Editing SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Awesomelink234 (3)
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==== Oppose ==== | ==== Oppose ==== | ||
#'''Oppose'''. You seem to still have quite the tendency to get yourself involved in conflicts in a way which isn't conducive to helping to resolve them. You don't seem 100% familiar with all of our policies, and I'm really not seeing much change in your general attitude since your last absence from the wiki. <br/><br/>As for your RfA, here's my breakdown of why there really isn't much of substance to it: <br/><br/> 1. ''"with nearly six years of SmashWiki experience [...] and over 2000 edits"'' - neither of these make you any more qualified than your typical user to become a sysop. <br/><br/> 2. ''"basic moderation knowledge"'' - your edit history doesn't testify to this at all, the only real moderation knowledge you've demonstrated is you understand how [[SW:VANDAL]] works, and that's about it. Contrary to your later claim that ''"When it comes to dispute handling, I try to do my best to resolve it efficiently without too much of a hassle"'', you don't seem to have been doing any dispute handling at all, if anything you have a tendency to ''start'' disputes rather than resolve them. <br/><br/> 3. ''"I have reviewed SmashWiki's various policies, and can enforce them if necessary"'' - I've only really seen one instance of you attempting to enforce any policy other than [[SW:VANDAL]] (which most users enforce anyway), and [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Change&diff=prev&oldid=1229320 considering how that went], I don't think you have any basis for making this claim. <br/><br/> 4. ''"Also, I have rollback, which I use as a most basic form of reverting vandalism, should any come up."'' - While this is a nice thing for aspiring admins to be able to use, ultimately rollback is merely a rudimentary "edit out-of-date revision quickly" tool which is [[SW:RfR|fairly trivial to obtain]]. <br/><br/> 5. ''"I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles"'' - See 1. <br/><br/> Overall, I'm simply not convinced that you are suitable for the | #'''Oppose'''. You seem to still have quite the tendency to get yourself involved in conflicts in a way which isn't conducive to helping to resolve them. You don't seem 100% familiar with all of our policies, and I'm really not seeing much change in your general attitude since your last absence from the wiki. <br/><br/>As for your RfA, here's my breakdown of why there really isn't much of substance to it: <br/><br/> 1. ''"with nearly six years of SmashWiki experience [...] and over 2000 edits"'' - neither of these make you any more qualified than your typical user to become a sysop. <br/><br/> 2. ''"basic moderation knowledge"'' - your edit history doesn't testify to this at all, the only real moderation knowledge you've demonstrated is you understand how [[SW:VANDAL]] works, and that's about it. Contrary to your later claim that ''"When it comes to dispute handling, I try to do my best to resolve it efficiently without too much of a hassle"'', you don't seem to have been doing any dispute handling at all, if anything you have a tendency to ''start'' disputes rather than resolve them. <br/><br/> 3. ''"I have reviewed SmashWiki's various policies, and can enforce them if necessary"'' - I've only really seen one instance of you attempting to enforce any policy other than [[SW:VANDAL]] (which most users enforce anyway), and [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Change&diff=prev&oldid=1229320 considering how that went], I don't think you have any basis for making this claim. <br/><br/> 4. ''"Also, I have rollback, which I use as a most basic form of reverting vandalism, should any come up."'' - While this is a nice thing for aspiring admins to be able to use, ultimately rollback is merely a rudimentary "edit out-of-date revision quickly" tool which is [[SW:RfR|fairly trivial to obtain]]. <br/><br/> 5. ''"I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles"'' - See 1. <br/><br/> Overall, I'm simply not convinced that you are suitable for the roll and accompanying responsibilities of adminship at this time. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 07:27, June 5, 2019 (EDT) | ||
#'''Nope'''. I wasn't around for your previous two RfA's, but I did look over them before typing this post, and the general consensus seems to be that you're simply not experienced/qualified enough for the position despite being a good-faith editor. And maybe it's just me, but I also feel that making multiple attempts at gaining adminship within such a short timespan gives the impression of a lust for power, or a desire to become "one of the cool kids", which is not a good look for anyone. But being the nice guy that I am, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're ''not'' power-hungry. Even so, the stuff you've listed this time around is just stuff that anyone is capable of, and adminship would not be needed in order to carry out those tasks. You also fail to mention how the Wiki would significantly benefit from promoting you (especially considering how we arguably have plenty of admins as of now), or any traits you might have that the current staff doesn't. And finally, it seems that even after five years since your second try, you still haven't improved much, despite clearly being a good-faith editor. Sorry, but I can't stand behind this one. Just stick with rollback for now. --[[User:MeatBall104|<span style="color: red">'''''Meat'''''</span>]][[User talk:MeatBall104|<span style="color: orange">'''''Ball'''''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MeatBall104|<span style="color:Gold">'''''104'''''</span>]] [[File:MB104Pic2.jpg|20px]] 10:43, June 5, 2019 (EDT) | #'''Nope'''. I wasn't around for your previous two RfA's, but I did look over them before typing this post, and the