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 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

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:	Candidate lacks community support. Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 18:18, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

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

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
It has recently come to my attention that SmashWiki is currently suffering from a lack of active administrators. The SmashWiki:Administrators page lists three uadmins as active, those being Toomai, PenguinofDeath, and Clarinet Hawk. Clarinet Hawk, I haven’t seen in months, so I would consider him to be verging on inactive also. PenguinofDeath had been the kind of admin who wouldn’t actively edit on his own accord, though should any vandalism or matter of importance on the wiki, you could instantly contact him on the IRC channel, but his presence on there has been somewhat minimal as of late, leaving Toomai essentially all on his lonesome.

If a Wiki only has one active admin, then you’ve got a little bit of a problem. Some may say there are other candidates over myself, for example, ReiDemon or Mousehunter321. However, the former has no interest in administrating, and the latter has had multiple hiatuses in a short space of time, so I would like to put myself above those in that respect. To clarify, these were only examples, and I am not shooting them down should they try to RfA themselves. One advantage I may have over the other candidates would be this, however: I live in GMT. I would not say this wiki has any other candidates that live in this timezone, so any other candidates would just live in the same timezone as Toomai, leaving the Wiki at risk when all admins are sleeping. By making me an admin, we can have an admin active at all times.

Now, as I’m sure you remember, yes, I did make a request for adminship before, and it failed. The main reasons for this failure were the following:

• I don't see you enforcing the Wiki policies – Omega Tyrant – Since my failed RfA, I have been making an effort to enforce more policies. Granted, a lot of the time, this has been SW:SIGN and SW:TALK, though I have also guided people to fix their mistakes when they are breaking a rule without realising. I cannot link to any of these, as it will break the format of the RfA template.
• The Wiki doesn't need a janitorial admin, which you seem to be running for. – Omega Tyrant – As of late, I have been seeing less and less janitorial work done on this Wiki, it’s been a long time since somebody’s run through the candidates for speedy deletion. As a sysop, I would help to do this, in addition to all other admin duties.
• I question your need for administrative tools. – Mousehunter321 – At the time, perhaps it was less necessary, but now the Wiki is at a lack of admins, I may now have more of a need.
• I have not seen you take part in a noteworthy amount of user disputes. – ReiDemon – This is the only issue from my previous RfA I am yet to amend, as this Wiki undergoes a very low amount of user disputes. However, I have had some experience in user disputes, particularly those involving Smash Master, and I do feel as if I am capable of mediating a user dispute, should one arise.

In addition to amending these reasons as to why my former RfA failed, I have only grown on this Wiki, earning rollback, and learning more about how the wiki works. I now have experience administrating which I did not have before, as I am now an administrator on Icaruspedia, F-Zero Wiki and Lylat Wiki, all on NIWA (and Game & Watch Wiki, if that’s considered respectable). I can always be contacted on IRC, and I have made many major edits to this wiki already (a full list of my major contributions can be found on my userpage), and I have reverted a sizeable amount of vandalism. Every time after which, I would have to wait for another admin to come along and block.

Other administrative tools would benefit me greatly, such as being able to edit protected pages including Super Smash Bros. 4, and suppressing redirects.

One final thing I would like to note of myself is that a lot of the newer users tend to come to me for advice, or a custom signature, sometimes in place of the existing admins. This shows that, as a member of the community, I am relied upon, and already viewed in high regard by these new users. These qualities would surely be better suited to an admin, no? And I believe that that admin could be myself.

If you still have other flaws regarding my potential adminship that you would like to bring my attention, please do so, and if I am still not seen as the right candidate to earn these rights, then I will understand, as long as you explain why below. Thank you for reading. Toast ltimatum 17:55, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Support

1. Strong Support. This is a critical time for the wiki. As I write this paragraph at the risk of repeating what has been said both above and elsewhere, this wiki now basically has only Toomai as an admin. We need another admin, everyone. And who better than ToastUltimatum? Some of the other candidates I want to run for admin, such as RD, have little to no interest in adminship. On the other hand, Toast has interest in adminship, not because he's power-hungry, but because he genuinely wants to help the wiki, which is more than can be said for many people that have submitted RfAs. Toast is known around the community as a very helpful user. He has adminship experience from many other wikis. When there is a new user, he is always welcoming and trusted by them. When a new user breaks a policy by accident, he explains the policy to them in a way where people listen- firm enough to get his point across, but not so firm as to scare the new user away. As we all know, he isn't the type of user that would abuse admin powers. Okay, so he hasn't handled many disputes, but that's a good thing-- this means that the wiki doesn't have that much user disputes, and if it did, I would be completely confident in his ability to handle them. Thank you, Toast, for all you've done for me, this wiki, and its users. I wish you the best of luck in this RfA. Air Conditioner 18:15, 4 August 2012 (EDT) (I hope people don't find this paragraph too redundant, repetitive and redundant...)

