edits or need for the tools has defeated him. Also, lack of support from the administration is almost always a kiss of death for an RfA. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Hello, I'm Cheezperson (you may know me as cheez), and I'd be an ideal administrator for this wiki. One may ask why, and I will tell you.

  • I'm active
I come here every day at least once (usually at least 4 times) unless I'm out of town.
  • I'm mature
Some of you may disagree with this one, but I do mean srs bsns when it is needed. I'd rather not reveal my age here, but I can assure everyone, I'm not a little kid. I will not be childish when it comes to this wiki.
  • I'm friendly and easy to get along with
This really isn't a big issue with becoming a sysop, but I believe it is a good quality. I have argued with some of the users here (namely Clarinet hawk and Shadowcrest), but it was just simple debating matters. I have made no enemies here, and I don't plan to. Don't get me wrong, if someone vandalizes an article, I'll take action, but I'll use my blocking powers only when necessary.
  • I'm a very helpful contributor and user
This is my edit count, and as of when I'm typing this, I have 1300 edits. The majority of them come from about 400 edits in the mainspace and about 450 additions to various user talk pages. Some of my more important edits include:
  1. The table and descriptions on the Crowd Favorite page
  2. The cleanup of the Home stage page (in process)
  3. The trophy information and cleanup of trophy pages (chiefly Treecko)
  4. The creation of numerous pages, including Linebeck.
  5. The addition of info in some of the Subspace Emissary cutscenes

The list goes on and on, and it will keep going!

  • I'm trustworthy
Users have asked me for help when they need something in the past, and I'm sure everyone can trust me as a sysop. I have the wiki's best interests at heart, and have learned a lot from everyone who has talked to me about how things work here. I am also an Eagle Scout, who follows the Scout Oath and Law (just roll with it if you don't know what I'm talking about). One part of the Scout Law is trustowrthy, so it is my duty to serve as a trustworthy person, or else I am going back on an oath I took, and I would never, ever do that.

