SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship/Disaster Flare

The following discussion is an archived debate of the nomination of a user for bureaucratship. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

	This RfB was closed as successful.
	Reason:	Flare has near-unanimous support and has, I feel, sufficiently shown that he is ready for this change. All of his answers to my questions were sufficient, and my background check came found nothing of too much note. Serpent  King 16:59, April 24, 2020 (EDT)

Disaster Flare (talk • contribs • edit count • passing RFA • RFB page)

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

Hello all. It's been a while since I did something like this. I've now officially been an admin for a little over 4 years now and admittedly, things have been somewhat rocky over that time. I've showcased a lot of weaknesses as an admin, such as temper problems, trigger happiness with banning, things like that. I understand applying for bureaucracy with those under my belt can be seen as an issue and I do understand any skepticism you may have, considering. However, I ask that you hear me out and don't immediately write me off for past experiences, as well as write me off just because we already have two bureaucrats. For this application, I'd like to start off by addressing one of my worst weaknesses as an admin, my temper: Over the past 4 years, I've showcased a lot of issues controlling my temper, resulting in my judgment clouding and saying things I shouldn't have said or just overall becoming completely unreliable to the discussion. I understand that this is a serious flaw to have as any sort of wiki staff member. For those on Discord, you may have noticed I have been taking steps to improve. I'm on medication now to control my anxiety, which has also, as a side effect, lowered my temper, I've become more patient, and I've ultimately apologized to some of you that I have wronged. As such, this will help benefit my dispute handling that much more, and while I haven't had any chances to handle a dispute in recent days (most discussion affairs have since transitioned to Discord nowadays, rendering talk pages a tad bit archaic), I trust in my ability to handle disputes better than ever before. I will not make any excuses, I understand I've been immature in the past. I'm aiming to be better than that in my recent journey to self-improvement. The other thing that was a huge problem (though not necessarily a flaw) is that I've had a habit of just disappearing from the wiki. However, I've gone a few years without a computer, so I was unable to make a lot of constructive edits in that time. I now have a school computer I can use, so please don't worry about potential inactivity. I'm not going anywhere if I can help it.

Next up, I'd like to provide what I've learned over the past 4 years:

I've been taking steps to learn more about the competitive scene in order to be more helpful on that side of the wiki, and have been doing tons of research on smashers in order to have complete results tables and create smasher articles so we can have the most complete smasherbase possible. I'm also beginning to study hitbox data among other things in order to hopefully finally help curb the ever-increasing competitive expertise tags (which is now quickly approaching 3000 as of my writing this). I'm also an Editor-in-Chief on LylatWiki, and while I haven't been as active there, I am a major influence in the wiki's evolution in recent years, even if I do not edit much there. Lastly, worth noting, is I'm now learning more wiki markup and aim to help more on the template side of things as well.

Lastly, I'd like to go over the major new powers I would get as a bureaucrat:

1. First is promoting a user, whether it be rollback, adminship, or bureaucracy. I think we can all agree that while choosing to give someone rollback is easy, picking admins and bureaucrats is a very difficult task that should not be taken lightly. However, I consider myself a good judge of character and generally can tell when someone is not to be trusted. I've learned this over time in my experience on wiki and even irl. Promotion requires a lot of careful thinking and I would not just go gung ho promoting everyone, my aim would be to give everyone time to vote, then think on it for a while and make my decision at least after about a month.
2. Next is renames. I recall Serpent saying in the past that that should be something admins should have, and honestly I'm inclined to agree. We have a pretty clear policy on it and it'd be kind of difficult to accidentally misuse it.
3. Finally, interwiki. I highly doubt I'd ever need to use this for any reason, but since it is an added tool, and anything could possibly change, trust that it is in the right hands, should I ever need to use it for any reason. As a part of LylatWiki's hosting group, Grifkuba, I've been toying with ideas for new NIWA wikis that I can create and add that much more knowledge to our growing alliance, which would create an opportunity for me to use interwiki.

