SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Oxico (2)

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:	The user lacks a strong basis of support and his contributions have been few and far between over the last months. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Hello SmashWikians. I am Oxico, and I am sure most of you know me. I have been on this wiki since before the merge. In that time, I have strived to improve the wiki to the best of my ability. Back in the day, the SmashWiki was full of speculation and false information. I only allowed the most verified information to remain here. I began vividly editing the wiki as often as I could. I immeadiately sought after the powers of an admin. When I thought I finally had all the edits I'd need to make it, the RfAs were shut down. But now I seek my adminship.

Allow me to list some reasons I deserve SysOp powers. I have made over 1500 edits to the main wiki, more than some current sysop. I have created many Final Smash pages. I researched many character special movements such as Taunts and On-screen appearance and added the information to their respective pages and character pages. Countless other small, thought useful, edits add to my already impressive count.

But don't just take it from me. Ask the very list of edits I speak of. I also like how I got a vote before I even finished writing my argument. :P

Support

• I know where this is going, and I like it.O, Mighty Smoreking 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• *looks at edit count* Dude, Oxico should've been an admin the minute he joined Smash Wiki. He's nothing on his bad record, and he's also a good friend. Oxico for teh win. Blue Ninjakoopa ^{Talk to me} 02:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. you've been a great influence to many people, and a great friend. Xtrme Talk 2 X Wut X is doing 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Oxico is a valued editor and would be an equally valuable sysop. Miles (talk - contribs) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Youve helped this wiki a lot. But try to remember to sign your reasons :p JtM =^] (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Again, edit count is not a valid support. Lack of activity and certain personality quirks would make this a questionable promotion. --Shadowcrest 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but you're not as active as I aspected you to be. As well as this, you're recent edits have been mostly talk pages and AD edits. I understand that you have the more social skills to become a sysop and all that, but I don't really how it will take into effect. I know you've got some skills to become a sysop, but when you're recent edits in the Contributions page has been clustered by talk page edits, smasher page edits (especially of the user himself), AD edits and forum / other stuff. If you were more active, and focused on proper edits with a proper mix of talk page and involvement, then I will reconsider. METEORITE (t)

What are you talking about? Oxico's smasher page has looked the same for quite a while now. MarioGalaxy {talk} 00:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That happened a while ago. Recently, during the end of September to the beginning of October, he was inactive. As well as that, when he came back, there wasn't anything that significant. METEORITE (t) 01:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Again, your recent activity on the main namespace is vanishingly sparse and nothing about your editing patterns shows that you need the administrative tools. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 10:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. See what DE said in neutral, along with the fact that you haven't been active recently. Make this request more salient and I will consider a change of opinion. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. I just don't know. Something about you. Baltro [ talk ]

Neutral

• Neutral with a slight lean towards support. You're a good user, and you'd make a fine sysop, but you haven't been on very much recently. If your activity goes up, my vote changes. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. The fact is that just about anyone -- who isn't a vandal and who has basic reasoning skills -- is competent to Block/Del/Prot (though we'd also expect that the user in question be reasonably active, I suppose). As Shadowcrest points out, edit count, which seems to be the sole reasoning provided in Oxico's statement, is not a valid reason for SysOption. That said, however, there are certain kinds of edits, for lack of a better term, Admin-like edits, that I've found tend to be good litmus tests for potential SysOps, particularly on a wiki, like this one, where SysOps have a great deal of authority (i.e. they're not simply "janitors", but are instead "entrusted to mediate user disputes, arbitrate users, and interpret policy during times of argument"). In short, those would be edits that display an above-average grasp of policy and "WikiCulture" and/or that display that a user is particularly level-headed, rational, etc., e.g. helping to prevent the escalation of a user conflict -- including substantive contributions to the SmashWiki/SmashWiki talk namespaces by definition. Edits that display a particular dedication to house-keeping tasks are important to some degree as well, but only if you particularly need a SysOp to do janitorial stuff and have no better alternatives. Though I can't say I know Oxico (which is a big part of the reason that this is a neutral vote, the other major reason being that I don't have extensive knowledge of precedent on this wiki) and though I don't necessarily doubt that Oxico has the aforementioned qualities, I've been looking through his contributions and I haven't seen many edits that I would categorize as Admin-like (though I'll be happy to remove this "vote" if someone shows me links to the contrary). – Defiant Elements 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral — Not yet. Get back to being active and I think it would be appropriate for you to try again in a month and a half or so. :) No hard feelings. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---