As for the reasons why I, personally want to be a sysop, they may surprise you. My number one reason is to gain the ability to merge and delete pages. I feel small and insignificant when I have to ask people to do things for me, so I'm taking action. As for how I would use my other powers (mainly the power to block), I would use them according to the rules. I will NOT favor certain users over others, and I will ignore any negative comments about , or about my association, with the Aftermath Dynasty. Everyone here has friends, we just happen to call ourselves a crew.
Anyways, this request is long enough, and I really hope that all of you will accept my request and put me in the position that I deserve. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 07:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Strong SupportDefinately a very helpful contributor. Support whole-heartedly. Puts my application to shame! --Toon GanondorfCHAT 08:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. You've never been blocked, nearly all of your contributions are what I consider to be ideal, you're active, and you are a nice person in general. Your edit count seems to be lacking a bit, but I still think that you would be a good administrator. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cheez knows his stuff, though I'd feel even safer had he gotten rollback first. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe in Cheez! With him, we can make CHANGE! Squallinoa 08 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. You are helpful and definitely know your SSB (as in info for the articles). MarioGalaxy {talk} 23:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Alex25 requested me to link his support for me to his talk page, as my request is too long for him to put it on himself. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Great help to me when I was new, overall a great member of this wiki! PikabroPIKA! 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Has made great contribs. He has never been blocked which always helps. And most of his edits have been helpful to this wikia. Masterman What's the matter?Scared?
  • Slight Support. Great, helpful member. Meteorite (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT Because if I say no, I'll have to feakin' rewrite the Constitution. CAFINATOR Indeed 09:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Edits have been great asset to teh wiki, edit count is high, and sounds like a pretty decent guy. Best candidate out of the current bunch, I beleive. --GutripperSpeak if you are worthy 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Not only are you an excellent friend/crew mate, but you are also an outstanding contributor. You have no record of flaming at anyone, even if that vandal would mess up your page. You are always ready to lend a helping hand, and you have no problem doing even the hardest tasks. Not to mention that you'd be an immense improvement for the Wiki (not that you already aren't) and even as a regular user, you do your job as an editor better than the other admins here. Your bonus points include a terrific sense of humor, and you are very polite to others. My name is Blue Ninjakoopa, and I approve this message. Go get 'em, buddy. ;) Blue Ninjakoopa Talk to me 11:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Active, one of the most good-natured users here. Knows how to use the tools. Awesome contributor. He's been here long enough to prove that he's mature and would make an excellent sysop. Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Weak Oppose Cheezperson is without a doubt quite helpful to the wiki. However, there are three things that make me oppose his sysop bid. First, I am wary of any person who has significantly more User Talk edits than main space edits. This often signals that the user is more concerned with using the site as a social utility than as an encyclopedia. Secondly, there is just the matter of the low edit count overall. While I am not one who feels that edit quantity is more important than quality, there is something to be said for an overall low edit count. If I am correct, I had the lowest edit count of any person ever to be promoted to sysop (on this wiki), and at the time I had more mainspace edits than Cheez's total edit count. Again, not that edit count is of supreme importance, but there has been a certain precedent set. Finally, the biggest reason that I don't support this user is that I haven't found many instances in his edits where he would need the sysop tools. Rollback is something that I would fully support for this user, but my checking has shown that this would be the only sysop tool that he would truly need to make what he has been doing more effective. Again, I do truly value Cheez as an editor, I just do not see the need or the full qualifications to make him a sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I had a feeling that you would oppose me, and I respect your opinions, but I'll prove you wrong about myself. You are correct in saying that I do have more additions to user talk pages than I do mainspace edits, but it's not as lopsided as others. I currently have 400 mainspace edits, and somewhere around 1,340 total edits (that's a mere 40 edits from becoming a featured user). I do have over 470 talk page edits, but you have to admit, when you care my ratio of mainspace to talk page edits, to the great majority of other users, it really isn't that bad. I will step up and edit more, and I will become a featured user due to my valuable mainspace additions.
