SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Mr. Anon (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 in question withdrew the request.

Mr. Anon (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
A long time a ago (a month) I ran for adminship. I was massively opposed for several reasons that I will address here. First though, I would like to state why I would like to be an admin, and why the wiki would benifit from having me. As said in my previous adminship, I have reverted quite a lot of vandalism through my long history with this wiki, as well as having marked many spam pages. I still mark vandals' pages with the warning tag, but try not to argue with them. One of the reasons my previous RFA failed was because people said I don't have much knowledge of the policies. Since then, I have studied the policies well, even adding one of my own. Another reason my previous RFA failed is because I had not had much experiences with disputes. Since then, I have tried to act calmly and logically rather than emotionally during conflicts. Currently, there are not that many active admins, yet vandals are still attacking the wiki. Thus, I believe I can greatly benifit the wiki as an Admin, and thus I apply my second request for Adminship. Mr. Anon teh awsome 01:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. ...

Oppose

1. Oppose - I see no evidence of your improved behavior, and I still believe that you're requesting power too soon. BNK ^[E|T|C] 01:37, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. Major Oppose- You only want this for the vandal probs, which are getten taken care of. It's been too soon since the last one. You have yet to list a reason why the wiki needs you, and you said you reverted adminship, which doesn't make sense.--MegaTron1XD 02:28, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

   Fixed. Mr. Anon teh awsome 02:02, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

3. Major Oppose: It is way too early for you to be requesting this again. DP99 (CTE) 02:01, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

   The reason why I'm running again so soon is because last time, the people on the "oppose" side were not very clear, and I believe I have added enough onto my resume to allow myself to run again. Mr. Anon teh awsome 02:11, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

   You're a good editor, but not admin material right now. You are active, but not super active. You don't really seem to need the tools. You don't seem to have a full understanding of the wiki. There are better candidates. I'm sorry, I hate saying this; it doesn't feel good to say no, but I feel like I have to. DP99 (CTE) 02:27, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose: If you thought the opposition comments on your last RfA were too vague, you should have asked people to be more specific, and to provide evidence where appropriate. Don't start another RfA on the grounds that people will say different things or be more specific a second time round. Adminship, janitorial duties aside, is about being sensible and thinking things through, and this RfA demonstrates a lack in both. Also, what everyone else said. PenguinofDeath 08:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose: I do not see how you consider the comments on your opposition in your last RfA to be too vague when they seem very clear to me. The fact that it hasn't even been a month since your last RfA failed miserably seems you're just wanting adminship and no candidate for adminship should appear to be power hungry. It also shows poor judgment on your part, which is a very important trait for an admin. You requesting adminship so soon sfter your last failed RfA comes off as you being impatient and too hasty, evident by all the mistakes you initially made in your explanation for why you should be an admin, which you shouldn't have done if you weren't rushing this. Nothing has happen since your last RfA to show that you would be a great admin. The only rather major thing you done was propose the addendum to SW:NOT about strategies, but that isn't too major as it was already an unwritten rule and it doesn't make you qualified for becoming an admin. You haven't gotten in any major disputes to prove you would handle them well and telling other users to "calm down" when they are not angry is not being logical and rational in a dispute. As for the vandalism, we are not having any major vandalism problems that the current sysops can't handle to where we are in a desperate need for another admin. While I'm not oppose to having another user being promoted to admin, I'm not going to support someone who appears power hungry and doesn't quite fit the criteria of becoming an admin. On a final note, there are better candidates available and I can think of at least three other users who are more deserving of adminship and overall would seem to make a better admin. My response may seem harsh, but you requesting adminship so soon after your last RfA failed miserably with the reasoning that your last RfA's oppose comments weren't clear enough merits a honest response such as this. Omega Tyrant 14:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose: Everything that OT said, plus the fact that you think a month is a "long time." As I said before, I see you as a good editor who is not sysop material. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:19, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
7. Major Oppose: What DP99 said.-Ivy73 15:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. ...

Comments

• Guys, he withdrew his request already. We don't need to be adding more opposes. DP99 (CTE) 15:13, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

  If he withdrew it he should get it off this page. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:26, July 19, 2010 (UTC)