Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
So it's been how long, like 3, maybe 4 months, since my last
almost victory fiasco of an application. I had the following, but I did not have the contributions nor the experience to prove I was eligible at the time, and, looking back, I will agree that application was much too soon. Anyway, my plans in adminship are still the same: Easygoing and not super strict, but is still willing to put my foot down in cases where I need to be strict, as well as being an extra helping hand for anyone as much as possible.
I'd like to say I've done a good job of that, but I'm the worst judge of my own work, so I highly recommend checking out my qualifications page for any questions this doesn't answer, as well as for examples of different cases where I got involved in something. One of my strongest qualities I'd say I have is dispute handling, as well as good communication skills with users, especially the newer ones. I've also made a numerous amount of large contributions, including but not limited to:
- Creation of three different articles, with the latter being the one I'm most proud of.
- Massive contribution to coverage of the SSB4 DLC in the uploading department, specifically for Cloud, Corrin, and Bayonetta.
- Mass fixing of smasher articles with deprecated code.
- Removed the stub tag from approximately 500 articles that didn't need them.
- Added trophy information to all articles that needed them
- Created and uploaded gifs for almost every SSB4 victory pose.
If you'd like to see a full list of the contributions I've done that I've considered notable, please refer to here, as I am constantly updating it as I contribute to the wiki. Last but not least, my edit count has increased heavily since my last application, going from mere hundreds all the way to where it is now, at over 8,000 and counting. Additionally, my mentor Serpent King has been a great teacher to me, as he's been teaching me wiki markup, as well as commenting on my
mistakes I should feel bad for good work. I think that's about all I have to say really, if you have any questions, please direct them to the comments section. I am open to all forms of criticism, and I will do my best to answer any and all comments. Regardless if this application succeeds or fails, I will still strive to improve as a user and person, and I still have plenty of projects in mind for the future. Thank you for your consideration and I wish everyone the best of luck in their future on the wiki. :D Disaster Flare (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Honestly, this guy's been pretty helpful and knowledgeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unowninator (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (EST)
Weak support. DF has demonstrated the necessary professionalism, dedication, and temperament that admins require. While there have been a couple minor issues with SW:1RV, I don't think it's extremely consequential, and I have no doubt in my mind the wiki would be much better off with Disaster Flare as an admin. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 09:32, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Shifting to Support after thinking over it more. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 17:31, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
- Support. Despite the recent blocking of a dangerous enough IP from which came several vandalism, I feel we could use another admin, knowing DF is almost always active (though rarely past midnight) and that there are times only SK is active, other times only Miles, and others times, but very rarely, Nyargle and OT. DF is also wise, dedicated and professional enough to fill for the job. -- BeepYou, a user with no grammar at all :v (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2016 (EST)
Support as per reasons above. MuteSpittah (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Support. I'm not sure if we need more admins, but the number of admins should not be a deterrent for an RFA. In the months since his last RFA, DF has proven to be an active, knowledgeable, and helpful user who is capable of handling disputes, the major testing point for any potential admin. We may have a lot of admins, but you can never have too many. We would certainly be better off with DF as an admin than without. John PK SMAAAASH!! 12:16, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Support Echoing BeepYou. Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior 14:45, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Where to begin my support for this Disaster Flare is a very active person, willing to stay up for a long time (sometimes past 3:00 am), doing mass products (namely the gif. uploads of all SSB4 characters that took 6 or so hours) and general editing. As well, he's an admin on the SSBD wiki, so he has some experience being an admin. Seeing the qualifying page makes me feel even stronger about his admin ship. Even though we have had some bad blood in the past, I believe he is the best candidate at the moment. Finally, about the "We have enough admins" gibberish, while I agree, I feel a good and safe thing for the wiki would be to have at least one admin on all day (Example: Serpent King stays for 6:00 to 9:00 am, Miles takes his place until 1:00, where Nyargleblargle stays until 5:30, then Disaster Flare if he becomes admin after this until 11:00, where it cycles back to Serpent King), and from what I see, when no admins are on, Disaster Flare is. Penro ...that's all. 15:15, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Mild Support (im thinking of making my own rfa soon!!)Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 15:28, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Wombo Combo Level Support. I voted for him last time, so it doesn't make any sense not to this time. Plus, an extra admin would be better. Pika, Poyo poyo poyo 19:15, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Support: In his first RfA, Flare was definitely a semi-acceptable candidate, mostly because of his general lack of experience. We noted then his supreme dispute handling skills, which as far as I can tell, have not diminished significantly, strike a few minor incidents. Back then, I worried that the lack of general experience would be detrimental towards his abilities as an admin. I no longer have this fear, as since then, he has participated in several large projects around the wiki. Also, something that I notice in contrast with the last RfA is that you are no longer trying to "impress" us via a lot of contributions around the time of the RfA, which is a good thing. Now, this RfA. I found it to be a bit lackluster, if not for the qualifications page (which I'll get to in a minute). It addresses briefly his strong points and puts a lot of attention on achievements, something that should be opposite in an RfA. There isn't anything that I necessarily disagree with in it, but the presentation could have been better. Now for his saving grace: the qualifications page. I was pleasantly impressed with his responses. He asserts that blocking is a tool not to be used lightly, which is something that I like. Blocking is not a black and white procedure, and he seems to understand that, as evidenced by this discussion. Back on the topic of Flare's dispute handling skills, I would argue that they've grown if anything, as evidenced by discussions like this and this. In conclusion, I would say that Flare has grown significantly, both in dispute handling and general experience. To Flare: cheers to you and good luck. Serpent King 20:26, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Support:Not only is there no particular reason to vote against him, but he's active, helpful, and a great user in every aspect I can think of... which everyone has already complimented him on anyways XD. Still, is there really such a thing as too many admins, guys? It seems to be your only
invalid arguement against his RfA. BaconMasterLuck o' the Irish. 20:53, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- It's a valid argument, it's just not exactly true. Serpent King 20:55, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Fair enough. BaconMasterLuck o' the Irish. 21:00, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Support: I truly think that you are better than last time with your skills are improving, especially with your effective dispute handling. Great, useful user overall, who stays calm and cool. While we may need more admins, the request is quite rigorous and very hard to get, though less active admins means there would be more blind spots. However, you definitely deserved to become an admin. Luigi540 (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2016 (EST)
- Support He maybe inexperienced or troubled at times but he knows his way around. I would definitely give credit to his active participation and his positive growth within the wiki. Honestly Disaster Flare had the right stuff to become an admin in his first RfA in the first place. Dots (talk) The Violin 21:57, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- As supportive as it gets. I was already confident with you the first time around, and given the work you've put in and what you have accomplished, I see no reason for you to not be admin. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 08:24, 5 March 2016 (EST)
- Support. Diaster Flare is a really helpful and kind person. And while I think we already have enough admins already, one more cound't hurt could it? :) WolfBloodSpam (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2016 (EST)
- Support Flare is the one who welcomed me on the wiki at the beginning. So at first, I thought he must have been an admin, especially when I saw how he interacted on the wiki. When I learned he wasn't it came as a minor shock. He is often around when other admin aren't. All-in-all, this seems like a responsible person who knows what to say in various situations. RobSir zx 12:05, 5 March 2016 (EST)