I believe that my good, positive nature and the fact that I am one of the most active users here outweigh the fact that I have "significantly more" talk page edits than mainspace edits. The number is around 70, and I don't see 70 a significant comparison to 400 or 1,340. My primary and secondary uses of this good website have nothing to do with talking with people I've never met in person. They're what they're supposed to be: contributing my knowledge of the Super Smash Bros. Series and encyclopedic purposes for my own use. I have met some fine people here, and we do get into chats every now and then, but you can't argue that my edit count is lopsided.
You also seemed concerned on how I would use my powers. I want to be someone that the regular users could turn to, someone who could help them when they were in need. As I stated on my official request, I will NOT favor some users over others when it comes to serious stuff (vandalism, blocks, etc). If a user does something wrong, I will take action. I can't stand people who screw good things up for fun or for revenge. I will use the powers as I need to. No more, no less, and I DO want to have the tools, and I WILL use them properly.
I am a proper choice for admin for all of the reasons I have explained. I don't want this to become a rant/debate, so I will leave it up to you to decide what you want to do. It's your choice, make the one you feel is right. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 07:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
You really should have responded to this on the RfA page. Moving general wiki discussions away from their location is just bad practice. As for a few of your points, being a featured user means nothing. Half of the skins don't even show who they are. All being a featured user means is that your edit count is high. In most of the recent cases, this has just come from people inflating their edit count by making very minor edits, often with the sole purpose of gaining an extra edit. Also, when you remove your User Talk page edits (or just remove half of them), you don't come close to meeting the criteria for the (still irrelevant) featured user designation. As for significance, 70 is 17.5% of 400 and 5.2% of 1340. Both of those percentages are significant. As for you wanting to spread you knowledge about Smash Bros, I'm still a little put off by the "perfect character" thing. If you actually think that was encyclopedic content, then I really don't see how you could make a good sysop. If you didn't think that, I'm then a little confused as to why it was put up in the first place. I'm not a dictator here, I will listen to the rest of the wiki. But also understand that I don't see you as being qualified to be a sysop and, for better or worse, my voice carries a lot of weight. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that the new format meant that only supports/oppositions should go there. My suggestion to avoid confusion is to put a 'comments" section under the "neutral" section of the request. That way, this never happens again. The perfect character thing's been abandoned, as I realized that opinion is the only real factor, and opinions of random, unqualified users here won't verify anything about the game itself. You can talk all you want about my edit count, but you misunderstand something about talk page edits. Yes, they're mainly used for convos, we've all had them. But, they can also be used to give other users information, telling them about certain happenings on the wiki, and correcting their mistakes. That's why the wikis have talk pages in the first place. So don't consider all talk page edits useless, just most of them : ) Inexperience seems to be everyone's biggest turn off of me. Even a fellow crewmate is neutral because of it. Although I can tell you that I have leadership experience, it's the users' choice to take it to heart or not. I've gotten lots of support, and I don't know how much support I need to fulfill the request, but if i do somehow fail, I will immediately run for rollback, so that people can learn to trust me with those (limited) powers. Just understand that that is my last resort. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I might have bought your argument about the use of user talk pages if three things had been true. First, your edit count on user talk pages should be nowhere near as lopsided as it is. Looking at the other sysops, no one is remotely close to you in User Talk edit percentage. Most of us have less overall user talk page edits than you do, but with over twice as many mainspace edits. This signals that your edits have not been for giving users welcomes, warnings, tips, etc. but instead have been using them for conversations. The second problem with your comments about user talk pages is the fact that you can't even be bothered to use the watchlist but respond to everyone on their own talk page. Don't give me the bull about this being so they see the response, because that is only of merit if you are using those talk pages as e-mail/social messaging accounts. If you were actually using the user talk pages for discussions of content, you would leave everything on the same page, as that is much easier for someone to follow if they have questions about editing. Third, I recently came across your comment, let's go talk on the whatever wiki. This signals that you are not concerned about the proper use of User Talk pages, but instead are concerned about your image during you bid for sysop. I ran the edit count on both Smash Wiki and cross wikia. User Talk edits are the only ones where you have any noticeable differences between Smash Wiki and all wikis. Cross wiki behviour is quite important, and as you obviously see the other wikis as simply other chat rooms so you don't get called on it here, I see no way that you make a qualified sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I was trying to get Pikabro to join the CD-I wiki, because we need more users there. The "talk" we had lasted 3 posts. Big whoop. I've welcomed many people (that's how most people get to know me), and I've used the talk pages to ask wiki-related questions/comments. And the ratio isn't lopsided! It's obvious that you don't see me as a good sysop, and that's your opinion. I respect that. What I don't like about this is that you're making a generalization of all of my talk page edits based off of the ones that you've seen. