Smashpedia:Requests for adminship/Smorekingxg456

Smorekingxg456 (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

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

I have been contemplating running for adminship for a while now. I have many reasons why I feel I should be an admin. First, I can actually comprehend policies. I can also point out violations of policies to users, and I would be able to bring disciplinary action against the violators as an admin.

Second, I am the author of the pending policy, SmashWiki:Crew Pages, which further proves my point of me being able to comprehend policies. And while I'm on the topic of crews, with the new addition of SW:NOTE, I have been tagging many crew and smasher pages for deletion. While there are other admins deleting Smasher pages, crew pages are receiving less attention. frequently go through crew pages and edit them to put Template:Crew on them, so while I was doing that, I'd be able to delete ones that aren't notable.

Third, I have tagged many images and pages for (speedy)deletion, and with admin powers, I would able to delete these manually instead of waiting for an admin. Also, instead of reporting vandals to admins, I would be able to deal with them myself, saving time on both parts.

And now for miscellaneous facts that may or may not help me.

I have rollback, if that is of any merit.
I have always kept my calm on talk pages and such.
I have no life, so I would be able to just sit at my computer all day, waiting for an opportunity to use the admin tools.
I have adminship on two wikis, so I'm not a complete n00b to the tools.
Rawr

So yes, that is my request "form" and I hope you vote honestly and opening.

Cordially,

Smoreking^(T)_(c) 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Support

I was waiting - About time you ran. My friend, support doesn't get any stronger. He has a great understanding of SW's policies, and would make good use of these tools. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendship has no place in RfAs- I hope you have taken that into account. --Shadow crest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You could say that if I had said "He's a great friend, so he deserves this tool", but not rite nao. Less bugging me pls. Blue Ninjakoopa 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight support. Smoreking generally does a pretty good job with wiki stuff, and while he has an odd sense of humor (Shoop da Woops? Come on.), he generally "means srsbsns" when it comes to composing and enforcing policies. I'm rather confident he'd use the tools well, but I'm not quite sure he has the right sense of responsibility, hence the "slight". Miles (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support: It may be a bit rushed after you got rollback, but you know what to do around here. You'll do fine.L33t Silvie ^{F33R T3|-| L337!!} 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support: Active, has rollback, knows polices well, and likes smores. Yep. He has things an admin has. IMO he's qualified. (just kiddin about the "likes smores" part ;D) Masterman 20 09 03:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Support: What Masterman said. Teddy (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Alright. From what I've seen, you're not ready. Although you have amount of activity, I have to Oppose. For the following reasons.
- You have only had rollback for a month or two, so the status more than anything means a lot to you.
- You say that you have adminship on two wikis, but I must say, and please don't take offense, that CD-i Wiki isn't much reason to support you. You guys just promote your friends at will, and chat about random stuff. In the past 500 edits, I haven't seen any legitimate use of admin tools, so I can't see whether you're actually reliable with these tools.
- ~~Your page is covered with Shoop-da-Woops, yet you maintain that you mean serious business.~~
- The only user conflict I've seen you help in ~~was you sticking your nose in and telling one side what to do.~~ you weren't successful, and for that reason, I can't see whether you can be relied on at the moment.

For all those reasons, I oppose. I'm sorry, but that is my case. Feel free to prove me wrong, but don't flame. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

::lolno, SK can do whatever he wants with his own page. Srs bsns applies to policies and talk, not the user's own belongings. "You must say" something more reasonable, please. About CD-i Wiki; you don't even need to bring that up in the first place, because it does not apply to SW. The last reason was as much a grudgeful PA as the ones you fear. Stop being a hypocrite and find a real reason, otherwise, remain neutral. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)

Edit count has absolutely nothing to do with RfAs.
Rollback also has nothing to do with RfAs.
I agree that adminship at such a not-serious wiki doesn't really count for much. Sure, you may know what the tools generally do, but they're pretty much self-explanatory. You need serious experience with them to qualify as understanding of how to use them.
The first thing on my userpage is a userbox about how I'm a Tin Plated Dictator with Delusions of Godhood, and I doubt anyone would say I'm not serious.
We stick our noses in and tell people what to do whenever we have to- it's kind of our job. Though some of us do it more politely than others and so it may not seem that way, it's what we do. Additionally, I am not universally successful, but (imo) I've done a pretty good job so far. Would you say that I am a failure for not achieving everything I attempted? --Shadow crest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointing things out, none of those directly affect here on SW, except possibly the SdW one. Yet you didn't talk about the actual points in my RfA, just the things that I said "may or may not affect my Rfa". You simply pointed out things I misproperly put in there. You said nothing about my actual reasoning, the first three paragraphs.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. One, you failed the test pretty badly. Two, you had a grand total of 16 Smasher Namespace edits before the test, so your argument that you need the tools to not have to tag the pages first fails. Third, and also including number one, you really haven't demonstrated that you are competent enough with the big names in the Smash Community and/or know how to find information about them that I would feel comfortable letting you just delete pages that you think aren't notable. Now, along policy lines, I also have strong reservations about you as a sysop. Generally, your "warnings" issued to other users seem to be nit-picky, and often just you trying to demonstrate that you know the letter of the policy. I haven't seen an indication that you fully grasp why we have most policies. This is detrimental to you chances as a sysop as I don't feel that you could distinguish between good faith mistakes and wrong doing. Additionally, I don't feel that this would help in you working to construct new policies. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per the general gist of CHawk, as well as his specific line that "this is detrimental to you [sic] chances as a sysop as I don't feel that you could distinguish between good faith mistakes and wrong doing. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral REALLY Leaning Towards Support IDK If Your Really Ready... Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 23:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral with a STRONG lean for Support Smore has done a VERY good job in terms of helping this wiki. He will make excellent contributions, but I'm curious to see how he will handle user disputes. Friedbeef1 Screech 23:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral I really don't know. He just doesn't seem like admin material to me. I'm sure he's up to it, but I'll have to do some research and see what the others say. Toon Ganondorf (t c)