- Last time, my points were not so... on point. Anyway, ever since you first failed, you've put on a tremendous amount of effort into helping improve the mainspace. Your specialty, dispute handling, is as strong as always. I will also take that your wikiskills have improved a lot after all this time with Serpent King. Finally, your wikipresence is more than satisfactory, and that's always a big bonus. So yeah, that's all I have to say. Other users have already lent their support, and I will agree with their own points and reasons in doing so. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- WOMBO COMBO Support Flare is one of the most useful people on this wiki. If he wasn't on this wiki, there would probably be someone trying to vandalize it. I've seen him undo vandalism, and he probably would make a good admin. Currently we only have four completely active admins (Toomai, Miles, Nyargle, and Serpent King). If we have this guy on the admin train, we would have less chaos. Good Job Disaster Flare. -- Falconian Leader (Enter the Leader's Office) 9:00, 11 March 2015 (EST)
- Reluctant support. I still see that you're a bit iffy around the edges given my previous points. Now that Smash 4 is done, things are slowing down quite a bit, consequently bringing some user activity to a halt or end. At this point, it's not like we can't handle vandalism, and on top of that it's easy to track. Many disputes that have occurred recently weren't in need of admins stepping in. At this point, this is RfA looks to be wanting to promote on a "why not" basis. This could be brought up in future RfAs and people will potentially link to this and say "Why not me, it happened with DF?" and that's gonna have to be dealt with. It's also kind of concerning that you haven't really stated good reasons why SW should want you, despite many people saying they want you, and the lack of linking to initial examples is kind of telling of their overall weakness. If this had come at an earlier time, and if you had followed the RfA better, I would be for you a bit more. At least for me, I'm very conflicted: I don't see a need for an admin, yet I think that overall you are qualified, and you would do good for the wiki. I'm not 100% on board with support, as this RfA has me a bit concerned for future RfAs if it passes, but I'm supporting nonetheless due to your credentials, overall community support, and my intuitive sense that you would be at least of decent help here. MuteSpittah (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
Oppose. I feel like you've still got a lot to learn and have more areas to grow in. You've broken your own rules before (SW:1RV, totally understandable, I don't think anyone truly gives a shit about that one besides annoyance of edits wars, but still), and have been hypocritical about things (saying that Admins aren't kings, but then see them as kings, totally understandable again). Hard for me to pinpoint much else as this as mostly intuition. I also don't see a need for another admin. Also, given what I've seen from you here, I feel as though you could shoot for something way higher in life than being an admin on SmashWiki? That's both a discouragement and an encouragement by the way. MuteSpittah (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2016 (EST)
I'll be more specific about some flaws you've shown. First, judging from the examples you've shown on your qualification page, it seems that you have no problem sticking your oar in, even when the discussion doesn't get very hostile. In the end, the situations seemed to turn out well, but it seems you need a better gauge of when something is going to turn nasty or not. Second, the Dragon Lunge thing. You removed a tag calling for the need of an image on the basis of the word of someone else. You don't do that, if you're going to do that, you actually should know it yourself and not just go by the word of someone else. Maybe the person was trustworthy, but in case you didn't know Fire Emblem, there is a good possibility that you will never see an aerial Dragon Lunge in Fates. Maybe that was the fault of my tagging of it (though the game has been out for a while in Japan and it was explained in the origin, there was no source put). Knowing things is up to you to research and find yourself; it's fundamental. You don't seem to have played the game in the first place, or have enough knowledge of it. It also seems that you have a good deal of time on your hands, why not use it to research things yourself? I'm not saying you're a bad user, as you're a rather good user, it's just that you've shown some slight yet telling flaws demonstrating a lack of understanding in certain fundamentals of how things work. Yet even with that, you can still recognize that and strive to get better. So, that's my advice if you decide to stick with this. Honestly I think you have more potential than being an admin on a wiki site, but who am I to tell you what to do with your life/self. MuteSpittah (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Most of your oppose reasons seem rather minor, and what the user could do with his/her life/self is completely irrelevant here. Also "In the end, the situations seemed to turn out well, but it seems you need a better gauge of when something is going to turn nasty or not.". Admins need to be willing to "stick the oar in" to any discussion that seems like it might fly off the rails, whether it gets nasty or not. Serpent King 10:40, 4 March 2016 (EST)
That makes sense. I wrote this late at night, and it doesn't have a whole lot of sense to it. I'm going to change to support; while I feel there's enough admins, they're not around enough to deal with the rampant vandalism. Perhaps one more would be the magic number for admins @ SW. MuteSpittah (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Strongly oppose: he framed me for vandalism 188.8.131.52 11:31, 11 March 2016 (EST)
