SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Serpent King

Serpent King (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.

Hello, I'm Serpent King. I have been an editor here since March, and in that short time, I feel I have made significant improvements to SmashWiki. I've:

1. Done extensive work with the pages on Melee's debug menu.
2. Redone several pages that truly needed it, such as the Brawl Stage Builder section and List of flaws in artificial intelligence (SSBM) (I did SSB and SSBB too).
3. Anchored the Brawl and SSB4 trophy lists and fixed the disambiguation and redirect pages linking to them (not without help on SSB4).
4. Updated many, many links that were made out of date by the Classic mode, Master Hand, and Crazy Hand splits.
5. Completed moveset tables for Melee characters.
6. Uploaded and included all Melee's English crowd cheers.

"That's great and all, but what do you plan to do with sysop powers?" you ask? Well...

1. I would love to gain access to MediaWiki. I know CSS extensively, so I feel like I could provide help there when needed (always discussing large changes, of course)
2. Certain limitations of a normal user do tend to get on my nerves, particularly in moving pages: Users cannot move a page with over 9 consecutive capital letters in the title (what is that?), cannot move sub-pages along with the parent page, and cannot move a page over another page, even redirects.
3. I do not plan to be liberal with bans, only banning those who obviously are vandals and not good faith editors.

I'm very active. I get on almost every day to check my watchlist and the recent changes. I'm also active at night, so I can provide another layer of protection during those nightly hours. Also, as someone who understands wiki markup, CSS, programming, and Smash very well, this just makes sense. Serpent King (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Support

1. You've been an extremely active, professional, and helpful user since you joined. I think that this is a great idea. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 07:20, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

   Why thank you! Serpent King (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

2. You're highly active and very levelheaded and diplomatic, both very important traits for the role an admin has, IMO. I also believe that your intended usage of admin powers would be extremely helpful. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 09:20, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
3. You're a helpful guy, and your work on the debug menu pages was awesome. I feel you'd be able to ease into administration easily, being just as helpful yet better :) F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
4. Your edits are pretty impressive I must say. Smashworker101 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
5. You were a nice guy when I got here, you're a nice guy now. I feel like your edits speak for themselves here. I personally think you'll do great. LittleMacmain97, the World Circuit is mine! (Talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (EDT)
6. The only thing going against you is that you haven't been here very long. But I don't feel that's a reason to prevent you from becoming an admin, since you've proven to be a very active and helpful user. John PK SMAAAASH!! 11:02, 30 July 2015 (EDT)
7. This wiki could benefit from having a few more active admins in my opinion and you would be one of the best people for that. MarioIsTheBest (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Oppose

1. -13% To be honest, there are few things that brought you down. Although you have great adminship potential, there are some problems on how would you handle as an admin. First, like Miles, it looks like you didn't do conflict resolution or user disputes. I would like to see that, since it is more of like a trustful admin, and is required for anyone who is requesting for RFA. Second, you're also a new user (4 months old) and I feel that you need a bit more experience. You are still learning the rope of the wiki. Great, helpful, and nice editor, but not enough to be an admin material at this point. If you really wanted to become an admin, think deeply in your mind, commit, and show your need for admin powers fully. You may also need to look at your weak points as an editor. And then do the RFA, when you are ready after few months or more. Should you have great dispute handling and a bit more experience, I would likely give support. Luigi540 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
2. Weak oppose: I'd rather wait 'til you have SSB4 - after all, it is the focus of 80% of the Wiki's active users. RickTommy 09:23, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

   I do not personally think this is a valid reason to oppose an RfA. Obviously having a game would help deal with misinformation, but only the blatant stuff tends to need admin intervention (vandals usually don't go for the subtle stuff), and research into the major SmashBoards topics is probably enough to cover the rest. Toomai Glittershine The Free 10:58, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

   SSB4 is less than a 3rd of this wiki. Besides, I have enough to go on just based on our articles and my watching the competitive scene. Serpent King (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

