Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Hello, I'm Serpent King. In mid-July, I submitted an RfA that ultimately ended in a stalemate. My opposition felt that I lacked proper dispute resolution skills. I believe that in the 3 (the RfA lasted for 2.5 months) months between then and now, I have gained these skills.
A few points to bring back from my previous RfA:
- I am active and especially at night. Promoting me would fill a gap of admin inactivity that seems to attract a certain amount of vandalism.
- I have been around since March of 2015, and since then, I have made 7680 edits.
- If anyone would like to see a running list of my major contributions, they are welcome to check here.
- I will do my job in blocking vandals, but that is not the basis for making this RfA.
In the end, it's your vote that decides this RfA's fate, so I encourage you all to comment with questions before voting. I will be happy to answer them in a timely fashion of course. Thank you all for your consideration, and please enjoy the rest of your day! Serpent King 03:05, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Strong support I don't even need to ask questions. In the time since you last applied, you have shown tremendous growth, in terms of editing, conflict resolution, and fighting back against vandals, and have been extremely helpful to all when they fell flat on their face (Yes that includes me). To be quite frank I trust you, and I think you'd be very capable to be admin. Sorry, I don't really have much else to say on the matter. I'll wait until more people vote before I add anything else. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Very, very STRONG support Your previous RfA may have been a failure, but since then, you have shown heavy growth, in terms of editing, conflict resolution (Which is the most important part of RfAs), and fighting against the vandals. You have also been extremely helpful to others when they needed help. Long story short, You will be a great admin. INoMed (Talk • Contribs) 03:56, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- I now change to Very strong support as Miles is correct: the example in my talk page archive is not really good conflict resolution. (But I still support for your efforts!) INoMed (Talk • Contribs) 04:32, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Part from this incident which you shouldn't have really got into, let alone stuck around, your dispute skills are supreme, and you are a top notch contributor. That, with TheThreeSysops all of a sudden no longer being active at a reliable time anymore, I think you are the optimal candidate at the time. With the exception of the above incident, all your contributions come down to me giving you a very, VERY strong support. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 05:57, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Strong support You've always been very helpful to other users (like me) and I've seen your massive improvement since the last time you applied. And your contributions are definitely not to be ignored. You still have some things to improve (like dispute handling), and Miles has VERY valid points (the only reason my support isn't full strength), but I'm sure you can pull it out. I hope you make it. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- After reviewing SK's responses to Emmett's qualification page, I can safely say that I give my full support. They were more than just satisfactory. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2015 (EST)
- SUPPORT TO THE MAX all the good points were already taken Nintendofan1653 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Support. While previously I was unsure whether you really deserved it, since then I believe you've really shown off what you were talking about. That, and you're one of the most active and helpful users I've seen. While Miles has brought up some decent points in my opinion, you still would be a good fit in my book. Removing my vote as I don't feel educated enough to have a say in this, and I feel I should do my homework if I want to make this decision. Best of luck to you, Serpent King. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Slightly Weak Support. I know you've contributed a bunch to this wiki. Pika, Wild Turkey Appeared! 10:36, 10 November 2015 (EST)
Support I definitely think you would be a good admin, although you definitely should work on your snippiness when exasperated (though this is a good example of the pot calling the kettle black), since, having dealt with that in an admin, it's definitely discouraging to a new user. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:59, 10 November 2015 (EST)
- Since if dispute handling were really as important as we tend to make it out to be, Nyargle would be the only admin, I'm changing to strong support. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 17:21, 19 November 2015 (EST)
- Support Alright, I took another review of Serpent King, fully read his responses here and on the qualifications page, and I'm gonna now be putting my support behind him. I've found his answers to be satisfactory enough to show he knows what he is doing despite his lackluster RfA intro that gave other impressions, and reinforce my prior thoughts that he has a good head with solid judgment and reasoning skills. The main hangup people claim to have with him are his suppose dispute skills, but outside the smashpotatoes incident, I'm not seeing it, and it's a one-time incident Serpent King has sufficiently shown was likely a one-time thing. Miles' linked examples in particular don't stand out as bothersome outside the aforementioned. As I stated in my oppose, I don't see how he was doing anything remotely close to "heavy-handed berating" in the INoMed convo. On the Drilly Drilly page, I don't see any problem with this supposed "snappiness", as minor as it was, especially when the user he was trying to help been a problem user for a while who brushed off Serpent King's help. For the Toon Link argument, I find it again to be a problem user being needlessly difficult and pushing Serpent King's patience after he mostly handled it well; if anything he should have been more forceful from the getgo. For the Departure convo, I find Serpent King being "snippy" here fully justifiable, when it's the same problem user once again making such a ridiculous post that no one could take seriously. On the contrary, I've found that Serpent King is pretty damn good at serious disputes, particularly on the infamous Marth argument, this Smash 4 name argument, and his involvement with Miles' recent RfB, where I found he provided the most insightful posts besides myself. As such, I can trust giving Serpent King the adminship tools and am confident in his ability to lead on the wiki. Omega Tyrant 19:28, 16 November 2015 (EST)
- I thank you for your time spent on this assessment. Cheers! Serpent King 19:42, 16 November 2015 (EST)
- Your resolve in helping the wiki is admirable, and as OT said you appear to be a fairly sensible and rational user. For me the selling point is your willingness to spend your own day off protecting the wiki, alongside other mentions of such. Additionally I am now convinced you will not abuse the admin tools which was a little concern of mine last time. I know my vote probably won't mean much but I will throw my support anyway. - EndGenuity (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2015 (EST)
