I'm here to apply for administrator's rights. My reason being mostly that I would like to remove spam/rude/pointless comments from stories, and clean up spam/shill blogs. Also, to help out with deletion appeal. And lastly, to help with keeping the site free of disruption and maintain quality standards. I would be particularly good at this.

These Are All The Things I Do Currently

  • Blank stories from user-pages and talk pages.
  • Edit stories for grammar, punctuation, and format.
  • Add {{M4R}} to stories that need to be reviewed.
  • Add {{delete}} to stories that need to be deleted.
  • Categorize pages.
  • Rollback improper edits.
  • Help users with questions on the forum.
  • Move pages when need be.

With Administrator's Rights, I Could Do More For The Wiki

  • Use administrative templates on users' talk pages.
  • Help with deletion appeal, and outlining issues with users wondering why there story was deleted.
  • Uphold the Quality Standards, by editing good stories that need revision, and deleting unsalvageable stories, and protecting/unprotecting stories that need it.
  • Remove the Marked for Review from stories that have been revised/were unnecessarily marked for review.
  • Block users for:
    • Vandalizing the wiki (two weeks, then one month, then two months, then six months, then indefinite).
    • Creating an inappropriate username (indefinite).
    • Creating a spam page (three days, then one week, then two weeks).
    • Plagiarism (one month and alert staff).
    • Re-uploading deleted stories (warning, then one day).
  • Give warnings for minor issues like adding a nonexistent category (after warning is one day, then doubling the expiry time for each infraction thereafter.)
    • Discretion should always be used for blocks involving repeated offenses. Users who post Wikidrama/harassing behavior can be issued a two hour block or one day block if needed, then doubling the expiry time for each infraction thereafter.



denotes the requirement is fulfilled.
Must have been active on the wiki for six months.
June 9, 2014 This is the date of my first contribution to the wiki. I was active for almost four months, then had intermitted activity for a few months, and now I've been editing consistently.
My Contributions.
Must have at least 800 edits, 600 of which must be on articles.
Total Edits: 3,287
Article Edits: 1,831
Archived Edits: 507
Edit Count.
Must know how to move files and pages.
Click the arrow next to the "Edit" button. Click "Rename." For files, click the image, then click "More Info" then click the arrow next to the "edit" and click "delete."
Must know how to rollback bad edits.
Click the arrow next to the "Edit" button. Click "History." Then select the revision you wish to remove, and click "Compare Selected Revisions." From there, you can click "undo." This will effectively rollback bad edits. There is also the option of going to a user's contribution page, and clicking "rollback" in the event of multiple cases of vandalism.
Must know how to block users for an appropriate amount of time.
This is done by going to the user's contribution page, then clicking "block user." Then add a reason and expiry time. Expiry times are outlined above.
Must know how to delete pages.
Click the arrow next to the "Edit" button. Then click "Delete." Add the reason for deletion. Send a message to the user, recommending the writer's workshop and pointing out the Quality Standards.
Must know how to categorize pages.
Scroll to the bottom of the page and click next to "Categories." Type the name of the category, and hit "Enter." Click the "Edit" button, and then click the trash-can icon to remove categories.
Must be familiar with the wiki layout.

TL;DR—This wiki needs another administrator and I fit the bill. I have a great eye for quality, I know SPUG (check the community messages next to recent activity feed, if you don't know what that means), and I can help the wiki run better. These are thankful messages I've received for making edits on stories, and one for cleaning up vandalism.

Deadline: June 28th, 2015

Support Support -
Neutral Neutral -
Oppose Oppose -

Please sign your replies!

