Community Central
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Community Central
Community Central
35,363
pages
in: RfA, Closed RfA

Community Central:RfA/Supergeeky1

< Community Central:RfA
Edit source

RfA Blurb

The guy's great at reverting vandalism, would make useful suggestion as to some big changes that a lot of people feel would be good for Wikia, is helpful, friendly, polite, is courteous enough not to make immature sexual jokes in Wikis where that's all too common, displaying maturity, is very, very good with skins, and a guy with so many abilities just begs to be made an Administrator. --Thomas Rattim (talk)

Support

  1. Undoubtedly. --Thomas Rattim (talk)
  2. Seconded. We have a motion.--Goodwood Wit and Weirdo Extraordinaire 18:12, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Trusted user who isn't going to abuse the tools, like some people do. --Jack Phoenix (Contact) 18:20, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Unit 8311Talk!
  5. Joshua(Talk) 18:32, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  6. From what I've heard he's a very trustworthy person, and other RfA's with even less Central edits have passed (including mine way back when, back before I stopped caring about being an admin here), so I see no reason to oppose. --Skizzerz 19:40, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  7. A bit geeky, but trustworthy. :) -- Phillip (talk) 19:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  8. I utterly despise Darthipedia and 99.99999999999999999999% of its content, but I love me some Geeky. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:17, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Since I've branched out into the larger community here, Supergeeky has acted both as a friend and mentor to me. He's helpful and extremely knowledgeable about wikia, but also very down to Earth as far as interacting with other users go. He's an invaluable member of the community, and I think he deserves this more than anyone else I know. - Billy Arrowsmith (Talk), 20:22, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support. SirTopHat 20:46, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  11. Supergeeky1 is someone with a long experience of using sysop maintenance tools. Altough I recognize that he's a controversial user to some people, I'm also quite adamant he'll use his tools in good faith. As far as countering vandalism goes, there is really no need for another admin. however there is nore to an administrator than countering vandalism. Furthermore, Geeky has a mind of his own yet he respects the consensus. Every wiki he's been a sysop on has gained from that. While the thought of having to share him with central makes me a bit sad I'll support this anyway. His open minded spirit would be a nice change to the wannabe-yesmen central seems to attract. This is one of those "its good for the wiki" kind of things. That is all. Madclaw (Talk) 20:56, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  12. Yes, I think he has potential. - Wompus78
  13. Heard some good stuff. It seems like he will do a good job.-Chosen OneSo the Prophecy says... 21:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  14. --Pinky Talk 22:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  15. For great justice. Plus, Darthipedia and Club Penguin helped me to get to where I am. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 22:24, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  16. A great user. Has very useful skills and a lot of experience. I also particularly agree with Madclaw's comment above. Hunterj | My talk 16:11, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  17. Supergeeky1 is probably the only reason I've stuck around as long as I have. He has a way of taking the n00bs and making them all that they can be, which is unique in a place where most new users are shunned. In essence, geeky is probably twenty-five percent of the reason I've made it as far as I have. He's beloved by the community, and actually gives a crap what happens around here. In essence, he is the best man for the job. Geeky is the best he is at what he does, and what he does is actually care. The Almighty NinjaTalk 17:10, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  18. Tigernose (Talk) 21:07, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  19. Sursies.— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 01:57, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  20. -- I know the guy. I know a thing or two about the guy. The thing or two I know about the guy is good. Darth Wylind (Talk) 22:06, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  21. — Manticore 03:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  22. Seems like a great candidate for a new admin, heard many things, all good. - Aussie Legend 2:40, Ocober 24, 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support JBonner 14:47, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support --Halopediaman 16:17, October 24, 2009 (UTC )
  25. --{{SUBST:User:Brent K/sig}} 16:48, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support - ONI recon 111 17:21, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support - SPARTAN-105
  28. Support - Dancing Penguin Smile_spin.gif (Talk!)
  29. Support - I agree, who else does? The Nubo
  30. Support - My support is over nine thousand, the only number proven greater than nine thousand is eleventy. - Ghost sangheili
  31. - 5əb'7aŋk(7alk) 19:10, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  32. He's experienced, dilligent and helpful person - seems good enough for an admin for me. Lord Galvatron LG Sig Do you hear the voices too? 19:41, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
  33. Frak yeah! Миша13 18:15, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
  34. LethalReflex 23:10, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per my reasoning for the last RfA, more or less. That and little to no activity here at Central. --User? 18:16, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I also oppose to this RfA. I really can't see very much RfA; and for my last revert, it seems that no more "anti-vandalism" admins are needed. There are also lots of breaks in between his edits. No offence, of course. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 18:22, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
    • None taken. :) I agree I have been somewhat inactive on Central lately, through no one's fault but my own. — supergeeky1 \m/ (Talk to the Geek) 18:33, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Not really many edits over here on central, so I'm going to oppose this one. --Lcawte1 – Talk - My Wikia's list - New Wiki Watchlist 18:35, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Reverting vandalism doesn't need admin rights; undo works just fine. As for "helpful, friendly, polite, [and] courteous" . . . In my experience, I don't believe I've yet seen that side of him. And though editcount means little to nothing, I feel that 67 contributions to Central is simply not enough.--Austin (Talk) 18:44, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  5. I'm sure I'm not the only one who can't help thinking this whole thing is some kind of bizarre joke. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:45, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
