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|Comment explaining your 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|Comment explaining your nomination. ~~~~}}

Current requests

NOTE: On June 21st, 2020, Omega Toad was demoted from administrator status due to offensive, homophobic, and transphobic comments made. For more information, see here and here.

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 successful.
	Reason:	Unanimous support. Looking through edits found nothing of too great concern outside of a few early noobie blunders. There should be no problem with this. Serpent  King 23:01, June 16, 2020 (EDT)

OmegaToad64 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.
Hello, I'm OmegaToad64, though most users simply refer to me as OmegaToad. Although I've only been an editor here for about a year, I believe I'm ready to become a sysop. Recently Emmett and Nyarglebargle were demoted from adminship due to inactivity, leaving us with only 6 admins (7 if Porplemontage is counted) and 4 active admins. While it may not seem like too big of a deal, not all of them are active all the time or even on a daily basis, and more often than not there are several times in a day where none of them are active for several hours. It is this time when a vandal has the opportunity to strike and potentially can get away with it, and it has happened not long ago. With me active during those times I will be able to prevent such things from happening with the admin tools, providing a major benefit for this wiki.

Like everyone I have made mistakes in the past. When I first joined I didn't fully read all of the policies and have been guilty of breaking SW:AGF, SW:BTALK, and almost SW:NPA. It was primarily this incident which made me feel I needed to improve on my conflict resolution skills, to the point where l even asked for advice. Once I recieved my warnings I read the policies more carefully and have refrained from that those. Now I often view this SA to see if I meet the qualifications of a sysop, so here are my reasonings to why I believe I am a strong candidate for adminship: Policy enforcement is something I mastered and probably may be most known for on here. The way I enforce them is I am straight to the point and guide them to the policy they violated. For first time offenders I assume good faith and give a friendly reminder, though for users with a more checkered history I am more stringent with my warnings. When it comes to disbute and conflict handling, I always remain calm and neutral, no matter how out of hand the disbute gets. I try to look at both sides and decide which of them is the most benefitial and reasonable, and if one side has fault I point it out the faults of that side. Often times I also wait to hear other users' suggestions before I give my own thought, as sometimes another user may suggest the best option. Times when I'm part of a disbute, I point out the flaws and settle things in a calm but still straightforward manner, or if I know a change is not going to be for the better I state why it most likely will not happen, while still admitting I'm open for a change. If I have a disagreement with another user, my first action is to simply drop the matter before a dispute begins. In the case of a conflict my first action (if possible) is to resolve it before it gets heated, or quickly stop things that will only raise more problems.

Contributions, I feel, are irrelevant in an RFA, however I will still mention a few nonetheless: one if my biggest ones was when I almost single-handedly categorized over 400 images in one day (I had some help from SuperSmashTurtles). As per this proposal I worked alongside DracoRex to template all of the SSBU fighter characters' changelist, this is my example that I am willing to work together with anyone.

Next I will go over the tools I will use as an admin, something I see a lot of people leave out in their failed RFAs. There are three major tools: protecting, deleting, and the most powerful one: blocking.