- Exceptionally neutral. My two main reasons for voting "oppose" on your previous RfA were 1) personal lack of familiarity with you as a candidate, and 2) concerns about your familiarity with SmashWiki (and MediaWiki generally). In the months since then, I've seen a significant and impressive set of contributions that show you've pretty thoroughly established your credentials on point #2. As for you personally, I've generally seen you attempt conflict resolution and moderation with reasonable success, which is no small feat. At this point, I would be inclined to support you... but I also am admittedly slightly concerned about the short time frame since your last RfA (roughly 4 months), and I'm not totally sure that we need another admin at this time given that Toom, SK, Nyargle and myself are all reasonably active. Hence my conclusion being neutral. You're certainly a good candidate, but it's hard for me to jump all the way to "support" at this time. Miles (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- That was indeed the toughest call to make, the time frame, but I appreciate hearing your opinion and I'm glad to know I have improved since the last application. Disaster Flare (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Neutral, leaning very very slightly towards oppose Your answer to my question only confirmed what I suspected - you really don't add anything. Your answer was almost completely unrelated to what I said, and your final claim was that you could do everything the current team did as well if not better, but I see no reason to have one admin that does everything everyone else already does when we already have five people handling that fine (even with OT being all-but inactive, we have non-admins handling that perfectly fine and adminship won't benefit them any, and with Nyargle and Toomai being spotty we have Serpent backing Nyargle up and the fact that there's rarely a huge conflict that we can't handle ourselves keeping us from really needing Toomai that often). I see no reason why you need admin except to prove the (certainly impressive) improvements you have been making on yourself, and you obviously don't need adminship for that. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:22, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- As neutral as it gets: We already have four reasonably active admins (plus one that shows up infrequently), which I think is enough for the time being (as well as for a wiki of this size). However, you do strike me as an exceptional candidate, so if this passes, who am I to stand in the way? --MeatBall104 16:38, 4 March 2016 (EST)
leaning to support i think we have enough sysops Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 18:24, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Neutral. His edit count shows he contributed a lot to the wiki, but he didn't really display why SmashWiki should want him to be a sysop (I mean he didn't show why him having these abilities will improve SmashWiki). I don't think we need another admin (which isn't a good reason not to be an admin, if a user proves them self as helpful and as qualified as another admin, they shouldn't be disqualified because of this), but I can't imagine SmashWiki being worse off with him, as he seems pretty knowledgeable and professional. I don't see any harm either way. -- Ethan(Discussion) 18:49, 4 March 2016 (EST)
Neutral. DF is doing this RfA at an opportune time; we have a vandal problem, but vandals are easy to spot and their shit is easy to deal with. I also don't see what new DF can bring to the table (though that's not a requirement) and I don't see his dispute skills being that extraordinary (unless he can give any good examples). So on one hand, he's being smart with the timing, and he's done so much and is highly capable of being a good Admin; on the other hand, any other time (like the last) he wouldn't be needed, and there are some issues, namely lack of examples of dispute handling and some issues of logic I see with his editing. Hence my neutral stance. MuteSpittah (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2016 (EST)
My only question: What do you think you add to the admin team? Right now we have a pretty balanced team - Miles has the seniority and wiki knowledge, Serpent King and Nyargle share "charismatic idea man", OT has the competitive knowledge, and Toomai has the strange ability to keep everyone under control and working together. What makes you think you could add something to this team to make it better? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 15:33, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Well firstly, my communication skills are typically really good, especially in debates and towards newer users. Granted, I will admit I've had some slipups, particularly in some of our spats (which I do apologize for letting my feelings take control in those situations). If I'm being honest, at the moment out of all the active admins, Serpent has the best communication skills, and even he himself has said mine are much better. Beyond that, I'm kinda like the "all colors of the rainbow" kind of aspect, when looking back at my history on the wiki. My competitive knowledge has been improving, my wiki markup and coding skills in general are pretty good these days, and I may be somewhat inaccurate here, but I've had history on not just SmashWiki, but also on three other wikis I can recall off the top of my head, so I'd like to say my wiki knowledge is about on par with Miles, maybe a bit less. Basically, in a nutshell, if there's a new obstacle, I'm willing to overcome it and take it to improve myself not just as a user, but as a person as well. I want to be able to help better the wiki in every way possible, not just in one category. Hope this helps. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2016 (EST)
