Forum:Request for adminship - Mudscape

Handy links: Mudscape (talk • contribs• last 20 Forum / Main / User talk edits • edit count • logs)

Hello I'm Mudscape! I started editing the Minecraft Wiki a year and a half ago, more or less the day we forked from Fandom. In my time so far I've done a little bit of everything, from typos to complex modules and bot updates. I have been thinking about this request for quite some time, and past projects have led to multiple pages having their protection levels decreased so I could work on them. With the growing size of the wiki and the projects I would like to do (see below) I have decided its finally the time to request Administrator permissions.

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

The main thing is to be able to improve and upkeep the site css. We have two themes, each with a light and dark mode, and it ends up being a lot of work to make sure everything looks correct in all the modes we support. I have been fortunate enough to be able to help multiple wikis with css redesigns over the past few months, and I'm looking forward to translating that experience into helping the wiki. I also want to continue improving our templates and modules to allow us to do things like automatically show the same data across multiple pages without any copy/paste.

2. What have been your most helpful contributions to the Minecraft Wiki, and why?

The Trading page rework combined the Java and Bedrock trade tables and also enabled automatically displaying trades on item pages. Trading is one of our top three most popular pages, so I am very proud that usability for both readers and editors was improved by the rework. The automatic displaying of trades on item pages helps us be up to date, by removing the maintenance of updating trades on individual pages. One of the first things I did on the wiki was to propose the split of Smithing Template into one page per template. I had no idea that would lead to me co-writing, with Enbyd, a nearly 3,000 word proposal to help define granularity for content pages. The discussion, and the resulting Project DIG, have helped us create hundreds of pages that help keep pages focused and succinct while surfacing the information that readers are actually searching for. Porting Crafting and Crafting usage modules from DPL to Semantic Media Wiki. Most editors would have never noticed this, but MarkusRost, BabylonAS, and I spent weeks modernizing the module code that powers the crafting modules used all over the wiki. Together we were able to create a cleaner, faster, and more robust system without any changes to template syntax.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

After creating the dedicated pages for smithing templates, a user who was unaware of the talk page discussion started reverting the pages back to being redirects. We reverted each other's edits a few times, after which I left them a talk page message. After a few messages back and forth we came to an understanding, and we actually chatted some on discord afterwards where things were further clarified. A more recent incident of miscommunication led to me accusing a user of breaking wiki rules without evidence. I do regret doing this, I was frustrated after feeling ignored over multiple messages and I should have taken the time to calm down and addressed my concerns with the user privately instead of lashing out. Since this incident I've spent a lot of time reflecting on my emotions and creating strategies to ensure it does not happen again.

Reply here to ask questions, reply underneath the Discussion heading for discussions Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Having originally come from the Old School RuneScape Wiki, do you think your nomination could cause a conflict of interest between communities of the two Weird Gloop-hosted wikis? — BabylonAS 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No, I cannot think of any scenario where being involved in the Old School RuneScape Wiki presents a conflict of interest with being an administrator to the Minecraft Wiki. If you have a specific scenario in mind please reply and I can address the more specific concern. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What caused you to be completely inactive from November of 2023 to June of 2024? Arina (she/her) 19:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't playing Minecraft during that time, which led to me not visiting the wiki. Its no coincidence that I started editing again right around when Tricky Trials released, because the new version piqued my interest. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

MarkusRost, BabylonAS, and I spent weeks modernizing the module code that powers the crafting modules used all over the wiki. - which module? a user who was unaware of the talk page discussion started reverting the pages back to being redirects. - what user? We reverted each other's edits a few times - do you think that was edit-warring? If so, who initiated it? A more recent incident of miscommunication led to me accusing a user of breaking wiki rules without evidence - again, who that user was? Arina (she/her) 20:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The modules are Module:Crafting and Module:Crafting usage, I erroneously called them templates because there are templates of the same name that just call the modules. I've updated the text to clarify. Was it edit-warring? I don't think so. It was a simple miscommunication and we quickly moved to talk page messages to clear up the confusion. I decline to name the other users, as this is a topic about my actions and they should not have the spotlight thrust upon them. They are welcome to identify themselves publicly if they wish. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you show some significant CSS work/project you have worked on in the past on this wiki or one of its language counterparts, because that is the main reason you want admin rights for. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 04:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I cannot show any edits under my name, because all the template css files are protected pages and I am not an admin on this wiki or any language counterpart. Others have mentioned it below, but I'll reiterate up here for clarity. My current workflow in fixing css issues is to leave a message on discord with detailed instructions of code to be added/removed to various files to fix specific bugs. This usually works fine, although two days ago I shared a fix for mobile dark mode discussion tools coloring and it must have been missed by the admins online. The next step since the discord message was missed would be to suggest the bug fix on the admin noticeboard, which I would do now except I'm sure there is an admin reading this soon after its posted anyway.

I can give more details about my css work on other wikis. As Dianliang linked in the discussion below, I have created what I call a "css starter kit" that is freely available for anyone to use. It consists of a Common.css, Minerva.css, and Vector.css(Note that due to cloudflare restrictions these are actually missing some inline svg icons and are therefore technically incomplete). Its based on the Old School Wiki css, but stripped down to only include styling for common wiki elements. It uses ugly colors on purpose so you can easily see areas of your new wiki that have not been properly styled yet. All theme variables are defined in the top of the file, so even someone relatively inexperienced can get a decent looking custom wiki by changing ~30 lines of color variables. I have been able to help Weird Gloop fork both the League of Legends Wiki (which inspired me to make the starter kit) and Warframe Wiki (which used the starter kit as a base which was added to and modified as needed). Most of my contributions on both wikis were before the forks officially launched, and due to the final merge process most of my contributions are not actually under my username. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Bugs in codes can be found by anyone and thus, can be told to the admins to fix. I myself have suggested fixes to the CSS of this wiki, both on the desktop and mobile versions. Admin rights shouldn't be granted to anyone on the basis that they find few bugs in the code that needs fixing. Arina made a good point that "rights are not a reward for helpful editing. Not every long-term good-faith editor needs to be an admin." Admins are also humans and are not always online. That doesn't mean they are disregarding your changes but are instead implementing them. The two major CSS work you have done which are the backbone of two WG hosted wikis are also done in your userspace and didn't require anything close to admin rights.