I think that about covers everything, but of course as always, I'm open to any and all questions or comments. If you have anything you're curious about or concerns you, please, by all means ask me. I don't want anyone second guessing themselves with their votes because this is a big step up for me, should I get the position. That said, thank you for your consideration, and make the vote you feel is right in your eyes. Disaster Flare (talk) 17:37, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Support

1. Support I think you've done the best you could as admin, and could further your assistance with bureaucratship. I'm glad you admitted to your wrongdoings and that you wouldn't do that again. Side note, I know it happened over a year ago, but take this as my official apology for my actions on April Fools' Day last year. Really didn't know what I was thinking, but I shouldn't have argued and called you rude because of your response to Discord removing light mode as their prank, and no one else should do the same, either. Sorry for getting a little off-topic here. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer (talk) 17:47, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

   To be honest I forgot all about that, so you're good. :P Disaster Flare (talk) 18:00, April 4, 2020 (EDT)

2. Support. I've known you for at least the past four years, and both of us have seen progress from the other, as time will tell. The tricky part about an RfB is that, much like an RfA, there's less necessity and real reason; rather, it, more often than not, is very much a want, and you have to prove that you're able to handle it. You've dealt with stuff as an admin much longer than I have, and I definitely don't think that you'd have trouble dealing with things. My only concern is you taking on too much at a time, especially given your dealing with whatever movie crap you have (in spite of the current pandemic), but that can be an issue with just about anyone—as long as a balance is found, then you should be fine. Aidan, the Rurouni 18:31, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

   Oh don't worry about me. I know when I'm biting off more than I can chew. I'd been dwelling on this for a while so this isn't just a last minute decision (like my first RfA was heh). Disaster Flare (talk) 18:35, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

3. Support. We have had a lack of active bcrats and even admins recently. Now you have recently been active again and from what I can see, you have what it takes to be a good bcrat. I'm quite impressed that you caught a lot of sockpuppets, especially that recent one where you caught over 30+. In recent times you have demonstrated the best usage of admin powers with deletion and blocking. I believe you can be trusted with these tools. OmegαToαd the Toαd Wαrrior (BUP) 18:46, April 3, 2020 (EDT)
4. Support. Since my account here is relatively young compare to other active accounts, I haven't known you as long as most other people here, so I can't be the judge on what you have done in the years prior. However from what I know you're a really competent administrator and user in general and there has been no bad blood between us since I joined (and as far as I know, you don't have any bad blood with any of the newer users), which is the proof I need to see that you have improved since first becoming an administrator. CookiesCreme 19:26, April 3, 2020 (EDT)
5. Support, I believe that you have the experience in those things as well as the need for multiple bureaucrats. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 20:10, April 3, 2020 (EDT)
6. Support. Trip's been a phenomenal sysop since being promoted back in 2016. He's very knowledgeable about Smash and I believe he'll help keep SmashWiki under control. The mentioning of interwiki is very strong proof that he understands the ins and outs of NIWA. You've got my vote. Falcon-X (Freedom House) 21:11, April 3, 2020 (EDT)
7. Support. My account here is also really really young. But from what I have seen, you have been doing a good job as an administrator, you can handle situations reasonably. I believe you can use the power and tools very effectively. Naughty🐽GRAND DAD 自閉肥宅 05:12, April 4, 2020 (EDT)
8. Support, although I didn't find the way you structured your application very convincing, I'm satisfied with the evidence you provided of your judge of character, and with your services to the wiki over the years as a whole. Alex the Weeb 08:20, April 4, 2020 (EDT)
9. Support. Considering the amount of time you have been an admin on here, the amount of experience you have gained from it, and the high amount of respect you have on this community, I think you earned it. MHStarCraft 11:36, April 5, 2020 (EDT)
10. Support: You’ve been around for long enough and have proven yourself responsible, for the most part. Besides, you seem to be making an attempt to fix any of your weaknesses. Crazy456Rhino (talk) 19:55, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
11. Support: Been a good friend and a responsible person, from what I'm able to tell on the wiki. Knows policy well and enforces it when needed. I actually thought he was a bureaucrat already. Is per all a thing here? I'm saying per all anyway. Alex95 (talk) 20:01, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
12. Support: There's a lot you can learn in four years, so take this promotion as a huge responsibility. I trust you in any way that you will help our wiki thrive, and I hope you learn along the way what it means to be a bureaucrat! -- Scorbunny (talk • contributions) 20:06, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
13. I support, Disaster Flare really deserves it he has been very active, helping anyone who needs it and is a great person that I belive should be bureaucrat because he constantly is online and doing great things for the wiki Its Ya Boy, MeleeBoi
14. Support:You're a pretty cool and responsible dude. You deserve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesterstudios (talk • contribs) 21:35, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
15. Support: I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said above. VoqéoT 21:55, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
16. Support I pretty much see no reason as to why you shouldn't be promoted. You are a responsible admin and I'm sure you'd be a responsible bureaucrat. Pokebub (talk) 22:26, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
17. Support. I know I have a really young account and all, but I haven't seen anything bad from you as of recent. I trust you as a person and I'm very sure you'll be a great bureaucrat. Alhecks11 (talk) 00:25, April 9, 2020 (EDT)
18. Support I haven't been around the wiki for too long, but whenever I see big edits, or activity when the wiki has most needed it recently, your name is often behind it. I think you would be a much-welcomed helping hand with bureaucrat powers, especially considering the times we're currently going through as a wiki community. Acgamer28 00:27, April 9, 2020 (EDT)
19. Support. I'll be blunt and honest: as soon as I saw the RfB, I thought "I really trust him, I do, because I've known him from long and he really has changed, but I'm not sure what everyone else will think about it, moreso since the RfB didn't go over all the points". But after reading the comments below and seeing you're not joking around, plus knowing you've always been responsible and eager to do the right thing, I'm no longer skeptical anymore. You 100% deserve the spot, and I'll feel satisfied and proud if you get it. You've got me on your side, for sure. --Beep (talk) 08:33, April 9, 2020 (EDT)
20. Sure! Admittedly, I haven't been as active here as I used to be, but from what I remember, you've done a very good job as an admin, and it seems I'm not the only one who feels that way. And judging by the answers you gave in the comments, I'm convinced you'd do solidly well as a bureaucrat too. My only hangup with this is that I'm not sure whether or not we're in desperate need of another 'crat right now. We already have two reasonably active ones, and it is possible for a Wiki to be overstaffed, especially one of our size. I don't think having three 'crats will have any negative consequences, but I also don't think it's wise to just go ahead and promote every single competent candidate that asks for the promotion. That aside, I'm on board! --MeatBall104 23:30, April 11, 2020 (EDT)