    • It does seem that 4/5 voters are Darthipedians. Mark (Talk) • (Contribs) 18:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
      • Jack's a former Janitor, and a contributor on numerous Wikis - you can't tar him with that brush alone. Unit hasn't contributed to Darthipedia properly at any time, and not at all for quite a long time. He's more of a Star Wars Fanon user. And I'd imagine that's because Geeky is a Darth admin too, and we appreciate the full range of his work. --Thomas Rattim (talk)
      • @Mark: Strange huh? -- Lcawte1 – Talk - My Wikia's list - New Wiki Watchlist 18:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
        • Is there a problem, with members who have been under his leadership voting for him here? Hmmm? Joshua(Talk) 19:23, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
          • Sure there is. Being under ones "leadership" creates ties of affinity towards a person, comments from users from said wiki who don't actively participate on central are generally biased towards the affinity towards that person, rather than a neutral assertion of whether that user is fitting for a central flag and whether the wiki could use them. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Oct 23, 2009 @ 01:03 (UTC)
  6. Reverting vandalism and making suggestions aren't something that require adminship, nor has he done much of that already on central. I can't say I've seen him behave helpful, friendly, polite or courteous either. I know irc and Wikia are different things, but that's usually where I hear of this user and have seen him troll there. He has been blocked a number of times on Darthipedia (I know some of those blocks are jokes, but can't tell if they all are or aren't) and twice on Wookieepedia for personal attacks. I know there is tension between Drrthipedia and Wookieepedia, so that block may be biased, but I can't imagine he was behaving as Tom described in the nomination. Maybe he's changed since then, but if he's been blocked, unlocked and reblocked in the past, I wouldn't put changing back past him. -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Central already has a number of active admins, and a number of us sit around in IRC on a daily basis. It only takes a ping to get any vandalism reverted (heck, it gets handled so quickly that normally someone else has already handled a block before I can get to the block page; and that's when the ping was directly aimed at me rather than anyone else). Central is well equipped enough in terms of admins, as for anything else "big changes" is not something central needs; Central is a hub and central to the Wikia community, "big changes" should only come out of large community discussions which are irrelevant of anyone having sysop flags since anyone can carry them out, "big changes" is more of a concerning reason to oppose than a reason to give out a flag. His participation in the Darthpedia's stats manipulation case is very concerning as well. Honestly, if there is anyone without a sysop flag that would be useful around here, it's charitwo, not Supergeeky1. Looking over the few contributions Supergeeky1 has made, very few of them have actually been any sort of improvement or aid on central, the majority of them are communication with staff, userpage and other personal edits, heck his participation in that Darthpedia fiasco here on central makes up 20% of his edits. I can't say there is any good reason to hand out a sysop flag in this case. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Oct 23, 2009 @ 01:03 (UTC)
  8. Not sure how one of the ring leaders of a group of people from Darthipedia (several of whom have voted on this forum already) who seek to do nothing but cause trouble on a wiki where they've all been permanently banned for gross disruption and regular obscene behavior should ever be considered for this. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:51, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a pretty big set of charges to make; it would sure be nice to see your evidence. You know, just so that everyone here can see that it's not just your personal opinion that Geeky -- or anyone -- was ever involved in a conspiracy against anyone. In other words: post logs or it didn't happen.--Goodwood Wit and Weirdo Extraordinaire 02:47, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
      • It's true, Goodwood. Don't give us that BS; we all know what's up. {{SUBST:User:Chack Jadson/sig}} 22:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Not enough contributions on Central. And per Charitwo, we don't need more admins on Central for anti-vandalism purposes.-- BlueDevil Talk 02:48, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per BlueDevil and Charitwo. Grunny (Talk) 03:04, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  11. Normally I wouldn't even dignify anything like this with a response. Staff would have to be out of their minds to let this guy have more control than he already does; I already think they're out of their minds not to have given him server-side bans wherever and whenever he pops up by now. Graestan(Talk) 03:51, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  12. Per comments on my last response to a RfA; local vandalism here is not an issue needing more hands (and per Charitwo), also per Blue Devil as this user has little contributions to Central itself, perhaps it would be better for him if he as the aforementioned qualities mentioned in his blurb to become an admin on a wiki he is active on. ~Joey~ ”^Talk^” 05:59, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  13. 69 contributions are to little to be a admin {{SUBST:VERV:Gebruiker:Jillids/hand2}} 17:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  14. Per above, particularly per Graestan's comment. Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 19:38, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Graestan's comment. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 19:46, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  16. Not active enough on central. --Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 20:03, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  17. On February 2, 2009, Supergeeky was a "Troll openly plotting takeover of wiki". I've since experienced him impersonating another user on our irc channel, and because of that I wouldn't trust him with anything important. Also, what Daniel Friesen writes above is very convincing. --◄mendel► 20:46, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
  18. Strong oppose. Immature guy, holds grudges, and has a ridiculous vendetta against Wookieepedia. The fact that Rattim says he is nominating him in part because he "is courteous enough not to make immature sexual jokes" says it all. The fact that most of the supporters are Darthipedians and Halopedians says something, as well. {{SUBST:User:Chack Jadson/sig}} 22:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
