SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Toomai

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.

Reason: User withdrew nomination --Shadowcrest 03:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Toomai (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA page)

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

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

Well then, how to start...I have no idea actually. Beginnings are not one of my strong points...Well, I guess I could give a list of my strong points:

• I'm generally good at the neutral point-of-view thing, and don't ever remember a time I started an argument online.
• I'm on here a lot. Recently, I've been on over an hour a day.
• I know a lot of crap stuff when it comes to the Smash Bros. games, and if I don't know something, I do the research.
• I know when to use serious business and humourous business.
• I have extreme spelling and grammar skills. (aka XtrEEM skillz)
• I'm an admin at the Banjo-Kazooie Wiki (which is kind of small) and the Mariology Forums (which have petered out recently). (Yes, I'm aware that off-sife admin-ness probably doesn't mean anything. But I stiff feel I should point it out.)

Is all that good enough for me to make a difference as an admin? I would think so.

...and, um, I suppose I've run out of things to say. Discuss, I guess. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure now that I didn't think this through enough. (Which is odd, since usually it only takes me one or two days to decide something.) So this RfA has been withdrawn. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support

• ...

[edit] Oppose

• Slight Oppose While you do seem very smart, I don't believe you have very many admin-like qualities. You don't really deal with policy, and you don't have experience with user conflict.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, policy isn't exactly my strongest suit. But I'm working on it; I realize it's important to get policy right every time. And you're right about user conflicts too; while I certainly think I can handle one should it come up, I've never really dealt with one before here. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I haven't been around often, and seeing your explanation above and your bid, it seems you are not one who can solve user disputes. It seems that you would only be an average admin, not a extraordinary one. (Feel free to persuade me; this is only from observations.) Friedbeef1Screech 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

• Neutral with lean towards support. You're great at editing the mainspace of this wiki, and you've added exceptional information to the site. That being said, though, I've yet to see evidence that you can deal with user conflicts. I'd say that that's the most important thing you're yet lacking. Miles (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. As Miles says, you're clearly an excellent editor, but until I see some admin-like contributions from you (i.e. ones which display a better than average grasp of policy, knowledge of how to handle user conflicts and mediate, etc.) I'm hesitant to support your bid for sysoption. Or, to come at this from another angle, given that you don't seem to have been involved in user conflicts, etc. (which indicates that getting involved in such areas is not a part of your standard operating procedure, so to speak) I'm not sure exactly why you would need sysop tools (in so far as anyone can need sysop tools) in order to continue doing the great work that you're already doing beyond the ability to delete vandalism and block vandals as a matter of convenience (since the current group of admins is sufficiently active to deal with most of that), and just about anyone is essentially competent to use del/block/prot. – Defiant Elements +talk 22:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I really can't say. Seems qualified, but I don't know your history well enough. You doesn't enter enough debates/arguements to prove that you're good at solving disputes. Gutripper^Speak 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral You definitely contribute in a good way and such, but right now I think a Rfr would be better at this moment because I'm curious to know how you would react if certain scenarios arise such as a dispute. ClonedPickle 00:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)