SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Smorekingxg456

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

Smorekingxg456 (talkcontribsedit countRFA page)[edit]

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.

I have been contemplating running for adminship for a while now. I have many reasons why I feel I should be an admin. First, I can actually comprehend policies. I can also point out violations of policies to users, and I would be able to bring disciplinary action against the violators as an admin.

Second, I am the author of the pending policy, SmashWiki:Crew Pages, which further proves my point of me being able to comprehend policies. And while I'm on the topic of crews, with the new addition of SW:NOTE, I have been tagging many crew and smasher pages for deletion. While there are other admins deleting Smasher pages, crew pages are receiving less attention. frequently go through crew pages and edit them to put Template:Crew on them, so while I was doing that, I'd be able to delete ones that aren't notable.

Third, I have tagged many images and pages for (speedy)deletion, and with admin powers, I would able to delete these manually instead of waiting for an admin. Also, instead of reporting vandals to admins, I would be able to deal with them myself, saving time on both parts.

And now for miscellaneous facts that may or may not help me.

  • I have rollback, if that is of any merit.
  • I have always kept my calm on talk pages and such.
  • I have no life, so I would be able to just sit at my computer all day, waiting for an opportunity to use the admin tools.
  • I have adminship on two wikis, so I'm not a complete n00b to the tools.
  • Rawr

So yes, that is my request "form" and I hope you vote honestly and opening.

Cordially,
Smoreking(T) (c) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  • I was waiting - About time you ran. My friend, support doesn't get any stronger. He has a great understanding of SW's policies, and would make good use of these tools. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Friendship has no place in RfAs- I hope you have taken that into account. --Shadowcrest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You could say that if I had said "He's a great friend, so he deserves this tool", but not rite nao. Less bugging me pls. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Slight support. Smoreking generally does a pretty good job with wiki stuff, and while he has an odd sense of humor (Shoop da Woops? Come on.), he generally "means srsbsns" when it comes to composing and enforcing policies. I'm rather confident he'd use the tools well, but I'm not quite sure he has the right sense of responsibility, hence the "slight". Miles (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: It may be a bit rushed after you got rollback, but you know what to do around here. You'll do fine.L33t Silvie F33R T3|-| L337!! 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Active, has rollback, knows polices well, and likes smores. Yep. He has things an admin has. IMO he's qualified. (just kiddin about the "likes smores" part ;D) Masterman 2009 03:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: What Masterman said. Teddy (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • EPIC SUPPORT: No vandalism. Great help to the wiki, and not done anything (epicly) wrong. --~The Blue Blur~New main in training! 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • Alright. From what I've seen, you're not ready. Although you have amount of activity, I have to Oppose. For the following reasons.
    • You have only had rollback for a month or two, so the status more than anything means a lot to you.
    • You say that you have adminship on two wikis, but I must say, and please don't take offense, that CD-i Wiki isn't much reason to support you. You guys just promote your friends at will, and chat about random stuff. In the past 500 edits, I haven't seen any legitimate use of admin tools, so I can't see whether you're actually reliable with these tools.
    • Your page is covered with Shoop-da-Woops, yet you maintain that you mean serious business.
    • The only user conflict I've seen you help in was you sticking your nose in and telling one side what to do. you weren't successful, and for that reason, I can't see whether you can be relied on at the moment.
For all those reasons, I oppose. I'm sorry, but that is my case. Feel free to prove me wrong, but don't flame. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

::lolno, SK can do whatever he wants with his own page. Srs bsns applies to policies and talk, not the user's own belongings. "You must say" something more reasonable, please. About CD-i Wiki; you don't even need to bring that up in the first place, because it does not apply to SW. The last reason was as much a grudgeful PA as the ones you fear. Stop being a hypocrite and find a real reason, otherwise, remain neutral. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)

