SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Pikamander2 (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.

Result: Promoted to sysop. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pikamander2 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

On June 11, 2008, I requested adminship. Sixteen days later, I had five supports and three neutral votes, but SySop nominations were closed due to "an overflow in nominations." I am now requesting adminship once again.

Here are some reasons why I believe that I should become a SySop:

• I contribute to the wiki nearly every day.
• I never use foul language, on regular or talk pages.
• I don't melt or get angry under pressure.
• I have never been blocked.
• I have made over 2,000 edits to the main namespace since July 20, 2007, the day that I joined SmashWiki.
• I revert vandalism very frequently. If I was an administrator, I could ban troublesome IPs and delete joke/spam pages instantly.
• I have a colorful signature.

So, what does everyone think? --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Strong support, you do a lot for this wiki and you are very active. You deserve it. Im Alex25, K? (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. you've been a great influence and help to this wiki, and you're often funny and serious at the same time. Xtrme Talk 2 X Wut X is doing 00:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Massive support. Ridiculous numbers of mainspace edits, rollback'r status acheived, even-tempered and anti-vandal... every reason says yes. Miles (talk - contribs) 00:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. So far, Pikamander is one of the few users here I've seen that "gets" wiki. I have moderate trust in his abilities not to fail, which- combined with little comparable opposition- has led me to support. --Shadowcrest 15:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I supported this man the first time he ran for adminship, and I still do. Integrity, experience, work, he's got everything an admin should have. - GalaxiaD (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support The only thing keeping my vote from strong support is slightly low activity. He deserves my vote just from edit count alone. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support This dude is like an admin even as a regular user. His contributions are superb as well. He has my vote. Blue Ninjakoopa ^{Talk to me} 11:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. No reason why not.O, Mighty Smoreking 00:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support There is no reason whatsoever for Pika to fail this. Great editing, deals with people nicely, and helpful contributions says it all. METEORITE (t) 23:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support Now why would I oppose? I've seen this guy in action in reverting vandal edits, so he's pretty trustworthy. MarioGalaxy {talk} 17:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Beyond Support. If I said no, I'd be quite the weirdo. Dx Heh, but on a more serious note, he's done more than enough for this wiki and practically lives on here. He deals with those *cough*other users*cough* quite nicely, and for that he deserves it more than most anyone else here does. I think he'd make a great sysop. ~ TSON
• Weak support — I've nothing of especial consequence against Pikamander, and in fact actually had a look through his deleted contributions; he's got a handful of {{d}} taggings, so I can say that I think he'd use the tools. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support How can you not? This guy has amazing contributions, and is the more srs type of guy to handle user disputes. Low activity is the only negative that I can find for his negatives... Friedbeef1 Ho ho ho! 03:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
• Definate Support Even though I've only seen some of what you've done, you have my full backing, Pikamander. User:OMEGAxHIRO

Oppose

• ...

Neutral

• Neutral. While I feel you have made great edits, I have not seen you handle user conflicts that much. If you can prove me wrong, please do, but until then, I remain neutral.S Z L 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. I'm in line with most of the supports, but I'd like to see some response to this before I grant resolution to this one. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is true that I do not handle user conflicts very often. I think that there are other users who can handle conflicts much better than I can, and so I leave the conflicts to other users. My main reason for wanting adminship is to be able to quickly delete spam pages and block IPs that are causing trouble. I frequently clean up after vandal IPs, but I have to report them to administrators instead of being able to block them myself. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 03:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from here, but for better or worse admins are the ones turned to when user conflicts arise. If you don't feel comfortable handling them, that is a major detriment to you as an administrative candidate. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

---