Even if the work you have done is not under your username, you can still atleast share it for reference.

- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what makes you think Mudscape is requesting this because they think of this as a reward? Gwen Stacy (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That is what few users said below, which might not be what Mudscape is here for but few users are thinking this way when supporting this nomination, so I quoted it in context to my reply. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

And what makes you think we think that when supporting this? Gwen Stacy (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't specify the user for a reason. I never said you said it or everyone who supported said it. You can see the discussion below. It wouldn't take much time as there are not many supports. 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Then what makes you think we do? Gwen Stacy (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually the files are hosted in userspace but I had to create a local install of MediaWiki to create them. You cannot reliably make significant changes to site css by copying it to userspace because css is cascading, meaning if you change or delete any selector rule in your userspace copy you won't actually see the changes correctly, the sitewide css will still apply and fill in the gap you left by changing or deleting a selector. I actually ran into this issue specifically because I was trying to do the starter kit all in userspace and it was producing inconsistent results. I have the same username on all wiki's I've mentioned, you are welcome to look at my post-fork contributions, although as I said it isn't indicative of the actual amount of work and changes I've done, as most of it got bundled together into a single change by the bot script "rebase staging changes onto prod". Warframe CSS, League CSS

I don't think having administrator rights is a reward, I think its a responsibility. There are a lot of people in the below discussion assuming I won't participate in the moderation aspects of adminship, but no one asked me so I guess I'll just say it now. Of course, if given admin rights, I will block vandals, I will fight spam, I will fulfill the role of an administrator. I will never use it as a status, or to give extra weight to an argument. I dearly hope that there isn't a single person here who would put more weight behind my ideas if I had some extra permissions. The focus on CSS permissions in my post is because that is the driving force behind me creating the RFA. It doesn't mean that is the only thing I ever intend to do. Its important to me that I am willing and able to accept the extra responsibilities that come with extra permissions, which is why I did not apply to be a GIM. As I said before on discord "I speak no other languages and don't really have the bandwidth to try and do things for the other languages right now". The responsibility of helping to maintain 14 languages is extremely complicated due to the sites using...well...14 different languages. I only speak English(and not always very well) and I feel utterly lost whenever I browse another language wiki. Adminship on the english wiki is also a huge responsibility, but its all in my own language and environment I am comfortable in, and I feel ready to accept that responsibility. I hope that helps everyone understand why I have applied for admin permissions and not GIM role. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 17:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

This rampage of questions can only be defined as blowing a situation out of proportion in my opinion. The first conflict he mentioned is the type of thing that happens every day here, there was no harm. The second conflict is worse, but still a somewhat frequent occurrence here due to the fact that we are human beings. Considering that and the fact that he’s owned up to it honestly, I disagree that it should bar him from administrator. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

For me IMO it is why I am wary of allowing Mudscape the ability to block users or delete pages. Permissions to edit CSS pages is justifiable based on experience, but not to delete or block given how recently the situations happened. We have a reasonable amount of admins to deal with vandalism at this time, but not enough people to work with CSS and related pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I never advocated for anyone to be blocked due to a disagreement, nor has the thought even crossed my mind. I'm unsure what I have ever done to make you think I would use any permissions in a retaliatory manner. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I still have issues regarding possible conflict of interests in the discussion section below, but are still not resolved at this time. Would it be possible to address them? Delvin4519 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you state your specific question(s) in a reply here? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 17:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You need to be able to explain why you think all users that originate from RSW have a conflict of interest when editing this wiki. You really need to be able to explain that, because frankly it's an absurd idea. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
18:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

One of the conflicts happened recently, one was in the first few weeks of me editing. As I said above I regret my actions in the second conflict, and I have apologized to the people involved. The apology was made as I was preparing the first post, because I reflected on my actions and realized that it was a really dumb way for me to act. As I said earlier I am not going to name them publicly as this is about me and not them. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

I know one person who's irritated or lost their temper right now GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

Is this the right time? Yes. I'm fine with owning up to my mistakes, I'm just a human. How can I assure I won't get so heated again? I step away, calm down, and come back later. What if I lost my temper and banned someone (from the wiki or discord)? This question is so hypothetical that its difficult to answer. I can say that I have moderated a large public discord for the past four years, partaken in hundreds of moderator actions there, and I have never unjustly taken moderator action against someone. There is simply no way I would use a ban/block/etc in a retaliatory manner. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing, in the same comment as saying you're human, you say that there's no way you'd use blocking in the wrong way. So...? -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Having moderated a "large discord server for the past four years" didn't really show the type of command you should have had on yourself when fighting with me that day. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 04:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