After seeing the events that have transpired in the comments section, I find it necessary to change my vote to Extremely strong support. I sense that Omega Tyrant is beginning to live up to his name. He apparently seems hell-bent on shooting ToastUltimatum down. For what reason, I don't know, but it shows that this wiki may be beginning to fall apart. As an admin, I think Toast could provide healthy opposition, if you will, to Omega Tyrant, rather than having the often-repeated process of People support something --> OT opposes it --> Everyone changes their vote to agree with OT. Admins are not kings.

1. We need more admins before the SSB4 rush, and I trust ToastUltimatum with this powers. He is already an admin on many wikis, including three NIWA wikis. I completely support Toast. DarkFox01: Smashing in Summer 19:06, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
2. A good admin needs to know the policies (check) and enforce the policies (check). Toast is a respected user who does get asked questions by new users. Sure, this may be because he welcomes them. The point is that he helps them anyway. This is admin material. Toast is also a good editor and had rollback, two things that I think go in his favor. To me, Toast could be a good admin. And, we may not need new admins right now but will do in a few months time when more SSB4 news and rumors start to surface so better to get admins now than to recruit them closer to the time on short notice. Solar Dragon ^{(Talk • Contribs.)} 06:39, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
3. well i am supporting toast because, well his Pro exceed his cons,so clearly i do not have much else to say but "i hope this will help our friendship"Znagy07 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Oppose

1. Oppose Point 1: Link to the things you said you did, not just say you did them. Point 2: The Wiki in its current state simply doesn't need much janitorial work. Point 3: The Wiki needing admins does not mean you need the tools. Point 4: Again link to where you did what you say you did, especially since I seen you being pretty lackluster in this area. Also, Mousehunter and Reidemon aren't the only users I would support adminship for over you. And your GMT advantage is negated, when vandalism on the Wiki is near nonexistent, and when I can be often up during the time you would be. For the new users often going to you first, this honestly means pretty much nothing on your standing, reliance, and rep in the community (especially when they're just coming to you for custom signatures that they're too lazy to make on their own). All it means is you're one of the first established users that new users come in contact with (as you often do that welcome thing, as well as advertise those signatures you make for people). When established users start coming to you for advice and stuff, then maybe it'll mean something worthwhile. Omega Tyrant 22:08, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

   Strong oppose After seeing Toast's relative failure in responding to my points of opposition, as well as his attempt to falsely enforce SW:NPA to discredit me rather than respond to my points, and his attempted censorship of my negative opinions of one's adminship abilities, I'm changing my oppose to a strong oppose. Omega Tyrant 08:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

