SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Serpent King (2)

Serpent King (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Hello, I'm Serpent King. In mid-July, I submitted an RfA that ultimately ended in a stalemate. My opposition felt that I lacked proper dispute resolution skills. I believe that in the 3 (the RfA lasted for 2.5 months) months between then and now, I have gained these skills.

A few points to bring back from my previous RfA:

1. I am active and especially at night. Promoting me would fill a gap of admin inactivity that seems to attract a certain amount of vandalism.
2. I have been around since March of 2015, and since then, I have made 7680 edits.

   If anyone would like to see a running list of my major contributions, they are welcome to check here.

3. I will do my job in blocking vandals, but that is not the basis for making this RfA.

In the end, it's your vote that decides this RfA's fate, so I encourage you all to comment with questions before voting. I will be happy to answer them in a timely fashion of course. Thank you all for your consideration, and please enjoy the rest of your day! Serpent King 03:05, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Support

1. Strong support I don't even need to ask questions. In the time since you last applied, you have shown tremendous growth, in terms of editing, conflict resolution, and fighting back against vandals, and have been extremely helpful to all when they fell flat on their face (Yes that includes me). To be quite frank I trust you, and I think you'd be very capable to be admin. Sorry, I don't really have much else to say on the matter. I'll wait until more people vote before I add anything else. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2015 (EST)
2. Very, very STRONG support Your previous RfA may have been a failure, but since then, you have shown heavy growth, in terms of editing, conflict resolution (Which is the most important part of RfAs), and fighting against the vandals. You have also been extremely helpful to others when they needed help. Long story short, You will be a great admin. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 03:56, 8 November 2015 (EST)

   I now change to Very strong support as Miles is correct: the example in my talk page archive is not really good conflict resolution. (But I still support for your efforts!) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 04:32, 8 November 2015 (EST)

3. Part from this incident which you shouldn't have really got into, let alone stuck around, your dispute skills are supreme, and you are a top notch contributor. That, with TheThreeSysops all of a sudden no longer being active at a reliable time anymore, I think you are the optimal candidate at the time. With the exception of the above incident, all your contributions come down to me giving you a very, VERY strong support. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 05:57, 8 November 2015 (EST)
4. Strong support You've always been very helpful to other users (like me) and I've seen your massive improvement since the last time you applied. And your contributions are definitely not to be ignored. You still have some things to improve (like dispute handling), and Miles has VERY valid points (the only reason my support isn't full strength), but I'm sure you can pull it out. I hope you make it. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2015 (EST)
5. SUPPORT TO THE MAX all the good points were already taken Nintendofan1653 (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Oppose

1. Oppose. The main reason is a general lack of major positive change since the last RfA. Your claim as to why you are running again is because of improved dispute resolution skills, a claim which you attempted to justify here. However, I see little validity in such a claim. Forgive me if this gets a bit long-winded, but I'd like to explain my reasoning:
   • Your first cited example consists of zero content from you other than "Let's end this discussion here, shall we?", which is a statement of questionable value. Generally, jumping into a discussion that does not involve you and declaring it over isn't exactly good dispute resolution.
   • Your second cited example portrays you as rather heavy-handedly berating INoMed. The fact that you had to say "let's all calm down" and explain that you were trying to defuse the situation suggests that you didn't do such a great job defusing it to begin with.
   • I've also seen several instances lately where you quite quickly get snippy and exasperated with other users, such as this, this, and this. If I had the impression of these being isolated incidents, it might be one thing, but this looks more like a pattern than a coincidence.
   • I want to make clear that I do not think you are a bad contributor to the site in the slightest. However, if your main attempted justification for re-application is improved skills at user interactions, I'm not inclined to support you based on the evidence available to me. Miles (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2015 (EST)

   Yeah. That 2nd example is not really conflict resolution. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 04:31, 8 November 2015 (EST)

   In reply to me getting exasperated: I could have handled that first example better, yes. I would not say that I immediately got exasperated with your second example, only when things stopped making logical sense. As for that third example...Looking back on it, I actually feel like I handled it quite well I could have handled it much worse (I definitely held myself back), all things considered. As for the claims that my dispute handling examples are weak: The first example...ended a potentially bothersome user dispute with one comment. The second...well all I was trying to do is phrase what Luigi540 had said, just in a nicer tone. Serpent King 04:36, 8 November 2015 (EST)

   I'd also like to point out that these exampled of snippiness (that's not a word, oh well)... are all from the same user. One that you yourself have had issues with Serpent King 04:40, 8 November 2015 (EST)

   More snippies. All over that talk page. Then again, these two users were indeed outright harassing you. I mean Drilly attempted to make you leave. Still, you might wanna give better examples. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 06:01, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Neutral

1. Very difficult decision to make, but Neutral. I'm really worried about your dispute skills, as they don't seem to be effective at times, but you are taking steps to get better and you would be great for janitorial work. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 8 November 2015 (EST)
2. Between Neutral and Support: I can't really state my own opinions without parroting everyone else here. I think the only questionable aspect of this is your dispute-handling, (I'm not gonna get into it, since Miles basically summarized it the best) but other than that, you're among the best candidates who is currently active. I'm sure we could PROBABLY accept a new admin who's spotty in just ONE area! MeatBall104 10:15, 8 November 2015 (EST)
3. Neutral. Sigh. I don't know what to say about this. Everything what I said in your previous RFA, except you inherit one core problem in your effectiveness on your dispute skills, although I've seen you made some improvements. However, I trusted some users with decent to great dispute skills. I don't know about yours. Should I trust you as an admin? Hmm maybe. I'm not sure. I'll wait until more people vote and then I will decide deeply. Luigi540 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Comments

Before anyone asks here are two examples of my improved dispute skills. I'll dig up more if asked. Serpent King 03:17, 8 November 2015 (EST)

That's another thing I forgot to mention, you've always backed me up whenever I had trouble with resolving conflict, which I think is extremely worth noting. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2015 (EST)

Question. By when you could start another RfA again, does it have to be after four months since you started your last attempt or four months after the last RfA ended in failure? Dots (talk) The Coffee Maker 09:17, 8 November 2015 (EST)

There's not necessarily a minimum time, as long as you've improved since then. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:27, 8 November 2015 (EST)

---