What will you do with RFA other than what you gave above in your introduction? NovaSquare (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I will do whatever is needed to help the wiki. I can't think of anything else to say that I haven't already said. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 16:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Reply here for discussion Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Won't you mind if I slightly edit your messages? They're quite hard to read. Arina (she/her) 19:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@mudscape. Arina (she/her) 19:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, if you'd like to copy the page and make your changes in a sandbox I'll be happy to look at them. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Arina/sandbox. Arina (she/her) 19:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I've implemented some of your suggestions, although I've chosen to keep my less-than-perfect grammar because I think its important for the request to reflect who I am, flaws and all. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support, this is an obvious one. Frankly, I think this wiki would be significantly worse off if not for Mudscape being here. Mudscape spearheaded DIG (splits are one of the best decisions we ever made), Mudscape introduced trade tables (just such a drastic improvement over the prose), and frankly his editing philosophies have been really inspiring to me and improved how I look at editing. Reminding us that yes, we do this "job" for the sake of readers, and for the sake of being useful. Reminding us that we can often avoid bureaucracy and just get things done. You would think these reminders aren't very ground-breaking, but sadly, they often have been. Now, none of this is technically reason for becoming admin, he's done all this as a regular editor after all. But I think his experience for what the role entails is blatant too: he's great with new users and knows css and js so he can help with interface stuff, which frankly, is always extremely appreciated. There's always something that needs improving or fixing. Considering two admins just resigned, I have no worries about the possibility of "too many admins" either. Thank you for improving this wiki so much. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The cited example of cooperation regarding {{Crafting usage}} wasn’t smooth either, as he willingly decided to ignore some of Inventory slot’s capabilities despite me (who probably knows how Inventory slot works more than any other MCW user) pointing to them; he even reverted my contributions that tried to take advantage of these capabilities (unfortunately, the relevant edits were on the dev wiki and are lost). The result is an unnecessary and ugly in-place randomizing kludge for “Any *” ingredients which is not consistent with how Inventory slot itself treats them. BabylonAS 19:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I frankly find it admirable that he spearheaded page splitting. It was incredibly controversial at first, but nowadays tons of splits have happened and frankly no has had any noticeable issue with it now that it's actually gone through, apart from you I think. Even then, you have made no attempt to have these pages re-merged, which likely speaks to the fact that you don't have a good argument for doing so. Split discussions were a truly hellish experience but the wiki became significantly better because of it. Trying to implement ideas from another wiki, a wiki that is universally considered incredible, for the sake of trying to improve this wiki, is not a bad thing. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Mudscape is in favor of splitting wood variants and colored stuff, which I consider to be a bad idea (and I will die on this hill). If those splits would be made, we will soon have readers requesting reverting them because the articles would have basically the same information with little difference whatsoever. Who, for frak’s sake, would be concerned about where blue wool generates if it’s easier to just dye and shear a sheep, something that can be done with all 16 colors, and the beds are not functionally affected by wool color?

Note that, being a RuMCW admin, I have a better use of free time and energy than trying to re-merge every single split article on EnMCW. Though I do think we should merge back tools: that’s only worth it if each of them had some special properties, like in the Aether mod, where skyroot tools double yields for naturally generated blocks, zanite tools become faster the more worn out they are, and gravitite makes blocks float. BabylonAS 20:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Only ever hypothetical issues with splitting. Though, I don't want to turn this into a full split discussion, I only wanted to explain why I saw his spearheading of splits as a positive thing. You abstain, you don't oppose, so I'm not really trying to convince you to change your mind. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
20:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose per BabylonAS. While I have been quite a bit less active since last Fall, I find myself having to come back to respond here again. All of Bablyon's arguments, I second them. I still remain wary of drastic overhauls to the wiki, especially if it makes the editor workflow more cumbersome; such of which will make keeping the wiki updated a lot more difficult. Some technical changes I've pushed for, such as automation of stonecutter/smelting recipies and interwiki links, are still not yet done as of 17 months after the fork. I may reconsider my opposition if the technical works of the wiki is improved to make the editor experience easier. That of which should happen first before I reconsider.

Aside from that, if Mudscape would like access to sitewide CSS, perhaps GIM rights local to EN wiki may be a better fit? Though I'm not sure if it's possible to only apply it on EN wiki only. Aside from that; I am very wary of granting admin rights such as blocking and deleting, as users with those rights may be seen as being held to higher standard, especially with a possible conflict of interest if originating from RSW wiki. Such of which could influence consensus in wiki discussions and proposals. I'm not aware of GIM users being able to block or delete, hence why I think a local GIM rights specific to EN wiki may be helpful here. My biggest gripe is keeping MCW content and policies independent of RSW policies and avoiding conflict of interest and drastic sweeping overhall changes. We should try to refrain from having RSW editors have full admin rights on MCW to increase influence wiki content and policies; although I do support technical improvements and maintainance. So as such, the current rights and acitivites of the existing Weird Gloop site admins seems appropiate as context. The proposed nominee for admin has a much different context and has attempted to drastically reshape MCW policies and editor workflow. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I try not to be too harsh, but your opposition feels deeply worthless when your explanation includes comments such as "We should try to refrain from having RSW editors have full admin rights on MCW to increase influence wiki content and policies". I really could not imagine what would inspire you to say something like that unless you believed everyone who originated from RSW, and that had different opinions from you, were bad faith actors who wanted to harm MCW. You disagree with his ideas, and this is fine, you are trying to "other" him because he originated from RSW. This is an absurd thing to do, and the rest of your comment isn't that much better. It is understandable to "remain wary of drastic overhauls to the wiki", but if your only example is a hypothetical "splits could cause issues in the future" while many splits have been in place for over a year, then I'm not how people are supposed to agree. I should also remind you that being an admin does not give you anymore influence over discussions and consensus than being a regular experienced editor, since your entire opposition seems to hinge on you thinking otherwise. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
04:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I've iterated I will be more receptive to an admin nomination after the wiki addresses some technical improvements to make editor workflow easier. Aformentioned above I have pushed for some changes and improvements to be made, but these remain unresolved after 17 months. Delvin4519 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good idea to just opposing a technical admin nomination until technical improvements are made. Don't you think that us being slow in addressing these desired changes only means that we need more technical admins? I'm not following the logics here. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I previously nominated User:Im Wired In for admin/GIM rights a while back. That discussion seemed to have stalled at some point. Delvin4519 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an RfA of a user who originated from RSW, and has had launched a sweeping overhaul of much of the wiki content and policies in the weeks after the fork in 2023; unlike the Weird Gloop site admins that mostly deal with the back end and leaves MCW pretty much independently run.

