User:Amber Blackstar/Qualifications

Round two of admin applications, revision time.

Deletion

As an administrator, the user in question will have the power to delete pages.

1. Is he familiar with the wiki's standards for deletion?

   Very familiar actually. Deletion can be done in a variety of circumstances, including vandal pages (User, user talk, spam pages, etc.), duplicate/unneeded files, non-notable Smasher articles, user pages at said user's request, things like that. Something can also be deleted if it's either too inappropriate or otherwise not relevant to Smash (I've seen cases of good faith users create an article with no relevance to Smash, not realizing they weren't supposed to do that).

2. Has he placed delete tags before, or participated in controversial deletion discussions?

   Yes, in my history, I tend to go through the Unused Files part of the site every morning and tag anything for deletion, and have participated in quite a few deletion debates, with the most recent being the competitive navigation template debate.

3. Is the candidate likely to ignore established consensus?

   No, not at all. I always try to make sure I look at every vote. If the established consensus is to delete it, then I will delete it. If however people managed to find a use for it in the future, then the only logical decision, if the new use actually works, is to restore it (in the case of an article), or upload a new version entirely (in the case of an image). Additionally, there could also be the case of flawed logic, which can make things a bit more difficult in terms of deletion. What I mean is when people oppose the deletion claiming it's still useful, despite the supporting side providing clear evidence that it's not needed. I've seen plenty of cases like this too. In cases like this, I'd try my best to explain why it's being supported and hope they understand why after I explain.

Banning

Blocks are one of the most notable aspects of adminship, because they are so rarely clean-cut actions. In addition to considering the user's ability to ban for vandalism, other aspects are to be looked at as well.

1. Is the user likely to be particularly harsh or particularly lenient with the block tool, in frequency or duration?

   Not at all. I see no reason to be harsh with the blocking tool. What does it accomplish? All it'd do is spark more controversy than it'd solve. The goal is to give them a block that's fair, but is also just enough to get their attention. If they were a vandal that practically destroys articles, sockpuppet, things like that, then I'm going to infinite them, but in other cases, I'd prefer to see that as a last resort, rather than a "Shoot first, ask questions later" kind of thing.

2. Has he voiced an opinion in ban discussions before, and were their comments reasonable?

   In my history of SmashWiki, I've never seen something like this happen, so I can't really say much on the matter.

3. Has the user asked for a ban to be placed before, and was this request reasonable? (Did the request spark more drama than the ban would have itself?)

   Technically yes. I'm a frequent contributor to the noticeboard, and I always try my best to quietly deal with them, and yes, the request was mostly reasonable, with any questionable ones being pointed out, but still suspicious enough to keep on the watch. To answer your question, no, I've never made a ban request that sparked more drama than the ban itself.

4. Has the user been banned before, and if so, how did he respond to the ban?

   Absolutely not.

5. Most importantly, is the user capable of effectively judging when a ban will help resolve the issue and when it will simply cause problems?

   Definitely. Like I said, I'd be very fair when it comes to a punishment, and will not give a penalty that's too severe for what they deserve, with infinite blocks really only going toward big vandals, spambots, sockpuppets, etc. If it came down to it though, if they were to persist, I'd give them harsher blocks, but still make sure it doesn't step out of line (i.e. minor offense = 3 days, 2nd offense = 1 week, and so on).

Protection

Protection is the least-used administrative tool, but still an important one.

1. Is the user likely to be overzealous in protecting pages that really don't need it, or protecting pages for far longer than necessary?

   No, after seeing the Marth incident, I started looking more into the protection of pages, and learned when it's needed and when it's not. Obviously when there's excessive vandalism on a page, then there has to be protection where only autoconfirmed users can edit it, same with unreleased things, like if a new Smash game or a new newcomer were announced. When it comes to more minor things, like a page that doesn't get much traffic other than maybe a debate on something, then the most logical thing to do would be to start a vote, unless there is a huge landslide on opinions.