• When it comes to protection I understand that most pages should be editable by any user. As such I generally refrain from pages to be protected, aside from obvious ones like the main page. I often look at other options first before considering protection as seen in my Admin noticeboard example. However if push comes to shove, pages must be protected if it is a major target for excessive vandalism, or counter productive edit warring. When it comes to new content, those pages will need to become protected due to being a major target for vandalism, and if speculation and rumors are repeatedly being added, as this could lead to potential false information being spread which will be a big problem for this wiki.
• Next I'll go over deletion, this is mostly self-explanatory. When it comes to the normal deletion process I know that a consensus must have been reached before deleting. With the speedy delete, it means delete without questioning. Of course we need to check first to make sure it wasn't unfairly tagged, for example an image that is still being used should not be tagged for speedy delete. While Flare has been keeping the speedy delete section clear, before he became active again the speedy delete section was being filled up without being cleared. It once filled up to over 100 and lasted for nearly a week, I once needed to inform an admin (I think it was Aidan) that it was needing to be cleared. For a wiki striving to be the best quality Smash Bros encyclopedia, we should not have so many images tagged for speedy delete, so if I was an admin at that time I would have cleared them all.
• Finally is the most powerful and potentially the most dangerous one if in the wrong hands: blocking. First there's the obvious vandal accounts. Without questioning these malicious editors must be blocked, and depending on severity the length should range between a few days to infinite. As you can tell from the admin noticeboard, I give vandals absolutely 0 chances: as soon as I spot one I immediately revert a vandal edit and report them straight to the noticeboard, often times I am the first one to spot one and revert their edits. Unfortunately, there will also be times when good faith editors will be blocked. Now this would be considered the last resort, steps should be taken first before we consider blocking. When it comes to how I handle these cases I always assume good faith and give them a reminder in case they didn't know the rules. However if they deliberately continue this behavior despite several warnings that's when my warnings become more stringent, and if push comes to shove I report them to the admin noticeboard. This is how I'll handle blocking: I give them warnings, and if they still don't listen and repeatedly break the rules despite many warnings, then they will be blocked. I'll also take this into consideration for such users.
• As for probating and check user, I will only use it if necessary: The only time I bring up probation is if I start noticing a user having equal or more userspace edits than mainspace edits. Assuming good faith I will always warn them first, however only if they blatanly refuse to listen and continue then I they will need to be probated. Check user is something I will only use on users reported in the sockpuppets section of the admin noticeboard, or if I'm noticing suspicious behavior between two users.

And to finish it off I am an administrator on WikiBound. While I understand policies are slightly different, I have used protecting and deleting properly, by deleting unused images and spam pages, and protecting high risk pages. Also I have blocked one user for having an inappropriate username, though that was over a year ago. So to summarize it all my reasoning for being an admin is to fill in the gaps between the times of activity and inactivity of the admins, and do whatever admin tasks are needing to be done. With me being active at night (in C.A. time) when the current admins are usually offline, the wiki will always have enforcement at anytime to keep things in check. Be it regular janitorial work, vandal blocking or resolving disbutes on here, I am willing to do it all. With me being a patient individual, you will not have to worry about me starting any troublesome conflicts and blocking users out of anger, and I will always keep things calm in disputes. If any vandal decides do attack when I'm around, I show no mercy. Finally with Arms releasing soon that means new content, and new content means more wiki traffic, and more wiki traffic means possible user disbutes and higher risk of vandals. During this time moderation will be needed to make sure everything is going smoothly on here. Should the community decide to make me a sysop, I promise you can trust me with the job. OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 19:22, June 3, 2020 (EDT)

