|
|
| (40 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| {{shortcut|[[SW:RFB]]}} | | {{shortcut|[[SW:RFB]]}} |
|
| |
|
| This page is for requesting that one become a Bureaucrat on the Smash Wiki. | | This page is for requesting that one become a bureaucrat on the Smash Wiki. |
|
| |
|
| ==Rules== | | ==Rules== |
| *Only persons that are already sysops may request a position as a bureaucrat. | | *Only users that are already sysops may request a position as a bureaucrat. |
| *Only self-nominations are allowed. | | *Only self-nominations are allowed. |
| *All new nominees should post their name below as a in a level 3 header (<nowiki>===Username===</nowiki>). Underneath, the user should state why he/she would like to become an Bureaucrat. To prevent repetition of past information, all applicants should post a link to the archive of their [[SmashWiki:Requests for adminship|RfA]]. Additionally, applicants should explain why they believe they should be a bureaucrat. | | *All new nominees should post their name below in a level 3 header (<nowiki>===Username===</nowiki>). Underneath, the user should state why he/she would like to become a bureaucrat. To prevent a repetition of past information, all applicants should post a link to the archive of their [[SmashWiki:Requests for adminship|RfA]]. Additionally, applicants should explain why they believe they should be a bureaucrat. |
| *Users who wish to support, oppose, or comment on the nomination may do so underneath the person requesting bureaucrat. | | *Users who wish to support, oppose, or comment on the nomination may do so underneath the person requesting bureaucrat. |
| *After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived and moved to an appropriate subpage. | | *After sufficient time has passed to allow all users who wish to express an opinion the chance to do so, a decision will be made based on community consensus as to whether or not the request will succeed. Once a decision has been made, the discussion will be archived and moved to an appropriate subpage. |
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| {{Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}} | | {{Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}} |
|
| |
|
| ===[[User:Miles.oppenheimer|Miles.oppenheimer]]=== | | ==Current Requests== |
| | None |
|
| |
|
| 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 [[SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship/Shadowcrest|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 [[Special:Top/community|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. ([[SmashWiki:Featured content/Full|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.
| |
| *[[SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/Miles.oppenheimer|My RfA]], [[Special:Contributions/Miles.oppenheimer|my contributions]], [[Special:Editcount/Miles.oppenheimer|my edit count.]]
| |
|
| |
| Thank you for reading and, in advance, for commenting. [[User:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="dodgerblue"><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">'''Miles''']] <font color="khaki">([[User talk:Miles.oppenheimer|<font color="khaki">talk]])</font></font></span></font> 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ====Support====
| |
|
| |
| # '''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 [[User:Paper Bowser|Paper Bowser]] ([[User talk:Paper Bowser|talk]]) 00:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| [[Category:Administration]] | | [[Category:Administration]] |
|
| |
| ====Oppose====
| |
| #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.'''[[User:Smorekingxg456|<span style="color:#5F9EA0">Smoreking</span>]]<small><sup>[[User Talk:Smorekingxg456#Top|<span style="color:#00FF00">(T)</span>]]</sup></small><small><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Smorekingxg456|(c)]]</sub></small>''' 00:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====Neutral====
| |
| *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. <span style="font-family:vivaldi; font-size:12pt">[[User:Shadowcrest|<span style="color:#4682b4">Shadowcrest</span>]]</span> 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Comments====
| |
| *...
| |