As such, I don't think it is unreasonable for some users to be extremely wary and concerned about this particular RfA. We should not be so dismissive of the worries. Some are absolutely right to be particularly worried about this particular RfA.

For example, User:BabylonAS mentioned that Mudscape essentially completely disregarded some useful shortcut functionalility that originally existed in Module:Inventory slot and {{crafting usage}} prior to a revamp, and then went ahead and replaced the shortcut with a cumbersome workaround. Mudscape alleges it to be "cooperative", whereas Babylon mentioned how the edits were willfully reverted back to Mudscape's changes. To this day, Mudscape still has not acknowledged such loss and removal of that functionality and that the revamp was not as "cooperative" as is alleged. This means that Mudscape is not as respectful of MCW's workflow and culture; and leaves room for conflict of interest to take place with drastic overhauls of our wiki.

It is more than possible, that say, within 6 weeks to 6 months after the passing of an RfA for Mudscape; Mudscape will try to launch another proposal for another sweeping overhaul to wiki content and policies under his name; or perhaps under Harristic's name, if Harristic manages to be convinced that it's just as good of an idea. Like my comments below have stated, there's an unmet desire from MCW editors for easier editor workflows and efficency. A fear that Mudscape could try to launch an effort to double the number of navigational templates on the wiki, with a lot more pages to maintain; but the wiki still would not have a automated or centralized interwiki system to mitigate the impact of the workflow burden. Mudscape could try to spearhead more splits, such as BabylonAS's fear of wood, coral, and dyed materials being split, but the wiki would still lack improvements and automation of the smelting and stonecutting templates and modules. Such changes without the necessary technical back end improvements would just make the editor experience worse and make the wiki signficantly harder for readers to explore.

Mudscape has tried to push and shove "readers first, editors second " down the throats of MCW, in a sense of some ways, disregarding MCW editors desires for requests for an easier editing experience; not acknowledging that there is a way to implement true improvements from RSW wiki in a way that doesn't completely disregard the needs and wants of MCW. I would feel quite a bit a better about allowing Mudscape to wield all the admin powers and rights if there could be some acklowledgement in that a push for more pages should come with a technical improvement that offsets and mitigates the extra editor workload with less editor workload; mainly, actually acknowledging and addressing the fears which I have stated above. Until then, I don't think it is fair to grant Mudscape anything beyond the right to edit admin protected pages or CSS pages; and I will continue to 👁 Image
 strongly oppose full admin rights with all permissions. I don't trust that conflicts between the wishes of MCW and those who want to implement every single RSW doctrine down the throats of MCW will be managed and controlled properly. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Mudscape's contributions being "drastic overhauls" that "makes the editor workflow more cumbersome" is entirely a mischaracterization. For example, his work on TradeTable clearly simplified maintenance by eliminating the need for tedious table formatting. He has already demonstrated his capabilities in this area. I understand that you're pushing for more technical improvements, but a) we need to do this a step at a time and b) this has nothing to do with this specific nomination.

The conflict of interest concern is entirely speculative at this point because no one has provided examples of possible conflict of interest. I'm really curious to what you think RSW gains by sabotaging MCW. Mudscape has been actively contributing to the Minecraft Wiki since the Fandom fork, and this nomination should be considered based on nothing but his contribution to the Minecraft Wiki. Consensus-based decision-making is a safeguard that prevents any one of the admins from unilaterally changing policies. I need to point out that Mudscape's work on project DIG was collaborative and followed proper wiki process through discussion and consensus. If you have a problem with DIG, this is not the place to complain about it, because it isn't productive to oppose someone's admin nomination simply based on disagreement on one issue. Open another forum thread instead so that actually consensus may be reached and things may be changed.

About GIM, Mudscape has previously said that "I speak no other languages and don't really have the bandwidth to try and do things for the other languages right now", which I respect and understand. Many technical improvements require capabilities that full admin rights provide. I'd like to remind you that the required trust in admins is comparable if not lower than GIM. If a GIM one day goes crazy, they can totally just edit Markus's JS so that everyone is blocked once he logs in. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I've said above that it should only be for this wiki and not any of the language wikis, though I'm not aware of a way for it to be specific to this wiki that I'm aware of. Delvin4519 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Harristic. Gwen Stacy (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support – 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 20:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support – I think it's good to have another tech admin, and it's even better that someone is willing to fix our CSS! I have absolutely no doubt in Mudscape's technical abilities given his past work on some WG forked wikis. What makes Mudscape especially valuable is the fresh perspective he brings as someone who hasn't been involved in our community's historical debates. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral. I know that what Harri and Dian say is true and all, but... I haven't really seen Mudscape's work firsthand. I know that he sometimes participates in discussions and all, but... I can't really make a good judgment. At the rate it's going, this discussion is practically guaranteed to succeed, so I don't believe any comment I could make will affect this discussion in the slightest. I'll just wait until I can make a good judgement about this, which probably won't happen anyway. The best I can say is... He'll be an admin in a time zone area that needs it. No kidding, there's only two admins that I know of that are in the America time zones. Really that's the best I can say about this. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Just saying, if anyone chooses to convince me to support or oppose, I'm open to it. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually, 👁 Image
 Tilted to oppose per Stizzurp's point about Mudscape not exactly showing a need for adminship. I'm just starting my opinion, and I don't expect a lack of replies here because I feel some users are sorta latching onto opposers and trying to convince them to support. But as I said above, my comment isn't about to make any impact whatsoever anyway. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral but tilted towards Oppose - I knew something like this was coming after the DM, so I had already prepared my reply. See, Mudscape is a good and constructive editor and has contributed a lot to the wiki, but has he shown the need for adminship? No. Is he qualified for adminship? Yes, if we see the MCW:User rights but practically, no. The main thing he wants to do with admin rights is CSS work, which do require admin rights to edit, but can be edited by anyone by copying it to your userspace (or your Custom CSS) and making changes, then proposing the changes to be implemented via Forum. I don't think just that qualifies anyone getting admin rights. Also, he has not listed any project he has worked on involving CSS, which is the main thing he wants to do with the right. He has an 'ok' record of fighting with vandalism. I feel he needs more experience before he is granted the admin rights. Note: To all those who will shout about me including vandalism in my reply, one of the most important roles of an admin is fighting against vandalisms because they get the tools to do that. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 04:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Also want to add to the CSS part, Dianliang was appointed as an admin because he was already a GIM and had a very impressive record of CSS work in contrast to Mudscape, who does not have a significant CSS work he has done to show. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 04:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