general consensus seems to be that you're simply not experienced/qualified enough for the position despite being a good-faith editor. And maybe it's just me, but I also feel that making multiple attempts at gaining adminship within such a short timespan gives the impression of a lust for power, or a desire to become "one of the cool kids", which is not a good look for anyone. But being the nice guy that I am, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're ''not'' power-hungry. Even so, the stuff you've listed this time around is just stuff that anyone is capable of, and adminship would not be needed in order to carry out those tasks. You also fail to mention how the Wiki would significantly benefit from promoting you (especially considering how we arguably have plenty of admins as of now), or any traits you might have that the current staff doesn't. And finally, it seems that even after five years since your second try, you still haven't improved much, despite clearly being a good-faith editor. Sorry, but I can't stand behind this one. Just stick with rollback for now. --[[User:MeatBall104|<span style="color: red">'''''Meat'''''</span>]][[User talk:MeatBall104|<span style="color: orange">'''''Ball'''''</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MeatBall104|<span style="color:Gold">'''''104'''''</span>]] [[File:MB104Pic2.jpg|20px]] 10:43, June 5, 2019 (EDT) | ||
#'''Slight oppose''': I believe that you have the potential to be a great systop - you've helped a lot with wiki stuff, and interactions with you have been positive. However, this is an administrator position that you are looking for, one of, if not, the more important positions on this wiki, and I don't believe you have really proven yourself to do it. What I wanted to say has already been mentioned above, mostly by Alex, so I won't really repeat much. However, I would like to address how it seems like you're doing this RfA simply because you believe you have enough experience on the wiki. You haven't given much specifics on how you have improved/affected the wiki since you last applied, and most of your reasons that you have listed are either very vague/somewhat debatable or isn't something that's too important for a RfA. If you can prove that you are a great enforcer and can properly handle disputes while giving details as to how, then I believe you would be fine. Until then, I have to lean towards the opposing side. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 18:45, June 5, 2019 (EDT) | #'''Slight oppose''': I believe that you have the potential to be a great systop - you've helped a lot with wiki stuff, and interactions with you have been positive. However, this is an administrator position that you are looking for, one of, if not, the more important positions on this wiki, and I don't believe you have really proven yourself to do it. What I wanted to say has already been mentioned above, mostly by Alex, so I won't really repeat much. However, I would like to address how it seems like you're doing this RfA simply because you believe you have enough experience on the wiki. You haven't given much specifics on how you have improved/affected the wiki since you last applied, and most of your reasons that you have listed are either very vague/somewhat debatable or isn't something that's too important for a RfA. If you can prove that you are a great enforcer and can properly handle disputes while giving details as to how, then I believe you would be fine. Until then, I have to lean towards the opposing side. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 18:45, June 5, 2019 (EDT) | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
#:That was a bit uncalled for. Let's try and keep this more civilized, jah? [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 20:40, June 10, 2019 (EDT) | #:That was a bit uncalled for. Let's try and keep this more civilized, jah? [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 20:40, June 10, 2019 (EDT) | ||
#'''Oppose.''' I have looked at your two other requests of adminship, and the main recurring thing that hurts your chances is how short and barebones your requests are, and how you don't go into specifics. In the Comments section at the bottom of this page, you provided some examples of your attempts at conflict resolution (however small they were), so why didn't you at least include them in your request? Look at the [https://www.ssbwiki.com/Category:Accepted_RfAs accepted RfAs]; they always mention examples to help their case, and they actually go into a lot detail instead of just writing a tiny paragraph. While you do seem like a good sport with your helpful edits, you'll need a much more convincing case, and for that, you'll have to show a clear ability to do things expected of an admin, including real conflict moderation. [[User:Anthony1996|Anthony1996]] ([[User talk:Anthony1996|talk]]) 00:00, June 11, 2019 (EDT) | #'''Oppose.''' I have looked at your two other requests of adminship, and the main recurring thing that hurts your chances is how short and barebones your requests are, and how you don't go into specifics. In the Comments section at the bottom of this page, you provided some examples of your attempts at conflict resolution (however small they were), so why didn't you at least include them in your request? Look at the [https://www.ssbwiki.com/Category:Accepted_RfAs accepted RfAs]; they always mention examples to help their case, and they actually go into a lot detail instead of just writing a tiny paragraph. While you do seem like a good sport with your helpful edits, you'll need a much more convincing case, and for that, you'll have to show a clear ability to do things expected of an admin, including real conflict moderation. [[User:Anthony1996|Anthony1996]] ([[User talk:Anthony1996|talk]]) 00:00, June 11, 2019 (EDT) | ||
==== Neutral ==== | ==== Neutral ==== | ||
#''...'' | #''...'' | ||