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 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)

---

NOTE: This user has since renamed to "Emmett".

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 successful.
	Reason:	Promoted to sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Before I say anything else, I want to say that having a comparatively low editcount doesn't relate to adminship and my comparatively little age here is outweighed by my experience elsewhere. Since this is possibly the only part of this speech you will read/remember, I just thought I'd put that out there.
...but since I know everyone will check anyway, there's links in the title. Or check Special:Contributions/Shadowcrest and/or Special:Editcount/Shadowcrest, if it's easier for you to access from here.

I've held a sysop position elsewhere since March 27, 2008, and I have relatively excelled at the position for some time. So I think it's fair to say I know how wikis work.

Up until recently, I'd have been very confident that I'd be able to field virtually any user conflict that I saw. But my approval rating appears to have dropped, and I know I've come off as an asshole way more than I intended recently. But I'd like everyone to know I'm working on it, and I think I'll be able to pull it off eventually. Opposes based on my personality aren't inherently invalid, but I'd appreciate any good faith.

I'm active enough, and I'd be able to delete spam, ban vandals, and all that other explicitly defined stuff in the job description.

In short: I'm willing and more than capable. --Shadowcrest 18:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Strong support, Shadowcrest know what he's doing and is responsible. Im Alex25, King of Randomness! Say Hi to me! Random stuff! 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Shadowcrest is knowledgeable, competent, and smart. As, or perhaps more, importantly, he has "Admin-like" edits (see my "vote" on Oxico's RfA) in spades. I have complete faith in him to "mediate user disputes, arbitrate users, and interpret policy during times of argument." Furthermore, he has consistently displayed a dedication to this wiki that goes well-above and beyond the call of duty. – Defiant Elements 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Shadowcrest is a knowledgeable user who has worked hard on this and other wikis to make them effective encyclopedias. His attitude is not something that terribly concerns me. It is generally only directed at solving problems. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have changed my mind, and I believe you would make an excellent sysop(then bureaucrat, then SUPREME DICTATOR OF THE WIKI!). In all serious, though, I support you.^Smoreking^ Give Thanks 23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support This guy knows what he's talking about, from solving user disputes and wiki issues, to fighting vandals, to knowing about the SSB realm in general. Lots of edits, loved by most people, he deserves this sysop position (the become a DICTATOR!!!) Friedbeef1 Argue 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant support, not for any particular reservations of your ability but just because I don't feel the particular need to widen the administrative pool. However, your contributions are of consistently high quality and your diplomacy would be useful in resolving disputes and managing blocks. Your candidacy is clearly among the strongest. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 00:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what, I can be a hardass sometimes. Strengthening my support. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Knows what he's doing with regard to the tools. It's good to see my Padawan become a Jedi Knight of the SmashWiki order. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm suprised he's not already an admin, the way he acts so respectably. xD Baltro [ talk ] 22:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• SupportAfter seeing how you dealt with BNK, I would happily support you as a sysop.--Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy} 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL He didn't "deal" with anyone, I (well, Sky rather) just ended the argument. I'm sure Shadowcrest had better things to do with his time then to argue with an angry black teenager who loves to eat fried chicken and drink kool-aid. Koopa Klaus 11:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Strong SUpport Exactly what Gutripper said. --Toon Ganondorf^CHAT 10:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• One more timeSeconded what TG said. -- Pikabro^PIKACHU! 10:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I feel he's more than qualified, as he has very good edits, good with user conflict(important for admins), and is actually quite active, which means he can deal with vandals and joke pages often.UP/T 01:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Same reasons given by SZL and Defiant Elements. Y462 (T • C • E ) 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. You have outstanding knowledge of the policies as well as concern for the wiki. I was wrong, temper doesn't matter here, as you stated when you supported my RfR. Also, per everyone above me ('cept for TG, 'Tripper, and Pikabro). Blue Ninjakoopa 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, temper does factor in on a RfA... just not something trivial like a RfR. If that would cause you to change your vote, then I would recommend you do, rather than support me for the wrong reasons. --Shadowcrest 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I meant that you're to the point and straight up srs when it comes to the policies, but I'm not changing my vote. You deserve this. I also think you'll make history. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• SupportEven a n00b like me can tell that there's no reason why he shouldn't be one. His edits, while not numbering many, are worthwhile contributions and we should be glad to have him here.Silvie (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