He has made quite a few CSS improvements by suggesting them on Discord. It’s always going to be drastically easier for a user to just implement fixes and improvements without asking someone to do it for them every time. Things are more likely to get done if there are more people that have the rights to get them done. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
04:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Suggesting them on discord does not mean they have done the work themselves. Admin rights grant permission to do it themselves not suggesting, if their main goal is to do CSS. We don't know how well he will be able to do CSS, and that is why I'm asking for CSS works he has done in this wiki (and those too significant ones). - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 04:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

They implemented the trade table module and helped finish the history module (and all related templates). UnExpectedDino ᐸ talk | contribs 04:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The CSS work he wants the admin rights for is not for templates and modules. It is for Media Wiki CSS, which is much more complicated than editing templates. The things about CSS is that if you understand the basics, you can do basic things (like templates) very easily, but not complicated things (like MediaWiki CSS). - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 05:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I suppose, though in that case “done the work themselves” is irrelevant. He has experience with CSS and has written CSS improvements for the wiki, not sure any further proof is super needed. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
05:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

When the main right he wants to focus on is CSS, and that too a complicated one, in that case "has written CSS improvements for the wiki" is not enough proof. Adding a "super" before needed will not undermine the point that a portfolio of significant CSS works is needed. The only admin I know who is involved mainly in CSS is Dian, and he had a portfolio of significant CSS work. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 05:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Well there's a major project he's done: [1]. It is used as the backbone for the two new WG wikis, Warframe and League of Legends. It would also be very cumbersome for someone to do CSS work (especially refactors) just by using user CSS since the order is all messed up. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using only user CSS. A copy of the Media Wiki CSS can be made in his userspace, where he can preview any page to see what would the respective CSS do to it. It is just like the CSS you have made in your userspace of the main page draft, which is User:Dianliang233/Minecraft Wiki/styles.css, which targets the page User:Dianliang233/Minecraft Wiki but can also be viewed using the preview option below, without making changes. When the new design is implemented, that is the CSS which will be in use. No admin rights are used in this process even though it being a major change to an important page, i.e., the homepage. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 16:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 OPPOSE because of Delvin4519 Stizzurpxdd and Babylonas. There understanding stands with my understanding so my understanding stand with theres. 👁 Image
DeepfriedDokra (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -Drour1234 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose | As per the statement made by BabylonAS. I think his argument has a good stance.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 06:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have just viewed Mudscapes' logs and have carefully examined their edits, in both the Minecraft Wiki and the Old RuneScape Wiki. I have also viewed various discussions they have participated in. From all of these, I have formulated my stance. I 👁 Image
 Oppose their nomination due to several reasons. First, their experience. They are inexperienced compared to many other admins at the time of their nomination. They also have a weak patrol log. Second, in many discussions, they have had clashes of views with other users. Not that I think everyone should have the same views and opinions on every topic, but I saw in many of them that their views were in direct contrast to others. I was able to find the two conflicts they have informed about, and both of them are enough for me to not go for a support as my stance (I have genuinely never seen a more brainless and baseless fight between two people over something). I generally refrain from giving such a direct oppose as I am not an active member of this wiki, but I felt the need to do so here.

👁 Image
Analytical^(talk) 08:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Your point about his inexperience is simply false, patrol log has never mattered on English wiki. You didn’t elaborate on this point so I can’t elaborate much myself. I really have no idea what your second point is meant to mean, are you opposing because arguments have been had? Are you going to request that the many other admins who get into arguments be demoted? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
10:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly, I don't like that this request is written like an advertisement or a political campaign, with absolutely no specific examples.

I have been fortunate enough to be able to help multiple wikis with css redesigns over the past few months - what wikis?

I also want to continue improving our templates and modules to allow us to do things like automatically show the same data across multiple pages without any copy/paste. - what templates and modules can allow us to do that?

MarkusRost, BabylonAS, and I spent weeks modernizing the module code that powers the crafting modules used all over the wiki. - again, it's the candidate who should provide specific examples and links. I shouldn't ask them for it.

Together we were able to create a cleaner, faster, and more robust system without any changes to template syntax. - this is just not it and really feels like an advertisement.

a user who was unaware of the talk page discussion started reverting the pages back to being redirects. - and again, absolutely no specifics, also refusing to say who that user was. I don't think this attitude will help in resoluting disputes, which, besides fighting vandalism, is really the only thing you need to do as an admin. Also, without any links or usernames, you can't just check what actually this dispute was - you can only trust Mudscape's version of what happened, which is not good.