2. Status: Oppose A lack of admins you say? At this point, it's more like a lack of patience and an increase of paranoia within you. Do you truly believe that one admin can't handle the only threat that needs to be dealt with instantly, which are vandals? Do you really think that it is impossible to convince PoD to check on the Wiki? Janitorial admins are by far the most needless admins on this Wiki, especially without any vandal attack or proper reasoning to justify gaining adminship in order to deal with latter issues. The only thing users seeking a janitorial admin position have while requesting for adminship is an ability to stay on the Wiki for times slightly different than the community. Tell me, is it impossible to convince PoD to check the Wiki more often when he comes back from France? I highly doubt such a conversation is impossible. Janitorial admins do not necessarily have user dispute skills though, which is essential for admins to have. Are you telling me that the main provocation behind your sudden RfA is being able to handle a new user who is trying to insult other users out of boredom? I am afraid that you need much more than that to prove that you are something more than a janitorial admin on a Wiki with very little vandal attacks, especially if the new Super Smash Bros. is not to be released for a few years. When vandal attacks and the new Smash game is released, and the Wiki lacks enough admins to deal with those moments, feel free to RfA, but RfAs for janitorial positions are not meant to be done when nothing extremely negative has occurred on the Wiki. MegaTron1XD 00:51, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
3. Change to strong oppose Sigh. These oppose reasons and comments influenced me. But honestly, I don't want an admin to falsely accuse another user of policy violation and attempt to censorship of their negative opinions of user's abilities. If you gonna falsely accusing me of policy violation, then go right ahead and do it to my face. And you say lack of admins? It's more like having a lack of patience and trying to go aggressive by throwing this RFA to gain a sysop before the new Super Smash Bros is released. I hate being harsh because your a nicest and friendly user, I'm still very opposed as your abilities as admin are questionable. Keep up the editing and working with the wiki and maybe you can request an RFA during when vandal attacks and the new Super Smash Bros is released. Fix any mistake for what you should of done. It will take more guts to be a great candidate for RFA. You have to remember this if you want to be a sysop. However, right now this wiki has no need for janitorial sysop and more admins and it has very little to near non existent vandal attacks. It's very unlikely for you to deserve adminship in my eyes. Luigi540 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
4. Oppose: Redefining my definition of janitorial work, I see that the wiki really isn't in urgent need of such chores. Looking at the other opposing arguments and the comments below, I don't have much to add, but I must say, the heated moments in the debate, especially the use of logical fallacies to defend your points in the comments section sheds doubt on your ability to enforce policies, as well as how you will fare in disputes to come. I mean this in no way a personal attack; you're still one of the friendliest users I know, but looking at everything here, your qualities that merit adminship are overshadowed by qualities that make your ability to lead questionable.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 12:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
5. Oppose: Although I might not agree with all of OT's statements in the argument below, I still think that your misconstruing of wiki policy in an attempt to stop the discussion shows poorly for your ability to handle admin powers. As an admin, you would have even more power and leverage regarding personal disputes and whatnot, and you have to give the impression that you can do the job responsibly. I don't have anything against you, personally, but adminship on any wiki is a big deal and I would have to actually actively support someone to give them my vote. Naked Snake 13:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
6. I don't think you would make a good admin, plus, I don't think you could handle being an admin well. Smash Master 15:40, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
7. Slight Oppose: Idk man, after seeing the oppose and comments section, I believe this RfA warrants an oppose vote from me. You can also be blunt & offensive at times, and I don't know if you need the admin tools anymore. I also agree with the oppose reasons a bit, and you have a questionable ability to solve user disputes. I don't oppose entirely however; You're an admin on numerous wikis, including mine, and have never abused admin powers. But overall, your cons exceeds your pros.--Bandit 17:13, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
8. Though I don't actively edit like I used to, I do follow this Wiki closely. Toast: You are a great user, but there are two reasons why I am opposing this RfA. 1. We just don't need more administrators at the moment. There is not a major amount of vandalism, nor are there large amounts of user disputes that require immediate admin action. Toomai has things under control here, PoD and OT are still around, and Emmett still exists if those 3 somehow become insufficient. Which brings me to my second point. 2. You don't seem to be able to bring anything to the table that the other admins cannot. You aren't more active than they are, you aren't really active at different times, and I don't see you doing anything they don't already do. Since you don't need the tools, and we don't need to give out the tools, there isn't a reason to grant a promotion at this time. Now to the users in the support section: SSB4 has no release date, no title, and basically no information whatsoever on it. It could be a few years before this thing hits shelves. Stop assuming that just because this game has entered the very early stages of development, that this somehow means that activity level will significantly boost soon and we somehow therefore need more administrators. And honestly, no we don't need more admins. Just because you are under the delusion that there is only one active admin (which is untrue), doesn't mean we need more, as that one is doing a sufficient job on his own. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 19:56, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
9. Oppose. While I disagree with Dr. Pain's claim that preparing for a likely surge in editors is "delusional" (as the last thing we want is to have to elect an admin in the middle of a such a surge; better to prepare right now), you've shown yourself unable to respond well to criticism. Omega Tyrant is blunt at times, but he was not personally attacking PoD, Emmett, and Miles (his views of them are well known, perhaps he was a bit harsh in his criticisms). Nor was he attacking you, he was really just vetting. Even calling you "a terrible admin candidate" is not an attack. As Clarinet Hawk said to me when I ran for admin "not every good soldier makes a good general, not every good user can be an admin". Perhaps the most basic part of being an admin is to understand the wiki's policies. Since you don't seem to have mastered that yet, you should not be an admin right now. Mr. Anontalk 21:13, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

   I did not say that. I said that us having only one active admin is delusional, since we have more than that active atm. I also believe that this surge is not likely to happen anywhere in the near future, as there is minimal information about the game. Once some sort of release date or even a title has been announced, then maybe we can begin to prepare, but at the moment, it is too early for such preparation. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 23:35, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

   I think I clarified this elsewhere, but Toast was referring to being active on a daily basis, which up to the point where Toast ran, only applied to Toomai (how do I know this is what he meant? I had been talking to him in the minutes before posting his RFA). Mr. Anontalk 00:58, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