I'm rooting for ya, kid. You'll become an admin ;] -- BeepYou, a user with no grammar at all :v (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2016 (EST)
I am noticing that a lot of you are mentioning that we simply do not need anymore admins. This is my refute to that: It would be a good point if it were true. During the day hours, I am at work usually, and everyday I get home exhausted (I work in retail...). Too often have I come home only to have people yelling at me to ban someone or a group of someones, something that I really don't mind that much, but it does get tiring. On top of that, I know that I am known for being active nightly, but as stated, my body simply won't allow me to do full night shifts every single night (I have to sleep sometimes). I guess what I am trying to say is that it would be nice to have a second nightly admin to pick up for me at times. My point is that Miles and Nyargle do most of the daytime adminship and they are great at that, but when it comes to nights, I am usually very much alone. Having Flare as an admin would definitely rectify that. Serpent King 20:43, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Give this guy a shining star. -- BeepYou, a user with no grammar at all :v (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2016 (EST)
- Also, to add on to Serpent's point, see my vote on the support side. Penro ...that's all. 07:25, 5 March 2016 (EST)
- My problem isn't that we have enough admins, because I agree that the overall admin responsibilities need some help - blocking vandals, deleting pages, etc. - but I don't think it's urgent enough to promote a user because "we like him and need another". We do need another admin, but we need an admin that not only supports the team in their direct jobs, but adds something new as well. I don't think DF really does that. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 12:16, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Here's the deal: My main goal is to take most of what Serpent does off his hands. He's always coming home exhausted, he's stressed out because he always seems to be the only one doing things. I plan on taking some of that off his hands so he can relax a bit, and since I'm on much longer, I have a much wider timeframe to doing that stuff. Disaster Flare (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2016 (EST)
Can you provide any evidence of you taking part in user disputes? Contributions are fine and dandy, but they're far from the most important part of being a good admin. 184.108.40.206 14:58, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- See User:Disaster Flare/Qualifications. The disputes are buried in there somewhere. Penro 15:02, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- If you're referring to this, then I am not particularly impressed. The first example has no user dispute in sight and merely features informing users of policy; the second example goes slightly more in-depth, but ultimately, it comes across as merely parroting points from earlier and doesn't actually involve user disputes to a very strong extent; and the third example doesn't feature user disputes in the slightest, with the candidate posting results of his research. None of the three cases demonstrate the candidate is skilled at user disputes, and as such, it is difficult for me to support giving him adminship.
- I'm not unreasonable. If Disaster Flare can provide evidence to the contrary, then I'm all ears. But as-is, contributions and activity are not enough to give someone adminship. 220.127.116.11 15:21, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- I'm not sure if you quite understand. The third example definitely is a user dispute, with me coming in to put an end to it, as it did come close to becoming an argument. User disputes don't necessarily mean I am disputing with someone, it just means they took part in a dispute, even if it means putting an end to it. Disaster Flare (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Hm... Upon closer examination, I guess I can slightly give you the nod.
- Regardless, there are still lingering issues. I'll consider your lack of response to the first two cases admission that they're not helpful to your RfA. In that event, you have only one notable case of involving yourself in user disputes... and it occurred only a little over a month ago. Can you provide further evidence that you've been able to defuse "9 out of 10" user disputes, or is this event merely a recent flash in the pan?
