The following adminship request has been closed. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
User requesting adminship: Golfpecks256 Date discussion closed: August 10, 2018 Result of discussion: Successful.
a. Why do you believe you are qualified to be promoted to this position?
Well, I have to say I've been actively editing ESB for a year now and I do intent to stay on long-term. I'm mainly qualified as I've been a great assistant and those are some of the tools admin has. I've never powerabused and used my assistant tools to help users who need help on assistant-based tasks. I'm also qualified since I have a much better reputation than before, I've changed drastically since I first started actively editing here last August. I now follow the Manual of Style, I check and correct users' edits, I try and help solve disputes in the comments section of pages, I've been an avid fan of SpongeBob and still have the interest to edit every day, and in general, I haven't really done anything wrong in the past in terms of handling a position with great responsibility.
b. Have you had experience with this position before?
Yes, I've been a sysop on many fandom communities including some SpongeBobia network wikis and I'm well experienced in community management which will help me if I do earn this. I'm also admin on some sites outside of ESB such as discord servers and skype group chats. I've been assistant for four months, rollback for six. I'm also the ESB Instagram manager and discord admin. I also used to be ExplodingSoda so I did once administrate ESB. Back then, everything was mostly edited by ip addresses but I still helped stabilize ESB.
c. What are your best contributions to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia and why?
Well, in general, I've made so many edits so I can't really specify a page. What I will say is that I've checked edits, fixed edits, reverted edits, and used my assistant tool wisely. I've never really had criticism of any abuse with the tools so I think personally that I'm doing fine at assistant. I've also done cleanups when I notice a page needs one. I've also done signature requests and helped with big projects such as discussing with Kocka and AMK about the chatbot returning as well as the chat revival and projects similar.
d. How do you plan to use your rights if your request is successful?
Well, basically, I'm going to pretty much use them like any admin would. I'd use the warning template, block users, ban users (from chat after warnings), respond to any reports, do a massive cleanup to the Data:Titlecards page (some of the images have names that do not follow the naming sheme so I plan to rename those images with appropriate names. I'll also update MediaWiki pages accordingly. I'll archive proposals and close chat and discussions moderator requests. I'm going to continue moderating if I get this like I did with edits as assistant. But I feel I could put the rights and tools that admin has to offer to great use.
e. Have you been in a situation in which you needed the user rights for this position at that moment but were unable to act?
Yes, sometimes I notice there are users who need to be warned but don't get the warning at the scene so I have to report to someone. Also, sometimes when I try and move an image, there are broken redirects which disallow me to so I'd need the abilities of an admin to remove those redirects.
f. Is there anything else you want to add?
Well, I gotta say, I've come a long way since my first ever contribution. This is definitely something I've thought about over the days and made my final decision to request after some input from the people I asked. I make mistakes sometimes but I learn from them to become a better person. I posted this request at the exact time and date as my first chat mod request last August. It's definitely been a great year. I've met new users and sad to let old users go. But I'd really like to take on this new opportunity and take on the challenges that come with it. You've all been great friends and I'm happy regardless of what you vote. Feedback and room for improvement is always there. I'm using my old and very first signature to remind me of the great memories I've had all year! Thanks for all the generosity and support I've received throughout my time here! That concludes my request and I wish you all a fantastic day! 👍 —-- Golfpecks256 Golfpecks256 19:45, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Support - You are an amazing user; always active, friendly, and helpful, not to mention all of your high-quality edits. You would make a great admin! Figmeister(W•C•E) 19:53, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Support - Lumoshi (t • c) 19:54, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Support - Per Squiddle, Golf is very on the ball with reporting issues and concerns on the wiki. Very active and polite - a very good candidate for the position. --Spongebob456talk 19:58, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Support - At this point, everything's been said but all of it's true. Golf is active enough and very helpful across the wiki, especially with his edits, so I believe he is very much qualified for this position. --MRS CHANANDLER BONG 20:19, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Neutral - Because it really doesn't matter, it's not like he's going to ruin the wiki Template:Maddox121