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a logical fallacy. I will admit that I do use talk pages for convos from time to time, but I've set a goal for myself. I am attempting to reach 500 mainspace edits before I reach 500 talk page edits. You can view this how you wish, but I take criticism to heart. I want to be the best I can be, and the only way to get better is to learn from mistakes (I'm not saying that I regret making friends here). My final comment is that I have 9 supporters (as of right now), 2 neutral (both people I know and respect), and 2 opposers, one of which us you. Do the math. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Good job! Hasty generalization is indeed a logical fallacy. However, as there is virtually no way to prove that C.Hawk committed said fallacy, it's a moot point. Additionally, Clarinet Hawk isn't obligated to promote you based on a vote count. --Shadowcrest 23:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying is all. As for the vote count, I was just showing him that 9 other people are very willing to give me a shot at something they believe I could do well in. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I know this will come out way meaner than I intend it to be, but I feel this really must be said and there's no polite way to say it, so please forgive me. I get the impression that you're only running for 'epeen strength' and that you don't quite understand what will be expected of you as an administrator. Additionally, I am not sure how you would handle user conflicts, but judging from other aspects of your personality I've gathered I am not confident in your abilities. --Shadowcrest 15:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A user still learning the ropes of the wiki. One needs to learn how to walk before they can run. Silverdragon706/FyreNWater - (T • C ) 08:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above concerns. I do not intend my opposition to malign your contributions, which are helpful and energetic, but you show no need for the administrator's mop. Give it some time. – MaskedMarth (t c) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Though I agree with everything that has been said, I'd like to particularly second Shadowcrest's statement. Cheez's candidate statement, the last section in particular, makes me wonder whether Cheez understands what Adminship entails. Furthermore, in looking through Cheez's contributions, although I've found some janitorial-type contributions, I've not yet found any contributions that suggest a more intricate understanding of the handling of wikimatters, e.g. user conflicts. While I may be overemphasizing the importance of statements like "As for the reasons why I, personally want to be a sysop... My number one reason is to gain the ability to merge and delete pages. I feel small and insignificant when I have to ask people to do things for me, so I'm taking action," they still give me sufficient cause to question this RfA. – Defiant Elements 05:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly do you oppose? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Uh... I assume you're looking for an answer other than "for the reasons listed in my statement"? As I said in my statement, aside from the fact that I agree with what others have stated above me, I simply don't see anything in your contributions that indicates that you understand what it means to be an admin nor do I see anything that indicates that you're equipped to handle non-janitorial administrative tasks. I'm not sure how much more "exact" I can be than that. – Defiant Elements 04:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were just agreeing with the above people. OK then. I take criticism well, but I dislike it when people oppose because someone else opposed. Just making sure. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral. No doubt that Cheez is a conscientious contributor to the wiki, as well as a very friendly person. However, like Obama, he lacks experience, as he is a relatively new user. But, again like Obama, he could still win. If he had more longetivity, this would be a full-fledged support, but for now, I'm quite neutral. - GalaxiaD (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Cheez is a really nice person, and a great editor, but sometimes takes things too lightly. I may have no idea what I'm talking about, so that's why I put this in neutral. Baltro [ talk ] 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - There are one or two too many statements in the application that say that you deserve this, when in fact you should let your actions speak for your words. I won't oppose, as I think those were in good faith rather than bad, but they put me in the middle of the teeter totter rather than on one side or the other. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Archive 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.
Successful This RfA was closed as successful.
Reason: Promoted to Sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Miles.oppenheimer (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