   I would say that Melee is perhaps the favorite Smash game for most SmashWikidians since 2014 despite Smash 4 being the thing as of right now, with Project M having a cult following on here as well. I'm more of a Brawl and Smash 4 person myself, and like Toomai and Serpent King said, not having Smash 4 isn't that big of a deal when it comes to getting adminship. Dots (talk) The Restful 22:49, 26 July 2015 (EDT)

3. Given your answers below, I stand Neutral, leaning support. Whilst, on the whole, the application and you answers are good, I have two main concerns. Trivially, there's your time spent on wiki - a mere few months. More significantly, your answer to the latter question and your submission strike me as slightly water-spined, which I would rather not see in an admin. ScoreCounter 17:33, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

   Upon further consideration, I'm moving to oppose to block. I just don't see this as quite at the standard I'd like. ScoreCounter 08:12, 31 July 2015 (EDT)

Neutral

1. Neutral. While you've more than proven yourself as a content editor, I've yet to really see anything resembling conflict resolution or user dispute handling from you, which is a necessity for an admin role. Furthermore, out of your posted reasons for wanting admin-level powers, you a) don't specify what MediaWiki things you'd actually want to change; b) give a generic statement about bans that doesn't really say much; and c) give a very minor reason in terms of page moves, which are easily done with a few extra steps yourself or with assistance from an existing admin. You haven't done anything to demonstrate that you would be a bad admin per se either, but that's not enough for me to feel like I can support your RfA at this time. Miles (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

   For MediaWiki, I don't actually have anything in mind right at the moment. I only meant that my knowledge of CSS could be beneficial through MediaWiki. Should something go wrong, I'd be able to help fix/improve it. Serpent King (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

   That just sort of solidifies my initial point: you aren't demonstrating a clear reason why you should be admin yet, just vague "I guess I could help with this" kind of statements. You're a good contributor to the wiki, but that alone doesn't equate to readiness or need for adminship. Miles (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

2. Neutral. You're arguably the two best non-admin users on this wiki so far this year along with Nyargleblargle and while I do think you and the latter have great adminship potential, I'm going to have to agree with Miles that you need to show dispute handling a bit more since basically every RfA on this wiki "needs" this quality. Dots (talk) The Vampire Killer 11:16, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
3. You're a great editor and you've helped a lot with some projects that people like me have been too lazy to continue with, and you seem to know what you're doing around here more than enough. You just haven't fully shown your need for admin powers, and you're a rather new user (logs say you joined four months ago), so you might want to give it a bit more time before requesting admin powers. Scr7(talk · contribs) 14:54, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
4. Neutral. This RfA reminds me of my own first RfA: strong/knowledgeable mainspace editor, but stays out of disputes and doesn't truly show deservance of admin tools other than a "won't abuse them". Toomai Glittershine The Interspacial 21:08, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

   I'm actually going to have to argue that every user on this wiki except for Omega Tyrant and Megatron1 actually have some difficulty with handling disputes. We're not that perfect at it. Dots (talk) The Handy 21:13, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

5. I personally don't see short track record as a legitimate reason to oppose an RfA (IIRC Omega Tyrant became an admin within less than 4 months of being a user); so long as the candidate is knowledgeable, competent, and willing to work with/against other users, track record is decidedly negligible, so I won't put that against you. What I will put against you however is why you need admin capabilities to handle disputes. Plenty of "normal" Wiki users have shown that they are willing to opine their points regardless of who they're arguing against (now admittedly, this may not be good for new Wiki users, but "new" doesn't always equate to inexperienced). Based on your responses the only thing I see adminship doing for you in the dispute area based on what you say is giving you the confidence to argue in the first place, and at that point you're abusing scare tactics, which is something I don't want in the administration.
   Toomai and Miles pretty much said anything else I would have to say; you don't really pinpoint anything admin specific that you need (outside of a page moving gripe. I'm talking about stuff in regards to vandals and spam pages, you don't engage in a witch hunt for them. You say you will, but talk is cheap. Show us that you will, and most importantly prove that you won't abuse them.), and while you are one of the Wiki's best contributors, you really aren't as in touch with other users as admins should be. So overall, I'm neutral, leaning very slightly to support. - EndGenuity (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

