SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship/Miles.oppenheimer

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive.png This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
I RfB'd to act on community consensus. Here, clearly, the community doesn't think I should be promoted now, so I hereby withdraw my RfB. Miles (talk) 16:21, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Miles.oppenheimer[edit]

Hey everyone, it's Miles. I've long planned to RfB, and there are a variety of reasons that I believe show my merits and would prove that I am worthy of becoming a bureaucrat of SmashWiki.

  • Activity level. As Shadowcrest pointed out in his (successful) RfB, "In terms of activity, I'd say I'm more active than every other admin except maybe Miles." I'm on SmashWiki almost every day at least long enough to check my watchlist and deal with any pressing wiki issues. Some days I work on more major edits or do random editing, and as such am on even longer. If promoted, I'd be able to regularly check the status of other requests for promotions.
  • Great record as a sysop. Since becoming a sysop back in December, I've deleted spam pages and non-notable smasher articles, blocked vandals, made appropriate protections, managed disputes and helped new users. I've also shown a good record with rollback powers since I acquired that ability previously.
  • Long record of contributions to SmashWiki. I recently became SmashWiki's top contributor, and I'd like to think I got there on both quality and quantity. I've also helped with the Smash Arena and the Featured Article systems at various points. (All of these snippets since #13 except one were written by yours truly.)
  • Objective viewpoint. I feel I would bring a clear mind and even disposition to the review of requests for promotion, being able to judge the consensus of the community and acting accordingly.
  • I'd also like to point out that having three active bureaucrats (myself in addition to Clarinet Hawk and Shadowcrest) would create redundancy in the system, making sure there is always someone available to manage issues and requests for promotion.
  • My RfA, my contributions, my edit count.

Thank you for reading and, in advance, for commenting. Miles (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. YES It's about time. Every single last one of your contributions are positive. Plus you're such an amazing SysOp I thought you were already bcrat. lol Paper Bowser (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. 5|_|PP0|27: About time! you're a very good contributor, and you always remain neutral on matters that require it to be so.L33t Silvie I see wat u did thar...

Oppose[edit]