  1. Edit count has absolutely nothing to do with RfAs.
  2. Rollback also has nothing to do with RfAs.
  3. I agree that adminship at such a not-serious wiki doesn't really count for much. Sure, you may know what the tools generally do, but they're pretty much self-explanatory. You need serious experience with them to qualify as understanding of how to use them.
  4. The first thing on my userpage is a userbox about how I'm a Tin Plated Dictator with Delusions of Godhood, and I doubt anyone would say I'm not serious.
  5. We stick our noses in and tell people what to do whenever we have to- it's kind of our job. Though some of us do it more politely than others and so it may not seem that way, it's what we do. Additionally, I am not universally successful, but (imo) I've done a pretty good job so far. Would you say that I am a failure for not achieving everything I attempted? --Shadowcrest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Pointing things out, none of those directly affect here on SW, except possibly the SdW one. Yet you didn't talk about the actual points in my RfA, just the things that I said "may or may not affect my Rfa". You simply pointed out things I misproperly put in there. You said nothing about my actual reasoning, the first three paragraphs.Smoreking(T) (c) 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One, you failed the test pretty badly. Two, you had a grand total of 16 Smasher Namespace edits before the test, so your argument that you need the tools to not have to tag the pages first fails. Third, and also including number one, you really haven't demonstrated that you are competent enough with the big names in the Smash Community and/or know how to find information about them that I would feel comfortable letting you just delete pages that you think aren't notable. Now, along policy lines, I also have strong reservations about you as a sysop. Generally, your "warnings" issued to other users seem to be nit-picky, and often just you trying to demonstrate that you know the letter of the policy. I haven't seen an indication that you fully grasp why we have most policies. This is detrimental to you chances as a sysop as I don't feel that you could distinguish between good faith mistakes and wrong doing. Additionally, I don't feel that this would help in you working to construct new policies. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the general gist of CHawk, as well as his specific line that "this is detrimental to you [sic] chances as a sysop as I don't feel that you could distinguish between good faith mistakes and wrong doing. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I read what you said on BNK's proboards. Your selfish, arrogant and I don't want an admin who snipes about users who they don't like behind everyone's backs. You have no regard for people's feelings, and frankly, if you are going to accuse me of sockpuppetry, do it to my face, rather than behind my back. I am no sockpuppet. This may come off as harsher than I intended, but there you are. GutripperSpeak 11:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This makes me chuckle because Smoreking is one of the only people who believes I'm not a sock of DE. --Shadowcrest 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Kinda strange to post here again, but I'm glad I found this. I don't know if it's a policy or not, but things done or said on another unrelated website shouldn't have anything to do with RfA's, RfR's, etc. Yes, there have been several posts at several proboards sites, including one that has actually convinced me that, in the least, that Gutripper and TG know each other's passwords. I know it is an admin's job to get into wkia business, but proboards IS NOT wikia business. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Believe all you want, but I'm telling the truth. We're mates, thats all. And so what if its on another website. Does that make it ok for me to go around behind everyone's backs, telling everyone that new people are losers, claim credit for everyone elses work, being stuck-up and generally mean? Just because it is not written on here, does not excuse it in my eyes. I am not changing to anything other than Strong Oppose. You do not deserve adminship in my eyes. GutripperSpeak 03:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, things that occur off-wiki shouldn't have any bearing on-wiki. But if, as in this case, you're discussing a person's qualifications for a particular position, and you happen to have seen that person acting in a particularly immature fashion on another site, for example, it's hard to say that that's not applicable to a discussion of whether or not that person is suitably mature. (Note: I've not reviewed what Smoreking said, so I'm not passing judgment on this particular vote.) – Defiant Elements +talk 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am fully aware. I would not have included it in my reasoning if I was not certain of its merit in my opposition. GutripperSpeak 04:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the one thread that I saw wasn't started by Smore. I think it was Xtrme. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  • Neutral with a STRONG lean for Support Smore has done a VERY good job in terms of helping this wiki. He will make excellent contributions, but I'm curious to see how he will handle user disputes. Friedbeef1Screech 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


