SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Miles.oppenheimer

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki

Miles.oppenheimer (talkcontribsedit countRFA page)[edit]

Candidate, please summarize why you are running for adminship below.

Hey, the name's Miles. I've been a regular contributor since I joined in April. My edit count shows how much I've added. I am also a rollback'r, which I think is just another sign that I would be a qualified administrator. I've been a regular anti-vandal, and I know that I would be even more effective at this were I a sysop. My rollback approval can be found here, and the concept is pretty similar for me: the position just increases my ability to improve the wiki.

List of accomplishments:

I won't say too much right now, but I think that my contributions speak for themselves. {My name is Miles, and I approve this message.} 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Support[edit]

  • Really Support, The guy is cool, and frankly knows how to make user boxes, a skill limited to only people who explore deeply. Go miles Learner4 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I really feel I must comment here. Userboxes aren't exactly wiki-elite. I even have a template in my userspace to make them differently than the ones here. --Shadowcrest 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, he does a lot of stuff on smashwiki and stops vandalism. Luigi wannabee 25 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, he's a great guy and a great contributor, taking over teh smash arena even though he didn't have to. Will make a great admin --GutripperSpeak if you are worthy 23:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. You're smart, a great contributor, and a huge help to the wiki, even though i think you've been here less than me. Xtrme Talk 2 X Wut X is doing 00:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Same reason for why I supported for RFR, I guess. MarioGalaxy {talk} 00:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Miles has done nothing but good fort this wiki. Good luck! Cheezperson {talk}stuff 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support — I'm convinced 5280s would be the perfect candidate of the current bunch to become an administrator. --Sky (t · c · w) 02:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I haven't a bad thing to say about this user. Silverdragon706/FyreNWater - (TC ) 05:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: This dude is amazing. He has changed tiny stubs into potential featured articles. I remember when I first started going on this wiki seeing his name at the bottom of alot of pages, at the "Miles.oppenheimer made an edit at (time)". Baltro [ talk ] 00:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Though usually I believe vandal-fighting is really a disguise for wanting +dicksize, even if for Miles it is, I think he (and RC!) could benefit from sysop tools. I also believe he can be moderately successful at user-related things if he tries hard enough. Like Pikamander2, I believe that there is potential in Miles. --Shadowcrest 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice contributions. You'd be a great sysop.O, Mighty Smoreking 00:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Awesome contribs to this wikia. Not a single bad thing done. Masterman What's the matter? Scared?
  • Support Not going to call anyone stupid, but what moron would oppose Miles? He's been one of the best things to happen to the wiki, and thus deserves adminship. Let's not forget to mention his pwnsome UserBox skillz. Blue Ninjakoopa Talk to me 11:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Super-Massive Support It's amazing that this guy isn't an admin already. --Toon GanondorfCHAT 04:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome, Miles. Great guy, complete know-it-all/contributor/wiki markup expert/loser (not really, LOL)/vandalism combator. Gonna go all the way, Miles! Good luck. Fried beef1 Holler Gifts 21:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: Having observed his editing ethic on pages such as the Music (SSBB) page and his evident interest in working on several types of content (his Image Project subpage is what I'm referring to), I would recommend him for the admin position. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 04:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Great guy, reliable, friendly. Good luck Miles! PikabroPIKACHU! 22:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • MEGA SUPPORT He rally deserves this ithink in the opinion of my friend brandon, who itold about the wiki but does not want to join. in my oppion i dont care Falconpawnch (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Now lets check this guy out, Great edits, levelheaded, Obviously dedicated to the well being of this wiki and so much more. But here its comes, I think that he's a little too new and that he is moving this Rfa too fast considering he has ran for Rollback not long ago. Another thing is that I feel his ego is getting a little too big for this wiki. One small thing I have left is that I think personally a sysop has to be strict, someone who can laugh but still won't be lenient on a vandal who has vandalised countless times. This was originally going to be Neutral but seeing as how you ended your small "Discussion with Shadowcrest" so maturely and nicely shows how you can see the other person's viewpoint and your own self control ( at least something good came out of it huh?). So congratulations Miles, your definetly the man for the job. - Hatake91 (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is overwhelming support, I move that this RfA be closed with the result a promotion. Miles (talk - contribs) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hush you. You don't get to make the choices here. :P --Sky (t · c · w) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet. Miles (talk - contribs) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ...