  1. Alright, here it is. You honestly haven't shown many Bureaucrat qualities, and you seem to want this position simply to speed up the "RF" processes, which there are very few of, and between Shadowcrest and Clarinet Hawk, they seem to be being taken care of. NOw as for each your points-
    • Activity-That doesn't do much, especially since Shadowcrest comes here every day too.
    • SySop Record-None of the things you mentioned had anything to do with bureaucratship-like traits, including judgement. You haven't really dealt with user bans, moreso vandal IPs and the such. You're user conflict record isn't extraneously amazing, and is not a major difference between Bcrat and SySop imo
    • Long record-Top contributor doesn't mean much, seeing as how it's edit count, not contributions or what namespace the edits are actually in. And as for FA's, that has nothing to do with bcrat.
    • Viewpoint-I can say things true, yet that would not make them true. You have not shown your ability to judge in the manner you have said.
    And that's my stance.Smoreking(T) (c) 00:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That may be the case for now, but redundancy in the system (sorry about the abuse of this phrase) is a good thing.
    • OK.
    • That's primarly because we haven't really had user ban issues as much. I wasn't online when the few rare incidents happened, so that's that.
    • Fair enough.
    • I would be glad to prove that to you with any questions you'd like.
    And that's my response. Miles (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. I'm going with Smoreking on this, for several reasons:
    • You seem to think that you somehow deserve Bureaucratship as "props" for being a good contributor to the wiki.
    • You seem to think that a Bureaucrat is just the evolved form of an Admin, and that after building up Admin experience for a while you're ready to become a Bureaucrat - they're two completely different jobs, and a lot of good Admins simply aren't cut out to be good Bureaucrats. Most of this RfB is about how you're a good Admin, which isn't really the issue.
    • You say that you'd like to make redundancy in the system - redundancy is redundant. Shadowcrest's always around, and CHawk's still active, so it's not like we're severely lacking Bureaucrats.
    • You seem to think that you could add something more to the wiki as a Bureaucrat than as an Admin, but, other than what I mentioned in the previous point, you haven't really said what.
    • Bureaucrats have to consider more than just the community's feeling on matters - they also have to consider their own opinion on matters such as RfXs, sometimes over that of the community. The impression that I've got from what you've said is that you think that a Bureaucrat is an entirely neutral arbitrator in RfXs who simply follows the community's general leaning.
    • Also, you're not the most active Admin any more :P (though that's not even part of why I'm opposing).
    You're good at wikiing, and you're a good Admin, but I don't think you'd be a great Bureaucrat. PenguinofDeath 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Honestly, I don't really see the need for another bureau. Unlike sysop duties (i.e. banning, deleting) there is no harm done in small delays in time. Also, while you do a lot for the wiki, I have to agree with Shadowcrest that there is no real reason that you are more qualified for bureau than anyone else, and possibly less qualified than others. Add in the fact that most of your sysop work has been content and not administration related (not that this is a bad thing, it just doesn't demonstrate the need/qualifications for bureau) and I can't really see why making you a bureau is what I should do. Sorry. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:50, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  • If I had to sum up this entire RfB and describe it in a single word, that word would be "meh." Because that's what this screams to me- meh. You are better than a lot of the opposition, but truthfully if I were going to choose a new bureaucrat, you would not be the first person that I'd think of for the job. If I had a magical ranked list of the best candidates, you might scrape the 3rd slot, and that depends if I'm forgetting anyone important. (Though you're definitely top 5- I don't want this to sound TOO harsh, because you are a viable candidate.)
    • Your activity level... meh. It's not really what I'm looking for in a bureaucrat, seeing as unless I spontaneously combust I'm not going anywhere, and it doesn't really jump you from third to first. Indeed, it doesn't even give you an extra edge over one of the other candidates. The only reason that this was important for my RfB was that C.Hawk had been pretty slow at keeping up with the various RfX's- if he had been prompt about them, I might not have even brought it up. Activity level is a good thing to advertise on a RfR/RfA... but here, I don't really care much. So, meh.
    • Your sysop record... again, meh. I see your name in the logs and I don't see any misuse, but.. that's nothing spectacular. I see other relatively-inactive sysops in the logs too, so.. meh. Your contribs are similar- I see a lot of reverts, but... cool story? That's a sysop job, not a bureaucrat job. Can you tell me why you want to be a bureaucrat?
    • Your contributions/editcount/whatever are decidedly not meh, but really they're unrelated to the job. Can you show me to situations where you have effectively dealt with disputes, argued a point effectively, or otherwise show me why you specifically deserve the post?..
    • An objective viewpoint is indeed something that is very necessary in a good bureaucrat.. but is there anything you have to show me that you're levelheaded and able to effectively judge something? Maybe I'll pull out some questions or something rather than make you show me links or something.
    • Three bureaucrats- yeah, ok, I guess. Honestly I don't see a point, seeing as I am around every day and C.Hawk can be contacted if I suddenly fall off the face of the internet, but if that's what people want...
Honestly, if someone else is going to be appointed to the position, I want it to be someone great, and you haven't really shown me that you're great- indeed, judging from certain parts of your candidate statement, I don't really know if you know exactly what the position entails. I'll see about getting some questions for you to answer. Shadowcrest 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need another atm. Nothing against Miles. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really know any of you, but I know how a wiki works. The less administration there is, the better. As long as the current number of bureaucrats, or any position really, function well, there's no point. Aizome (talk) 04:53, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Questions from Salad:
    • Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat and what qualities do you possess that you believe would make you a good Bureaucrat?
    • What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?
  • How might your decisions in previous bureacratic actions differ from mine or C.Hawk's? (For example, would you have decided any RfRs/RfAs differently, why?)
  • How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on SmashWiki?
  • What is your stance on trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?
  • What do you think the proper role of a bureaucrat is?
  • How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have? (In other words, would you have been more/less vocal in controversial decisions, etc)
  • In what way(s) would your decisions in arbitration be affected by the weight of a user's general history of valued contributions (or lack of such)? How much do the principles of SW:YAV matter to you?
Give these a shot for me, miles. Don't be afraid to WoT- I'm up to the task. :) Shadowcrest 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
<WoT>
  • "Why do you want to be a Bureaucrat and what qualities do you possess that you believe would make you a good Bureaucrat?" I want to be a bureaucrat to help speed the RfX process and to create redundancy in the system to allow for the sudden disappearance of either Shadowcrest or CHawk.
  • "What is your opinion on strictly literal interpretations of policy vs. "spirit of the policy" interpretations?" Spirit of the policy usually wins if there's ever any sort of dispute. i.e., joke bans aren't prohibitive unless they're for a reason. (I'd say, though, that this kind of issue is pretty rare.)
  • "How might your decisions in previous bureacratic actions differ from mine or C.Hawk's? (For example, would you have decided any RfRs/RfAs differently, why?)" I doubt anything would be much different, because the main function of a bureaucrat is to act on community consensus and I would count my own opinion as equal to that of any other user.
  • "How would you define the Bureaucrat's role on SmashWiki?" See the previous -- acting on consensus for RfX's + usual sysopery (which is not the main point of this).
  • "What is your stance on trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness? How is that stance justified given the current status of those issues within our system and culture?" I'll answer these separately.
    • Trolling/disruption/incivility/harmfulness: The defintion of trolling from Wikipedia: "someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community." While the exact definition of a troll is in the eye of the beholder, I'd say that controversial postings wouldn't be an issue for me, as sometimes that's exactly what's needed in a debate. I'm pretty solidly against the other three types of troll actions = disruptive, uncivil and harmful trolls.
    • Stance justification: I'll use as an example a member of SW who's regularly accused of trolling: Semicolon. I respect Semi, and think he's a competent and capable user and sysop, but many of his posts are considered controversial. That poses no problem to me, as it shows that he can get at the heart of a dispute and not just the obvious parts of it.
  • "What do you think the proper role of a bureaucrat is?" See above.
  • "How might you use the Bureaucrat position differently than other Bureaucrats have? (In other words, would you have been more/less vocal in controversial decisions, etc)" My goal is to reflect the opinions of the community, including of course myself as one of the users represented. I would be vocal in support or opposition to RfX candidates, but would gladly act in favor of the consensus even if I disagree. That's pretty much what bcrats have done before, and I'd like to help in doing so.
  • "In what way(s) would your decisions in arbitration be affected by the weight of a user's general history of valued contributions (or lack of such)? How much do the principles of SW:YAV matter to you?" YAV is an important principle. However, RfX's are inherently based on contributions. RfRs are based on vandal-fighting history, RfAs on pre-admin tasks (tagging for deletion, proof they won't misuse tools) and RfBs like this one on ability to objectively determine the community's consensus. I'd say that YAV would affect my arbitration by treating each user's support or opposition to a RfX candidate equally.
</WoT> Miles (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)