Smashpedia:Requests for adminship/Shadowcrest

=== Shadowcrest (talk &bull; contribs &bull; edit count &bull; RFA page) === ''Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below. Before I say anything else, I want to say that having a comparatively low editcount doesn't relate to adminship and my comparatively little age here is outweighed by my experience elsewhere. Since this is possibly the only part of this speech you will read/remember, I just thought I'd put that out there. ...but since I know everyone will check anyway, there's links in the title. Or check Special:Contributions/Shadowcrest and/or Special:Editcount/Shadowcrest, if it's easier for you to access from here.

I've held a sysop position elsewhere since March 27, 2008, and I have relatively excelled at the position for some time. So I think it's fair to say I know how wikis work.

Up until recently, I'd have been very confident that I'd be able to field virtually any user conflict that I saw. But my approval rating appears to have dropped, and I know I've come off as an asshole way more than I intended recently. But I'd like everyone to know I'm working on it, and I think I'll be able to pull it off eventually. Opposes based on my personality aren't inherently invalid, but I'd appreciate any good faith.

I'm active enough, and I'd be able to delete spam, ban vandals, and all that other explicitly defined stuff in the job description.

In short: I'm willing and more than capable. --Shadow crest 18:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Strong support, Shadowcrest know what he's doing and is responsible. Im Alex25, King of Randomness!   Say Hi to me!   Random stuff!  18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Shadowcrest is knowledgeable, competent, and smart. As, or perhaps more, importantly, he has "Admin-like" edits (see my "vote" on Oxico's RfA) in spades, and I have complete faith in him to "mediate user disputes, arbitrate users, and interpret policy during times of argument" and he  has consistently displayed a dedication to this wiki that goes well-above and beyond the call of duty.  –  Defiant Elements  19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Shadowcrest is a knowledgeable user who has worked hard on this and other wikis to make them effective encyclopedias. His attitude is not something that terribly concerns me.  It is generally only directed at solving problems.  Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 00:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I have changed my mind, and I believe you would make an excellent sysop(then bureaucrat, then SUPREME DICTATOR OF THE WIKI!). In all serious, though, I support you. ^ Smoreking ^ Give   Thanks  23:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This guy knows what he's talking about, from solving user disputes and wiki issues, to fighting vandals, to knowing about the SSB realm in general. Lots of edits, loved by most people, he deserves this sysop position (the become a DICTATOR!!!)  Fried  beef  1    Argue   23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant support, not for any particular reservations of your ability but just because I don't feel the particular need to widen the administrative pool. However, your contributions are of consistently high quality and your diplomacy would be useful in resolving disputes and managing blocks. Your candidacy is clearly among the strongest. – MaskedMarth (t c) 00:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Well, while I can see you being a good sysop, I think you don't have enough experience here. I haven't really seen you try to handle user problems, instead just picking a side, or pointing to one of your created policies. I haven't really seen you compromise, and, as I said earlier, I feel you don't have enough experience here. Feel free to counter my pont, or point me to a policy.  O,  Mighty   Smoreking  19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not an issue that needs concensus (like most user conflicts not related to content), then picking a side is fine. If it is an issue that needs concensus (like ones related to content), then I don't have to do anything but argue for the side I believe in. I don't understand what you're getting at.
 * Why do I need an excessive amount of experience here when I've gained more than enough elsewhere? Ofc, I need some experience here so that I actually know stuff about the users and the culture etc., but that's really it once the basics have been covered.
 * You want me to point you to a policy, but you list that as one of my faults above? I'm confused :/ --Shadow crest  20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral with slight opposition. You often seem to be a negative person, short on temper and quick to get insulted or get angry. You're a great mainspace editor, but I don't think I can trust you as an admin to solve user-related problems.  Miles (talk - contribs) 23:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a terrible mainspace editor, what are you talking about :p
 * Actually, in recent memory, I've gotten angry once. And what resulted from it was, ironically, a self-ban, because I knew I lost my temper and my replies became increasingly unacceptable. I am generally aware of how I'm acting, so losing my temper and going outside the bounds of good taste is unlikely. However, I acknowledge your opposition, and since I lack fact to refute it, ok. --Shadow crest  00:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As for css and js, I'm flattered. I don't think I could even attempt to manipulate .js if I tried, though I'm sure it isn't a hard language to learn. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral with a lean towards opposition Sorry, but whenever I read comments by you, they are negative or aggressive. I don't know about you, which is why this is in Neutral, but I don't like what I've seen. Sorry.-- Gutripper Speak if you are worthy  00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderingwhy every one of your edits is "minor." – MaskedMarth (t c) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I mark them minor by default (look in preferences, you'll see the box somewhere). Does that somehow make me less capable? --Shadow crest  15:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but it suggests an unfamiliarity with the userface. I often toggle off minor edits when combing the recent changes, so all of your revisions would vanish. Additionally, tagging minor edits appropriately is a common courtesy to people perusing contributions or history as it indicates which revisions are likely to be full of content and which are not. And I happened to run afoul this problem when combing through your contributions to judge this request for adminship. While your contributions are of high quality (though I'm not yet convinced they demonstrate a need for the administrative mop; I need to take a closer look to cast my opinion one way or the other), such behavior brings into question your understanding of the controls and/or basic courtesy to other members. – MaskedMarth (t c) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I contribute to other Wikias, where setting everything as minor is common practice. And since Wikia saves your preferences across the board, I can't just uncheck the default box only for SmashWiki, and not having to check the box each edit was the entire point of hitting it by default. Since it would be dumb for me to tell you you patrol RC wrong, I don't know what I am expected to do. Courtesy here is not courtesy everywhere- indeed, setting everything to minor is possibly even the "expected" practice at GuildWiki- and it never really occured to me here. Having been at GuildWiki for nearly a year and a half, I think it is fair to say I'm familiar with how wikis work, even though I can't do all the advanced .css / .js stuff that Sky can. --Shadow crest  23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the general practices at other Wikias, so my concerns are quelled. Perhaps I'll write up guidelines concerning minor edits if any problems actually do arise. That said, I cast my opinion. – MaskedMarth (t c) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * General practice outside of Wikia is to only mark edits minor which are actually minor. I personally don't care either way, but at least consider the courtesy of unchecking the box when using talk pages, I'd say, or major content changes. I would be more concerned about edit summary usage; not that I've checked here in this case, but edit summary usage should be both civil and explanatory about the changes you make, and is far better at indicating why you thought a certain edit was major or minor.