  2. Last I checked this isn't a RfB, so no, you still wouldn't be making the decisions. --Shadowcrest 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Your very high-quality contributions and even-handed diplomacy impress me and you show the type of back-end commitment we lack here, even now with the wider admin pool. Regarding Shadowcrest's concerns, I'm hard-pressed to find any evidence in your other contributions to substantiate them, though I suggest you not try to jump the gun on this adminship. It'll happen with patience. MaskedMarth (t c) 00:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your appreciation, and you make a valid point. Miles (talk - contribs) 20:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, given the circumstances including little viable competition and general decency at the job. What I said down in neutral I still technically believe, I just find that overall I am happy with miles. --Shadowcrest 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • I'm In No Place To Say This, But You Start WAYYYYYY Too Many Edit Wars. God No. Massive Oppose He Dwells On Things Outside Of Where Needed And Brings Up Arguments On Talk Pages For No Reason. I Have A Reason For Doing So :) "Handsome" Hollywood K. 22:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's true. You are in no place to say that. Miles (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is in place to say anything that they think is important to the decision. It is not at all helping your RfA that you keep trying to find ways to silent your critics without actually responding to their points. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Miles would respond to the point if Kperfect had raised one with a basis. Asserting that Miles starts edit wars means nothing without evidence. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The only edit war in which I was ever involved was with Kperfekt over Template:SubspaceArmy, which he started. He insisted that King Dedede be considered a smasher accomplice, but provided false evidence to prove his point by claiming he had used a Dark Cannon. I kept my cool, but he didn't. In the end, he was added as an unwilling member on the evidence of him having distracted Meta Knight before the story began, which unintentionally aided the Subspace Army. I think this actually goes to show that I can solve user disputes well. Miles (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. "He started it" is a poor reason
  2. That's a conflict dispute. --Shadowcrest 21:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. A reason for what?
  2. I presume you meant a content dispute. I still think I showed the same set of people skills is managing that problem as would be needed for a user dispute. Miles (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. It's a poor excuse. Just saying "person Y started it" doesn't magically somehow excuse that person X was involved.
  2. Lol yeah, sorry, I meant content. While you need people skills to resolve both, they're very different. With user conflicts there's not really an "easy way out", you have to think (usually long and hard) about how you can resolve the conflict and what the consequences of any given path are. Additionally, user conflicts can rise tempers like no content dispute ever can. And I don't think you'd be great at that. --Shadowcrest 00:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. I wasn't trying to excuse myself from blame; the page's history shows it was reverted by other users besides me anyway.
  2. I'm sorry you think that. I disagree. Miles (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The issues I have with this is not the edit war's particular content, but 1) that it was an edit war (no big deal), and 2) that you tell another user that he has no right to oppose your RfA (big deal). Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was only trying to show that he was in no place to say that I start edit wars, as he started the only one I was involved in. He has every right to oppose my RfA, even if I think his reason for doing so is factually incorrect. Miles (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you keep on telling yourself that your "Factually Correct". You look for trouble on other talk pages. I'm not gonna bring up who's, but there is more then 3 different ones. That's more then enough reason for me to Oppose. "Handsome" Hollywood K. 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Miles never brings up fights. What on Earth are you talking about? Koopa Koopersshell.gif Klaus 10:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  • Neutral with slight opposition. I am afraid there is more epeen strength in this request than I had previously accounted for. While I have no concerns about this user handling the vandalism and like and such as (spot the reference!), I now lack confidence in this user's ability to deal with other users, which is just as (if not more) important. --Shadowcrest 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My "Yet." above was intended in a joking manner, and I'm disappointed that you feel my "people skills" are subpar. I would point out that for the most part, I've been a very even-minded user and would follow the same basic behavior as an admin. I have tried to show at every turn that I'm more than just a good editor/contributor, and that I can mediate between users as well. I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Miles (talk - contribs) 04:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