Oppose Oppose - I'm sorry, but I don't feel I can trust you with admin rights. I feel you jump to decisions far too quickly, far too often. For example, here, where I had to revert you adding a delete template to a page that was not unfinished (I've had to revert you adding the delete template somewhere else as well, can't find the link right now), or when you decided to add a navigation to a group of Edgar Allan Poe stories that weren't even part of a series, without asking admin permission. Your edits are mostly of a very high quality, but your mistakes make me think that you often don't fully read stories before tagging them for deletion, and act without trying to fully work out the context first. Admins need to put thought into every action they carry out, the "delete" button is an extremely powerful tool, and I'm not sure that you put that amount of thought into your actions. « UnderScorre » 15:09, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and additionally, I don't agree you saying you meet the "6 months" requirement. While, obviously, the requirement only exists to ensure people know how to properly use the wiki & are not just going to disappear, and you certainly know how to use the wiki, you've never been active for a full six months. Most times, you appear for a few weeks/months, then disappear again. While I'm not saying that not fulfilling that requirement is a full reason to oppose adminship (that would be incredible hypocrisy on my part, given I didn't meet that requirement on my application), I would consider you stating that you meet that requirement, with no indication of the months of absence, to be deceitful. « UnderScorre » 15:21, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
My first activity period was very solid, lasting from June 9th to September 15. So that's 3.25 months. Then, April 5th to now is 2.5 months. 5.75 months plus spotty in between. It's six months if you count that 6 month spotty activity as 0.25 months. Which in that period, I had around 80 edits. Stringing it all together I have it. However my estimates were not counted precisely. As, the first period of activity was not four months. Did I not mention that I had "intermitted" activity? Still, it is not "a full reason to oppose" as you said. And perhaps, with the requirement, one should have six months full activity, no intermitted inactivity, instead of stringing it together as I did. I think I will leave it fulfilled, as I feel stringing it together is adequate. But you make a good point, though I was not deceitful, I only overlooked the need to comb through my contributions. Perhaps, it was an oversight. I am here to stay. Inside there is thunder in your heart 15:53, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, that requirement refers to constant activity, as opposed to off-and-on. The way that you've written about it in the RfA makes it appear, at least to me, that you are saying you registered last year, had "intermitted" activity for a bit, and since then, have had 6 months constant inactivity. Of course, it might just be how I'm reading it, but I would have preferred it to more explicitly state that you have never had 6 months constant activity. « UnderScorre » 16:01, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose - I fully agree with what Tom has said above. There are just too many issues. You seem to keep doing certain things even after being asked not to, which concerns me. I think you make a lot of unnecessary edits because you're too concerned with your edit count: en dashes are fine in the place of em dashes if they have a space on each side, numbers over nine and especially over 100 don't need to be spelled out unless they start a sentence (there are some other instances), and many words have a different meaning/use when you combine them. There are several other issues that have popped up, but I'm not gonna' drag this out.

Sometimes certain personality types aren't suited for certain positions, and I think this situation may fall under that fact of life. I also feel like your somewhat brash behavior could be problematic in this position (example: proposing the ban of certain story types without even asking for our opinions first).

Jay Ten (talk) 00:58, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not concerned with my edit count. Since I combined "anytime" and "everyday" incorrectly I have learned the correct usage. I think the admins snuffing out ideas before they reach the forums is not proper. I wouldn't delete without reading it (I didn't respond to that in underscorre's comment), and my work in QS would be commendable, as the thankful messages in the app contend. That speaks louder than "something problematic could happen". Inside there is thunder in your heart 07:27, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
While it may violate the spirit of a wiki for admins to stop ideas before they reach the forums, it's not "improper" if we are acting in the interests of the community as a whole. We could have pointed out the flaws that people are opposing the proposal because of before you posted the thread, and helped you to develop the idea into something more workable, or explained why it wouldn't work full stop. Additionally, I hope you'll notice that your proposal has been allowed to stay up, and people are fully allowed to vote on it - so we haven't "snuffed out" the idea.
The thankful messages in your app have no impact on whether your work in QS would be commendable. The messages on your talk page are all thanking you for grammatical corrections/format fixes, and being able to fix grammar reflects in no way upon your ability to judge a story's quality. Additionally, there's a big difference between reading a story and understanding it. While you may read every story you tag for deletion, I'm unsure as to whether you actually put any thought into the action you're carrying out, as I said above. Going back to this example, if you'd taken the time to read the story properly and understand it, you would have understood it wasn't unfinished.
« UnderScorre » 07:37, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
Considering the amount of stories I have marked for review or deletion that have been deleted, my work in QS would be commendable. If I were to guess, the percentage would be quite high. With your example, that's akin to making an edit with a summary of "grammar" when the edit was changing awkward wording. The story could certainly be fleshed out. That's what I meant. I will stay in the WW then and work on my insight into the quality of a story. Created a grading rubric. < This must be a joke to you guys. Inside there is thunder in your heart 21:43, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose - --Mr. Mojo Risin' (talk) 18:07, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Neutral - This is a tricky one for me, hence why I am voting neutral. It's not that I am avoiding make a solid decision, but rather that, in the case of SoPretentious, it is rather difficult to swing one way or the other.