- I'd also like to add making someone have to fish out for user disputes instead of putting them on your RfA itself is a very sneaky, underhanded manuver. 18.104.22.168 15:49, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Reviewing the other two examples, I'd like to refute your point that they aren't user disputes, as both of those are too. A dispute is a disagreement between two or more people, which covers all three examples when you think about it. In my second example, "Your logic is flawed. This wiki is built up primarily on the fanbase and competitive base. If those bases classify it as SSB4, then so will we.", is not parroting as far as I can tell, I'm merely pointing out how the wiki functions in order to refute their point. The first example is also still a dispute, as it's still a disagreement between two or more people. Yes, I was informing users of policy, but I was using that to aid in the dispute, which is not against the rules to my knowledge.
- Futhermore, I'd like to conclude that I wasn't making someone fish out my user disputes, as I was visiting my grandparents at the time and didn't have a chance to reply. Hope this explanation helps. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- The first example is merely working out blocking logistics with other users. I'd argue that's not very relevant to your dispute handling since neither you nor the other users have the power to block in the first place, nor was anyone in the discussion being blocked; it was a matter of understanding how things work rather than settling a dispute over edits/policies/content. However, it does go to show that you know your shit and are helpful in explaining things, though that wasn't really dispute handling in that case. MuteSpittah (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- If you're willing to stretch the meaning of "user dispute" that far, then I'm not convinced. The first example is so minor, I don't understand how adminship is necessary to handle it. And for the second example, you still didn't particularly make any impressive leaps that tell me "Wow, this guy deserves adminship". Your comments about how Smash 4 is the most used name was already said by Serpent King and INoMed, and you don't provide any new arguments, deliveries, or perspectives. I'm not entirely expecting you to provide something like this horseshit, but we need something that demonstrates that you can take charge and be a reasonable man in a particularly unreasonable time.
- And that explanation doesn't help. I'm referring to the initial RfA's text, which makes nary a mention of your dispute handling skills. Blah blah blah contributions. Contributing a lot means little. Just look at Miles. Or countless others that have the editing skills, but not the judgement. But eh, minor detail, might or might not make or break your RfA. Still underhanded, I expect a CV to contain as much as possible.
- And before people get the wrong idea: I'm not doing this to troll or to intentionally ruin your RfA. I'm doing this because we need more than janitor admins. 22.214.171.124 16:31, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Also, excellent work at not providing more examples. Are you trying to hide something from us? 126.96.36.199 16:36, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- I agree with your points, but you don't need to be so snide. MuteSpittah (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Yeah, I did get a little testy there. I do apologise if I caused offense, it wasn't my initial intention. I guess arguments just get the adrenaline pumping; probably a reason why I try to avoid Wikis nowadays lol 188.8.131.52 16:59, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Yeah, I definitely feel you on that. Side note, if you don't want people to think you're doing this because you're bored as fuck, don't put that you're bored as fuck in the first place lol (
we can still read what you crossed out) MuteSpittah (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Twas intended to be but a stupid joke. But I can easily see why people would take it the wrong way. Removed. 184.108.40.206 17:07, 6 March 2016 (EST)
So before I get started, I'd like to establish that I'm not the IP. Honestly, all of you jump to conclusions. If you're going to try to be some detective who is "on the hunt to figure out what this Mega scoundrel is doing", maybe put some thought into it first. The IP prose is completely different from what I usually do, but hey, I guess you can all assume that I'm some sorta mastermind who can do this for shits and giggles.
That aside, this entire situation is pretty dull. Follows the same exact route that another RFA followed, with the mass amount of community support with almost no objections to promotion. Now, do I really care about whether or not he's going to be a capable admin who can handle disputes. The answer is no, I don't.