    • As I said to Toprawa and Ralltiir earlier, post logs or it didn't happen. Nevertheless, it seems to be the case that all this talk of a "vendetta" is coming from the opposition, an opposition which has not bothered to provide any backup to their claims. There's a place for such tactics, you know...that place is called Fox News.--Goodwood Wit and Weirdo Extraordinaire 23:08, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
      • You know full well that this kind of forum is in no way appropriate for the sheer volume of evidence, much of which includes logs that don't belong in any public forum. Fortunately, I think Wikia staff is smart enough not to let this farce accomplish anything other than making a silly scene, like Darthipedians love to do. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 00:13, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
        • Here's an idea, how about we let this RfA actually take place without the interference of this stupid little feud, because all it is is cluttering up the page. May I suggest any further arguments be directed to user talk pages? The Almighty NinjaTalk 00:27, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  19. Strong oppose. Only 18 edits on central this year. The avobe comments say the rest. --Ciencia Al Poder (talk) -WikiDex 15:57, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  20. Strong oppose. Basically per Graestan. I have no hard feelings against Supergeeky or Darthipedia, although this nomination seems like "a joke". JangFett (Talk) 18:48, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  21. Strong oppose. Same reason as Ciencia Al Poder {{SUBST:VERV:Gebruiker:Apoo_banaan/handtekening2}} 19:37, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose. Same reason as Ciencia Al Poder {{SUBST:VERV:gebruiker:Olivier_Bommel/handtekening2}} 19:38, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
  23. Strong oppose, basically per Graestan. CC7567 (talk) 03:40, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, per Deltaneos and mendel. As for "is courteous enough not to make immature sexual jokes" I haven't seen that side of him. He has been making offensive comments to personal matters and disrespects my religion. Also prank calls people, shows people personal information of others without their knowledge, and is all around incourteous. If Goodwood or someone else wants proof, go check out some of the logs on darthipedia. You can also ask me on my talkpage. No hard feelings really, just facts. Yallow 23:20, October 26, 2009 (UTC)
  25. Not too many edits here.... and even I admin on more wikis than he does. ajr 19:18, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
    • My god! You're so special! Joshua(Talk) 20:32, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
If that was aimed at me, please keep the RfA to voting. ajr 22:11, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you very much for the kind words, Darth tom. I gladly accept the nomination. While I have butted heads with several users, both on-site and on the IRC, I feel that I've handled these conflicts with both maturity and respect. I've been not only a sysop, but a bureaucrat as well on various wikis for several years now and I've managed to help strengthen these sites for the greater good. Overall, I believe Wikia is a wonderful host and I would gladly accept having a larger role in its "conquest". :) Cheers! — supergeeky1 \m/ (Talk to the Geek) 18:33, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Dantman, the Darthipedia stat manipulation was proposed by Toughpigs and the code for that was written by Crucially both of which are staff members. The whole Jax Pavan thing was my idea in the first place and the code for that was written by Pinky49. So please do not blame someone else for actions they are not responsible of. Madclaw (Talk) 02:40, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the stat manipulation itself, I don't care about that. My concern is with his participation in the revert war adding trying to put darthpedia on the Big wikis hub and the way he disregarded serious conversation on the talkpage for the only participation in the discussion he made. Central does not need a sysop flag on anyone that brings unhumor to places where it does not belong. Especially considering the fact that central admins hold the keys to some very dangerous tools, anyone with any sort of questionable past shouldn't be given a flag, there's just no need for it when there are dozens of actual good candidates without questionable pasts. ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) (tricks) (current topic) Oct 23, 2009 @ 03:55 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this Darthipedia/Wookieepedia feud, but considering there are a lot of accusations being made here I strongly suggest that those involved provide some sort of proof to back up their claims. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:03, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Looks like my first guess was right. It is a joke. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:53, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

This looks more like an endorsement ad than any real kind of humor. You obviously aren't a connoisseur in jokes. The Almighty NinjaTalk 01:26, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the Internet is serious business. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 02:59, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is srz bizniz.--Goodwood Wit and Weirdo Extraordinaire 04:45, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
You're doing it wrong. By providing the YouTube link, you spoiled and divided my joke by zero. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 05:02, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

How did SG1 not get enough votes to make him admin? He got more support than opposes. 173.79.185.96 22:03, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Per the conversation on Sarah's talk page, a greater consensus needed to be reached as opposed to simply having more support votes than oppose votes. Whether that means 60% or 2/3, though, I'm not sure. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 23:11, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Numbers can't always be trusted. Anyone with a sufficent number of friends could easily rig an election this way... Ose Talk • Contribs 00:27, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

That's a conversation best left for another time and another place. I'm simply relaying the decision of the Community Team while expressing the fact that I do not know what they constitute to be consensus, as they have not yet said what it is. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 00:38, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

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