Conflict moderation

This, along with blocks, are two of the most non-textbook parts of administrating effectively. Though admins are free to abstain from conflict moderation at their discretion (and this is usually encouraged when the admin is clearly biased toward specific users), it is still a quality that I feel every admin should possess, even if they choose not to employ it. Since in conflicts that users are unable to resolve, admins (collectively) usually get the final say:

1. Has the candidate proven in the past that he is able to argue well and without becoming excessively passionate?

   Yes. My main problem in the past was coming off as too soft at times, which I would like to think I've improved on (I'm the worst judge of my own work, so I'll let you decide for yourself with these examples).

   EXAMPLE #1: User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive19#How do I report a rogue IP/user?

   EXAMPLE #2: Talk:Super Smash Bros. 4#Unfitting Name?

   EXAMPLE #3: Talk:Kirby (SSB4)#To Aardvarkian

2. Is his judgment to be trusted as the arbiter of hostile situations?

   Yes, whenever a situation gets hostile, I make sure to step in, thinking about what to say, and then going for it. 9 times out of 10 I've made it better, as seen on the three examples and others not listed in my contribs.

3. When the user does choose to intervene in such a case, do his posts help calm the situation, or do they merely inflate it?

   As said above, 9 times out of 10, I've made a hostile situation calmer, or finished it entirely.

4. Most importantly, if an admin begins to get heated by the discussion (it happens), is his judgment good enough to recognize that he should take a break and calm down before resuming posting?

   Yes, while I do get irritated at times (Everyone does), I've only shown it once to my knowledge, which I have since regretted. Since then, I've taken that as a lesson and have tried to do a better job at controlling my temper.

Policies and application

I think everyone agrees that admins should be familiar with policy. This applies to both the spirit and the letter of the law, and they should also recognize that spirit trumps letter.

1. Has the user tried to help with enforcement of policy as a normal user (and if they have, did they do it successfully by not causing conflict), through contacting existing admins, posting on the noticeboard, or perhaps leaving violators (friendly and non-confrontational!) messages? (See also: SmashWiki:Block talk.)

   Yes, I've had to enforce quite a few policies in the past. Minor ones including SW:TALK and signing comments, and then more major ones like reporting a vandal to an admin. Since the last time I updated this, I've also done a better job enforcing SW:1RV, SW:NPA, and asking for proof of notability when people randomly add smashers to notable players lists without giving any evidence as to why.

2. Does the user himself follow the policies and guidelines appropriately?

   Yes. I have slipped up a few times with minor things like SW:TALK and the preview button, but who doesn't slip up from time to time? Beyond that, I follow policies very closely, and always scold myself whenever I do accidently slip up and try even harder to make sure it doesn't repeat. The one policy I've had the hardest time following is SW:1RV, but I've been doing my best to work on that.

3. Does the user have a history of "wikilawyering", and is he aware that consensus trumps policy?

   No, to my knowledge I have never wikilawyered, and I am aware that consensus trumps policy. Since the last time I updated this, I've seen quite a few instances of wikilawyering, and I've been a victim of it myself in the past. Not fun at all.

Helpfulness and "people skills"

Effective communication is an essential part of being an admin. Though this is not synonymous with being friendly, it does certainly help if the candidate is kind, especially to newer users.

1. Is the candidate willing to help new users with simple things, like signing posts and archiving, as well as more complicated things, like explaining policies?

   Very willing. Whenever I see a new user that's good faith that seems to be having some trouble, I always try to make an attempt to help, and when it comes to IPs, I try to suggest for them to create an account and become an even larger part of the wiki.

2. How effectively can a user explain blocks to the recipients regarding why the block was enacted?

   Considering the fact that I've never had to nor have I had the ability to block someone, I can't say for certain, but I'd like to say that I'd try to maintain a certain level of neutrality toward them when explaining it. Not being too hostile or angry with them, but not being too kind or forgiving either. Yes, I will be forgiving toward them if it's minor, but I don't want to sound so forgiving that they think they could get away with doing it again.

3. Does the user encourage new projects that could benefit the wiki?

   Does the results tag count? If so, then yes. I've also assisted Serpent King numerous times with large projects, including overhauling character articles with new templates, etc.

Community trust in the candidate

1. Simply put, does the community trust the candidate to do well at his job?

   I'm always getting people coming to me saying things like "I should be an admin" and "Why aren't you an admin yet?", so yes, the trust is indeed there.