And secondly, the most important one - I don't think that Mudscape actually needs sysop rights. You can improve and maintain this wiki's stylesheets and everything technical with global interface maintainer rights, and I'd happily support Mudscape if it was a request for latter.

Yes, I appreciate Mudscape's work. Yes, I do think that them overhauling some important modules and templates and implementing granularity was extremely helpful for this wiki and that it should not be in a state of hyperconservative stagnation. But you don't need sysop rights to do things Mudscape wants to do.

Counterarguing Harri's points, sysop rights are not a reward for helpful editing. Not every long-term good-faith editor needs to be an admin. Arina (she/her) 08:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

You’re not countering my points at all really, my main point is the second half. “I don’t like that this is written like an advertisement” that’s obviously not a valid argument against the RFA so I’m not sure why it’s being included, some people like to be formal with serious proposals. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
10:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Part of why you oppose is that he wants to focus on technical aspects of being an admin. GIM and Admin are obviously not interchangeable, one has drastically more responsibility than the other and you should not expect someone who wants admin to be comfortable having GIM. If someone wanted admin only for the sake of using vandal-fighting tools, would you tell them that they should just have the CATS role? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
10:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Arina (she/her) 10:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Why does that make it not a valid comparison? It’s also wrong, since Frisk is not an English admin. Unless you’re counting checkuser, which is only obtained via CATS. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
10:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s also wrong, since Frisk is not an English admin. - if so, then yes, if you only want to fight vandalism, then CATS is enough. Arina (she/her) 10:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

you should not expect someone who wants admin to be comfortable having GIM - if you only need sysop rights to edit pages in the MediaWiki mainspace, fully protected modules and templates, then GIM is enough and is interchangeable with sysop in that case. The main and perhaps the only reason sysops exist is complex disputes resolution. Arina (she/her) 11:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

CATS and GIM are not "enough", they are "too much" in these examples. Those rights give you power over every Minecraft Wiki, and therefore responsibility over using your power over every Minecraft Wiki. That is the purpose of those roles. A role that has drastically more responsibility which the user does not want is not interchangeable with a role with the responsibility that the user desires. There seems to be a misunderstanding amongst some users that an administrator must utilise the full extent of their rights to be a suitable administrator, but I had never found this to be true previously. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Arina (she/her) 13:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a list of local admins from the language wikis, local admin is not a global user group. And the directors group only exists here on the English wiki. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I feel like a lot of your questions and concerns could be asked and addressed in the above Questions section. -BrianGLHF (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral. I appreciate your ability of Lua and CSS, but worry about whether or not you will be active in the future. 👁 Image
Wilf233_zhMCW（论·功） 08:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It is not required to give him RfA. I made my first 50 edits in 5 minutes and he has only 4000, how can he be RfA when all other RfAs have more than 10000 edits. I am an endopedian. I have also planned some projects I want to start which have CSS coding like button redesigns. I have a very good experience with HTML and CSS because I used to freelance website building on Fiverr. I have completed over 50 orders. So will you give me RfA? This RfA is looking like a advertisement, a campaign or something pointed by Aria. – Unsigned comment added by NovaSquare (talk • contribs) at 13:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~

The edit count is not very useful metric. For comparison, I'm still below 10k edits on the English wiki and had only 1700 edits at the time of my promotion. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Still other things I said matter. NovaSquare (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What other things? Gwen Stacy (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose as per Delvin4519 and StizzurpXDD. ~ 👁 Image
CaishenZhēn233 (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Support - UnExpectedDino ᐸ talk | contribs 20:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support their request because they have been a fresh face on the community and I think the wiki could benefit from a new perspective on administration. Their main reason to become an admin, which is mostly editing CSS and sometimes modules and templates, basically the technical side of the wiki and what could be considered the "backend" (even if not actually the actual backend of the wiki, it's just a comparison), is something the wiki really needs right now.

-

There is always a need for someone who is active enough to actually apply changes related to CSS. I cannot say in words how many times I've brought up wiki design on the wiki Discord and it didn't result in anything unless it was something very critical. Small fixes tend to get overlooked because of this and having someone interested on CSS makes me motivated to contribute again with CSS design on the English wiki, as currently I have only been doing that on the Spanish wiki. Yes, I'm also an admin that mostly does CSS, because that's what I enjoy doing and what motivates me to continue working on a community, as well as reworking and writing guides and guidelines for the wiki.

-

I do have some concerns related to some comments above me that explicitly diminish their request due to "possible interwiki influence". These don't have a valid argument because every major change has to go through a discussion, whether we like it or not. I myself come from a different language wiki, which has different practices than here, and I do edit other few wikis on other platforms/hosts, and just because someone comes from a different community doesn't mean they don't deserve to be here, that is very restrictive and is not something I see being good for the community.

-

I know some here do want admins to work as full admins, and while understandable, it's unrealistic. Wiki editing is a hobby, it's not a job, it's not necessarily bound to a contract, and unless there is an actual contract made to edit, all of this is voluntary, and each person has the right to choose which area of the wiki they may want to work on. Even among editors, not all of them work on the same stuff even if they have the same Patroller role, for example. Some may focus more on patrolling than other, others benefit more of the revert page tool to counter vandalism.

-

I want everyone here to remember that wiki admins are not the widely known concept of an administrator. Wiki admins are trusted users, not people which has more rights or weight in a discussion, and admins have the same weight on a discussion as a regular user, like patrollers, directors, and IPs, and this should not be forgotten, as it's one of the core culture things of a wiki. Not all wikis follow this, and sometimes they shouldn't, but for a community like ours, it's a large benefit since this means everyone has the same importance.

