ESB:Requests for adminship/SpongeBot678

	Request for Administrator Archive 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: SpongeBot678 Date discussion closed: July 18, 2017 Result of discussion: Unsuccessful.

SpongeBot678 (wall • contribs • 8,459)

a. Why do you believe you are qualified to be promoted to this position?
I am currently an assistant and a chat moderator, since I've had these positions I have learnt a lot about how to deal with users violating the policy in chat. I also know a lot about the policy, some better then current admins, not naming any names as it may come out as rude.

b. Have you had experience with this position before?
Not as admin, but as previously stated, I am currently an assistant and a chat moderator.

c. What are your best contributions to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia and why?
Now this is a question I always struggle with answering. I have made so many contributions it is really hard to pick the best. I normally edit sub-galleries as many sub-galleries aren't properly organized, contain bad image quality, and more. So I always edit them so users are aware about the gallery's problems so they can fix them!

d. How do you plan to use your rights if your request is successful?
I plan to warn users when they violate the policy and block users if necessary.

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, many, many, many times. I have seen users troll, sockpuppets being made, users vandalise pages, and much more. Normally I am forced to contact the admins on the chat moderator skype, but it sometimes comes off as spamming because of how many trolls I have seen.

f. Is there anything else you want to add?
Not really.

Support

• Extremely Strong Support - ThomasGaming64   ^{Wall Contribs}
• Extremely Strong Support - you have been such a great help to me and the wiki. i know you will do well as an administrator. ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂ ^{❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯ 17:21, July 11, 2017 (UTC)}
• Support - Alien511 - talk and contribs - 17:26, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Support - Absolutely! You will do great as an admin, I can't think of anyone else who deserves it more right now.  Chuck123456 ^(M•C•E)  17:29, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 
• Support - you're pretty active, and I have seen you edit a lot.

Koolkitty	Talk	Contribs	Edits

• Support - Good job!  Spongebobvstheloudhouse ^(M•C•E)   12:55, April 19, 2024 (UTC)  
• Strong Support - ➞Sσпιҫᵀʰᵉξριҫッ 18:21, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support -  Nickmick ^{(M•C•E•B)}   
• Support - Very active user. He is always reporting troublesome users and substandard articles for deletion etc. He has a grasp of the wiki's rules as well. Great user. :) --Spongebob456 ^talk 18:48, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Support -  DanzxvFan8275 (M•C•U•E)  18:52, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 
• Support -  Jodan111 ^{(T•B•C•E)}  20:07, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Support - You're an active user. You also qualify all the requirements for this rank. Keep up your work SB678. MarTsok 19:11, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Support -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  21:01, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 
• Support - A very active user who does his job correctly    16:13 July 11, 2017 (UTC) 
• Extremely Strong Support - Very well done on the wiki. Keep up the good work. The Ninja5 Empire (Message Wall) 06:18, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely Weak Support - Bit concerned about the points raised below, but otherwise okay. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:12, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Support - You are Ready. Bigfatonionslice    ^{Wall Contribs}
• Support - Cheesie 14:49, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral - Somewhat impatient when reporting rule breaking in the moderators chatroom and has implied that a user is a troll in front of them on a thread they are following while joking. While the first part is not that big of an issue, the second part is the one that causes worry. If the user is a troll, they should be reported (which wasn't done from what I saw), and calling them a troll is a form of "feeding the trolls", which is something administrators should no do. If the user is not a troll it can count as a form of personal attack and can upset a user. I am aware of admins not being perfect, but this was not too long ago and this is just a neutral vote. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 20:17, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Per Bong and Alex.  trevorontario  w  c  clickme 
• Neutral - Don't really know this user  Thanklor23 (M•C•U•E)   
• Neutral - I don't see a large amount of edits from you. Even though all those small amounts of edits are very quality, I don't really see any significant contributions to the wiki. Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 23:03, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Per Gamer, Bong and 120d. AFallenPower | :::★P★T★C★::: | 14:16, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 22:17, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral - Not as many edits, but certainly not a bad user. Tan Ham Man 22:21,7/13/2017 
• Neutral - Not a bad user, but the complaints seem valid. -TheOneFootTallBrickWall 03:13, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Extremely Strong Oppose - Single me out if you guys want, but you're not really much active nor do you edit a lot like I, Nick Mick, or Jensonk do. (That's not to say I and they are more worthy of the position than you though.) Icanhascookie (talk) 20:28, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Oppose - Absolutely not. Excuse me for using the ES template, but I have to get my points across. Firstly, your edits are mainly just small fixes, as demonstrated by your scapegoat answer to c.. Secondly, you are extremely arrogant and presumptuous. I really do not want you to be dealing with trolls because you are the number 1 user to quote things that aren't in the policy and cause unnecessary arguments with these people, sometimes to the point where an admin or discussion moderator has to close it. And thirdly, you aren't needed. Usually when you report these users, you get a reply within a couple of minutes from active administrators. I don't mean to come across as that rude, but I do not believe you should get the rights. Also may I add that the only reason you want the right is so that you can warn and block people. Not do anything genuine with the right, just prevent users from editing. The gamer 987654321 (M.W. B. C.) 18:03, July 11, 2017 (UTC), 18:07, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - 1. There are already plenty of admins that make small fixes. 2. I am seriously confused, I don't think I have ever done that. 3. You're not even a chat moderator how would you know that this is even true? Because it's not, I reported something a while ago and it still hasn't been dealt with. 4. Isn't that technically an admins' job, it's not like I want to stop users editing, it is just an admins' job.  SpongeBot678 ^(M•C•E)  18:09, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Comment - 1. Exactly, we don't need any more of them, especially just exclusively. 2. Yes you have, countless times, and if you actually read through the policy that you always try to quote then you'd quickly see that. 3. I meant generally when I said that, and you know I did. Also, if it has been going on for that long, then it's clearly not an "urgent" issue. 4. It is a job of an admin, yes but not the only one. And you saying you don't want to stop users editing means one of the following: you won't do anything if you won't block, in which case you should withdraw immediately,, or you'll unjustly be blocking users for the sake of it, in which case you should withdraw immediately. The gamer 987654321 (M.W. B. C.) 18:36, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Why would I block users for the sake of it? I would never do that, I would only block users who need to be blocked not block for no good reason. I also don't understand what you meant by "won't do anything if you won't block?" Also you still haven't given any proof on number 2.  SpongeBot678 ^(M•C•E)  18:44, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Strong Oppose - From the limited information that I have seen, you are not fit for this position. You appear to have no ability to be unbiased and from my perspective, bias is something that many administrators seem to have, which I believe we don't need more of. You also claim to want this position to block users WHEN they break the rules, not IF they break the rules. That wording is a red flag. While blocking is a part of the admin's tools, it should never be the focus of an administrator. Blocking is meant to be a last resort, which the rules themselves do not promote. In the thread, "unban me", you used the word, "disabilities", which to some is correct, but then again, those are the ones who don't have autism, which shows you are, to a degree, insensitive to those with autism. In the same thread, you incorrectly stated a fact, the one about Einstein having autism, in reality he may have had autism, not that he did, which shows that you do not double check your facts, which I believe every admin should be able to do. We also don't need more admins who only make small changes. If you aren't going to use all your tools and you focus on the tool that has the most destruction, blocking, then you should most definitely not be having this right. In the thread, "A Pal for Gary gallery arrangements", you used the "eye for an eye" logic on Jensonk and if you wish to use the response, "Well, he deserved it", then you most certainly are not fit for this position as no admin should feel that revenge of any kind is okay.