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

Hey, the name's Miles. I've been a regular contributor since I joined in April. My edit count shows how much I've added. I am also a rollback'r, which I think is just another sign that I would be a qualified administrator. I've been a regular anti-vandal, and I know that I would be even more effective at this were I a sysop. My rollback approval can be found here, and the concept is pretty similar for me: the position just increases my ability to improve the wiki.

List of accomplishments:

I won't say too much right now, but I think that my contributions speak for themselves. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Support

  • Really Support, The guy is cool, and frankly knows how to make user boxes, a skill limited to only people who explore deeply. Go miles Learner4 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I really feel I must comment here. Userboxes aren't exactly wiki-elite. I even have a template in my userspace to make them differently than the ones here. --Shadowcrest 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, he does a lot of stuff on smashwiki and stops vandalism. Luigi wannabee 25 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, he's a great guy and a great contributor, taking over teh smash arena even though he didn't have to. Will make a great admin --GutripperSpeak if you are worthy 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. You're smart, a great contributor, and a huge help to the wiki, even though i think you've been here less than me. Xtrme Talk 2 X Wut X is doing 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Same reason for why I supported for RFR, I guess. MarioGalaxy {talk} 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Miles has done nothing but good fort this wiki. Good luck! Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — I'm convinced 5280s would be the perfect candidate of the current bunch to become an administrator. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I haven't a bad thing to say about this user. Silverdragon706/FyreNWater - (T • C ) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: This dude is amazing. He has changed tiny stubs into potential featured articles. I remember when I first started going on this wiki seeing his name at the bottom of alot of pages, at the "Miles.oppenheimer made an edit at (time)". Baltro [ talk ] 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Though usually I believe vandal-fighting is really a disguise for wanting +dicksize, even if for Miles it is, I think he (and RC!) could benefit from sysop tools. I also believe he can be moderately successful at user-related things if he tries hard enough. Like Pikamander2, I believe that there is potential in Miles. --Shadowcrest 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice contributions. You'd be a great sysop.O, Mighty Smoreking 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome contribs to this wikia. Not a single bad thing done. Masterman What's the matter? Scared?
  • Support Not going to call anyone stupid, but what moron would oppose Miles? He's been one of the best things to happen to the wiki, and thus deserves adminship. Let's not forget to mention his pwnsome UserBox skillz. Blue Ninjakoopa Talk to me 11:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Super-Massive Support It's amazing that this guy isn't an admin already. --Toon GanondorfCHAT 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome, Miles. Great guy, complete know-it-all/contributor/wiki markup expert/loser (not really, LOL)/vandalism combator. Gonna go all the way, Miles! Good luck. Fried beef1 Holler Gifts 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Having observed his editing ethic on pages such as the Music (SSBB) page and his evident interest in working on several types of content (his Image Project subpage is what I'm referring to), I would recommend him for the admin position. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great guy, reliable, friendly. Good luck Miles! PikabroPIKACHU! 22:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • MEGA SUPPORT He rally deserves this ithink in the opinion of my friend brandon, who itold about the wiki but does not want to join. in my oppion i dont care Falconpawnch (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Now lets check this guy out, Great edits, levelheaded, Obviously dedicated to the well being of this wiki and so much more. But here its comes, I think that he's a little too new and that he is moving this Rfa too fast considering he has ran for Rollback not long ago. Another thing is that I feel his ego is getting a little too big for this wiki. One small thing I have left is that I think personally a sysop has to be strict, someone who can laugh but still won't be lenient on a vandal who has vandalised countless times. This was originally going to be Neutral but seeing as how you ended your small "Discussion with Shadowcrest" so maturely and nicely shows how you can see the other person's viewpoint and your own self control ( at least something good came out of it huh?). So congratulations Miles, your definetly the man for the job. - Hatake91 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is overwhelming support, I move that this RfA be closed with the result a promotion. Miles (talk - contribs) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hush you. You don't get to make the choices here. :P --Sky (t · c · w) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet. Miles (talk - contribs) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ...
  2. Last I checked this isn't a RfB, so no, you still wouldn't be making the decisions. --Shadowcrest 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Your very high-quality contributions and even-handed diplomacy impress me and you show the type of back-end commitment we lack here, even now with the wider admin pool. Regarding Shadowcrest's concerns, I'm hard-pressed to find any evidence in your other contributions to substantiate them, though I suggest you not try to jump the gun on this adminship. It'll happen with patience. – MaskedMarth (t c) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your appreciation, and you make a valid point. Miles (talk - contribs) 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, given the circumstances including little viable competition and general decency at the job. What I said down in neutral I still technically believe, I just find that overall I am happy with miles. --Shadowcrest 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • I'm In No Place To Say This, But You Start WAYYYYYY Too Many Edit Wars. God No. Massive Oppose He Dwells On Things Outside Of Where Needed And Brings Up Arguments On Talk Pages For No Reason. I Have A Reason For Doing So :) "Handsome" Hollywood K. 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's true. You are in no place to say that. Miles (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is in place to say anything that they think is important to the decision. It is not at all helping your RfA that you keep trying to find ways to silent your critics without actually responding to their points. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Miles would respond to the point if Kperfect had raised one with a basis. Asserting that Miles starts edit wars means nothing without evidence. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The only edit war in which I was ever involved was with Kperfekt over Template:SubspaceArmy, which he started. He insisted that King Dedede be considered a smasher accomplice, but provided false evidence to prove his point by claiming he had used a Dark Cannon. I kept my cool, but he didn't. In the end, he was added as an unwilling member on the evidence of him having distracted Meta Knight before the story began, which unintentionally aided the Subspace Army. I think this actually goes to show that I can solve user disputes well. Miles (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. "He started it" is a poor reason
  2. That's a conflict dispute. --Shadowcrest 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. A reason for what?
