SmashWiki:Requests for adminship

This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

This is the page for requesting adminship for SmashWiki.

Rules and regulations

• Only self-nominations are allowed. If you think that another member would make a good sysop, then you can convince them to nominate themselves. You cannot make a nomination on behalf of another user.
• After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived.
• Selections of sysops are not a simple vote count, or majority opinion. Users who wish to be promoted should demonstrate a steady commitment to this wiki, and be able to point to reasons that the sysop tools would allow them to do better editing.
• Candidates should describe why the wiki should want them to be sysops, not why they want to be sysops on the wiki.
• When supporting or opposing a candidate, give good reasons. Comments that describe in detail why the candidate should/should not become a sysop carry far more weight than simple support/oppose.
• Rollback status is not required for a successful RfA, but is highly encouraged. Users who only want sysop tools for quick reverts of vandalism will be directed towards the appropriate request.
• Upon request, a prospective sysop may be given a scenario and asked his/her opinion on how s/he would handle it.
• Users that have been blocked in the past, or who have previously made an RfA and failed, are no less eligible for adminship. However, such users should be able to demonstrate how they have improved since the block/previous RfA, lest their RfA find serious opposition.

Past nominations

• For a list of all previous requests for adminship that ended with the candidate's promotion, please see this category.
• For a list of all previous requests for adminship wherein the candidate was not promoted, please see this category.

How to nominate

If you have not had a request for adminship page before, follow this two-step process.

1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
   {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username}} Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated.
2. Click on the created red link, and add:
   {{subst:rfa|Username|reason for nomination}}

However, if you have had a previous request for adminship, follow this process instead.

1. Go to the end of the requests section below, and add the following text:
   {{{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Username (#)}}
   Where "Username" is the name of the user being nominated, and where # is 2 for the second RfA, 3 for the third, and so on.
2. Click on the created red link, and add:
   {{subst:rfa|Username|reason for nomination}}

Current requests

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.

	This RfA was closed as failed.
	Reason:	Candidate has significant opposition and does not appear to have demonstrated a need for admin powers. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 19:00, June 15, 2019 (EDT)

Awesomelink234 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
After my two previous failed RfAs, which failed because I was inexperienced and not yet prepared for a admin position, I'm finally applying again, with nearly six years of SmashWiki experience, basic moderation knowledge, and over 2000 edits. I have reviewed SmashWiki's various policies, and can enforce them if necessary. When it comes to dispute handling, I try to do my best to resolve it efficiently without too much of a hassle. Also, I have rollback, which I use as a most basic form of reverting vandalism, should any come up. I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles, which means I can perform administrative duties when needed.

With that being said, thank you for reading this. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 23:04, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

Support

1. Looking through your edit history, you do seem to be good at catching vandals, undoing good faith-bad knowledge/bad grammar/unnecessary content edits, and contributing to discussions without being disruptive. However, I don’t see how editcount should play a factor into this. Some admins only have edits that go into two or three digits. Lou Cena (talk) 01:33, June 5, 2019 (EDT)

   This is simply not true at all. If you're referring to Pikamander2 and Semicolon, they've been around since the Wikia days, meaning their edit count here is inaccurate. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 02:07, June 5, 2019 (EDT)

Oppose

1. 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.
   
   As for your RfA, here's my breakdown of why there really isn't much of substance to it:
   
   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.
   
   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.
   
   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 considering how that went, I don't think you have any basis for making this claim.
   
   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 fairly trivial to obtain.
   
   5. "I'm on this wiki nearly every day, whether it be for Smash research, or adding new things to articles" - See 1.
   
   Overall, I'm simply not convinced that you are suitable for the role and accompanying responsibilities of adminship at this time. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 07:27, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
2. 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. --MeatBall104 10:43, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
3. 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. CookiesCreme 18:45, June 5, 2019 (EDT)
4. Oppose Let's go over this one issue at a time:
   • I am finding it extremely difficult to trust your judgement. Just the other day, you requested protection for an article that got vandalized one time in the last month on our discord, and it isn't the only time you've done this. I don't think you'd intentionally abuse your power as an administrator, but I do feel that mistakes like these show a certain ineptitude for such a position.
   • This RfA is so lackluster, it's difficult to take seriously. You haven't detailed any instances of conflict resolution, your edit count (which is a bit on the slim side anyway) doesn't really make a difference in RfAs, you've said that you have an understanding of our policies but haven't detailed any of them or shown your interpretation of them, your "six years of SmashWiki experience" is blatantly false given your 2 year hiatus between 2016-2017 (you have a few edits in that time period but nothing substantial), and there's no proof of your "basic moderation knowledge".
   • You say you can easily resolve disputes, but where's the proof? I have never seen you resolve a conflict, but maybe I am overlooking something? Going through your very few talkpage posts tells me that this isn't the case. I'm not finding anything overly concerning, but I am also not finding really any experience handling conflicts. All I am really seeing is warnings and reminders, which are not examples of conflict resolution.
   • To be honest, this is your 3rd RfA with relatively little amounts of improvement between them. You want the position, but you don't want to put in the work required to prove that you deserve it. SerpentKing 02:24, June 6, 2019 (EDT)