- Change to support Everything what I said on my initial vote. But at last after I saw your resolve, it about that time that you finally covered your one core problem that would of keep you from becoming an admin! I am now convinced that in my point of view, you would be a good admin. I trust you along with your skills. Good luck. Luigi540 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2015 (EST)
- Support. I've been thinking about this one for a while now. In the past, I feel I've been too quick to vote on these requests. What I was worried about was dispute handling, but then OT made some good points. Before he made his points though, I trusted your judgement. My opinions have been reinforced. You've made excellent contributions to the wiki and are on frequently, so you should make a good admin. Good luck! John PK SMAAAASH!! 11:16, 17 November 2015 (EST)
- Support Wow, have I actually not voted yet? Man, this is long overdue...*clears throat* but I digress. You really know what you're doing, you're excellent at conflict resolution, and I feel this is a big improvement from the last RfA you had. Let's just hope this one doesn't sit here for two months. XD Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 11:24, 17 November 2015 (EST)
- Support I would've supported last time, and I'm only further in support now. Thank heavens you won't go down in history as the next user to fail an RfA twice. Toast ltimatum 09:49, 18 November 2015 (EST)
- Support He seems like one of the more mature users on here, at least when handling disputes and other wiki-related problems. Plus, he's up most of the night, so we have a better protection against night vandals. Laikue (talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (EST)
- Support Like everyone here, I've been well impressed with your work here and I feel like you have the needs for the admin tools. Cheers for having five admins! Dots (talk) The Kirby's up tilt 16:38, 18 November 2015 (EST)
- Strong Support: Since the last RfA, you've improved significantly, and have demonstrated your user dispute skills in conflicts even I was in and couldn't fully handle. You're an extremely valuable contributor to the wiki, and you're always available when I need to discuss something that's going on. You have my full support, and I'm confident you can handle the tools well and better this wiki even more in the future. --Timson622222 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2015 (EST)
- Oppose. The main reason is a general lack of major positive change since the last RfA. Your claim as to why you are running again is because of improved dispute resolution skills, a claim which you attempted to justify here. However, I see little validity in such a claim. Forgive me if this gets a bit long-winded, but I'd like to explain my reasoning:
- Your first cited example consists of zero content from you other than "Let's end this discussion here, shall we?", which is a statement of questionable value. Generally, jumping into a discussion that does not involve you and declaring it over isn't exactly good dispute resolution.
- Your second cited example portrays you as rather heavy-handedly berating INoMed. The fact that you had to say "let's all calm down" and explain that you were trying to defuse the situation suggests that you didn't do such a great job defusing it to begin with.
- I've also seen several instances lately where you quite quickly get snippy and exasperated with other users, such as this, this, and this. If I had the impression of these being isolated incidents, it might be one thing, but this looks more like a pattern than a coincidence.
- I want to make clear that I do not think you are a bad contributor to the site in the slightest. However, if your main attempted justification for re-application is improved skills at user interactions, I'm not inclined to support you based on the evidence available to me. Miles (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- Yeah. That 2nd example is not really conflict resolution. INoMed (Talk • Contribs) 04:31, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- In reply to me getting exasperated: I could have handled that first example better, yes. I would not say that I immediately got exasperated with your second example, only when things stopped making logical sense. As for that third example...Looking back on it, I actually feel like
I handled it quite well I could have handled it much worse (I definitely held myself back), all things considered. As for the claims that my dispute handling examples are weak: The first example...ended a potentially bothersome user dispute with one comment. The second...well all I was trying to do is phrase what Luigi540 had said, just in a nicer tone. Serpent King 04:36, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- I'd also like to point out that these exampled of snippiness (that's not a word, oh well)... are all from the same user. One that you yourself have had issues with Serpent King 04:40, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- More snippies. All over that talk page. Then again, these two users were indeed outright harassing you. I mean Drilly attempted to make you leave. Still, you might wanna give better examples. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 06:01, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Slight oppose: So I just spent the past few hours looking through your contribution history. First thing I'll say is that outside of the Smashpotatoes incident, the linked discussions Miles brought up do not have any real bearing against your capabilities (especially the INoMed thing, I don't see how you were "heavily-handed berating" there at all or doing anything wrong). Overall you appear to be a great user with a solid head, but while I don't find you poor at user conflict and discussion, I don't find anything that shows you especially excel at it. I was somewhat leaning towards your support, but your proposal here is extremely lacking and shows a lack of understanding of what a wiki really requires in an admin. I have no doubt you can handle vandals well, but like I repeat over and over, that's a basic job anyone with basic competency can do. Besides that, I just don't have a strong grasp on your overall judgment. And with that, I'll have to lean to oppose, as I won't support the promotion of someone on an overall "why not?" basis. Like I said in the Disaster Flare RfA, I'm open to being convinced otherwise if you want to try and have anything to show me that could change my mind, I think you have the potential but I want to be 100% certain you do before supporting an RfA of yours. Omega Tyrant 11:03, 14 November 2015 (EST)
- Let me start by saying that I do know that I did wrong on the smashpotatos thing, that was mostly out of...annoyance I had had with him in the past. Now, reading over your response here, I am not entirely sure what you are expecting out of me, but I'll try my best.
