| Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first! |
| Notices |
|---|
| The Skill parameter has been removed from Smasher infoboxes, and in its place are the new "Best historical ranking" and "Best tournament result" parameters. SmashWiki needs help adding these new parameters to Smasher infoboxes, refer to the guidelines here for what should be included in these new parameters. |
| When adding results to Smasher pages, include each tournament's entrant number in addition to the player's placement, and use the {{Trn}} template with the matching game specified. Please also fix old results on Smasher pages that do not abide to this standard. Refer to our Smasher article guidelines to see how results tables should be formatted. |
| Check out our project page for ongoing projects that SmashWiki needs help with. |
SmashWiki talk:Junior administrators (version 2)
Okay so. In the interest of focusing the effort (and also not inflating an already-huge talkpage), I made this "new version" of the junior admin proposal. Discuss. Toomai Glittershine 
El Pollo 15:53, 18 December 2014 (EST)
- I like this version better. It gives users some important tools, but not too much. The part about not allowing to edit fully-protected pages but allowing to add full protection seems weird, because I feel if a JA protects a page, they should be able to edit it. Rtzxy
Reflect! 16:07, 18 December 2014 (EST)
- Strong Support This should help combat vandalism and users can now delete their own userpages without tagging "Speedy Delete". They can also help deleting other user pages if they tagged them with "Speedy Delete". ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 16:11, 18 December 2014 (EST)
Oppose. I still see very little reason for this position to exist, and I continue to maintain that a standard RfA is over-stigmatized in the minds of the userbase. Miles (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2014 (EST)
- I agree with this and still don't really like the idea myself, but the userbase is practically demanding it for whatever reason. Toomai Glittershine The Loony 16:41, 18 December 2014 (EST)
- If we had traffic more analogous to somewhere like Bulbapedia, I could see this being more appropriate. As it is, though, we're already drifting out of the peak of SSB4 traffic and it's not like we're having major issues with the administration being unable to keep up with needed tasks. One or two more normal admins wouldn't hurt, sure, but the point is that for a whole user class like this to be made implies a much greater need than has been demonstrated. Miles (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (EST)
Bump. Oppose I see this as a better compromise than the previous one but I changed my mind about having junior admins. I actually think were pretty good on admins anyways despite there only being two but there hasn't been much traffic recently aside from SSB4. Plus, this version is basically the same but without the ability to block users, which is understandable because its easily the most powerful and most likely to abuse action on wikis, but what happens when a vandal is vandalizing when no admins are here? So yeah, I would love to have Junior Admins but at the same time, I'm a little too uncomfortable having them at this time. Dots (talk) 
The Zerg Rush 19:31, 27 December 2014 (EST)