   SK, I was wondering, are there any limits on how many RfAs a person can write? ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 17:02, June 6, 2019 (EDT)

   There is no specific limit on how many RfAs someone can make, aside from the potential negative effects on your chances that repeatedly applying and failing may have. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 17:13, June 6, 2019 (EDT)

5. Oppose. Yeahhh I can't really say this is a good RfA, let alone there isn't any proof that shows that you will be a competent admin. Been here "for a while now", moderate edit count, knowing the rules and enforcing them, yeah, other users can do those accomplishments too (and honestly we don't judge RfAs based on those things), except that you still mess up with some of the said policies from time to time. I don't think you have a full understanding of what adminship is yet. Sorry to break it to ya bud. MHStarCraft 00:35, June 7, 2019 (EDT)
6. Oppose. In spite of what you put forward in your RfA, there are some contradictory things I have noticed: you say you’ve reviewed the policies, but you seem to still not understand them fully (and, judging by this edit, you also seem to miss things that a full read-through of a page, policy or not, would tell you); you say you’re good at conflict resolution, but, going off of both the examples you provided, one was a proposal starter that, looking at the rest of it, instigated a dispute more than it did solving it, and the other was an argument against a thing that was already put in place, which I’m surprised still stood when you undid the edit (and also, from what I’ve seen, you only seem to step in after someone has said something); you say you have moderation experience, but you lack proof/evidence suggesting so (even I, albeit not linking to them, dropped the fact that I’ve moderated and run more personal wikis prior to gaining adminship, with two users backing me up on that); you, like many others, bring up edit count and years of experience, but that does not matter in the grand scheme of things - one can learn the ropes of a wiki in a few days if they spend time handling everything. You also fail to give a reason why you should be granted adminship. When I ran, we were short on staff - only SK and Toomai were really at it, and there were four admins who were semi-active. Granted, things haven’t really changed since then, but the three of us are still active and handling things well (even if, admittedly, there hasn’t been much to handle, though that may change come E3). Overall, unless you can convince me otherwise, I see no real reason to say "okay, this user would be a good admin" (which, for the record, isn’t to say that you would necessarily make a bad admin). Aidan, the Rurouni 12:45, June 8, 2019 (EDT)
7. Oppose. Bro you watch way too much Toonami lmao. Maybe in a couple more years when you stop shilling Pokemon Lets Go jesus christ dude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.231.210.174 (talk • contribs) 19:36, June 10th, 2019

   That was a bit uncalled for. Let's try and keep this more civilized, jah? Aidan, the Rurouni 20:40, June 10, 2019 (EDT)

8. 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 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. Anthony1996 (talk) 00:00, June 11, 2019 (EDT)

Neutral

1. ...

Comments

How long can RfA's be up? I would like to add my opinion, however I also need to sleep. CookiesCreme 23:17, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

For as long as they need before admins make a decision, for example Aidanzapunk's most recent RfA was up for 2 weeks. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 23:22, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

That said, if nothing happens in them for a while, they do get taken down due to inactivity. Aidan, the Rurouni 23:36, June 4, 2019 (EDT)

While I'm going to refrain from giving my opinion as of right now, I would like to ask for some examples of you doing conflict resolution, because going through your edits, I can't find anything that sticks out, so I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something before passing judgement. Aidan, the Rurouni 17:38, June 6, 2019 (EDT)

This is my attempt to solve the debate on whether or not tabbers should be used on top-of-page quotes, and here is my attempt to solve whether or not the names of Wii Fit Trainer's non-special move poses should go the moveset box. If you're referring to solving existing conflicts, like those between users, then there's not really much of that, due to the fact I don't see it happen often. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 11:21, June 8, 2019 (EDT)

These are not examples of conflict moderation. The first is a mere suggestion, the second is the same, though I'll give you that the intention was to break up an edit war. This still does not count. This skill is crucial for an administrator to have, without it, you'll be ill-equipped to deal with certain situations when they arise. SerpentKing 13:04, June 8, 2019 (EDT)

---