RfAs have a strong tendency to inflate an ego, and I fear that yours will be particularly susceptible, which will in turn present itself (negatively) during user conflicts and other drama. --Shadowcrest 15:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern, though I respectfully disagree. Miles (talk - contribs) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Miles is responsible/wise enough to be an admin. What do you think would happen, the "incident" would repeat itself? MarioGalaxy {talk} 23:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There's only one way to find out... Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Promoting users to see if they screw up is a very poor practice indeed. --Shadowcrest 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying is all. Everyone's taking a chance when they support someone for sysop. Will they help the wiki? The 4 (including myself) running right now probably will, but you never know until they're promoted. You can't successfully argue with the truth. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I can in fact argue, not least of all because what may or may not happen in the future isn't truth. You yourself even said "probably" in that last sentence. Probably != will. Additionally, "help the wiki" is ambiguous and has multiple meanings. Therefore, you can excel at one thing but fail another, and still be a detriment to the wiki depending on what the cases are. There is always a little chance involved, but tbh you don't promote someone if you don't have a clue how they will act as a sysop. Which, tbh, I am fast losing faith in. --Shadowcrest 00:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You losing faith in fellow users!?! No way! By the truth, I meant the fact that you'll never know what someone will do once they become a sysop. They could become a benevolent, active, and determined sysop; or they could become irresponsible and abuse their powers. Unless you're a psychic, don't argue. I still maintain that the 4 here are qualified, but whether or not you do is your thing. You should become more trusting and have faith in other people besides the sysops. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cheezperson. 04:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
...fine, but you asked for it.
SmashWiki:Assume good faith applies when there is no evidence to be found to the contrary. AGF does not apply when there is reason to suspect otherwise. Judging by comments and the like here and elsewhere, I have been forced to revise my position of support for miles. While the argument "you'll never know until..." is technically true, one can typically predict fairly accurately how well a user will handle the sysop position. Again, I have judged what I've seen of the candidates and voted accordingly. Imo, people need to stop voting because the candidate is nice or because they're a friend, because that's a terrible reason. After all, unless you're a psychic, don't tell me they'll make a good sysop despite evidence to the contrary. --Shadowcrest 15:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't force you to support, but I can suggest that you assume good faith in others more often. This talk is over, the page is getting too long. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
RfAs exist to produce discussion which in turn advises the bcrat of what the public feels and helps to provide insight on the candidate, so your "too long" argument is not valid. Additionally, I must assume you missed my entire last post or just tl;dr'd it, because you basically ignored everything I said about when to and when not to assume good faith :< --Shadowcrest 21:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Both of you stop. Shadowcrest has made up his mind, and despite my disagreement with it, this argument is going nowhere. Please discuss this elsewhere if you feel it necessary to continue. Miles (talk - contribs) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Read the first line of my above post tbh :/ --Shadowcrest 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral with a lean toward support. I'm reasonably certain that, based on what I've seen, Miles would make a competent administrator. He seems generally rational, level-headed, willing to compromise, etc., all good traits, and thus the "lean toward support." The only thing major thing that worries me is that, on the admittedly limited basis of some comments he's made on this RfA, he doesn't always seem to consider the implications of his words. For example, I personally see his "yet" comment for the joke that he seemingly intended it to be. I also understand what he meant when he disputed Kperfect's vote, but the fact is that perception often supersedes reality, particularly, I've found, on Wikis where semantics are often of paramount importance. Those kinds of offhand, seemingly innocuous remarks can have remarkably far-reaching consequences. As such, and because I don't feel I know Miles well enough to either fully support or fully oppose, it's a neutral vote from me. – Defiant Elements +talk 04:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)