An actual reason would be nice, such as "per everyone above". lol Blue Ninjakoopa 22:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Try not to make me look like an idiot next time >.> Blue Ninjakoopa 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. He makes good edits and whatnot, but he has some personality quirks that make me unsure of him. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 04:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Any in particular you'd like to list? --Shadowcrest 04:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to be mean or anything, but you seem to get angry at people very quickly. And you also tend to mean srs bsns a little too often. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like meaing srs bsns is a bad thing... --Sky (t · c · w) 05:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you do it too often, it is. At least, that's what I think. If done towards hard work or vandals, srs bsns is good, but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's true, that should have no bearing on how he performs as an administrator (seeing as how even speaking theoretically, the only person that could be negatively affected would be Shadowcrest -- since he'd be dull). – Defiant Elements 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Forget what I said before. His attitude towards other users is terrible. Koopa Klaus 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Calling people an a** really solves problems dosent it ShadowCrest? Masterman Happy Holidays!! 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Look at how much I've accomplished being a complete prick all the while ;) --Shadowcrest 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• Well, while I can see you being a good sysop, I think you don't have enough experience here. I haven't really seen you try to handle user problems, instead just picking a side, or pointing to one of your created policies. I haven't really seen you compromise, and, as I said earlier, I feel you don't have enough experience here. Feel free to counter my pont, or point me to a policy.O, Mighty Smoreking 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• If it's not an issue that needs concensus (like most user conflicts not related to content), then picking a side is fine. If it is an issue that needs concensus (like ones related to content), then I don't have to do anything but argue for the side I believe in. I don't understand what you're getting at.
• Why do I need an excessive amount of experience here when I've gained more than enough elsewhere? Ofc, I need some experience here so that I actually know stuff about the users and the culture etc., but that's really it once the basics have been covered.
• You want me to point you to a policy, but you list that as one of my faults above? I'm confused :/ --Shadowcrest 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral with slight opposition. You often seem to be a negative person, short on temper and quick to get insulted or get angry. You're a great mainspace editor, but I don't think I can trust you as an admin to solve user-related problems. Miles (talk - contribs) 23:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a terrible mainspace editor, what are you talking about :p

Actually, in recent memory, I've gotten angry once. And what resulted from it was, ironically, a self-ban, because I knew I lost my temper and my replies became increasingly unacceptable. I am generally aware of how I'm acting, so losing my temper and going outside the bounds of good taste is unlikely. However, I acknowledge your opposition, and since I lack fact to refute it, ok. --Shadowcrest 00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral with slight support. After coming back and thinking about it, I've decided that Shadowcrest's personality positives and wiki-savviness outweigh his occasional attitude problem, so he now has earned has a slight support from me. Miles (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral with a lean towards opposition Sorry, but whenever I read comments by you, they are negative or aggressive. I don't know about you, which is why this is in Neutral, but I don't like what I've seen. Sorry.--Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy} 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Wonderingwhy every one of your edits is "minor." – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I mark them minor by default (look in preferences, you'll see the box somewhere). Does that somehow make me less capable? --Shadowcrest 15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it suggests an unfamiliarity with the userface. I often toggle off minor edits when combing the recent changes, so all of your revisions would vanish. Additionally, tagging minor edits appropriately is a common courtesy to people perusing contributions or history as it indicates which revisions are likely to be full of content and which are not. And I happened to run afoul this problem when combing through your contributions to judge this request for adminship. While your contributions are of high quality (though I'm not yet convinced they demonstrate a need for the administrative mop; I need to take a closer look to cast my opinion one way or the other), such behavior brings into question your understanding of the controls and/or basic courtesy to other members. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I contribute to other Wikias, where setting everything as minor is common practice. And since Wikia saves your preferences across the board, I can't just uncheck the default box only for SmashWiki, and not having to check the box each edit was the entire point of hitting it by default. Since it would be dumb for me to tell you you patrol RC wrong, I don't know what I am expected to do. Courtesy here is not courtesy everywhere- indeed, setting everything to minor is possibly even the "expected" practice at GuildWiki- and it never really occured to me here. Having been at GuildWiki for nearly a year and a half, I think it is fair to say I'm familiar with how wikis work, even though I can't do all the advanced .css / .js stuff that Sky can. --Shadowcrest 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the general practices at other Wikias, so my concerns are quelled. Perhaps I'll write up guidelines concerning minor edits if any problems actually do arise. That said, I cast my opinion. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

General practice outside of Wikia is to only mark edits minor which are actually minor. I personally don't care either way, but at least consider the courtesy of unchecking the box when using talk pages, I'd say, or major content changes. I would be more concerned about edit summary usage; not that I've checked here in this case, but edit summary usage should be both civil and explanatory about the changes you make, and is far better at indicating why you thought a certain edit was major or minor.
As for css and js, I'm flattered. I don't think I could even attempt to manipulate .js if I tried, though I'm sure it isn't a hard language to learn. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I honestly don't know what to think. I know he'd use the tools correctly, plus he's active, but he has a tendency to get on people's nerves. Plus, he's kinda got a low edit count. He's newer than me, but it doesn't mean either of us are underqualified. My vote changes as the edit count goes up, and if he can stick with his goal of becoming a bit more benevolent. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 05:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit count doesn't mean basically anything. Does not editing as much as others (and I somehow suspect I will find a higher ratio of user:main should I check quite a few users) somehow make me incapable of adminstrating? --Shadowcrest 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. I'm just surprised someone hasn't said anything about that yet, though. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral with a lean towards opposition. What Gutripper said. Baltro [ talk ] 04:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I was incorrect in my comment here. I meant to place my vote under support. My apologies. Baltro [ talk ] 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral: I like to give second chances, and tbh, I think you got what it takes. You just need to cool it a little. Koopa Klaus 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral slightly leaning towards oppose: You have outstanding knowledge of the policies as well as concern for the wiki, but you're a total jerk/prick/however else I may put it. You should also quit calling people "asses" and coming up with British insults to insult people. I'm not making fun of you, I'm just saying you should work on that. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sysophood isn't about being nice, (un)fortunately. --Shadowcrest 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed! Blue Ninjakoopa 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

---