But what I do want to bring up is that the main consensus for making him admin could be summed up as "better safe than sorry". He's not going to mess things up, and he'll cover the times that Serpent King isn't active. Of course, that just makes me wonder: Why aren't the other three admins responding for him? Is it the fear of "being rude"? I really do want to know why the other three admins aren't just doing stuff for him. I'd also like to ask if we're just gonna promote people every time the current admins start feeling overwhelmed. It's a slippery slope comment, but hey, it's something to think about. MegaTron1XD 17:08, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- You made a pretty good point there. Most of the support votes do say that we need another admin just because the others are not as active. Dots (talk) The Calvin and Hobbes 17:14, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Makes me question adminship. I mean, the admins here signed up for it, they have a responsibility now. One time I saw OT caught up doing his own thing while people were like "Hey, there's a vandal, you're an admin, can deal with it please?" after like 20 mins of dealing with the sucker. MuteSpittah (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- A similar situation would be where we had three candidates for adminship on October 2015 because of a massive vandal attack. Having Disaster Flare become admin would increase coverage but many RfAs have to also consider the user being effective for user disputes, and a lot of RfAs failed due to not showing proper dispute skills. Dots (talk) The Uber 17:36, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- I wish I could see more examples of his supposed dispute skills because I'm not really convinced. MuteSpittah (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- I don't think of his dispute handling skills, or that he absolutely needs to be an admin when I think of DF. When I think of DF, I think helpful, high contributing, and calm and collected, and adminship isn't required to be like that. MuteSpittah (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- Personally, I think you're being overly critical. Serpent King 19:37, 6 March 2016 (EST)
- What's wrong with being critical? This is a big decision to make for SW as a whole. DF is a great user, heads above most, but he's yet to show real incentive for adminship. MuteSpittah (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2016 (EST)
(reset indent) I've given some thought before replying (mainly because I didn't want to end up saying the wrong thing and sounding bad somehow). This is directed to everyone who still has their doubts about me. I have nothing to hide. I will gladly lay out my entire history on the wiki. I will spend hours just trying to find good examples to show you when I'm asked. If it's still not enough, I implore you to look through my contributions, which you can locate here. If my history is still not enough to convince those who are neutral, opposing, or even leaning toward oppose, then I dunno what will, but since some have asked for more examples of conflict resolution, I'll lay some more out that I can immediately recall off the top of my head. This, this, and this are three more examples of conflicts that I solved. If you need any further evidence of my conflict resolution skills, please don't hesitate to let me know. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2016 (EST)
- @SilenceExpectoratah: He didn't take issue to you being critical, he said you were overly critical. 1) Bump. 2) This is going great so far *knocks on wood* 18 support, 6 neutral, and no oppose. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 15:17, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- I'm still remaining neutral. The given examples are fine I guess, nothing extraordinary but something nonetheless. I don't see what's wrong with being "overly critical" about this situation, and I don't really see a need for another admin - it still seems like a "why not" sort of thing, which I don't see as a good reason. Also, I find it pretty sus that the 3 other active admins haven't commented, when they have commented on RfAs in the past. MuteSpittah (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- Then you, sir, have not seen the 1 and a half hour vandal attacks that none of the current admins have been on. However, during most, if not all of these attacks, DF has been on. Penro 18:05, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- Umm, he's not a vandal? An IP with a dumb reason to oppose an RfA, yes, but not a vandal? MuteSpittah (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- Yeah sorry about that. I have been sick so I haven't been on as much. Serpent King 20:36, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- ...except I'm not talking about that? Penro 21:02, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- Link me instead of assuming I know then lol MuteSpittah (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- I hid the link because of SW:QDV so... Penro 21:06, 12 March 2016 (EST)
- Guys this is about DF's RfA and nothing else. This is going way off topic. Serpent King 21:09, 12 March 2016 (EST)
Giving this a big ol' bump Serpent King 18:10, 17 March 2016 (EDT)
- Yes I know this exists. I'm leaning towards support/pass at the moment but need to do some original research first. Toomai Glittershine The Pan-Galactic 11:03, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
