SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Nyargleblargle

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

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Hi, I'm Nyargleblargle. Since I joined in early April, I've made over 1,800 edits to the mainspace and hundreds of file uploads intended for the mainspace. Eight of my most significant contributions include:

• Creating most of the existing Smash 4 moveset subpages (Not without a little help from Toomai)
• Creating most of List of character biographies
• Creating Miiverse (universe), which was the source of dozens of red links at the time
• Spearheading the creation of Official Custom Moveset Project (with the template being designed by Miles)
• Playing a significant role in coding Template:TournamentPlacementRow and its header counterpart, as well as implementing it on a few Smasher pages
• Uploading over 100 Smash 4 idle pose images and playing a large role in splitting the idle pose pages
• Helping to anchor Smash 4 trophy pages
• Creating the menu templates for every game except Brawl

I've also been trying to do a lot of janitorial work, such as tagging pages for speedy deletion, reverting vandals, and moving pages once consensus is reached. Becoming an admin would allow me to increase my efforts by deleting pages (with consensus, of course) and blocking vandals.

While I recognize that I've only been on this wiki for a few months, I have been very active (being on the wiki for 3+ hours per day at my peak back in June), giving me a lot of time to learn the ropes of this wiki and learn from my mistakes. I also recognize that I've lacked dispute resolving experience in the past, but I'm very active on talk pages and have been trying to improve my skills. Plus, despite the policy, it can be very difficult to settle a conversation for good if you're not a beraucrat.

Thank you for your consideration. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

Support

1. You're a very useful user, I can see you becoming a good admin. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:36, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
2. Strong support You and Serpent King both have made significant contributions. I wish you the best of luck. Ganonmew (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
3. Reading that reply you made to that first comment, sounds like a logical approach to settle disputes. Also, you were a trustworthy contributer, so I'm sure you'll be a trustworthy admin. I wish you the best of luck! Berrenta (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (EDT)
4. Support. You've been a big help to this wiki, plus it wouldn't hurt to have a few more admins. Good luck! John PK SMAAAASH!! 09:15, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
5. Strong support You're a great contributor, and I have to agree with Berrenta that your response to the below question is a very logical one. You know what you are doing, and I have yet to see you abuse rollback. You also seem to have a thorough understanding of each smash game. Best of luck to you. Serpent King (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
6. Per Ganonmew. Kudos to the both of you. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 10:13, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
7. Strong support. You are an amazing editor, and I really think that you becoming an admin is a very good idea. Your edits are incredible, and you've been so helpful here that the wiki wouldn't be the same without you. Plus, Smashwiki could benefit from a few more admins. LittleMacmain97, the World Circuit is mine! (Talk) 10:38, 22 August 2015 (EDT)
8. Support, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Levelheadedness, an understanding of a situation, a high presence and no evidence of water-spine. No objections. ScoreCounter 12:37, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. Neutral. Another case of an excellent contributor who I'm not sure has made clear what kind of admin they would be. At this point I don't feel like I can say whether you'd make a good one or not. Your answer to my question gave me a mixed vibe, so that didn't really help make my decision the way I'd hoped. Miles (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   have to know, what about the answer didn't you like? Serpent King (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   Dodging the point about how to resolve a dispute aside from "look at the strength of the arguments and their counterpoints", which is overly vague, and lack of response to the part of the question regarding when Nyargle had an opinion on the subject. Miles (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   I don't intend to be disputatious, but for clarity, my original answer was intended to represent all three situations (it's likely that I would have presented a comment by that point). I'd try to avoid personal bias to a reasonable degree. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 19:55, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   The point I was getting at is that as an admin, you are expected to resolve disputes, including ones in which one has a personal investment in the results. Your answers are inoffensive but also (in my opinion) kind of sidestep the point, hence why your answer was not "wrong". It merely didn't convince me to change my starting point of "neutral" to support or oppose. Miles (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

2. Neutral: Per Miles; akin to Serpent King, you are a very competent user with not much to show for possible usage of admin powers. Your cases are very similar. DarkFox01Fooooox! 20:22, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   I don't get why people keep saying that. I can provide nightly protection of the wiki, while NB can provide daily. We've both dealt with vandals enough to understand what to do if one should come lurking. As there are currently only 2 active admins on this wiki, posting vandals on the admin board will not quell the vandal until an admin finally does show up. More trustworthy and competent admins means more protection, and I personally think we both meet these criteria. Serpent King (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

   Now that I've looked into more detail regarding edits, I understand where you come from. I'll see what I think about this. DarkFox01Team Dark Fox, reporting for duty! 20:39, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Comments

General question: Suppose there were to be an edit war between two well-respected users, User A and User B. The two have an disagreement about the content or layout of a page, and after other users contribute to the talk page discussion, no clear consensus is reached. How would you, in an admin role, act upon the situation if a) you agreed with one of the two positions; b) you disagree with them both; or c) you have no strong opinion on the subject at all? This isn't a test question with a right or wrong answer or anything; I just want to gauge how you'd handle a situation of this sort. Miles (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

In all cases, I'd probably look at the strength of the arguments and their counterpoints, and make my decision based mostly on that, with some small compromises made to accomodate the other half if possible. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 16:58, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

Could you please elaborate on what action would be involved as a result of "making your decision"? Miles (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

Modification (or lack thereof) of the layout/content according to the edits. Actually, I forgot to mention that if the edit war violated SW:1RV, I'd probably issue warnings (and blocks if it was ridiculously intense) to those who made, well, more than one revert. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

If we have four active admins on this wiki (including Serpent King and Nyargleblargle passing their current RfAs), I would probably suppose that this should clear out the lack of admin problem. Should OT be back active, I personally think five active admins would be too much for a low-medium-ish sized wiki, although useful if admins can make sure other admins don't become too powerful and stuff. I just wanted to put that out. Dots (talk) The Sigma 17:44, 21 August 2015 (EDT)

Considering the numerous amount of users on this damn thing, I don't see how having 5 leaders (I stretch that word's definition) would be considered too much. Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 10:15, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

Other large wikis may need many times more admins than said five. For example, the Mariowiki has 20,000+ articles and many users are guaranteed to edit on a daily basis, so maybe they do need many admins to keep things running. SmashWiki is a medium-sized wiki, not small and inactive like Wikibound, but not huge and traffic consuming like Wikipedia is, so personally three or four active admins is pretty viable already. Dots (talk) The Yoshi 10:46, 22 August 2015 (EDT)

---