Support

1. This is probably a first for me, given that I tend to be pretty harsh with these things, but I'm more than satisfied with what I've seen both in this RfA and on the Wiki in general (major props for providing links to examples for claims you've made btw) to support this RfA. You seem to have very solid judgement when it comes to dealing with the behaviour of editors on the site, what qualifies as good and bad faith, and what warnings are appropriate and where. It's also pretty clear that you have a good understanding of the way the wiki works, and your temperament, which is normally a major sticking point for me, seems very cool and collected. Overall, I think you'd be a very valuable addition to the admin team, and I wish you the best of luck with this RfA. Alex the Weeb 19:59, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
2. Even though I am fairly new to this, I want to put down my support for this RfA. Reason(s) being: I have read his report, and his ability to calmly diffuse conflicts, paired with his usual active timeframe would make him a superb addition to the dwindling team of admins. He also has proven quite effective at rational thinking during times of crisis, which is yet another reason why he has my Buster Sword.(that is Cloudish for he has my support.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustSomeCloudMain (talk • contribs) 04:18, June 4, 2020
3. Definitely throwing my support. I've seen you grow a lot since I first interacted with you, and I can definitely agree that you have shown improvement in most, if not all areas. I see you consistently participating in proposals and discussions, plus your willingness to help new users really shows your commitment to the wiki. I've also seen your work on WikiBound when I periodically edit there, so I know you understand what it takes to be an admin. I believe your biggest problem is your somewhat snarky remarks from time to time, but even then it's much less common recently and, quite frankly, not an issue that would hurt the RfA. Overall, I don't see a big problem with supporting your RfA. CookiesCreme 20:35, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
4. Support You've been a big help to me and other users. As someone who considers you a friend, it'd be great if you become an admin. SonDaniel (talk page) 20:49, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
5. Giving you my support. You've been very active in enforcing the rules in a fair way that assumes good faith, and you've definitely grown and matured enough into the role that I trust you with the responsibility. Your briefing is well-supported with examples and details, and you obviously have past experience too. My main concern would be that your level-headed and occasionally snarky nature might lead people to think you might be a lax admin, but I think you're trustworthy enough to follow through with punishing rule-breakers. All in all, I think you'd do great. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 22:14, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
6. As of this, Support OmegaToad64 As of you, you've been improving more and more as what you've should become part of an admin. As of what I'd said, as a somewhat experienced user, you helped out more and more people in this wiki. You also notify people that are doing wrong too. As of this you can most likely to say as you're experienced user for ssbwiki, it would be great as a what we see today. HowplayzPrepare Yourself 22:21, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
7. Support because you would be a great fit for an admin, You have proven yourself numerous times after improving upon breaking the rules, you have been a useful contributor in this wiki, despite not being a user on wikibound myself, you were one of the best non-admins I have ever seen. I'd also like to point out your fast action in noticing vandal edits and things in what users have done, including me, and you do a really good job at reporting vandals. Overall I think you will be a great admin on this wiki and I wish you good luck. S3AHAWK said ketchup won 22:50, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
8. Support You're quite active on here and looking through your examples and history of vandal reporting, conflict resolution, wiki knowledge, and others, I'd say you're definitely fit for the position. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 22:59, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
9. I've seen how you are on WikiBound, and you seem to have a good grasp on how things run here. Support. Alex95 (talk) 23:56, June 3, 2020 (EDT)
10. Support! I've seen you put in a lot of work into the wiki, and despite being a relatively newer editor myself, I can tell you have one hell of a grasp on how things ought to be done around here. I feel that by this point you're the kind of editor who could make the most of an admin position, with this kickass RfA putting forward a good case for yourself. Wishing you the best of luck this, dude - if you pull through, I know you'll get to making a positive difference here on the wiki! Acgamer28 00:51, June 4, 2020 (EDT)
11. Support I've been observing his work on Wikibound and he really does good job here. Really active in disscusions. Also per what everyone above me said. 46.229.158.109 01:35, June 4, 2020 (EDT)
12. Support As someone who was involved in several of the linked disputes on my previous IP address (no idea why it changed all of a sudden), I can say firsthand that OnegaToad64 is excellent at handling them. Even in cases where I disagree with their position, they still maintain an incredibly respectful stance, and that's a rare quality these days. I might not be willing to make an account, but I can say with firsthand experience that OmegaToad64 would make an excellent administrator. 72.219.72.215 02:54, June 4, 2020 (EDT)
13. Support. To be fair, I'm fairly new. I've seen you do a lot of helpful things around this wiki, like reporting vandals and reverting their edits, and tagging many unused images for speedy deleting. Since you're mostly active, having you as a admin would (in my opinion) really benefit SmashWiki. Weegeegaming ^{【talk • contribs】} 04:31, June 4, 2020 (EDT)
14. Support. From what I have seen on the wiki, you are a very hard-working user that often handle the vandals very well and report them to administrator in a very quick fashion. With these admin tools, you can handle the vandals more easily. Not to mention that you have administration experience on WikiBound. I truly belive that the wiki will benefit a lot from having an aspiring admin like you. Naughty🐽GRAND DAD 自閉肥宅 01:45, June 5, 2020 (EDT)
15. Support. It surprised me when I found out you weren't staff to be honest. You've put a ton of thought into this from what I can see, and you've got the exact attitude needed to be an excellent staff member. I think you're overreacting to your low points, the things you've done for the wiki greatly outweigh it. I feel becoming an administrator, if anything, would ensure they don't happen again: it's a high pressure job for sure, speaking as someone who's been staff in many a place. --Plague von Karma 22:32, June 5, 2020 (EDT)
16. Pretty much everything I have to say has already been said above. The very first thought that came to my mind when I first saw this RfA was, “It’s about time.” You have my support as well. Gizmo (talk) 13:24, June 8, 2020 (EDT)