  2. I presume you meant a content dispute. I still think I showed the same set of people skills is managing that problem as would be needed for a user dispute. Miles (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. It's a poor excuse. Just saying "person Y started it" doesn't magically somehow excuse that person X was involved.
  2. Lol yeah, sorry, I meant content. While you need people skills to resolve both, they're very different. With user conflicts there's not really an "easy way out", you have to think (usually long and hard) about how you can resolve the conflict and what the consequences of any given path are. Additionally, user conflicts can rise tempers like no content dispute ever can. And I don't think you'd be great at that. --Shadowcrest 00:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. I wasn't trying to excuse myself from blame; the page's history shows it was reverted by other users besides me anyway.
  2. I'm sorry you think that. I disagree. Miles (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The issues I have with this is not the edit war's particular content, but 1) that it was an edit war (no big deal), and 2) that you tell another user that he has no right to oppose your RfA (big deal). Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was only trying to show that he was in no place to say that I start edit wars, as he started the only one I was involved in. He has every right to oppose my RfA, even if I think his reason for doing so is factually incorrect. Miles (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that your "Factually Correct". You look for trouble on other talk pages. I'm not gonna bring up who's, but there is more then 3 different ones. That's more then enough reason for me to Oppose. "Handsome" Hollywood K. 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Miles never brings up fights. What on Earth are you talking about? Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 10:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Neutral with slight opposition. I am afraid there is more epeen strength in this request than I had previously accounted for. While I have no concerns about this user handling the vandalism and like and such as (spot the reference!), I now lack confidence in this user's ability to deal with other users, which is just as (if not more) important. --Shadowcrest 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My "Yet." above was intended in a joking manner, and I'm disappointed that you feel my "people skills" are subpar. I would point out that for the most part, I've been a very even-minded user and would follow the same basic behavior as an admin. I have tried to show at every turn that I'm more than just a good editor/contributor, and that I can mediate between users as well. I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Miles (talk - contribs) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
RfAs have a strong tendency to inflate an ego, and I fear that yours will be particularly susceptible, which will in turn present itself (negatively) during user conflicts and other drama. --Shadowcrest 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, though I respectfully disagree. Miles (talk - contribs) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Miles is responsible/wise enough to be an admin. What do you think would happen, the "incident" would repeat itself? MarioGalaxy {talk} 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There's only one way to find out... Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Promoting users to see if they screw up is a very poor practice indeed. --Shadowcrest 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying is all. Everyone's taking a chance when they support someone for sysop. Will they help the wiki? The 4 (including myself) running right now probably will, but you never know until they're promoted. You can't successfully argue with the truth. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I can in fact argue, not least of all because what may or may not happen in the future isn't truth. You yourself even said "probably" in that last sentence. Probably != will. Additionally, "help the wiki" is ambiguous and has multiple meanings. Therefore, you can excel at one thing but fail another, and still be a detriment to the wiki depending on what the cases are. There is always a little chance involved, but tbh you don't promote someone if you don't have a clue how they will act as a sysop. Which, tbh, I am fast losing faith in. --Shadowcrest 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You losing faith in fellow users!?! No way! By the truth, I meant the fact that you'll never know what someone will do once they become a sysop. They could become a benevolent, active, and determined sysop; or they could become irresponsible and abuse their powers. Unless you're a psychic, don't argue. I still maintain that the 4 here are qualified, but whether or not you do is your thing. You should become more trusting and have faith in other people besides the sysops. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheezperson. 04:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
...fine, but you asked for it.
SmashWiki:Assume good faith applies when there is no evidence to be found to the contrary. AGF does not apply when there is reason to suspect otherwise. Judging by comments and the like here and elsewhere, I have been forced to revise my position of support for miles. While the argument "you'll never know until..." is technically true, one can typically predict fairly accurately how well a user will handle the sysop position. Again, I have judged what I've seen of the candidates and voted accordingly. Imo, people need to stop voting because the candidate is nice or because they're a friend, because that's a terrible reason. After all, unless you're a psychic, don't tell me they'll make a good sysop despite evidence to the contrary. --Shadowcrest 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't force you to support, but I can suggest that you assume good faith in others more often. This talk is over, the page is getting too long. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
RfAs exist to produce discussion which in turn advises the bcrat of what the public feels and helps to provide insight on the candidate, so your "too long" argument is not valid. Additionally, I must assume you missed my entire last post or just tl;dr'd it, because you basically ignored everything I said about when to and when not to assume good faith :< --Shadowcrest 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Both of you stop. Shadowcrest has made up his mind, and despite my disagreement with it, this argument is going nowhere. Please discuss this elsewhere if you feel it necessary to continue. Miles (talk - contribs) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Read the first line of my above post tbh :/ --Shadowcrest 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral with a lean toward support. I'm reasonably certain that, based on what I've seen, Miles would make a competent administrator. He seems generally rational, level-headed, willing to compromise, etc., all good traits, and thus the "lean toward support." The only thing major thing that worries me is that, on the admittedly limited basis of some comments he's made on this RfA, he doesn't always seem to consider the implications of his words. For example, I personally see his "yet" comment for the joke that he seemingly intended it to be. I also understand what he meant when he disputed Kperfect's vote, but the fact is that perception often supersedes reality, particularly, I've found, on Wikis where semantics are often of paramount importance. Those kinds of offhand, seemingly innocuous remarks can have remarkably far-reaching consequences. As such, and because I don't feel I know Miles well enough to either fully support or fully oppose, it's a neutral vote from me. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Archive 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.
Successful This RfA was closed as successful.
Reason: Promoted to sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pikamander2 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