   Active on a daily basis≠active, which is what he claimed in his RfA, and if the information is outdated, he should update his RfA, or we're going to point out that the information presented is not true. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 12:09, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

Neutral

1. I would go either way. I am not aware about Toast's dispute handling. I may have a different opinion if I review the dispute on his talk page with Smash Master. LightningBlue 21:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
2. Now in 2 sides. ShupaRoeh 12:05, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
3. While I think Toast is a good user, my main reason to support this RfA has been nullified by Omega Tyrant becoming active again. JamesHeartless 13:01, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Comments

Wow. So far no opposition. If this RfA passes, we'll have our first admin promotion in over 2 years.--Bandit 19:17, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

This isn't a simple case of a vote count though. Even one influential oppose is enough to decide the whole outcome. Toast ltimatum 19:18, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

It does seem likely though. I'm just wondering if Omega Tyrant opposes with one huge post and this RfA drops or not.--Bandit 19:20, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Read SW:YAV. If OT opposes, his opposition will only detract from the RFA if his reasoning is solid. If he gives a poor reason, Toast has nothing to worry about. If his reason is solid, though, the RFA will have serious problems. Mr. Anontalk 19:39, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Some of the support votes are solid.--ShupaRoeh 20:33, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Also AirCon, Toomai is a bureaucrat not an admin. LightningBlue 21:30, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Technically I'm both. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 21:32, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

He needs both to do Bureaucrat and Admin powers. Dots The PSI Asian 21:57, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

@OmegaTyrant: I was unable to link while initially writing this RfA for whatever reason, but I can do so now. Links to my vandalism reverts can be found in my RfR [1], or more recent ones can be found here and here. Examples of me enforcing policies can be found here (SW:SIGN), here (Only revert once) and here SW:TALK/Don't edit archives). User conflict mediation is the only department I lack, though I figured I'd RfA now, as user conflict isn't likely to come along again. If IRC is relevent though, I did sort out a dispute there just yesterday, when a user was being directly offensive towards other users. You say the wiki doesn't need much janitorial work, but the janitorial work is still there, and will only grow as time goes on. Also, janitorial work goes beyond just deleting pages and files, from looking at the log, this Wiki makes no effort with patrolling, which I would. You say you can be awake in GMT, but you aren't supposed to be active, are you? Toomai can only be awake for so long, I'll cover the hours for which he's asleep. I know Mousehunter and ReiDemon aren't your only candidates, I only wished to use two examples so I'm not directly striking out every last bit of competition. Vandalism does happen more than you claim it does, when Mr. Curious is considered. There was also an edit war recently which happened during your hiatus. And the new users consulting me goes beyond just custom signatures, it's general advice too, as can be seen here, here, and here. Toast ltimatum 22:37, 4 August 2012 (EDT)

Vandalism reverts and rollback are pretty irrelevant to adminship, so linking them is pretty pointless. The policy enforcement links are aight, but are there more examples?

"User conflict mediation is the only department I lack, though I figured I'd RfA now, as user conflict isn't likely to come along again."

This is a Wiki, user conflict is always going to be prevalent.

"If IRC is relevent though, I did sort out a dispute there just yesterday, when a user was being directly offensive towards other users.

If you can provide a log, sure.

"You say the wiki doesn't need much janitorial work, but the janitorial work is still there, and will only grow as time goes on."

Doesn't mean we need new admins to clean it out.

"Also, janitorial work goes beyond just deleting pages and files, from looking at the log, this Wiki makes no effort with patrolling, which I would."

"Patrolling" is a useless Wiki function. Just because edits are labelled as "not patrolled" doesn't mean edits aren't looked over. I've looked over thousands and thousands of edits, and I didn't need a "patrol" button to do it.

"You say you can be awake in GMT, but you aren't supposed to be active, are you?"

If you want to go by that, PoD is active, and he's in your time zone, thus invalidating the perceived advantage.

"Vandalism does happen more than you claim it does, when Mr. Curious is considered."

Link me to 10 separate acts of vandalism that occurred in the past month that isn't Curious spam.

"There was also an edit war recently which happened during your hiatus."

A single edit war is not something to increase the need of more admins.

"And the new users consulting me goes beyond just custom signatures, it's general advice too, as can be seen here, here, and here."

You ignored this: All it means is you're one of the first established users that new users come in contact with (as you often do that welcome thing, as well as advertise those signatures you make for people).

New users aren't coming to you because of any outstanding reliability and rep you have on the Wiki, they're coming to you because you're one of the first users they've came in contact with. One of those cases you linked I can directly link the user coming to you because you left the welcome template on their talk page.