  • Neutral I really don't know. He just doesn't seem like admin material to me. I'm sure he's up to it, but I'll have to do some research and see what the others say. Toon Ganondorf (t c)
All PAs aside... but "research"? Sorry, I'm confused... Blue Ninjakoopa 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • By research he means looking over Smore's edit history. As for me, seeings as we've just promoted three admins in the last few months, I don't really think we need that many more. I'm sure Smore would do a good job, but Neutral. GutripperSpeak
Is there really such a thing as too many admins? There are times when, despite the large number of admins, none of them are on.Smoreking(T) (c) 23:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is such a thing as too many admins. If you have too many, it begins to look like an elitist cabal, with all the popular, contributing users as admins, and it creates an inferiority complex for the normal users. But, I don't think it's really applicable for this- our admin:user ratio is fine. --Shadowcrest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, VERY STRONG lean towards support What FriedBeef said. ClonedPickle 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I neutral because while I am pretty sure that Smoreking is smart/knowledgeable about wikis enough to not be a bad admin- indeed, he may even make a good one- there is a certain something about this RfA and the "campaign" it has become. Again, I think Smoreking has what it takes, but I am somehow still wary. Alice 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning to support My reason being, this could have waited a bit, as we discussed. Yes, you are an active contributor, and you have used the tools you have been given responsibly. The crew pages need some work, and your help would be appreciated, which explains my lean, but right now also tagging the pages is far more important that deleting them, because the latter is done far more easily. For why I'm not going to put down a full support, I have certain reservations about your motivations, being rather that you want the powers largely for the sake of having the powers. Semicolon (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So your general reason for not being a full support is the thought that I want adminship purely to have power? I must disagree. While I do want adminship, that is not the entire reason for this. One of the main reasons is for the crew page deletion. However, your alternative of tagging them, would not be as completely efficient and fast. There are times when no admins are on, and even when there are they are not deleted as fast as possible. Some can even go on for a few days even with a speedy delete tag. Due to my lack of a life(:p), I would able to go through the crews category and delete the ones that aren't notable, which would be much faster than simply tagging them, as you said.Smoreking(T) (c) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
...Can't you only get on on weekends? --Shadowcrest 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm supposed to, yes ;) And you'd be surprised how much I could do in one weekend.Smoreking(T) (c) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As this is an RfA, the right is reserved to provide a hypothetical situation or a test and see how the candidate responds. So, I have assembled several present articles, both crew and smasher articles. Your job is to investigate and respond, without consultation, about whether they should be deleted or retained. The articles are: Smasher:AK, Smasher:Princess Peachie, Smasher:Kpld, Smasher:Medicine Woman, Smasher:Dr. Quinn, The Only Acronym, GAMER Guild, and Omneox Of Smash. Keep in mind there are right/wrong answers, and I know what they are, but some of them have some wiggle room. I've done my homework on this one. I'll strongly consider changing my vote to a support depending on how you do on this one. Good luck. Semicolon (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I went through them. You can see which ones I tagged.Smoreking(T) (c) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, slight leaning toward support. If I were a bureaucrat and I had to appoint one person that I thought had a chance of passing a normal RfA it would be Smoreking. Given the available candidates, Smoreking is the best option in my opinion. He is the most likely to succeed, most like to make good decisions.... but all that having been said, Smoreking is not the ideal candidate. There are certain things about Smoreking that cast shadows of doubt, though as mentioned these are smaller than some other users'. What Alice said above is also pretty true. If we were in times of trouble, with round-the-clock vandals and busy sysops, I'd support Smoreking in a heartbeat. But since we do not need more admins...and there is always the worry of perceived elitism... I remain neutral.
    tl;dr: Smoreking is the best available candidate, but whether we need him as a sysop right now is questionable. --Shadowcrest 03:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm fairly confident that Smoreking would be an able SysOp and he's clearly active; however, with that said, I do have two minor-ish qualms. First off, I'm not wholly confident in his ability to moderate user conflicts and other problems of that nature, though I've not seen him "in action" often enough to make that judgment with any real certainty (I'll reconsider this if someone provides examples to the contrary, i.e. which demonstrate sound discretionary judgment/capable handling of user conflicts). Second off, though I don't necessarily see this RfA as an attempt to garner power, I'm not entirely convinced that Smoreking needs SysOp tools (at least in so far as anyone can really need del/prot/block). (Additionally, I tend to think we have a sufficient number of SysOps as is, though that doesn't speak in any way, shape, or form to Smoreking as a candidate.) I've also not seen any abundance of evidence that Smoreking has an above average grasp of policy, though I tend to attribute that primarily to admittedly limited knowledge of Smoreking as an editor. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, slight lean to support Haven't seen too much need for actual adminship, even though you've got some policy knowledge, but you really could use the ban tool to save time. Once you really get involved in things where it is mostly mostly admins discussing things. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Move for closure[edit]