On June 11, 2008, I requested adminship. Sixteen days later, I had five supports and three neutral votes, but SySop nominations were closed due to "an overflow in nominations." I am now requesting adminship once again.

Here are some reasons why I believe that I should become a SySop:

  • I contribute to the wiki nearly every day.
  • I never use foul language, on regular or talk pages.
  • I don't melt or get angry under pressure.
  • I have never been blocked.
  • I have made over 2,000 edits to the main namespace since July 20, 2007, the day that I joined SmashWiki.
  • I revert vandalism very frequently. If I was an administrator, I could ban troublesome IPs and delete joke/spam pages instantly.
  • I have a colorful signature.

So, what does everyone think? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

  • Strong support, you do a lot for this wiki and you are very active. You deserve it. Im Alex25, K? (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support. you've been a great influence and help to this wiki, and you're often funny and serious at the same time. Xtrme Talk 2 X Wut X is doing 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Massive support. Ridiculous numbers of mainspace edits, rollback'r status acheived, even-tempered and anti-vandal... every reason says yes. Miles (talk - contribs) 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. So far, Pikamander is one of the few users here I've seen that "gets" wiki. I have moderate trust in his abilities not to fail, which- combined with little comparable opposition- has led me to support. --Shadowcrest 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. I supported this man the first time he ran for adminship, and I still do. Integrity, experience, work, he's got everything an admin should have. - GalaxiaD (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The only thing keeping my vote from strong support is slightly low activity. He deserves my vote just from edit count alone. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This dude is like an admin even as a regular user. His contributions are superb as well. He has my vote. Blue Ninjakoopa Talk to me 11:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. No reason why not.O, Mighty Smoreking 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support There is no reason whatsoever for Pika to fail this. Great editing, deals with people nicely, and helpful contributions says it all. METEORITE (t) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Now why would I oppose? I've seen this guy in action in reverting vandal edits, so he's pretty trustworthy. MarioGalaxy {talk} 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Beyond Support. If I said no, I'd be quite the weirdo. Dx Heh, but on a more serious note, he's done more than enough for this wiki and practically lives on here. He deals with those *cough*other users*cough* quite nicely, and for that he deserves it more than most anyone else here does. I think he'd make a great sysop. ~ TSON
  • Weak support — I've nothing of especial consequence against Pikamander, and in fact actually had a look through his deleted contributions; he's got a handful of {{d}} taggings, so I can say that I think he'd use the tools. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support How can you not? This guy has amazing contributions, and is the more srs type of guy to handle user disputes. Low activity is the only negative that I can find for his negatives... Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Definate Support Even though I've only seen some of what you've done, you have my full backing, Pikamander. User:OMEGAxHIRO

Oppose

  • ...

Neutral

  • Neutral. While I feel you have made great edits, I have not seen you handle user conflicts that much. If you can prove me wrong, please do, but until then, I remain neutral.S Z L 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point. I'm in line with most of the supports, but I'd like to see some response to this before I grant resolution to this one. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It is true that I do not handle user conflicts very often. I think that there are other users who can handle conflicts much better than I can, and so I leave the conflicts to other users. My main reason for wanting adminship is to be able to quickly delete spam pages and block IPs that are causing trouble. I frequently clean up after vandal IPs, but I have to report them to administrators instead of being able to block them myself. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 03:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from here, but for better or worse admins are the ones turned to when user conflicts arise. If you don't feel comfortable handling them, that is a major detriment to you as an administrative candidate. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=SmashWiki:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=196030"