All PAs aside... but "research"? Sorry, I'm confused... Blue Ninjakoopa 23:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By research he means looking over Smore's edit history. As for me, seeings as we've just promoted three admins in the last few months, I don't really think we need that many more. I'm sure Smore would do a good job, but Neutral. Gutripper ^Speak

Is there really such a thing as too many admins? There are times when, despite the large number of admins, none of them are on.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 23:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a thing as too many admins. If you have too many, it begins to look like an elitist cabal, with all the popular, contributing users as admins, and it creates an inferiority complex for the normal users. But, I don't think it's really applicable for this- our admin:user ratio is fine. --Shadow crest 23:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, VERY STRONG lean towards support What FriedBeef said. Cloned Pickle 00:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I neutral because while I am pretty sure that Smoreking is smart/knowledgeable about wikis enough to not be a bad admin- indeed, he may even make a good one- there is a certain something about this RfA and the "campaign" it has become. Again, I think Smoreking has what it takes, but I am somehow still wary. Alice 21:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral leaning to support My reason being, this could have waited a bit, as we discussed. Yes, you are an active contributor, and you have used the tools you have been given responsibly. The crew pages need some work, and your help would be appreciated, which explains my lean, but right now also tagging the pages is far more important that deleting them, because the latter is done far more easily. For why I'm not going to put down a full support, I have certain reservations about your motivations, being rather that you want the powers largely for the sake of having the powers. Semicolon (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So your general reason for not being a full support is the thought that I want adminship purely to have power? I must disagree. While I do want adminship, that is not the entire reason for this. One of the main reasons is for the crew page deletion. However, your alternative of tagging them, would not be as completely efficient and fast. There are times when no admins are on, and even when there are they are not deleted as fast as possible. Some can even go on for a few days even with a speedy delete tag. Due to my lack of a life(:p), I would able to go through the crews category and delete the ones that aren't notable, which would be much faster than simply tagging them, as you said.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 23:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

...Can't you only get on on weekends? --Shadow crest 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm supposed to, yes ;) And you'd be surprised how much I could do in one weekend.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As this is an RfA, the right is reserved to provide a hypothetical situation or a test and see how the candidate responds. So, I have assembled several present articles, both crew and smasher articles. Your job is to investigate and respond, without consultation, about whether they should be deleted or retained. The articles are: Smasher:AK, Smasher:Princess Peachie, Smasher:Kpld, Smasher:Medicine Woman, Smasher:Dr. Quinn, The Only Acronym, GAMER Guild, and Omneox Of Smash. Keep in mind there are right/wrong answers, and I know what they are, but some of them have some wiggle room. I've done my homework on this one. I'll strongly consider changing my vote to a support depending on how you do on this one. Good luck. Semicolon (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through them. You can see which ones I tagged.Smoreking^(T)_(c) 14:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, slight leaning toward support. If I were a bureaucrat and I had to appoint one person that I thought had a chance of passing a normal RfA it would be Smoreking. Given the available candidates, Smoreking is the best option in my opinion. He is the most likely to succeed, most like to make good decisions.... but all that having been said, Smoreking is not the ideal candidate. There are certain things about Smoreking that cast shadows of doubt, though as mentioned these are smaller than some other users'. What Alice said above is also pretty true. If we were in times of trouble, with round-the-clock vandals and busy sysops, I'd support Smoreking in a heartbeat. But since we do not need more admins...and there is always the worry of perceived elitism... I remain neutral.
tl;dr: Smoreking is the best available candidate, but whether we need him as a sysop right now is questionable. --Shadow crest 03:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm fairly confident that Smoreking would be an able SysOp and he's clearly active; however, with that said, I do have two minor-ish qualms. First off, I'm not wholly confident in his ability to moderate user conflicts and other problems of that nature, though I've not seen him "in action" often enough to make that judgment with any real certainty (I'll reconsider this if someone provides examples to the contrary, i.e. which demonstrate sound discretionary judgment/capable handling of user conflicts). Second off, though I don't necessarily see this RfA as an attempt to garner power, I'm not entirely convinced that Smoreking needs SysOp tools (at least in so far as anyone can really need del/prot/block). (Additionally, I tend to think we have a sufficient number of SysOps as is, though that doesn't speak in any way, shape, or form to Smoreking as a candidate.) I've also not seen any abundance of evidence that Smoreking has an above average grasp of policy, though I tend to attribute that primarily to admittedly limited knowledge of Smoreking as an editor. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving for this nomination to be closed under successful. Kperfekt ^BURN!!! ^{Revert That!} 04:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really a stupid thing to say. Five supports, three opposes, and a large amount on undecided. This needs more deliberation. Gutripper ^Speak 20:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)