SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Smorekingxg456 (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: passed. See talk for explanation. Shadowcrest 19:29, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Smorekingxg456 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below. Yes yes, I failed last time, but honestly that was out of pure dumbassery on my part. I now have a better complitation of reasons as to why I should be an SySop and I will gladly respond to comments(which was apparently my downfall last time).

I personally believe I deserve Adminship as I am one of the more active users left, and I have been Starting last July, when I joined. One of the first projects I took on was fixing double redirects, and at that time I fixed more than 100 of them, and since then very few have come up(not that it is relevant). Secondly, as I joined during the Post-Merge scene, I took part in the cleanup. The main task I took on was turning Pros and Cons sections into attributes, which very few had done before me(only Falco, Bowser, and Meta Knight were changed, and that was done by the author of the post merge cleanup). I fixed several of them before others starting taking part too.

That was all during the beginning of me joining Smashwiki. After that, I didn;t take part in many projects, but I was still a solid contributor. After most of the active contributors migrated to other sites, i died a little in activity, but I was still a contributor, and was one of the few who still came here on some sort of basis(although some came for specific reasons). Recently I have been becoming more and more active, taking several large edits rather than extraneous amounts of smaller edits. My most recent edit of any sort of notability would most likely be the fixing, expanding, etc. of the File Replacement sections.

Due to my lack of ability to find a place to organize these ideas, I will post them individually.

• As shown in one of my user blogs, I am the same person as SZL. Whilie it was initially used as a joke on Cafinator, it was later used for being able to mean "srs bsns" without being hated by other users. This shows that I am fully capable of being serious.
• I am usually on IRC, meaning I would be easily contactable.
• I have a strange habit of finding vandalism/spam whenever a mod isn't around(although, admittedly, it is only Shadowcrest and Miles atm with PenguinofDeath being away.) I consistently tell Shadowcrest of such findings on IRC, although he typically is afk. Should I be a Sysop, I would be able to handle such on my own.
• I'm probably the only active contributor left who knows enough about competitive smash to be able to differentiate between notable on non-notables. Ask PenguinofDeath, as he usually consults me before deleting a smasher page.
• With Miles's new advertising on AllisBrawl, I figured I'd be able to help most new users from there out in order to be able to help guide them and help them learn about our polices and such.

I know I had more ideas, but I suppose they'll arise when others ask about them.

Smoreking^(T) _(c) 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. I have only been on the wiki full time for a short period so therefore I do not know how childish and inmature you are as stated by the others. I do know, however, that you are a great contributor and have added a lot to this wiki and helped it out a lot. The Solar Dragon ^(talk) 09:59, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Smoreking has proven himself to be a competent user who would be able to handle his tools effectively and appropriately. As stated, Smoreking would be the only one who is able to judge Smasher notability with any high standard of quality, and I fully trust him to keep the candidates for deletion under control. Smoreking is generally friendly, and gets along well with other users (much more than, say, myself or Semicolon), and I trust that his judgment will be good regardless of personal friendships. Smoreking is also not afraid to ask for help if he's not sure what to do, a quality I admire, and I believe he will be careful to be as mature as possible- I think he knows what the role asks for. Shadowcrest 22:11, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
3. Slight support. (originally Neutral, leaning towards support.) You're usually pretty good at giving advice on dodgy Smasher articles, and, as you say, there are few properly active Admins left (I am active, by the way, just less so than I was before) so it would be useful to have another one around, but... you can be frustratingly immature at times... You know wikis, Smash and the competitive scene really well, so you'd be a useful asset in those regards, but I'm not sure whether you'd be brilliant at dealing with user conflicts. PenguinofDeath 08:50, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

   IRC disagrees with your rfa point :p. But in seriousness, is that the only point that is making you neutral? Smoreking^(T) _(c) 22:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose "Slight support" is better - I'd be in favour of you getting the Admin tools, I'm just not entirely convinced that you'd be brilliant at all aspects of Adminship. PenguinofDeath 23:08, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

4. Support Per above. You're active, you have clear needs for admin tools, you have the ability to handle such tools, etc. Enigmatic Mr. L 00:40, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
5. Support While I feel we are not in a dire need for another admin, I feel that Smoreking has proven himself competent. Smoreking is familiar with policy, and is fully capable of following it. The main reason for my support is the fact that Smoreking is one of the only active users left capable of distinguishing non-notable smashers from notable smashers. Y462 (T • C • E ) 05:24, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Support. I have my reservations about Smoreking (esp. with regard to his ability to handle user conflicts); however, with that said, he's probably one of the better candidates this wiki has to offer, and besides, on a wiki as stagnant as this one is, problems requiring discretion and major conflicts are few and far between. – Defiant Elements +talk 18:06, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
7. Of course. - Per aota. I thought you already were an admin. Paper Bowser (talk) 19:01, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
8. Mmhmm-He deserves it for reasons listed above.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...}
9. Changed to weak support. Smoreking's got a long track record of solid mainspace contributions, and his vandal-fighting and janitorial knowledge are quite impressive as well. Nevertheless, I still have reservations. Smore's relations with other users are mixed, he's immature on occasion and he did sockpuppet once (in a somewhat benign fashion, though). I've yet to decide whether he merits the leadership position, though he's shown he merits the tools for the most part. (Psst. Sign your post.) Miles (talk) 02:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

   I told Shadowcrest about the whole SZL thing and he said since I had done nothing really wrong with it, it was technically acceptable, although looking back it probably would have been better if I myself(or account self) had done what I did on that account. So yes, I suppose you are right in the sense that it was not fully proper, although I would say it wasn't very improper either. And I'd like to know about my specific user relations that you have in mind.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 22:22, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