When it's established users coming to you for advice and such, then that can be used to support your reliability/rep. Omega Tyrant 01:08, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

OT is kinda right. There hasn't been very much spam or vandalism in the past month or two. But OT, is it extremely necessary for him to be "reliable". I understand he has no positive reliability from "established" users (please elaborate on that as I could be considered one, so can DarkFox or Mouse), but does that mean he could be unreliable if he recieved adminship. I do believe it is not urgent for you to be an admin Toast. If the activity (refering to Toomai's proposal) becomes very urgent, I would fully support.

Another thing SmashWiki is not related to the SmashWiki IRC Toast. You know that as well as I do. Managing this wiki is different from managing a IRC chat.

The activity on this wiki at this point is low. No real vandalism or issues (despite here which was resolved and I do credit you for in some extent) have occurred in the time I have been editing (about two weeks to a month). If there is no need for admins (as OT pointed out), then we can bump this to another time. However I am keeping my opinion as neutral. LightningBlue 02:51, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

I do not have a log of the dispute on IRC being resolved, only a print-screen of that user attacking a user (specifically, myself) in PM, and my responses. You can see that here, though I don't think that's quite what you would be looking for.

Janitor duties may not require an all-new admin to fix, but I haven't seen it be done in a long while, and giving me the option to do that would only be a bonus. Patrolling may be a bit redundant, but it still must look untidy having all those red !s, so having me clean those up would also be a bonus.

I'm sure PenguinofDeath checks the wiki on a daily basis, but he isn't on there for the whole duration of the time he's online. It used to be that we could instantly find him on IRC should there be a problem on the Wiki, but he's been there a lot less as of late (I know he's in France at the moment, but I'm talking about before then as well), and you have to jump through hoops to fetch him. i.e. Get Mega or ReiDemon (who both live in your timezone) to message him on Steam, at which point, I'll come along. It isn't healthy to have to go through so much to fetch an administrator, and I would be on IRC the whole time, and I always have a wiki open on a tab, this is SmashWiki most often.

10 pieces of vandalism is a lofty amount, and you know you set it that high just for another opportunity to shoot me down. I have to go offline now, but when I get back, I will search for some recent pieces. Toast ltimatum 06:39, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Well, Curious happens on a regular basis, and will require blocking every time, so it counts for something, besides that, there has in recent times been a SmashPeter attack, this piece in July, Brandondorf, which may be considered vandalism, and required a block either way due to him circumventing his existing block. Going back to 3rd June, there was this, and a large quantity of vandalous edits from the same user, these on 3rd June also (potentially the same user, but IP's are very different). So all that has happened, and I'm just covering a space of 2 months and 2 days. I wouldn't call vandalism "non-existant" here, especially seeing as I did not link one Curious piece of spam. Toast ltimatum 12:03, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

"I do not have a log of the dispute on IRC being resolved, only a print-screen of that user attacking a user (specifically, myself) in PM, and my responses. You can see that here, though I don't think that's quite what you would be looking for."

That link does nothing to support any adminship for you.

"10 pieces of vandalism is a lofty amount, and you know you set it that high just for another opportunity to shoot me down."

If you're going to use the amount of vandalism to support the need of another admin, there should be at least one separate act of vandalism occurring every three days. Back on SmashWikia, we would get 10 separate acts of vandalism in a few days, and it only took a couple of active admins to deal with it. If there aren't even 10 vandalism acts in a single month, it's ridiculous to claim the amount of vandalism to support the need for another admin. Terrible response, this shows to me you do not understand what requires an admin.

"Well, Curious happens on a regular basis, and will require blocking every time, so it counts for something"

Curious is easily handled by existing adminship, and he's just a constant ban evader, not a true vandal.

"there has in recent times been a SmashPeter attack"

User evading ban, not a vandal, and was easily handled without causing a larger ruckus.

"this piece in July"

There's one, any more?

"Brandondorf"

Unintentional misinformation is not vandalism.

"Going back to 3rd June, there was this, and a large quantity of vandalous edits from the same user, these on 3rd June also (potentially the same user, but IP's are very different)"

So a repeat vandal attacked one day, and was quickly dealt with. Doesn't support the need for more adminship.

"So all that has happened, and I'm just covering a space of 2 months and 2 days."

Even if all your links were to count as separate acts of vandalism, that's five links, in twice the timespan I requested. That is nearly nothing, and the amount of vandalism here is nowhere near high enough to justify more admins.