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. ...

Comments

I am waiting my answer until numerous people have decided. But I am currently debating between neutral and support. S3AHAWK said ketchup won 21:07, June 3, 2020 (EDT)

Probably not the right place to ask this, but as an aspiring admin myself, how exactly do I get better at conflict resolution? It's basically the one thing I'm lacking in that somewhat hindered my most recent RfA (granted, there were some other minor things too). Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 23:02, June 3, 2020 (EDT)

For conflict resolution my first suggestion is to remain calm and not get angry, but still be firm, adminship can be frustrating at times so patience is very important. If you yourself get frustrated that will obviously only raise more problems, however being too polite will make you look passive and lacking in confidence, which will cause users to ignore your advice. Then you should also evaluate the situation to find out the best action to resolve it, and if necessary, hand out a policy. For example if two users have an edit war, don't participate in the war but instead direct both users to the SW:WAR policy and direct them to the talk page to discuss the issue. Another important factor is not to show favoritism. If the user who is wrong in the disbute is also your friend, you still need to inform them of why they were wrong and if they violated any policies. If the conflict is starting to get out of hand, don't forget to hand out warnings as well and remind the user(s) not to overreact.

For an example I'll give a scenario of a conflict and how I would handle it: Two users are having a disagreement about page content. User A is clearly in the wrong but user B becomes unnecessarily frustrated and throws out personal attacks causing user A to become frustrated too. My first action would give out a "no reason to overreact" comment then warn them that they are breaking SW:NPA and disrupting the wiki. I'll then explain why user A was incorrect and tell both users not to behave like that again.

For tips if you plan to do another RFA here's somethings that turned me off when reading your 3 failed RFAs: 1) Edit count is irrelevant. Having 2000 edits does not show why you'd be more qualified for adminship than any ordinary user. 2) You didn't show why you would need the admin tools besides to combat vandalism. 3) There were no mentions of policy enforcement or examples of conflict handling. Try to imagine writing a job application, you need to show why the wiki would want you to be an admin. To get an idea of what's important for a RFA, as well as what to add in it, you should read the essay I linked to, that's what I used as an example to see if I'm qualified for adminship. OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 23:51, June 3, 2020 (EDT)

Bump OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 20:58, June 11, 2020 (EDT)

I have not yet been through your edits, so this does not serve as an official response from me in any way, but my knee jerk reaction is that this will be fine. One thing that I did want to bring up is that the entire current team currently exists on our discord server. It helps us coordinate our staff responses to issues on and off the wiki, and I would highly suggest you join it as an aspiring admin. Anyway, I'll be going through your edits and likely asking you questions here over the next few days. Best of luck to you Serpent  King 14:18, June 4, 2020 (EDT)

Alright a few things:

1. If I have a disagreement with another user, my first action is to simply drop the matter before a dispute begins. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Simply dropping issues because of disagreements sounds water-spined.
2. You mention that you are admin on Wikibound. While that's fine, I'd like you to consider if you are able to handle both jobs at the same time.
3. You have gone into when you think a block should be administered, but haven't discussed what block lengths you think are acceptable per offense. Please do so.
4. Oh also, which of your comments do you think was a break in NPA? I didn't find anything like that. Serpent  King 21:45, June 15, 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! Serpent  King 21:42, June 15, 2020 (EDT)