I'm moving for this nomination to be closed under successful. Kperfekt BURN!!! Revert That! 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really a stupid thing to say. Five supports, three opposes, and a large amount on undecided. This needs more deliberation. GutripperSpeak 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't call my friends "stupid". Please. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were calling what he said stupid, not him. I again apologize. lol Blue Ninjakoopa 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this taking do long? Isn't he trusted enough yet? It's not like he's a vandal and capable of destroying the wiki and unleash viruses all over the wiki, thus spreading all over the internet, and all the world's technology is re-programmed to do it's worst, and hack into the White house and threat to kill the president, and in return all ex-admins of all wikis must be killed (And B-crats) and Wikia will be handed over to smore, and using his B-crat and Admin powers to create the ultimate power source to hold all the world's leaders into a slowly building up room full of water, and in return (Again...) all continents must be blown up (And military forces) thus making the world defenceless and being the new leaded of the internet... Convinced now? --~The Blue Blur~New main in training! 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
"Why not" promotions suck. If we promoted users because they wouldn't abuse the tools, then quite a few users would not be sysops, and lol if you think they should. Please try to keep that in mind before you go on another such tirade.
I happen to agree that a RfA should not take a month to close- two weeks is easily enough time. But pretty much the entire rest of your post is wrong.
Also, it's easy to take out the wiki for a while- unless I'm mistaken, it would only take one line to make the entire site a giant white block. --Shadowcrest 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
To answer your first question, I'm not sure. Some of the admins just don't like Smoreking (which is unfair) and think lowly of him because of his age. Blue Ninjakoopa 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop assuming bad faith please. --Shadowcrest 19:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop getting mad over small shit please. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You have severe problems with interpreting emotion. --Shadowcrest 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
r u sad? Blue Ninjakoopa 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
There's 5 admins who've voted here -- one in favor, two against and two neutral leaning towards suuport. So don't generalize inaccurately. Miles (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
isry, it dn0t look liek dat wit all da walls of text. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I can only guess who the people are who dislike Smoreking for his age... and I am certainly not one of them. I have respect for anyone who acts with half the maturity that Smoreking does, but maturity is not the only thing I [and others] look for in an administrator. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Smoreking is smarter than half the users here! Blue Ninjakoopa 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Did I claim he wasn't??? --Sky (t · c · w) 21:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
BNK, stop acting as a campaign manager. Saying things like "he's smarter than half the users here" is a really immature and desperate thing to say. If he is ready, his RfA will pass. No one is biased. Stop badgering people. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 23:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Toon Ganondork, stop being a jackass. You're only mad because there's a 12 year old in existence that is smarter and more legible than you are. Gee, and you wonder WHY I troll you in the first place. Here we go again with this fucking bullshit... *deep sigh* Blue Ninjakoopa 23:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
BNK, why are you again resorting to PAing someone you disagree with? There's much more effective ways of arguing a point than making it personal. Miles (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. My new method is asking them to talk to me on the SmashWiki IRC channel. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
And that worked really well. I think that deliberating about whether to close this or not is a waste of time. Why don't we spend the time debating whether he would make a good admin? GutripperSpeak 11:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw Shadowcrest's log. . . And, this might seem childish, but sysop for a day and see what he does, and if he's responsible, then un-do the promote if not? Bureaucrats can now undo sysops, now. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The point is not whether Smoreking would make a decent admin- there are many people who would make decent admins- but whether he'd be better than decent. "Why not" promotions suck, because filling up the wiki with just average sysops is a waste. --Shadowcrest 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what's up. First of all, there is nothing close to a consensus here. There's a lot of people on the fence, three opposes, and a handful of supports, most of which don't actually go towards SK's abilities as a sysop. As per Shadowcrest, "why not" is not a reason to make someone a sysop. Also, given that there has been no response to the whole test or my other concerns, it is something of a gift that this hasn't just been closed as failed. I left it open as part of me feels that SK would make a good sysop, but the current state of the RfA doesn't lend itself to success. Please, if you want this to go down as a success, get SK to respond to some of the above opposes; I'm very open to hearing why I might be wrong. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you feel that he might make a good sysop, wouldn't it be better to give him adminship for a week or two so he can show that he can use the tools properly? If you are not happy with what he does, you can revoke his adminship, as bureaucrats can now de-sysop users. GT5162 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've answered this twice now... the reason this has not been passed successfully is not that we think Smoreking would abuse the tools, but that he would not perform better than average. Unless we have a pressing need for more admins, there's no reason to promote anyone who isn't excellent. Filling up the wiki with decent sysops is a waste. --Shadowcrest 18:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)