SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Cheezperson

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Cheezperson (talkcontribsedit countRFA page)[edit]

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)


  • 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)


  • 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 - (TC ) 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. 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)