2. Does the community respect the opinions and decisions of the candidate?

   It depends on whether I'm correct or not. Generally, people have been shown to respect my opinions and decisions (as my goals typically help the wiki in the long run), but I always encourage people to give me constructive criticism on my actions as a user, as shown on my feedback page.

This is particularly important for people to establish in RfAs, because it might be hard for the bureaucrats to see otherwise.

Candidate trust in the community

The opposite of the above point.

1. Does the candidate recognize that perhaps the community knows better?

   Yes, if they can give a detailed explanation on why their opinion may be better, instead of just saying something simple an undescriptive like "Mine is better", then yeah, I'm going to look into it, and if I'm wrong, I will point out that I'm wrong and apologize for assuming otherwise. I have had quite a few occasions like this happen, and I've always apologized.

2. Is he able to recognize when there is community consensus and act accordingly, even if he disagrees?

   Yes. If I may not necessarily agree with something, but the majority of the consensus states otherwise, then it is what it is, I may try to sway their opinion otherwise if I have sufficient evidence that proves the other way is better, but that's a very unlikely scenario.

3. Is the candidate open about his intentions as an administrator?

   I've been extremely open. My goals as an admin come nowhere even close to secretive, and I personally think it's better that people know my intentions, otherwise it could be seen as "untrustworthy" or otherwise "suspicious".

Technical expertise

This isn't something that is required of potential admins, but it's certainly a nice bonus.

1. Is the user able to benefit the site using their technical knowledge, such as working with sitewide .js/.css, writing bots, working with MediaWiki extensions, etc?

   Since my last application, I've learned quite a bit of wiki markup (all thanks to the King of Serpents) and I'm getting fairly familiarized with .css, but I still have quite a bit of ways to go in that department.

Synergy with existing admins

One thing that bureaucrats in particular should consider is how well a candidate would work with the admins already in place. However, a poor fit isn't a dealbreaker; sometimes, admins who disagree with existing admins can benefit the wiki by promoting change. At the very least, new admins should be able to get along with the existing ones in order to prevent excessive wikidrama.

1. Is the promotion likely to result in conflict and overturned administrative actions?

   Granted, there can be conflict between admins, as they won't all have the same opinions, but with my conflict resolution skills, I'd make sure to listen to what they have to say, while also give a detailed explanation of my point of view, and figure things out from there. I am always willing to listen to advice and wisdom from the other admins, as I could use what they teach me to improve myself.

2. What specialties a potential admin can bring to the group are also a nice bonus to have; for example, if you have a very good knowledge of Smashers/notability or are particularly good with game mechanics, your RfA is likely going to be stronger.

   Since my last application, I feel I've become a bit universal in terms of specialties. I've since had a better grasp of smasher and notability knowledge, I do great with dealing with vandals and janitorial work, my conflict resolution and people skills have improved quite a bit too. I've also been a big part in numerous large projects, and some of such large projects I did mostly on my own.

Availability

1. Though an explicit time commitment is obviously not required of new admins (or any user), it is fairly common for new administrators to be promoted when there is a notable lack of current administrative presence.

   I'm available on average...about 18/7. This is because I'm 17, my only job is internship at my mom's comic book stores, I'm homeschooled, and I generally spend most of my time on the computer because I have no life really nothing super important is going on in my life as of now. I'm typically on anywhere from 9-11 am to 2-3 am, and I occasionally check the wiki on my phone until about 4 am until I fall asleep, so I guess you could say in a way, my wiki availability is about 19/7.

Intelligence/reasoning

This is without a doubt the biggest issue I have with many potential candidates. To be quite honest, if you don't meet my standards for intelligence and good reasoning skills, I won't promote you. End of story. This isn't the same as agreeing with me on everything (though it probably helps, because I'm always right :P ). You can disagree with me and still be intelligent, as long as you sufficiently back it up. Also, it is probably good practice to avoid saying something stupid, either on the wiki or on IRC, because I will probably remember it. (I don't know if I'm the only bureaucrat like this, but more often than not I know in my mind whether or not I think a candidate should pass/fail as soon as I see who's running.)

I'd say I'm an intelligent person. Granted, I make dumb decisions in real life sometimes (who doesn't), but generally I'm a smart and respectable person who can quickly jump into problems that need solving. Not that it's entirely beneficial here, but my worst subject is Math. That's...really about it honestly.