1. If I have a disagreement with another user, my first action is to simply drop the matter before a dispute begins. Oh, it's a remnent from my early rough draft that I forgot to take out. This is not what I would consider my way of "disbute handling", what I had in mind back then is only if it's something unimportant rather than going back and forth, it's best to leave it be if it's beyond my control. This is not something I will really be doing as an admin here, I would rather try to work out a compromise or discuss our opinions and decide on which is the best action.

2. I have plenty of time on my hands right now, so handling both wikis will be fine (plus the inactivity on WikiBound makes it a bit easier as well) so don't worry about me being overworked. I'm more than willing to handle both places.

3. For block lengths it depends on the severity of the offense. Usually if it's the first block of a good faith user it can range from a few days (for minor ones like edit warring) to a month (such as personally attacking a user), however more severe offenses such as constantly inserting false information or blatant non-stop breaking of NPA even after warnings will recieve longer blocks like a month or more, and users who have previously been blocked yet still behave in the same way can recieve a block for several months. Users who I deem as a lost cause are users who have recieved blocks before yet still don't learn from their mistakes and continue to behave in the same way, these are users who will recieve infinites. Also there's the Toomai clause. Obvious vandal accounts can be up to a week or infinite depending on the severity, though if they return doing the same thing after the first block it will be infinite. Long IP blocks are generally discouraged, so an infinite block to an IP address is very situational: Constantly vandalizing or repeatedly acting in bad faith non-stop after the IP has been blocked numerous times before is the only time an infinite will be issued.

EDIT: One important thing I forgot to mention is how I'll handle sockpuppetry. If I catch a user editing with a sock, the main account will recieve a short block (no more than a week, unless it was severe) and the sock will be infinitely blocked (unless it was an IP, in that case it'll be around the same length as the main). I'll give the user a chance to explain themselves: if it was an understandable reason such as being unable to log in, (e.g. forgot password) then I'll help them and lift the block once it's resolved, and if there are any suggest alternatives for next time such as the password reset. If the sock was used with clear malicious intent such as vandalism then the main will be blocked longer, the length will depend on the user's history. If a blocked user is editing as a sock, then the main account's block may be extended depending on what the sock was used for, and a user with a history of bad faith and several blocks may be extended to an infinite.

4. The NPA was something that was close to it but not fully a personal attack (hence almost). Specifically an IP was constantly trying to convince us to mention that DK "dabs" in MK8, and I said something like "We don't care about those useless memes so stop harassing us and actually be useful for once". OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 23:54, June 15, 2020 (EDT)

I do want to comment because I think you may have the wrong idea of what the Toomai clause is to be used for. To put it in his words It's not really supposed to be used like a known and publicized last resort. It's supposed to be a very exceptional idea for very exceptional cases. Basically it's not supposed to be used as an excuse to block someone who doesn't otherwise deserve it. Serpent  King 06:27, June 16, 2020 (EDT)

What I understand is it is not intended as an excuse to block someone, it's if there's what appears to be a good faith user, however they also have a history of making many mistakes and for some reason never seem to learn from them. They come close to reaching unacceptable behavior but never actually cross it. Something like this is tricky to determine whether a user is exactly inside this category, it's not something I will use without also discussing with other users/admins alike. Also quoting is They may not have done anything "wrong", however they have done enough that is "not right". I'll always look through the user's history to decide if they are actually deserving of this, or if they have potential to redeem themselves. It's only something I would consider if I notice that a user has caused enough trouble to the point that their problems greatly outweigh the good that they've done. If you have any more questions I'll be willing to answer them. OmegαToαd64 • the Best Kαrter 06:47, June 16, 2020 (EDT)