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. Given my own inactivity and the fact that I haven't interacted with anyone on here in a long time, I don't think I can fairly support or oppose any requests. However, I think you gave a fair assessment of yourself, strengths and flaws. I would add that you have shown initiative and leadership in the past, be it hosting tournaments (I think I remember you saying that), heading unfortunate Smash fan projects (lol), ostensibly more successful personal projects, and being an admin of Smashwiki for years at this point.

The only real drawbacks I can think of are things you have already admitted. If you are serious about fixing those, I would say there should be no problem with you becoming a bureaucrat. I suppose I have no business telling people to be more active, but there isn't much point in appointing a bureaucrat only for them to go inactive. But again, if you work on those problems, I have no doubt you'll do a great job. Good luck! John HUAH! 21:39, April 19, 2020 (EDT)

Comments

Could you include some specifics about why you want and need the additional powers, and perhaps provide some evidence for your claim about being a good judge of character? I hate to sound mean, but a lot of the stuff in your application is largely irrelevant to the rights and responsibilities of bureaucratship... Alex the Weeb 17:48, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Certainly. It's less a matter of whether or not I need the powers (truth be told, anyone who says they need the powers is lying, nobody needs them), but I would like to have them. The biggest matter that comes to mind is that the coronavirus pandemic, while irrelevant to this current matter, has greatly impacted the wiki as well as its staff. As such, I feel like we're quickly approaching a time where extra hands are going to be needed very quickly, especially so since we're still receiving new information (such as the recently announced ARMS character) in this time of uncertainty. I'm not doubting Serpent and Toomai's ability to handle things as is, but they shouldn't have to handle everything on their own when all of this stuff in real life is going on too. As for my claim about being a good judge of character, the most recent example I can think of were those 30 sockpuppets I discovered. I noticed that behavior on Tabuu's page that nobody else seemed to really pay any mind to and did some digging on it. I can provide more on-wiki examples if that isn't enough. Disaster Flare (talk) 17:53, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Going further along to providing more examples, this user in question is another recent one. I had been watching their edits and started picking up certain habits that made me become suspicious, so I checked their IP and found they were a sockpuppet of former editor Brawl Boss. Generally, going back through my block log, the list is just to great to list them all here. Generally, any sockpuppet you see me block, I picked up some kind of pattern others didn't and immediately became suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disaster Flare (talk • contribs) 22:12, April 3, 2020 (PDT)

I'll be honest, I completely forgot that you were the one who caught Sm4shmeister, but that was definitely a good catch. I guess there is support for your claim in your blocking history, so I'm satisfied about that. The main hesitation I have is that your application specifically wasn't particularly convincing, as a lot of it is dedicated to explaining why you shouldn't be ruled out because of your temper, rather than reasons to support your promotion. Alex the Weeb 18:26, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Here was my mindset with this application: First, address my biggest flaw. Next, address what I'm doing with the wiki now as well as future projects. Finally, address the powers provided via promotion. I felt like this was the best way to tackle this application and I still do, but I do understand the room for error, which is why I'm expecting and ready to tackle any questions or concerns. I do understand what you're saying, shoot as many questions at me as you wish until you feel like you're ready to vote. I'll answer each and every one of them to the best of my ability. Disaster Flare (talk) 18:31, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Ok, I think I have a good final question: becoming a Bureaucrat also gives you the power to hide edits. What would be your criteria for deciding to hide an edit? Alex the Weeb 18:38, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Actually, admins can hide edits too, which I've already done in the past, but I will still answer the question anyway. Generally, I feel it's only a good idea to hide an edit if it involves any extreme content, such as racism and anything sexually explicit, be it targeted toward a specific user or otherwise. Additionally, if it contains personal information that is considered a breach of privacy, such as addresses, phone numbers, or, in one case I've had to do before, a smasher's real name. Disaster Flare (talk) 18:43, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