-

Seeing opposition because they may be influenced by RSW practices for page splitting looks more like feeling attacked due to changing how the wiki worked for many years, and an attempt to keep the current status quo. This is so similar to the situation when the Texture Update happened, or the Aquatic Update, or the Combat Update, or the (insert update that overhauled massively an area of Minecraft). I fully understand that people that has been here for years has more experience in managing a wiki than a new member, but change is not bad by itself, and a personal preference for the wiki will keep being that, a personal preference. Similar to nostalgia-blinded Minecraft users, I'm worried about having Gamepedia-blinded users sticking to wiki practices that while they may have worked during that time, now have to be adapted to current reality, as Minecraft is not the same game that it was on 2014.

-

Also, ultimately, the wiki is made for the readers, and editors are second place in the priority, whether we like it or not. Sure I myself do want to get more convenient stuff for us, like increased support of TemplateData to make the visual editor for once and for all not going nuts like making everything inline and instead follow correct formatting for templates (yes, that is actually possible with TemplateData). But in the end of the day, we have to serve what is most useful for readers at the moment, like fas writing of pages with information about the latest snapshot. When there is no new content for a while, that's the time to work on editor-focused stuff. And here's where CSS or general design comes in, because you may set up everything correctly and make it work, but there is a difference between having something that works, and something that works and actually looks visually good.

-

To summarize, I support this nomination, the wiki benefits more from new users and getting new perspectives. -- Supeika (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Oppose 👁 Image
Speedtest 👁 Image
04:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose because there is no need to give so high rights to a user which does not have good experience. It is also pro split, proposing to split almost every page even if they have same mechanics and looks. It would not be in favor of the editors at all. A bad decision if this happens, will not set a good example. 2401:4900:A4C9:F64B:0:0:258F:C5F 06:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As I've said, editors are not the ones the wiki should prioritize working for, and I say this as an editor. They also have good experience, rewriting templates and being oart of a large project speaks good of their capabilities. They also have been involved with CSS on new wikis under Weird Gloop's hosting, which further demonstrates their capability on this area. Remember their reasons to request adminship, they are requesting the group because they want to work on CSS and wiki design. Being pro-split is not an argument to diminish their request, as this is a personal preference that if they want to apply it to the wiki, they have to use the appropiate route that are the community portal or the forum. -- Supeika (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Readers and editors should be given same importance. It should prioritize both equally. Pro split is not good for the readers only because a bad split leads to a more difficulty finding pages. I found this difficulty with three uovo pages. I found mudscape being pro split there also. 2401:4900:A471:8F14:0:0:25AA:9C3C 13:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussing these kind of splits needs to happen on either the portal or the forum. They cannot just split pages out of nowhere, there has to be consensus on when to split. The reason readers should be proritized, without ignoring editors of course, is because they're the ones that share our wiki with the community and give us better ranking in search engines. About finding pages, I use the navbox so I don't really have a strong opinion on searching, but I just use the searchbar to find something related and then search from that page. I also didn't understand what you mean with three uvo pages. -- Supeika (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

If readers are the one who rank pages higher, editors are the one who make the page that way. There would be no wiki if there are no editors or no readers. 2401:4900:A471:8F14:0:0:25AA:9C3C 13:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You have not read this forum post if you think he does not have experience. You also should not be opposing an RFA based on the user’s opinion on an irrelevant discussion. Why didn’t everyone oppose my RFA since I am strongly for splits? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

He is not someone the most wanting. There are just as many oppose as there are support. He doesnt have experience like you, or other admin. 2401:4900:A471:8F14:0:0:25AA:9C3C 13:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

You get admin experience by becoming an admin. I had no admin experience before becoming one and that was fine because it is really easy to pick up how it all works. He does have extensive experience with CSS and JS though which he has explained in the questions section. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
13:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey you are super dooper experienced. Admin tools are not the only thing which count under experience. 2401:4900:A471:8F14:0:0:25AA:9C3C 13:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Dianliang233 and Harristic. - Ssysi(Poletucha) - talk 13:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing my opinion to 👁 Image
 Weak support. My previous opinion was never meant to be objective, hence I abstained instead of opposed. The objective reality is that Mudscape is one of the more adept users as far as technical matters go, be that templates or CSS. However, I would suggest consulting other, more experienced “wiki engineers” such as MarkusRost, violine1101, Dianliang233 or myself before trying to modify such critical things as Module:Inventory slot. — BabylonAS 14:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This. Where Module:Inventory slot is mentioned. This is where my issue with "conflict of interest" arises. Where Mudscape tried to get drastic overhauls to the wiki that didn't improve the editor experience lies in what has happened with Module:Inventory Slot as Babylon mentioned, as well as the splits that occurred without the necessary technical back-end changes I pushed for. Babylon notes how the changes to Module:Inventory Slot now has its functionality being more cumbersome after being outright ingored by Mudscape. And because the page splits happened before the rework of crafting, etc, resulted in overview pages having to have awful syntax for the crafting template. Pages like stonecutter that covered lots of pages now being split start getting overlooked during updates; because the stairs are now all individual pages, yet we didn't rework the smelting/stonecutting modules with major automation and improvements before the DIG project took place. Plus misunderstanding of how our wiki works with interwiki links and desires from wiki editors to automate and centralize the interwiki system.