His pro's are very solid and easy to identify. He's is very active at this current time, and he has been with this Wiki for quite some time. He certainly pours in a lot of time editing on here, as the recent article list will certainly show. Since his return a few months back, he has been among the most heavy users on this site, which was reflected in his rise to Rollback and the success that he has demonstrated there.

What becomes difficult, when speaking of his activity vs. his long bout of inactivity, can be summed up in a simple question, "How long does he have to be active before people trust that he will remain active?" He certainly seems to be active right now, and has not given any indication that he plans to change that. I think any promotion that comes down the line for SoPretentious, rather it be from this application or otherwise, will come with an understanding that activity is a requirement. Miss too many days of school, you get expelled, simple as that.

As for him going around behind Admins back, as was mentioned above, I believe this can viewed in a couple ways. He is a Rollback, which, at least to me when I held that title, is something of a junior Admin. Sort of an executive officer working to assist the top brass. Yes, I can understand how some could see his actions as being premature attempts at completing tasks above his pay grade, but I could also see that in a positive light as well.

It could easily be seen as ambition and initiative from a junior member of staff who has ambitions to move up and has a desire to prove himself.

Now, before even looking at this application for Admin, we have to review his current resume as a Rollback. What I can say for sure, is that SoPretentious is one of the most ambitious Rollbacks I've seen on this site since CassistRabbit/Grizzly held that title. If he could keep this steam up and refine himself a bit more with the technical aspects, we could be looking at a great future admin.

Now, let's look at the cons. He does make tons of edits, and it often does beg the question, "are these quality edits?" When you're rolling them out as fast as he does, it almost seems improbable that these are story building edits. Now, I have no reason not to believe SoPretentious when he says that he isn't points gaming with the high edit count, but it does often make me wonder when he is pushing out dozens of them by the day, how much time can he really be spending on each story.

Now, I get the fact that not all edits are going to be quality. It happens to all of us. We're reading a pasta and notice a mistake, we drop it into edit mode and fix it, and then notice, "Oh crap, that was the only mistake," and perhaps that ends up looking like a cheap edit. But then again, who are we to put a price tag on edits? If he find a legit mistake, even just one, and fixes it, I don't think we can call that a cheap edit, as it did improve the over all appearance of the site.

Getting back to the nature of the making decisions without going through admins, the con side of that can come from the fact that, as a Rollback, he should be addressing the admins directly, since he is technically part of the chain of command. If that is any indication that he lacks the personal skills to reach out to members of staff here, it could bode poorly for his outlook as an admin.

My only other negative issue with SoPretentious is that, while he does bury himself in edits, he doesn't seem to make himself very available to this community. I have not seen him participate in too many discussions, unless he is speaking of technical writing advice. As an admin, we need to be involved in every aspect of this community, not just the construction of stories and such. I could see his outlook for promotion sky rocketing if he simply reached out more with the community, instead of making edits.

In closing, this really is a tough call. I think he is a great member, and a very proactive Rollback. I do see the potential for him to be an amazing Admin, but there are just a few wrinkles in his resume. I think those wrinkles could be ironed out as he goes though, even if he was given admin rights.

--Banningk1979 (talk) 01:44, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Neutral - Banning has covered how I feel really well. I'm not sure if SoPretentious is ready or not. I feel like SoPretentious jumps the gun a bit and Koromo's talk page is one great example of this. On the other hand, I am positive that SoPretentious means well and I have seen him make a lot of quality edits. I believe him when he says his edit count doesn't matter to him as I have no reason not to, I just think he has a habit of patrolling and looking for errors like he should; he's a go-getter. I do think that it would be better if he slowed down a bit and spent more time looking over the stories and absorbing the messages that they convey. As he has stated, he doesn't read every story from start to finish and that bothers me when he'll have to decide whether or not to delete something.

As for his period of activity, I don't think that is something to worry about; he says he'll stay and I believe him. He edits almost every single time I am on, that tells me that he enjoys it here. I also want to see him coordinate with the Admins better, because if he's an Admin then he should be making decisions that the rest will feel comfortable with and not making decisions (like proposals) without consulting them.

Everyone makes mistakes and I don't feel that it would be fair to hold him accountable for the same ones (or his period of inactivity) forever, provided that he has learned from them. If he was to make a few of the changes that I mentioned above I'd feel more comfortable giving him full support.

In short: I'm convinced he can do the work, I'm just not sure how he'll do it. SoPretentious should slow down and enjoy the wiki, after he learns all the shoulds and should nots, and starts working with the Admins more, I'd be more comfortable offering my support. Buckle up! I'm going to be popular! 21:01, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.