   In what way am I abusing scare tactics? Also, how am I to prove that I won't abuse sysop powers without actually having them? Serpent King (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

   I didn't mean to say you were abusing scare tactics, but rather that you seemingly would; to me, the comment "Truth is, I am never going to gain these (dispute) skills without being given this chance." reads as "I can't settle or partake in user disputes properly unless I become an admin and try it", implying that the only way you can be confident or competent enough to handle a dispute is by assuming the power of a higher up. Then hypothetically, you think you can force your opinion better on dissenting users because most users would (rather unfortunately) be inclined to listen to an admin than a "newbie". That seems a lot like swaying people with power in fear of being hurt; you scare them, ergo scare tactics. If it means something else, please enlighten me.
   As for your second point...well, just don't be too condescending. Don't do stuff like warning blocks or page protections just because you are not fond of the way a user is doing something. If it is harmful to the Wiki that's another story. Just be reasonable and don't jump the gun in any disputes you happen to get into. - EndGenuity (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

   I must solidly disagree. Forcing my opinion is not really my thing. I will argue my case, of course, but I will never use my power in a way that implies "agree with me, or be banned". Serpent King (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (EDT)

6. Neutral: I primarily say this because of a lack of true administration-worthy skills such as conflict resolution. You have done some spectacular things for the wiki in your time here, but you don't even have rollback and I can't see much in your logs that show you recognizing or dealing with vandals. If you show this, maybe I'll reconsider my vote if this is still open. DarkFox01All aircraft breakaway! 19:59, 23 July 2015 (EDT)

Comments

Say that there is an ongoing edit dispute between two established users, concerning a certain point of how pages should be set up - say, a trivia section, and what qualifies as trivia. Should this start causing a problem, would you assist in resolution, and if so, how? ScoreCounter 09:03, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Yes. I would reference this on the talk page and attempt to act on this policy as best as I could. Serpent King (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Second and last question - how would you react in a situation like the above where there is no relevant policy, both in the resolution and aftermath of the dispute? Sorry, I just like being sure before I vote.ScoreCounter 16:13, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

It would depend on the dispute. If it were something really simple (such as obvious falsehood) I may act as I see fit and leave a note on the talk page. If it is more complicated, I may create a poll on the talk page discussing the issue to allow other editors to give their opinions. In the end of either scenario, all parties would be notified of the change (or lack thereof) via their talk page. Serpent King (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

I remembered looking through Omega Tyrant's RFA, he only had 700 constructive edits before applying. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 21:44, 22 July 2015 (EDT)
I am a little confused about the "you've only been here for 4 months" argument. While it's true, I personally feel like in that 4 months, I have done 8 months worth of work. I do know the "ropes of SmashWiki" quite well actually. I understand fully what good content is and what bad content is. I have read and understood all of our policies and take steps to enact upon them as best I can. Now I do understand why my lack of dispute handling skills is an issue for you guys. Truth is, I am never going to gain these skills without being given this chance. An admin will need to settle disputes a lot more frequently than a normal user would, and frankly, a user's voice is small in that regard, despite what SW:YAV says. Thank you for hearing me out. Serpent King (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (EDT)

Here's what I feel about electing admins, I feel that a sysop only need to know the Wiki policies thoroughly and remind users when they're violating any policy and still makes a lot of contributions. User disputes should be handled by a Bureaucrat. This is a reason why a lot of RfAs fail because people are looking for dispute handling within candidates and much of us didn't really have it. We even had two sysops who started user disputes, not trying to resolve them. Now we only have two active admins right now and we recently had a user who's been violating SW:1RV and SW:NPA and an admin wasn't online at the time. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is made in America 00:58, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

Why is it absolutely necessary for a potential administrator to be able to quickly and reliably solve disputes as if these things even happen often (which doesn't seem to be the case)? Chilex (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

I will say that just because something doesn't happen very often, it does not mean that we should not be equipped to handle it. At the same time, while I do so everyone's point about not having much history with editing disputes (I do have some, actually, just buried in my massive content contributions), I do not see myself struggling to handle any editing issue that may arise. Serpent King (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2015 (EDT)

---