My understanding from SW:ADMIN is that while admins can delete revisions, they can't fully hide them, and deleted revisions are still visible to other admins, while a Bureaucrat hiding an edit means that it not only won't appear as a deleted revision to regular users, but also won't be accessible to admins. Since it's a pretty extreme measure, it would be interesting to here what you would consider a situation which would require it to be done. If I've misunderstood, do let me know. Alex the Weeb 18:48, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

(reset indent) Oooh I see what you mean now...in that case, that changes my answer entirely. Due to how extreme a measure it is, it'd have to be something extremely serious, so it's definitely not something you'd want to just throw around all over the place. The immediate thing that comes to mind would be anything that would be deemed upsetting and could be triggering to someone. Think any sort of edits containing illegal content and anything involving severe and very serious death threats. Of course, the chances of this kind of thing happening is incredibly slim, especially at a time when the wiki is mostly peaceful, but it's crucial to consider every possibility. After all, Murphy's Law, anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Disaster Flare (talk) 18:52, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Typically this tool is for hiding personal information (phone numbers, addresses, credit card/bank info, SSNs, that kind of stuff), though I could see application for death threats and illegal content as well. SerpentKing 19:00, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Yeah, those things are definitely a given too, thinking about it a bit more. Either way, the point still stands that issues like this don't usually pop up, but again, it's important to consider it anyway. Disaster Flare (talk) 19:01, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

The only thing I really take issue with here is that you don't mention anything about collaboration with the other crats when deciding the outcome of an RfA or RfB. I assume and hope that this is simply an accidental omission. SerpentKing 20:41, April 4, 2020 (EDT)

It was. I was expecting something would get missed here (I wasn't expecting to write a perfect application, sadly perfection isn't possible). I don't think I really need to tell you how I'd be with teamwork since we've worked together on all sorts of things on the wiki in the past, but if you do have any questions regarding my teamwork skills, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:45, April 4, 2020 (EDT)

Bump. Disaster Flare (talk) 13:46, April 7, 2020 (EDT)

I would like for you to explain what your approach would be when deciding the outcome of an RfA. What things make a good admin (preferably sorted in order of importance)? What red flags would you watch out for when observing a candidate? How would you go about observing a candidate? Please take some time to completely think through your response. These 3 questions will be a large part of my stance on this. SerpentKing 09:51, April 10, 2020 (EDT)

What things make a good admin?

1. Leadership skills. They have to be able to step up and help the wiki move forward by stepping in to resolve debates, take part in proposals that could change the wiki, etc.
2. Conflict resolution as a sub point. Leadership skills lightly touches upon this, but conflict resolution skills are still very important.
3. Teamwork skills. Admins and bureaucrats need to be able to cooperate and work together on wiki matters, much like how you and Toomai are deciding the outcome of my RfB together. The staff doesn't have to like each other, but they are expected to be capable of working together when the opportunity comes up.
4. The ability to keep a neutral and/or unbiased stance on a matter. No one person is truly the boss, and as such, one person's stance isn't the go-to. The wiki is always moving forward in different ways, especially with the ever-changing climate as editors come and go. That said, it's highly important for an admin to always be neutral and unbiased. Viewpoints on different things will always change. New arguments and counter-arguments will always come through, and it's an admin's job to go through all of those arguments and figure out what the best option is without letting their own personal bias cloud their judgment.
5. They can't be afraid of confronting others and being confronted. If you are an admin, you're always going to have to confront users about their behavior, and there's always going to be someone who has some kind of beef with you. An admin's expected to not only handle any kind of confrontation, but they also need to be able to handle it responsibly. For example, when confronting a user, it's important to not be overly harsh on them, especially if they're new and still learning. You run the risk of scaring off a potentially great editor otherwise. On the other side, if you're being confronted, it's important to keep a cool head and figure out the best way to solve that conflict. Understand why you're being confronted, as there's two possibilities: Either you made a mistake and someone got ticked off because of it, or you did something they didn't like that was overall ultimately the best possible outcome. How an admin handles it from there is incredibly important.
6. Keeping temper under control. Granted, I put this a little low on the list because while it is very important to keep our emotions in check when things get heated, we're not perfect. I think all of us staff have been guilty of letting our temper get the best of us and there's not much we can do to permanently keep it off of the wiki. With that said, constant temper problems is definitely a red flag, so a candidate is by no means excused just because they aren't perfect.
7. Activity. Also a lesser important point, but still a great point to make: if you wish to be an admin, you should be active at least to some degree. If you're rarely on, it becomes difficult for editors to contact you when needed, especially in the case of vandals. This is less important because activity's a tough thing to keep up with on a wiki, especially with real life in the way, but you should at least be decently active when applying to be an admin.