"I wouldn't call vandalism "non-existant" here, especially seeing as I did not link one Curious piece of spam."

Outside Curious, a clearly deranged individual with mental problems, vandalism is pretty much nonexistant here. You shown me we had two legitimate separate vandalism attacks in the past two months. The Wiki is averaging a vandal attack a month, yet you're using that amount to support your adminship? That comes as delusional, or power hungry to me, both highly negative traits for a prospective admin. Omega Tyrant 00:28, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps the vandalism is comparably low at this time, but I've gone with the same mind as Toomai did with his SmashWiki Status Sytem proposal. The inevitable SSB4 rush will happen, and with it will come vandals and a general need for authority. He made that proposal now rather than when it might need usage, because having a proposal like that in amongst all of the other work being done isn't good for the proposal's own sakes, and we'll be without it for the start of the time it may be needed. This wiki will want a healthy admin base in advance of the inevitable surge of users and information. So my thinking was this: "We're going to need admins for the SSB4 rush, and we're at a bit of a lack of them right now. I'm capable of being an admin, so I'll run for it now." This ties in with what Mega put in his oppose, saying that an RfA may be a more suitable thing for me to do around SSB4 time, but I do find it better to have the tools in advance. The aim was that I would do more than just janitorial duties should I get the promotion and be involved in discussions, and resolve user disputes should one arise, but apparently this wasn't emphasised enough. Toast ltimatum 06:39, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

A SSB4 rush in a year or so and speculation on what the increased activity would bring does not justify promoting mediocre admins when better candidates exist. If we did that, our admin team would be full of Miles, which dilutes the quality of SmashWiki's moderation, and makes it more difficult for the better candidates to get adminship when they request ("oh sorry, I would support you, but we have enough admins"). Not to mention, we could very well have all those Miles, and then it turns out the activity was not what was speculated, which in turns leaves the admin team with a bunch of mediocre unnecessary admins, that we then can't get rid of (barring extraordinary circumstances). Omega Tyrant 07:16, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

This is off-topic, but is relevant to the wiki. You've been violating SW:NPA quite a bit over this past space of time, insulting PenguinofDeath and Emmett by putting "Even if I dislike the userbase, better I come back than let out of touch dinosaurs that don't do shit like PoD and Emmett be the admins that have to be relied on, and let the incapable gain adminship." as an edit summary, and calling Miles average in addition to this, which could also be considered derogatory. The main two parts of SW:NPA this violates are Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. and Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Toast ltimatum 07:35, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

"This is off-topic, but is relevant to the wiki."

Don't bring it up here then, and respond to what is relevant.

"insulting PenguinofDeath and Emmett by putting "Even if I dislike the userbase, better I come back than let out of touch dinosaurs that don't do shit like PoD and Emmett be the admins that have to be relied on, and let the incapable gain adminship." as an edit summary"

So saying how old admins that are out of touch with the community that don't or barely help out shouldn't be relied on is a PA, yet Emmett constantly insulting users for saying things he doesn't agree with is perfectly fine? Learn the difference between an insult and being blunt, see that comment is indeed aim at their actions, and read up on that policy you're half assedly trying to enforce.

"calling Miles average in addition to this, which could also be considered derogatory."

So you're saying not having a positive opinion of one's adminship abilities is a personal attack? Fuck no, we're not having that censoring shit here. Reread that policy you're trying to enforce, learn that a positive opinion of everyone is not needed. And for trying to claim my opinion of one's ability is a personal attack, as well as evade the point I brought up in my last comment, I see you're no longer a mediocre candidate. You are a terrible candidate, and I'll ensure this RfA fails. No admin on this Wiki should be throwing SW:NPA at someone expressing a negative opinion of another user's abilities. Omega Tyrant 08:10, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Calling PoD and Emmett "Out of touch dinosaurs that don't do shit" is certainly directed at those users themselves, and not their actions. Whether you would consider it a personal attack or not, the Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. rule is in the SW:NPA page, so it was the appropriate page to link to. I did not type "You are issuing personal attacks", I typed "You are violating SW:NPA", which you are doing by outright breaking the rule about not directing comments at users in particular. And I can say one thing for sure, if I were PoD, I wouldn't take kindly to having those words thrown at me, so even if you now want to consider me a terrible admin candidate for it, that definitely needed bringing to attention. Toast ltimatum 08:21, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

"Calling PoD and Emmett "Out of touch dinosaurs that don't do shit" is certainly directed at those users themselves, and not their actions."

"Out of touch" is an action of theirs. "Don't do shit" is an action of theirs. Was it kindly worded? No. But non kind words =/= attack.