   Shadowcrest is wrong. It technically is unacceptable. Semicolon (talk) 03:03, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

   Er... umm... I mostly just... er... Miles (talk) 22:32, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

   It's mostly just what PoD and DE said -- you deserve the tools, even if we have reservations. Miles (talk) 19:23, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   So you have the same feelings as them, just on a larger scale that's big enough to change your mind?Smoreking^(T) _(c) 19:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   Yes. Miles (talk) 19:35, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   Yet you said "you deserve the tools, even if..." which is still saying i deserve them, regardless of your "reservations".Smoreking^(T) _(c) 20:46, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   Hence the strong lean towards support. Miles (talk) 20:47, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   Your situation implies the opposite situation, similar to PoD and DE, as you said I deserve the tools, but you just have some minor reservations, but your current standing(neutral leaning towards support) suggest I would deserve the tools, if it weren't for your grievances.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 21:03, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

   Fine. Technicalities. Miles (talk) 21:05, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

10. Support. I agree with Miles, but still, the fact that you do a lot for this Wiki makes you a pretty good contributor. The only reason I would not strongly support you is because, like Miles said, you do have a very small problem with the interactions with other users. But otherwise, I'm OK with you. RAN1domchupunch!!99 03:19, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. You're one of the most active users on this site, and have contributed a lot to the wiki, which is more than what I can say for myself. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 00:35, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - You are one of the only active user's left after the big leave, and you have contributed more then enough to be an Admin. I actually thought you already were an admin, TBH. The only reason this isn't strong is because of the SZL thing, But that's over now. Kperfekt ^{BURN!!! Revert That!} 03:48, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I don't really care if Shadowcrest said it wasn't a problem; I don't like people using sock puppets, especially for policy and administration things. Plus, your comment that you used SZL to mean "serious business" without other users disliking you really bothers me. What it says to me is that you are more concerned with popularity than policy and/or that you don't understand how to be serious without offending other people. Neither of these are traits that I would look for in a sysop. Also, I can remember at least one or two instances in which you used both SZL and this account to get double comments on policies. I'll also say that it seems rather stupid of you to ever bring this up in the first place. I honestly had no inclination that you were using SZL as a sock (I thought he might be one, but I had no idea of what user), and it doesn't really say much about you as a user to come out and admit that you violated the rules that you are now asking for the powers to enforce. As a sidenote, I would actually be less bothered if you told me that 13375poolR was your sock puppet (although that probably wouldn't look good for your RfA either...), as I could then just wright it off to you being bored and wanting to have some fun. Here, though, I feel like you were trying to use sock puppets to manufacture fake support for things. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:29, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose If I oppose you, shadow will promote you for certain. --Warwick 21:09, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Sigh. For a while there, you had me convinced. I thought you were a good candidate for the position because you genuinely wanted to make SmashWiki better and you for the most part had stayed out of the antics that plagued this place for about a year. But then you admit that you had a sock. Normally, since I believe that you do have good motivations, I would have let this slide, but you abused sockpuppets in the one way where I can't shed a good light on it. You used it to get double comments/supports for policies, and while this isn't as flagrant as using them to support your own RfA, it is a clear abuse, and it shows a legitimate lack of good judgment. Unfortunately, that's the one really really important thing about becoming an administrator: displaying good judgment. You displayed poor judgment, and no amount of good faith edits and good faith admissions change that. Sorry. Semicolon (talk) 21:32, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Ok, I've decided to change my opinion. Originally, I didn't notice that you sockpuppeted, but because of that, that puts my opinion of you way down. Since you still seem to have kept a good and serious track record after that, I'm going let that off the hook a bit, but only a bit, and with that, I'll give you Neutral, leaning strongly to oppose. RAN1domchupunch!!99 23:03, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

   Why does everyone think Smoreking socked to bring a negative effect upon the community? You all act like he was that person just to troll everyone, when there are obviously other trolls that get away with it every waking day. Paper Bowser (talk) 00:07, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

   Why do you think socking is okay, even though it wasn't used for vandalizing of any sort, but as a joke? It was still sockpuppeting; and the fact that it was a joke makes him seem even less of a candidate for admin. RAN1domchupunch!!99 02:21, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry, I forgot harmless jokes all automatically mean you're an idiot and you can't handle administration. Also, fixed your punctuation. Paper Bowser (talk) 03:20, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

   Pardon the one punctuation mark that I mistyped. Anyways, anyone who uses a sockpuppet is, to say the least, very inexperienced. RAN1domchupunch!!99 03:39, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

   This is coming from the guy who's signature only links to his talk page? Besides, he isn't inexperienced. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:13, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

   RAN1: no, sockpuppetting does not imply inexperience in any way, shape or form, and Smoreking is certainly not inexperienced.

   Cheezperson: The fact that RAN1's signature only links to his talk page doesn't mean he's inexperienced, it just means that he believes that his talk page is the only page worth linking to in his signature, whereas the fact that you've got three '''s in your signature, rendering the time and date bold, does look inexperienced. Why are you talking about RAN1's signature anyway? RfAs are serious business - please keep all comments on-topic. PenguinofDeath 14:32, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

   Ups my sig only links to userpage, im a bad bcrat demote prz. Shadowcrest 19:18, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, I've decided to change my opinion. Smoreking's sockpuppeting wasn't malicious, but since he still sockpuppeted, I'm changing my vote to Neutral, leaning to support. RAN1domchupunch!!99 01:38, October 16, 2009 (UTC)