SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship

This page documents an official SmashWiki policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

This page is for requesting that one become a Bureaucrat on the Smash Wiki.

Rules

• Only persons that are already sysops may request a position as a bureaucrat.
• Only self-nominations are allowed.
• All new nominees should post their name below as a in a level 3 header (===Username===). 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 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.
• 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.

Archives

Clarinet Hawk Tritem

Requests

Randall00

See here: SmashWiki:Requests_for_adminship/Randall00 (actually reading it would be appreciated, too) - the application is the same in my mind. --RJM ^Talk 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Could you tell us how Randall the bureaucrat would be different from Randall the sysop? I know you're qualified, but using your RfA as your RfB is kind of a thumbs down for me. I'm neutral as of right now. Cheezperson (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Fail, Fail, Double Fail. Sorry, but your appearences here have been quite sporatic lately. KP317 (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral, and I'll tell you why. While I think that the majority of what you've done for the site is beneficial, it also seems like you sometimes lose your temper, and this has made you rather unpopular among certain users. I think that discipline is acceptable within reason, but perma-bans don't really show people that you're cool-tempered. These conflicting pieces of evidence land me right in the middle. Unless you can show me and the rest of the site that your temper has improved, this position is unlikely to change. 5280s (talk · contributions) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's of a continual surprise to me that everyone seems to have this image as someone who will fly off the handle and "lose his temper." Maybe you have to be involved with the conversations right from where they began, but the fact is, I've done nothing more than defend myself and to this day, I would argue that every ban I've ever made would've been beneficial to the SmashWiki project as a whole today if they had been left in place. This is the only social avenue in my entire life where I've been referred to as "hot-tempered"-I'm in fact quite peaceable and quiet; I just don't let people berate me personally and I don't believe anyone should just sit and take that unprovoked. But yes, because of all of this and because of the considerably larger and considerably louder people who don't seem to think I'm all that cool anymore, I'm not surprised that my show for support here has weakened tremendously from my response as a sysop. Frankly, I don't even know what real operational advantage a Bureaucrat has over a sysop in the Wikia universe because I'm fairly sure you still don't get access to the MediaWiki files on the server and thus, I can't even say what I could offer to the community in that position. All I can promise is that every tool I am granted will be put towards making SmashWiki the best source of Smash Bros.-related information on the internet. If you don't believe me, it's just a waste of my skill set, and a baseless and unnecessary distrust in what I'm here for in the first place. --RJM ^Talk 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from. I'm not saying that I personally consider you to be hot-tempered. Rather, is seems that enough people see you that way that your bureaucratship would likely only make them unhappy with the administration again. Unfortunately, many of this site's regular users see the situation this way. I think this should be used as your opportunity to make amends. (I'm Jewish, and let's say it's that time of year.) I only said neutral because I don't want the whole argument over why the admins are evil to start up again. 5280s (talk · contributions) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. Im not quite sure what the difference between Randall the Sysop and Randall the bureaucrat is. JtM =^] (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't trust you as a sysop; I don't trust you as a bureaucrat. --Shadowcrest 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. From what I remember (I witnessed the incident from the beginning), You made 5 bans total of that incident, with two being reverted because the two had nothing to do with the incident. CH shortened them to a month, and that seemed to work quite well on them. Yesterday, Fyre banned two of the same accounts. One was unbanned because he was an established User (her reason to ban him in the first place was that he had the same IP address). Even Fyre (with all due respect to her), who everyone knows has one of the worst tempers here, felt that only a month would be sufficient. While I still believe it's a bit harsh, it's not as harsh as infinite bans. Therefore, I'd like to stay neutral. MarioGalaxy {talk} 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

None of that as anything to do with being qualified for a bureaucrat position, but I should expect nothing less, I suppose. --RJM ^Talk 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. sorry, but you aren't on here much lately. nothing personal, of course. Xtrme (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)