SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Awesomelink234 (3)

Awesomelink234 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
After my two previous failed RfAs, which failed because I was inexperienced and not yet prepared for a admin position, I'm finally applying again, with nearly six years of SmashWiki experience, basic moderation knowledge, and over 2000 edits. I have reviewed SmashWiki's various policies, and can enforce them if necessary. When it comes to dispute handling, I try to do my best to resolve it efficiently without too much of a hassle. Also, I have rollback, which I use as a most basic form of reverting vandalism, should any come up. I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles, which means I can perform administrative duties when needed.

With that being said, thank you for reading this. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 23:04, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

Support

Looking through your edit history, you do seem to be good at catching vandals, undoing good faith-bad knowledge/bad grammar/unnecessary content edits, and contributing to discussions without being disruptive. However, I don’t see how editcount should play a factor into this. Some admins only have edits that go into two or three digits. Lou Cena (talk) 01:33, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
This is simply not true at all. If you're referring to Pikamander2 and Semicolon, they've been around since the Wikia days, meaning their edit count here is inaccurate. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 02:07, June 5, 2019 (EDT)

Oppose

Oppose. You seem to still have quite the tendency to get yourself involved in conflicts in a way which isn't conducive to helping to resolve them. You don't seem 100% familiar with all of our policies, and I'm really not seeing much change in your general attitude since your last absence from the wiki.

As for your RfA, here's my breakdown of why there really isn't much of substance to it:

1. "with nearly six years of SmashWiki experience [...] and over 2000 edits" - neither of these make you any more qualified than your typical user to become a sysop.

2. "basic moderation knowledge" - your edit history doesn't testify to this at all, the only real moderation knowledge you've demonstrated is you understand how SW:VANDAL works, and that's about it. Contrary to your later claim that "When it comes to dispute handling, I try to do my best to resolve it efficiently without too much of a hassle", you don't seem to have been doing any dispute handling at all, if anything you have a tendency to start disputes rather than resolve them.

3. "I have reviewed SmashWiki's various policies, and can enforce them if necessary" - I've only really seen one instance of you attempting to enforce any policy other than SW:VANDAL (which most users enforce anyway), and considering how that went, I don't think you have any basis for making this claim.

4. "Also, I have rollback, which I use as a most basic form of reverting vandalism, should any come up." - While this is a nice thing for aspiring admins to be able to use, ultimately rollback is merely a rudimentary "edit out-of-date revision quickly" tool which is fairly trivial to obtain.

5. "I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles" - See 1.

Overall, I'm simply not convinced that you are suitable for the roll and accompanying responsibilities of adminship at this time. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 07:27, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
Nope. I wasn't around for your previous two RfA's, but I did look over them before typing this post, and the general consensus seems to be that you're simply not experienced/qualified enough for the position despite being a good-faith editor. And maybe it's just me, but I also feel that making multiple attempts at gaining adminship within such a short timespan gives the impression of a lust for power, or a desire to become "one of the cool kids", which is not a good look for anyone. But being the nice guy that I am, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not power-hungry. Even so, the stuff you've listed this time around is just stuff that anyone is capable of, and adminship would not be needed in order to carry out those tasks. You also fail to mention how the Wiki would significantly benefit from promoting you (especially considering how we arguably have plenty of admins as of now), or any traits you might have that the current staff doesn't. And finally, it seems that even after five years since your second try, you still haven't improved much, despite clearly being a good-faith editor. Sorry, but I can't stand behind this one. Just stick with rollback for now. --MeatBall104 10:43, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
Slight oppose: I believe that you have the potential to be a great systop - you've helped a lot with wiki stuff, and interactions with you have been positive. However, this is an administrator position that you are looking for, one of, if not, the more important positions on this wiki, and I don't believe you have really proven yourself to do it. What I wanted to say has already been mentioned above, mostly by Alex, so I won't really repeat much. However, I would like to address how it seems like you're doing this RfA simply because you believe you have enough experience on the wiki. You haven't given much specifics on how you have improved/affected the wiki since you last applied, and most of your reasons that you have listed are either very vague/somewhat debatable or isn't something that's too important for a RfA. If you can prove that you are a great enforcer and can properly handle disputes while giving details as to how, then I believe you would be fine. Until then, I have to lean towards the opposing side. Cookies Creme 18:45, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
Oppose Let's go over this one issue at a time:
- I am finding it extremely difficult to trust your judgement. Just the other day, you requested protection for an article that got vandalized one time in the last month on our discord, and it isn't the only time you've done this. I don't think you'd intentionally abuse your power as an administrator, but I do feel that mistakes like these show a certain ineptitude for such a position.
- This RfA is so lackluster, it's difficult to take seriously. You haven't detailed any instances of conflict resolution, your edit count (which is a bit on the slim side anyway) doesn't really make a difference in RfAs, you've said that you have an understanding of our policies but haven't detailed any of them or shown your interpretation of them, your "six years of SmashWiki experience" is blatantly false given your 2 year hiatus between 2016-2017 (you have a few edits in that time period but nothing substantial), and there's no proof of your "basic moderation knowledge".
- You say you can easily resolve disputes, but where's the proof? I have never seen you resolve a conflict, but maybe I am overlooking something? Going through your very few talkpage posts tells me that this isn't the case. I'm not finding anything overly concerning, but I am also not finding really any experience handling conflicts. All I am really seeing is warnings and reminders, which are not examples of conflict resolution.
- To be honest, this is your 3rd RfA with relatively little amounts of improvement between them. You want the position, but you don't want to put in the work required to prove that you deserve it. Serpent King 02:24, June 6, 2019 (EDT)

Neutral

...

Comments

How long can RfA's be up? I would like to add my opinion, however I also need to sleep. Cookies Creme 23:17, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

For as long as they need before admins make a decision, for example Aidanzapunk's most recent RfA was up for 2 weeks. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 23:22, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

That said, if nothing happens in them for a while, they do get taken down due to inactivity. Aidan, the Rurouni 23:36, June 4, 2019 (EDT)