"the "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." rule is in the SW:NPA page"

Those were indeed "actions", saying the users' names guilty of those actions is not a personal attack. Read the guidelines on what a personal attack is actually like.

"I did not type "You are issuing personal attacks", I typed "You are violating SW:NPA""

That's the same exact thing. "NPA" is "no personal attacks". You can only violate SW:NPA by personal attacks.

"which you are doing by outright breaking the rule about not directing comments at users in particular."

We're not "SuperHappySmashWiki", where you can't say anything that may be construed as negative about another user. It is not forbidden to direct comments at users, nor will it ever be. Learn what a personal attack is.

"And I can say one thing for sure, if I were PoD, I wouldn't take kindly to having those words thrown at me"

If you were PoD and got offended by those words, how about actually get in touch with the community and do shit if you're going to hold on to your admin position?

"so even if you now want to consider me a terrible admin candidate for it, that definitely needed bringing to attention."

No, it didn't. It was a red herring, and poisoning the well. Respond to the argument, don't go falsely accusing me of policy violation to discredit myself. Omega Tyrant 08:40, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Just a note: I'd say parts of this wiki are in need of janitorial work. Look at how many articles are currently tagged for speedy deletion, for example. Mr. Anontalk 16:46, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Specifically, all these, if anybody wants to check. Toast ltimatum 16:49, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

Redirects and junk images don't require immediate janitorial work. Omega Tyrant 00:28, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Luigi540, I'm not going to try and make you change your oppose, so don't take it that way, but I want to know exactly what makes me "mean". I get a lot of people that tell me I'm a nice guy, but because I had an argument with OT, this makes me mean? I thought I'd been particularly nice to you as a user, when I posted on your talk page, telling you that you did a good job on the article you made. Arrogant was another bad thing to say about me. By calling me arrogant, you're basically saying OT is 100% right, and that I'm simply refusing to accept it. When I get involved in an argument, I will argue, that's what you're supposed to do. It's not being arrogant, it's sticking up for myself. Toast ltimatum 20:12, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Note that Luigi540 updated his vote after I put this, so the above text will not match what is currently on the page. Toast ltimatum 21:38, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

At the risk of unleashing OT's wrath, I must say I see some problems with his logic. I will refute some points he has made in this section.

"Out of touch" is an action of theirs. 'Don't do shit' is an action of theirs. Was it kindly worded? No. But non kind words =/= attack."

"Out of touch" is more of a description than an action. "Dinosaurs" describes them instead of their actions. Besides, PoD might not make much edits, but when someone asks him to use his administrative tools, he does so.

If you were PoD and got offended by those words, how about actually get in touch with the community and do shit if you're going to hold on to your admin position?

Again, PoD might not make much edits, but when he is asked to use his administrative tools, he does so.

Those were indeed "actions", saying the users' names guilty of those actions is not a personal attack. Read the guidelines on what a personal attack is actually like.

Okay. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." "Disparage" means to "Regard or represent as being of little worth," which I believe you did to PoD and Emmett.

If you're going to use the amount of vandalism to support the need of another admin, there should be at least one separate act of vandalism occurring every three days.

While Toast has said vandalism is part of the reason he filed this RfA, is it the main reason? No.

Outside Curious, a clearly deranged individual with mental problems, vandalism is pretty much nonexistant here.

Again, vandalism is not the only reason for this RfA. Also, SW:NPA claims: "It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user." Calling Curious a deranged individual would almost certainly qualify as a personal attack.

...yet Emmett constantly insulting users for saying things he doesn't agree with is perfectly fine?

Please link. Air Conditioner 19:25, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

Tbh, I think OT was just trying to say that they were not the best examples for adminship (at most that they were bad admins). However, I think he worded his original edit summary poorly, and he could have phrased it as something like "PoD and Emmett don't do much of value around here, and fresher admins would be better". Then again, I can't speak for him, so I'll let him post his response. Mr. Anontalk 00:56, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

"Out of touch" is more of a description than an action. "Dinosaurs" describes them instead of their actions. Besides, PoD might not make much edits, but when someone asks him to use his administrative tools, he does so.

How do you get described as out of touch? By doing actions that show you are. And from what I heard, you have to go through fucking hoops to get in contact with PoD to contact him on Steam. When did it became acceptable to have to contact a supposed active admin on an external site not affiliated with SmashWiki in any form?

Again, PoD might not make much edits, but when he is asked to use his administrative tools, he does so.