 120d  Talk  Contribs  19:05, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Comment - About the disabilities thing, I do not understand what you mean? The insensitive to autism thing is completely false. I both work with autistic children and I didn't want to say this, but I am actually autistic myself, I do not see how I can be insensitive to my own kind. Also I don't think that Albert Einstein thing is really important to be an admin.  SpongeBot678 ^(M•C•E)  19:14, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Comment - I retract my statement about the autism, but you really shouldn't be calling it a disability. That word is kind of harmful. (i.e. It is saying that someone who is mentally different than neurotypical people is unable to do the same things that the neurotypical person can do, which is rather a generalization.) Regarding the Einstein thing, it was not that you stated the fact incorrectly or that you stated the fact at all, but that you did not double check to make sure the fact itself was completely correct, which tells me that you might not double check if a user really did something that breaks the rules before you warn or block that person.  120d  Talk  Contribs  19:22, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Comment - Of course I would double check someone breaking the rules it is just the Albert Einstein thing isn't really that important to the wiki so I didn't double check it at the time. I actually already double check someone breaking the rules before reporting them although I can't prove that statement as my reports always go on the chat mod skype so yeah.  SpongeBot678 ^(M•C•E)  19:34, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 

• Comment - I agree with what 120d about SpongeBot678 using the "eye for an eye" logic on me in the "A Pal for Gary gallery arrangements" thread. - Jensonk

• Extremely Strong Oppose - Per Dylan.  Sawpog46  Talk  Contribs  E-Mail  21:12, July 11, 2017 (UTC) 
• Oppose - Reading through 120d and Gamer's comments, I'd have to oppose. I agree with how your personality and behaviour may effect treatment of users as admins and again, the wiki does have a decent amount of admins and if you don't bring much to the table... I don't really see the point. Sorry man. --Mrs Chanandler Bong 21:18, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - In addition to my previous comments, has been complaining of opposes recently which doesn't hold a good impression. Users wanting to apply for a position should never think that because someone opposed them it means the opposers dislike them or complain, unless it is unreasonable or really a personal vote, which it doesn't appear to be. The better thing would be to take in the feedback instead of talking about why the opposes don't make sense publicly elsewhere. The comment template and comments section is for that. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 22:54, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Okay I admit, complaining about the votes was really immature of me. But I am still pretty annoyed that Gamer still hasn't responded to my last comment to him which was me asking for proof about the "quote things that aren't in the policy and cause unnecessary arguments with these people, sometimes to the point where an admin or discussion moderator has to close it" thing. I think I may have done that at one point but if I did, it was likely from a long time ago, and probably just a one-off mistake on my behalf. I am very sorry about complaing about the votes and promise it will not happen again.  SpongeBot678 ^(M•C•E)  06:30, July 13, 2017 (UTC) 

• Extremely Weak Oppose - Well, given the good points raised from the users above me, I'm afraid I must withdraw any support that I had for this nomination. Sorry. :( ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:11, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Comments