Neutral - Personally, I think he should have waited only somewhat longer until requesting to become an admin. Great editor and fantastic contributor and user though, I might change my vote in the future or keep it as neutral for now. •кσσℓкιттү<мεssαgεωαℓℓ>(=^◡^=)• 21:10, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Sorry I didn't mention in this in the request in great detail. Right now, on the admins page, there are 3 active admins, two semi active. In terms of bureaucrats, only one of the three is active. The other two lean towards semi active. So, in total, there are 4 active users with sysop rights out of the 8 altogether. 4 active admins to moderate a large wiki? It may seem enough but let's not forget an admin has to check chat, forums, discussions, edits etc along with the other mods. (Contact • Contrib) 12:10, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, but how many major abilities does an admin have that someone with discussion mod, assistant, and chat mod not have? The only reason you should be requesting is if there are many cases where pages that should be deleted are not deleted quick enough and/or if there are users that should be blocked, but are not blocked in time. From what I have seen, this is not the case. As you said, there are other mods on the wiki. In terms of chat, there is usually at least 1 mod on almost all the time, which is definitely more than enough. In terms of the 'official' ESB definition, six administrators are active, not four. Forgive me if what I am saying is incorrect, as I haven't been very active (I'm still on wikibreak), but it doesn't seem like you really need the position, because all aspects of the wiki seem to be covered. Or at least, the aspects that an administrator (and only and administrator or higher can cover) seem to be covered. Sure, maybe there are users who need to be warned that aren't, or pages that should be deleted but aren't, but if you report it and an admin can take care of it very soon, I don't think it matters. The point of reporting exists for a reason, after all. Users report these things to admins or someone who can deal with them. Just because you find something to report doesn't mean that you should be admin because of it. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 01:15, August 7, 2018 (UTC)
Neutral - I do agree with some of the opposes. Golf also recently asked me on discord questions regarding the source policy, which shows he doesn't have a good understanding of the policy. SpongeBot678(M•C•E) 07:22, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I mainly asked you about the source of "Goons on the Moon." Usually, the websites the plot was on (including German SpongePedia) are reliable sources as they've gotten things right in the past. But as you reverted my plot edit when I first added it, according to the policy, you are not allowed to revert an admin's edit without their consent. That's the main reason I asked, not really because I was confused which sources are right and wrong because I didn't want to add a plot to then get reverted. I don't usually don't have problems adding anything to new episodes but there were many comments disputes on that page that made me ask you whether or not I should add it again. (Contact • Contrib) 12:30, August 4, 2018 (UTC)
Neutral - Forgive me if I am making assumptions, but you seem to give an air of really just 'wanting' the position, rather than needing it. Of course, you might just want a lot of feedback, which is understandable, but you seem a bit too desperate to get as many people as you can to vote on your request. I don't believe that it is necessary to have another administrator on the wiki because it doesn't seem to me that there are not enough. In terms of numbers, maybe. However, by judging it based on the size of the wiki and number of admins alone, you are ignoring many statistics. It seems that most users stick with the same assumption: "The larger a wiki, the more admins it needs." That is only true if the wiki's problems grow with the number of users/pages. If the current staff have covered it all, no matter how big the wiki gets, there will never be a reason to have another admin. See my comment above for more details. Additionally, the other neutrals and opposes do make a few good points, but as I am missing a lot of information about the current wiki because of my "semi-activity" on wikibreak, I will just stay neutral. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 01:15, August 7, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Hi. I'd like to say first that although you think I want the position just for the sake of it, that's not the reason I'm requesting. Nor asking more users for feedback. I am requesting this because: 1) I have had many big tasks that I made months ago that I planned to do if I get admin one day. One of them, I mentioned in my request, I plan to cleanup the data titlecards page to follow the naming scheme accordingly however some broken redirects disallow me to on some images so I need the tools of the admin to complete this task successfully. I haven't been nessecarily "desperate." I didn't even ask people to "support" or anything. I explicitly advertised my request in case anyone who hasn't seen it would like to get their opinion on it. Again, I didn't force anyone, I just advertised it so everyone gets a chance. You, yourself advertised your assistant request in a thread and on the ESB discord so I don't see any problems with me doing it. And about the current statistics and staff, a vandal attack happened earlier and no administrator responded so I had to report to someone and had to keep reverting it until an admin blocked. I'm requesting this due to my large history of reporting. Also, the MediaWiki isn't always updated so I can help cover that. Not all the time is a chat mod on chat. I've noticed countless times when there weren't any mods at all in chat. Not every staff member can be moderating at different times. Sometimes, I notice gaps. So I don't see why another admin addition would be unnecessary. (Contact • Contrib) 01:31, August 7, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - A vandal attack is definitely not a small thing. Why didn't you mention it on your original answers? I think that it would have given you more credibility and shown an instance proving that you do need the rights. I did advertise my requests publicly, but that is not my original point. This is just my perspective, and because no one knows exactly the truth but you, I could be completely wrong. However, it seems as though you are contacting many people to vote. Yes, you don't explicitly ask them, but it seems a bit unnecessary at this point when you already have enough votes. Besides, if you did really want feedback, you can just ask them in DM. Who is feedback for? Yourself or the public? This is about your request for administrator, not the voters'. Of course you can't force anyone to vote on your request. That's impossible, or at least very improbable, and I don't think I need to say why. Yes, it's true that a chat mod isn't on the chat all the time, but do you have an example of a time when there was no chat mod online, and there was trouble? I think a lot of the things you have said in your reply should have been said in your original request form. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 02:02, August 7, 2018 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - Somewhat unprofessional when dealing with issues, as shown by his administrating of a Discord server that many ESB users are part of. He has ignored community consensus several times on that server and abused his powers to keep users and rules that he liked, ignoring the interest of the users there. Before anyone brings up that “it’s outside of ESB, it doesn’t matter here,” 1) issues outside of the wiki have been the reason for many oppositions that prevented users from getting rights, 2) he mentioned it himself in the request, and 3) the server has almost identical guidelines and user conduct rules that ESB rules, meaning that it’s a similar type of situation (rather than a rules free chat). That all being said, he has improved over his time and could maybe be more ready once more time has passed. Definitely a future candidate. DanzxvFan8275 (M•C•U•E) 20:44, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Dan. While I am proud of his development over time, as koolkitty stated above, I do wish he waited a bit longer as I think he could have used his Assistant powers more. I do trust him with his powers... though I don't believe he'd use them frequently. A superb editor, edits have improved greatly but when it comes to handling situations that's when things get a bit murky. I'd love to be proven wrong. Rocky Lobster(M•C•E)
Weak Oppose - Dan and Rocky brought up good points, and unfortunately I can't support for now. Chuck123456(M•C•E) 07:34, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Most of the concerns listed come from events that happened months ago, and I fully believe Golf has improved greatly since then and is now a wonderful candidate for administrator. He is often editing the wiki making high-quality edits and reporting issues to the current administrators and bureaucrats, and this is a good example of why he would be fit for the role, as it shows he has a great understanding of the wiki policy. He’s been an assistant for four months (as well as having the rollback tool for six months) now and has done quite well with the tools he currently has. He often moves files, a recent example are the files on this page, has been very helpful with the sudden premiere of new episodes, edits the data pages and does update on new episodes, and uses the rollback tool to revert edits after checking them. I don’t believe there is anyone more fit for the role than him at the moment. TheKorraFanatic(Message Wall)(Contributions)(Guestbook)
Comment - I totally agree with TheKorraFanatic. Views
Comment - Although Discord can be considered "off-wiki" in some cases, Golf has been pming many people about their votes, same question even going as far as to mention supporting THEIR requests when that individual has done something negative in the past. Excusing all this as "in the past" is a bit unacceptable when you acknowledge the items on the list. Again, Discord can be considered as "off-wiki drama", however I have seen many cases including discord of this level. While I do believe in change, through his recent AND past actions I'm forced to oppose. Rocky Lobster(M•C•E)
Comment - The events that you guys are concerned about didn't just happen in the past, it happened almost six months ago. The last major dispute Golf was involved in was back in February. I understand that you all have concerns, and I hope to answer some of them here. Improvement takes time and Golf ‘has’ improved over the past four to six months, compared to how he was back in November towards his resignation from rollback in late February. From my view, it seems a majority of the points Philly raised happened in a large dispute from late November to early December when Golf was involved with a troll entering and couldn't handle the situation properly. Golf has improved a lot since then and hasn't had any problems on Discord for a good four months now, if I recall correctly. While I understand that is a small amount of time, I think all these concerns should be answered as as 1) They are somewhat resolved as Golf doesn't do these things anymore. 2) Golf understands the policy very well and understands the consequences that go with abusing the administrator user right (user rights reviews, admin reviews, demotions etc.) 3) Your point of Golf asking people to support or discussing their vote, Golf has been advertising his request to gain more input which is fine, imo. He never explicitly asked people to support, nor did he discuss any opposes with the voters, that I know of. In the past few months, I've noticed how Golf handles trolls and how he has improved since that one incident. He handled a situation of a vandal/troll on multiple wikis as he views the IRC, a system used to track vandalism, spam, etc. So, I'd say that all of that discord drama should be resolved now as I believe Golf has improved greatly since then. TheKorraFanatic(Message Wall)(Contributions)(Guestbook)
Comment - On Discord he was using people's immaturity on other wikis as a point to be "immature" himself. While I don't feel he should be considered immature, using other users as reasons to further his point. Again this is probably a misunderstanding, and I'll be trying to clear it up with him (and clear it up here as well). The Discord messages I was referring to were about him supporting my request despite my gblock. I understand we should not be reliant over Discord, however as I stated above, at least some of it should be taken. I do believe he has improved on the wiki greatly however. Rocky Lobster(M•C•E)