Why insist this matter here when it's irrelevant to the RfA? One, an admin shouldn't have to be asked to actually use their tools. Two, it's needlessly difficult to actually get in contact with him. Three, when I was around, he still barely did anything.

Okay. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." "Disparage" means to "Regard or represent as being of little worth," which I believe you did to PoD and Emmett.

As I explained to Toast, read the guidelines on what a personal attack is actually like. Expressing a negative opinion of a user =/= personal attack. This Wiki does not censor the opinions of users and never will, you are not forbidden from ever directly addressing another user. If I said "Emett and PoD shouldn't be relied on because they're fags", you guys would actually have a case. Saying "Old admins like Emmett and PoD shouldn't be the admins to rely on because they're out of the touch with the community and never help around" is not in any form a personal attack, and using harsher words to convey that opinion does not suddenly make it a personal attack.

While Toast has said vandalism is part of the reason he filed this RfA, is it the main reason? No.

If you think that's the crux of my opposition, actually read what I wrote and don't strawman next time. You also didn't respond to the argument there at all, you just strawmanned it. Point is, Toast used it (regardless of if "it's the main reason"), when vandalism is nearly nonexistent. As said, that comes off as delusional, and of poor judgment (both negative traits for an admin). Doesn't matter if it's your "main reason" or not, you put something to support your RfA that's based on false or exaggerated pretenses, it reflects badly on you.

Again, vandalism is not the only reason for this RfA.

Again, you strawmanned, didn't respond to the actual argument, and just repeated yourself. Are you really the best Toast has to revive this dying RfA?

Also, SW:NPA claims: "It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user." Calling Curious a deranged individual would almost certainly qualify as a personal attack.

Alright, you're just grasping at straws here. Curious is a really dedicated troll at best, otherwise a deranged individual no matter how you slice it. He's not a user at this point, he's a vandal/spammer/ban evader that was permabanned long ago, and everyone on this Wiki wants to go away for good. My comment was not attacking or threatening Curious, it was describing him for what his actions have shown all of us long ago.

You misinterpreted that line horribly. It does not say "you cannot say anything negative about a user and their history, regardless of if that history still applies to them today". If I were to go to BNK and tell him "Your opinions don't matter, we don't need harassers that should of stayed permabanned", that line would actually fucking apply. Describing Curious as deranged in a passing comment for behavior he still exhibits, does not fall under that at all, nor was it actually an attack to begin with.

As I said before, we're not "SuperHappySmashWiki" where you can't say anything remotely negative about another user even if they're the most annoying vandal/spammer/ban evader. Also, stop trying to "follow to the letter". It's the spirit that counts, and misconstruing everything written in a policy to make violation claims against another user reflects terribly on you. SW:NPA was written to prevent personal attacks (something you guys keep missing, it has to be an attack on something personal of a user to be a personal attack), not every single remotely negative comment ever made of another user.

Please link.

It's really common knowledge for non newbs that he would call you all sorts of stupid for saying things he didn't agree with. If you really want to insist on arguing this stuff, go through his contributions and find them. I'm not digging through a user's contributions for links on a dispute that's irrelevant to the RfA. Omega Tyrant 03:26, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

AC, people aren't changing their votes simply because OT opposes this (actually, I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for more than a few). They are changing their votes because Omega Tyrant gave solid reasons for his opposition. If you look at the history of my vote, I did not change my vote until Toast accused OT of violating a wiki policy, an error he himself later regretted on IRC. There's been multiple times on this wiki when Omega Tyrant's position in a discussion has been the "losing" side. The reason these times are rare, however, is because he is committed to the wiki and elaborates his points, making it easy for others to follow his reasoning. And generally, he has good judgement. Mr. Anontalk 12:14, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

As a note, I do not regret linking to SW:NPA. "Dinosaurs" describes PoD and Emmett, and terms like "out of touch" describes said dinosaur, and with NPA reading to not disparage specific users, it's easy to see why I found NPA applicable. The part I regret was putting it here rather than on OT's talk page, as that was a red herring, and a blunder on my part. Toast ltimatum 12:45, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

The issue (that OT has not directly addressed) is the question of him calling PoD and Emmett "dinosaurs". I think it's clear this was a reference to them being out of touch (which would make the statement "out of touch dinosaurs" redundant, but whatever), not an attack on their personal character. Mr. Anontalk 14:41, 8 August 2012 (EDT)

This is like... the LARGEST section I've ever seen on all of SmashWiki. I know it's irrelevant to the conversation but the RfA is over 60000 bytes now and most of it is the conversation alone.--Bandit 16:25, 8 August 2012 (EDT)