- I have been involved in, and have fought vandals on many occasions. I agree with you that this alone does not mean that admin should be granted, as this could be true of any rollbacker.
- I continually push on the maintenance panel in attempt to get certain tasks done. I have been involved in almost every merge, split, move, and delete discussion, as well as policy proposals and RfAs since I started here 8 months ago. I have reduced the missing image count from over 150 to below 75 at one point, just in providing screenshots from Melee and Smash 64. I know this doesn't really mean much when considering an RfA, but it does mean that I have no intention of being "That one admin who blocks vandals but isn't good for anything else". I know our series well, and while I do lack knowledge on the tournament scene, such things can be researched.
- You'll also note that I am the lead contributor on everything about the debug menu.
- So yeah, if you have anything specific, please do not hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, I hope this has somewhat swayed you. Serpent King 19:38, 14 November 2015 (EST)
- Pretty much this is the criteria I'm expecting of you. If you can sufficiently answer the questions given there, I'll reconsider. Omega Tyrant 03:53, 15 November 2015 (EST)
- Right then, here you go. Serpent King 14:59, 15 November 2015 (EST)
- Very difficult decision to make, but Neutral. I'm really worried about your dispute skills, as they don't seem to be effective at times, but you are taking steps to get better and you would be great for janitorial work. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- I am now leaning towards support after your answers to the qualifications list. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:06, 18 November 2015 (EST)
- Between Neutral and Support: I can't really state my own opinions without parroting everyone else here. I think the only questionable aspect of this is your dispute-handling, (I'm not gonna get into it, since Miles basically summarized it the best) but other than that, you're among the best candidates who is currently active. I'm sure we could PROBABLY accept a new admin who's spotty in just ONE area! MeatBall104 10:15, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Neutral. Sigh. I don't know what to say about this. Everything what I said in your previous RFA, except you inherit one core problem in your effectiveness on your dispute skills, although I've seen you made some improvements. However, I trusted some users with decent to great dispute skills. I don't know about yours. Should I trust you as an admin? Hmm maybe. I'm not sure. I'll wait until more people vote and then I will decide deeply. Luigi540 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- I am not sure where I have indicated otherwise. If I have been a good faith user this long, I am not about to ruin that if I get promoted. Serpent King 18:37, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Before anyone asks here are two examples of my improved dispute skills. I'll dig up more if asked. Serpent King 03:17, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- That's another thing I forgot to mention, you've always backed me up whenever I had trouble with resolving conflict, which I think is extremely worth noting. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Question. By when you could start another RfA again, does it have to be after four months since you started your last attempt or four months after the last RfA ended in failure? Dots (talk) The Coffee Maker 09:17, 8 November 2015 (EST)
- There's not necessarily a minimum time, as long as you've improved since then. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:27, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Alright guys, here's the deal. I do a lot for this wiki, I don't think there is anyone who'd disagree with me there. The reason that I keep trying for this is that I wish to do more, that I really feel like I could make a significant boost on our image as a whole. I can be a vandal's worst nightmare. I can and will go through our speedy deletes every day, and most likely as they occur.
I understand that editing disputes are an area that I need to work on, but know that I am trying to improve. A lot of my snippiness (again, so not a word...) is a result of me being personally annoyed. I do not handle illogical situations that well and I never have (again, this is an area I am trying to improve). I can however guarantee that this flaw will never be reflected in any administrative action made by me. I will never administrate based on opinion. I understand that these are just words and talk is cheep, but know that I am speaking from the heart here. Serpent King 14:02, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Bump. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 08:05, 14 November 2015 (EST)
So far, I think in terms of community support, it's technically passed (not saying Toomai won't have his doubts): 16 support, 1 oppose (who has done little to defend his argument), and 2 neutral, both leaning towards support. It's also worth noting that you are quite literally the only candidate in ALL of OT's time here who he supports, and that means you're doing something right. Let's let it sit for a while to see what happens, however. I will get Toomai (again) to see if he has a different say in this. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 17:29, 19 November 2015 (EST)
- It's not over until it's over. To all of my support, I thank you. To my oppose, I value your consideration and critique. A mention to Toomai would be fine, but please do not pester him. Thank you. Serpent King 18:44, 19 November 2015 (EST)
- You're right. Also, I will not pester him, don't worry, just a quick making-sure-it's-relevant. Best wishes. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 20:03, 19 November 2015 (EST)