Should the RfA for Mudscape go through, I would want to see a firm acknowledgement to focus on simplifying technical changes over spearheading splits. That would be the thing that mitigates my fears of "conflict of interest". Wiki editors want to see improvements to the modules and interwiki system; over someone from RSW wiki spearheading premature splits of articles and templates that will bloat the amount of stuff we need to maintain. Project DLC already vastly expanded the scope of the wiki beyond where it was back in 2023. Perhaps the wiki does not have enough technically savvy editors, but existing long time editors want to see the back end stuff improved. I hope some of the uncompleted requests and desires I've had for 17 months can finally be fixed and improved? I will only change my support to 👁 Image
 very weak support if I am confident that the addition of more rights will allow the technical back-end improvements to actually deliver results, before more wiki policy and content changes are spearheaded. MCW must retain its independent policies, but we do need improvements to the technical back end that editors really want to make our workflow easier here. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. I think I have read enough from this forum, if 'enough' means reading it all. I don’t know the technical details of how CSS works, but I understand its importance, even if I haven’t directly experienced the changes you've made in the wiki. That’s definitely because I'm a new user, and I also have at least basic knowledge of such languages (or behind-the-scenes work in general), albeit in different categories. I considered looking at your period of activity, but I realized that didn’t matter. Even if you became inactive, it wouldn’t change the fact that you would've still made improvements. 👁 Image
QwertyLilley [talk] 16:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by a user who abused multiple accounts in order to gain advantage in this discussion.)

👁 Image
 Comment – Some comments have been removed from this topic as I have observed suspicious behavior from several IP addresses with no further edit history other than forum discussions. In addition, I discovered that these IP addresses all belong to the same VPN vendor.

I have blocked these IP addresses, and removed comments from said users that only contained support/oppose statements. I must reiterate that abusing multiple accounts to manipulate a discussion is a serious offense. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(This comment has been striken because it was left by an impersonator of a user on the Terraria Wiki.)

His initial post already explains how he’d use the rights, and you fail to explain why he is not ready. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
05:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you really the same user as on the Terraria Wiki? BabylonAS 09:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Summary - Here is a summary (or total counting of the stance of all comments) of the nomination as of now:

• 👁 Image
   Oppose: 12
• 👁 Image
   Support: 11
• 👁 Image
   Neutral: 3

- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 07:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Quantity doesn't translate into quality — some of these opposes are not very valid. — BabylonAS 07:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that discussions in this wiki are done through consensus and not votes. But in nominations, number do matter as they tell if the candidate is accepted by the community or not. Just because you think the opposes are not valid points doesn't mean that they are not valid points through other's perspective. Also, even if the supports are valid points in your perspective, if there are more people opposing, then it tells that the majority of the people in the community (or atleast the one who participated) do not accept the candidate as an admin. It is important for an admin to be accept by the majority of the community (point initially made by Frisk on discord).- 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 08:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What I want to note, is that only 4 of those opposes come from editors who are actively engaging on the wiki (StizzurpXDD, Arina, Delvin4519 and HruthRuchir). I have serious concerns over integrity of recent RfA's and I'll say it in here in public - I believe majority of oppose votes were not made in good faith. The same thing happened in Dianliang's RfA recently. There are some accounts that participated in RfA that seem to pop up only for the heated topics and usually vote in same way, they give little reasoning or reasoning that is deeply flawed/fallacious in nature. Many of votes in opposition come from IP users, and while those could be considered part of the community, lack of stable identity tied to pseudonym is a trust issue, and throughout last RfA's I've lost trust in those comments not to be sock puppets or bad actors trying to influence processes behind Minecraft Wiki.

Distribution of type of accounts (IP user, new users, "established users") seems to be significantly different for RfA's compared to your regular "boring" discussions on Minecraft Wiki (see 1st level responses to Forum:Movie_namespace_content_color, Forum:Remove_hard-coded_fonts_from_Common.css or Talk:Blue Egg). I do believe this is a strong indicator those discussions are being manipulated. Treat my opinion in here as vote of no confidence into a lot of votes counted by yourself, and let it add additional context in relation to my argument which you have cited (which I wholeheartedly agree with still). Frisk (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

there are some accounts that participated in RfA that seem to pop up only for the heated topics and usually vote in same way - could you give a complete list? We have CUs for cases like this. Arina (she/her) 13:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I dislike direct call outs, but since you've specifically asked me for those, I'll not evade. To me it appears so far there are two such accounts: DeepfriedDokra and Analytical. There is much better case to be made for former for it to be considered a good faith user which I'm okey with, thought the argumentation given in both of their opposes in here and to Dianliang's RfA are basically non-existent. The second account seems to make more merit based opinions, however I observe strange characteristics of arguments in those responses, including mention of "patrol log" for this RfA, contradictory arguments in the same message (as pointed out by myself in Dianliang's nomination). Other argument was supposed "clashes", but they didn't cite any hostile behavior that would be problematic, rather just the fact of disagreeing.

I'll stop short of accusing anyone specific of bad faith, while I'm aware I'm basically attacking trust in opinions expressed by those users - I do consider behavior of those accounts suspicious as they do not have established presence and stable pseudonym we could track and attribute in this community - which is a major indicator of trust for me. This, combined with what are in my opinion weakly substantiated arguments - leads me to my conclusions. Frisk (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
Strong support & somewhat Neutral 👁 Image
MinecraftFan1000 (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support The wiki would benefit greatly from Mudscape having the addition tools. -Im Wired In (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per all, trusted user and skilled editor.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 01:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Not only are they a trusted user and skilled editor as mentioned above but from what I’ve seen of Mudscape they care about improving the culture and community of this wiki and bring strong interpersonal and communication skills to the table. -BrianGLHF (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support Mudscape is a very experienced editor, and I believe their experience from other wikis is extremely valuable. | violine1101 ^(talk) 16:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it is very clear what is the consensus of the community on this RFA. It is support towards giving adminship to Mudscape. There was a strong opposition but I belive the doubts were cleared, thus the consensus. This RFA has already been partly active, which means the active consensus has been presented.

👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 07:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)