- If you look at his contributions, I'm pretty sure you would say you would pass this but yeah, I'm expecting deeper thought than just that. Dots (talk) The Shiny red nose 11:32, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
While I am reluctantly supporting, I have some doubts so here's my questions: Why do you want to be admin? Why are you pursuing adminship? Do you see it as an accomplishment, a responsibility, a milestone, a way to help the wiki, an authoritative position, a title, a means of management, a position of power, a conduit of control, an apparatus for access to tools, or something else? How do you intend to use adminship for the betterment of the wiki? Answer without including the manageable and declining vandal problem. MuteSpittah (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
- There's actually a lot of intentions that go behind why I want to be an admin. Yes, I see it as an accomplishment, I see it as a very large responsibility, a milestone, a way to help the wiki, an authoritative position, a title, etc. Granted, yes, it can be a position of power, a conduit of control, and an apparatus for access to tools, but unless you phrased them wrong, those reasons almost sounds like you just want power, which is not what I want. Yes, if I succeed, I would be getting power, but I plan to use that power to help the wiki for the better. Look at the things to do tab for starters. It has greatly increased over time, and why? Because no one's doing them. I have been one of the bigger contributors to that to keep it down as much as I can, but I believe I can do even better at that job in the position of adminship. From what I've seen (and this is not to hate, this is a general statement and I'd prefer this to be considered a neutral statement), Serpent's really the only admin actually doing anything right now. Yeah, Miles and Nyargle have helped with tagging things and the occasional vandal, but OT's basically absent 90% of the time and the other admins have been inactive for years. I can recount a number of big projects Serpent has taken part in over the past few months, and as I've said before, my biggest goal is to take some of that weight off his chest, since he can only be on for so long while I'm on pretty much all day, and if there were something I can't do to help the wiki, I can always ask the other admins for help and their words of wisdom. I know adminship will be a new learning experience, I know it's a big responsibility, but I'm fully ready and willing to accept that responsibility if I am to be promoted, no matter how difficult the obstacle. Disaster Flare (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2016 (EDT)
- You answered part of the question as I hoped and part of the question as I suspected. Yes, adminship is pretty much all those things. The thing that's missing is that the only real reason you give for SW to want you to be admin is to pick up the slack of the other admins. Granted, what's the situation? Smash 4 is done with development, hence the activity here is dwindling to a degree. I can see why admins won't have much incentive to invest their valuable time here, even if they do have a responsibility. If someone like you is qualified and really wants this and desires to cover the times when there is some slack or dry period, which is now, then I don't see a reason to oppose. I'm still a bit wary, but I appreciate the answer. MuteSpittah (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- DF, here is a question. If a Good Faith user makes a sock account but the sock account is active and makes good faith edits too, what do you do? Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 11:42, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- @MuteSpittah: Yes, one of my main goals is to pick up the forgotten projects during the dry period (hence one of the reasons why I submitted the application when I did), as I have no plans to ditch the wiki during the dry period.
- @Poultry: Could you please elaborate? Do you mean if both the original and sock are active or do you mean if the original is inactive and the other is active in its place? Disaster Flare (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- They are both active and good faith, but still socks Poultry(talk) the Pumpkin Pie 14:29, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- At that point, I'd tell them on whichever one they use more the existence of SW:SOCK and then ask them to choose which account they'd like to keep. After they've chosen, I'll infinitely block the account they didn't choose. It's honestly fairly straightforward. Disaster Flare (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2016 (EDT)
- at this point, i think that this is going to pass Poultry(talk) the Team Liquid 10:09, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
- Ehh, I wouldn't jump to conclusions. There are still a few people who haven't seen this. Penro 10:16, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
- Should I get Oliver? (Assuming you see this, if you find this rude I apologize in advance). Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 17:52, 23 March 2016 (EDT)
- Eh, if OT wants to vote, he'll vote. I would advise against pestering him about it. Disaster Flare (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2016 (EDT)