What red flags would you watch out for when observing a candidate?

1. As said above, temper problems is a big one. I think some minor ones here and there can slide depending on the severity of it, but if it's constant and almost comes off like you're asking for fights, that's definitely a problem. An admin and an editor in general needs to be able to stay calm at least to some degree.
2. Similar behavior to past banned users, i.e. sockpuppetry. I use Drilly as a loose example here.
3. Speaking of bans, what is their previous ban record? If they have a clean slate and never have been banned, there's nothing to worry about in that sense. However, if they've had a ban record, that changes things. I don't believe an editor should be permanently barred from being promoted just because they have a ban record, so it becomes a matter of what was the ban for and did they learn their lesson. If they were banned for edit warring as a young user, then came back and never edit warred again, it wouldn't be fair to punish them for a mistake they've since learned from. That said, if they had an extensive ban record for all sorts of things, it does become a tad difficult to trust them with admin powers, but minor offenses I don't think are that bad in the grand scheme of things as long as they've learned their lesson.
4. If they're overly gung ho about things, such as not assuming good faith, rollbacking seemingly good faith edits, moving/trying to get things deleted without consensus, things like that. Behavior among that category is typically telling of a user who would be likely to abuse admin powers. This is kinda low on this list because this is an easy mistake to learn from, but if left unchecked, it could lead to disastrous results.

How would you go about observing a candidate?

1. Check the ban record. I've already gone into great detail about this to a degree so I don't believe I need to repeat myself.
2. Go through their edit history for any red flags, such as temper problems, previous edit wars, their behavior when it comes to vandals and consensus, conflict resolution skills, how they've handled confrontations, etc. If any red flags show up, it then becomes a matter of finding out if they've learned from that or if they're likely to continue with that behavior.
3. Their relationship with the admins and bureaucrats. The staff are meant to work together to the best of their ability in regards to the different happenings on the wiki. It's okay if the candidate isn't fond of one or two of the admins, but if they can't work together with them on a matter, that presents concerns of their reliability in a team effort.
4. Rollback history. How trustworthy have they been with rollback? I personally have made mistakes with rollback misusage so I'm by no means expecting perfection, but I expect mostly responsible rollback usage.
5. Activity on other wikis. Granted, this is probably the least important thing to worry about, as we are SmashWiki, not any other wiki. However, if the editor in question is notable for being a problematic user on, say, MarioWiki, and they still continue such behavior to this day, that's something to consider.
6. One kind of iffy thing I can think of is CheckUser. This is a big if, because CheckUser shouldn't be used very often for privacy reasons. However, I think it's important to check that if we're dealing with a candidate that has had a history of sockpuppetry to see if it's a behavior they're still doing.
7. Lastly, their current activity. Even as their RfA is active, their current behavior is still subject to scrutiny. At any moment, they could say or do something that makes their application completely fall apart, so while a bureaucrat does need to observe the past, they also can't ignore their present activity either.

I believe that about covers everything. There are other minor "bonuses" I could include such as wikimarkup skills, but I feel wikimarkup isn't an entirely necessary point to determine a person's ability as an admin, more an added bonus than anything. Spent about two hours reflecting on my history as an admin for this response, largely based on what I've learned from my strengths and weaknesses as an admin. If you have any further questions on this topic or anything else regarding my candidacy, I'm ready to answer. Disaster Flare (talk) 12:02, April 10, 2020 (EDT)

<spam removed>

SmashWiki is not for off wiki business. Thank you. OmegαToαd the Toαd Wαrrior (BUP) 03:46, April 11, 2020 (EDT)

<spam removed>

At least explain in a way that wouldn'tbe considered spam or a personal attack. OmegαToαd the Toαd Wαrrior (BUP) 03:52, April 11, 2020 (EDT)

<spam removed>

Bump. Disaster Flare (talk) 10:47, April 14, 2020 (EDT)

---