SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Policy.png 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.
Shortcut:
SW:RFB

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.

Requests

Clarinet Hawk

Well, here I am. Given the current climate of the Smash Wiki and the certain changing of the guard that is taking place in the membership, I felt that it was prudent that we again begin discussion of administrative roles and responsibilities. However, before we can begin doing such a thing, we need to make sure that there are persons that are able to arbitrate such discussions. As Kirby King has stated that he cannot do this alone, and Charitwo's RfB seems to have stalled out, I have decided to request that I be given the responsibilities and roles of a bureaucrat. Before I get into why I am requesting it, I will give links to both my successful RfA and my contributions. Both of these I feel detail much of my content editing and previous administrative work. I will mostly allow those items to speak for themselves, but I will detail a few specific examples from them below.

First let me explain why I want to be a bureaucrat. Over the past few months, the wiki has seen a huge number of new RfAs followed by the complete (and possibly premature) closing of all of them. This ultimately was the right decision, but left out a few key steps that would have made it work better. The large number of people that were applying and the vote manufacturing that was occurring was taking valuable time away from content editing, and especially merging the page histories (now thankfully done). However, as there was no provision to reopen sysop nominations, this was at least partially a failure. While the RfA process is not in and of itself purely democratic, it is understandable that people would be embittered by the abrupt closing of all nominations with no discussion of the individual attributes of each nomination. As a bureaucrat, I have a solution to remedy the problem. I say remedy, not fix, as the damage from that problem has been done. We will have to start over, as too much time has passed for any of the previous RfAs to still be salient. What I propose is that we begin a longer process of the road to adminship, and diversify the possession of tools. This would entail a Request for Rollback rights, which must be competed before beginning. By this measure, bureaucrats (hopefully including myself) could grant the tool of Rollback to deserving users. This would provide many advantages to the current system. Firstly, many users are requesting to become sysops simply to be able to revert vandalism. This provides a way for the community to grant them this ability without conferring upon them other responsibilities of adminship. Secondly, providing more users the ability to revert vandalism will allow the administrators more time to focus on other responsibilities. Finally, by requiring that users first have a successful RfR before an RfA allows the community to judge the requester's ability to use one of the tools that is granted to sysops. I propose this plan as being my first act if I am chosen to become a bureaucrat.

As for my personal qualifications to become a bureaucrat, I again point to my previous RfA. I have shown a great deal of dedication to this wiki since even before I was promoted to sysop. I merged many of the page histories from back when Wikia and the Smash Wiki merged. I have also had to arbitrate many user disputes and edit wars. I have always kept a level head through these and discussed them with all parties involved. Yet I have also been stern about the rules and what is expected of users. When it has come to having to administrate in the cases of block worthy content, my leaning has be to always avoid permanent or long term blocks except in the case of vandal accounts. I have done what I could to keep this wiki together during some difficult arguments between users and always tried to stress that every person can have something positive to contribute to this wiki. As a bureaucrat, my goal would be to help users get the tools they deserve to help this wiki and to continue to arbitrate user disputes. I welcome any and all questions, support, or criticism at this time. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Well spoken, Clarinet Hawk. I have seen your editing and administrative prowess in action around the site, and this is a key requirement for being a bureaucrat. Furthermore, I agree strongly with many of your RfA and RfR ideas. You have my whole-hearted support. 5280s (talk · contributions) 18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Took you long enough. I strongly support. There's no reason you shouldn't be a bureaucrat. Cheezperson (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • AS STRONG AS A SUPPORT AS THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE I saw your contributions and RfA. You truly deserve to be a Bureaucrat. And I must say, you've used your sysop powers quite properly and responsibly."SK--Bow down to the king.~Now what have you done? 23:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support There's no good reason why not. He's the most active sysop, and as I understand it, the difference in power between sysop and bureaucrat is not that great. He's a knowledgeable and dedicated member of the community. Support'd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semicolon (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 September 2008
  • your kidding right? [its mario] Strong Support He is the most active sysop, always cleans up page etc. JtM =^] (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose eh... you just seem... uhm... well, to be blunt, you have been a little harsh lately... cool down, and i'll move it up to support (maybe) KP317 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • My stance is at the bottom.
    • I feel that your contributions do not directly pertain to your capabilities as a bureaucrat, that many of the votes on your RfA have nothing to do with your qualifications, and that your content-related sysop actions are also irrelevant. (I also feel that a few of the votes here are similarly irrelevant.) Your contributions to content-related namespaces show almost nothing about your personality and how you will act in situations that require bureaucrat attention and/or are controversial. They show dedication (which is important), but that alone is not enough to promote a user to bureaucrat. Your content-related sysop actions fall under the same general umbrella. However, user-related actions (such as bannings for non-content-related-things) do show your personality/ability to reason, etc.etc., but I will reserve judgment on that for the time being. Now on to the votes here and on your RFA. "He's the most active sysop." Moderate+ activity is definitely a requirement (at least enough to be generally knowledgeable of what's going on), but it doesn't inherently qualify you to be a bureaucrat. "He is the most active sysop, always cleans up page etc." As noted above, contribs aren't a measure of effectiveness of a bureaucrat. Though I will say I strongly disagree with something negative said here though (surprised, eh?): "well, to be blunt, you have been a little harsh lately... cool down, and i'll move it up to support (maybe)." Being nice isn't anywhere close to being a requirement for bureaucrat. There is a minimal-level of respect and consideration that is expected in any community, but he doesn't have to be a carebear. Sometimes the bluntest of bureaucrats make the best of bureaucrats. Also, need less appeals to emotion. (There are some relevant ones, however: Blue's, 5280's [Miles'], SmoreKing's are all good, though it would have been better if they listed edits for support; the knowledgeable/dedicated part of Semicolon's is also valid, though that's not everything I'd expect of a bureaucrat.) Since this honestly doesn't need to be cluttered with comments from your RfA, I'll paraphrase: "He's nice, he edits a lot, and he's talented at smash." I've already said why I don't think these are relevant; take them as you will.
    • I'm glad that even though you think closing RfA's was a good idea, you were able to find fault in it, thereby showing you don't find your actions infallible. That's good. What I am completely and totally baffled by is why you plan to implement these changes to the adminship situation only if you become a bureaucrat. The only reason you would (should) have any more say in anything relating to those changes is that you along with KirbyKing would be promoting the users. Those changes should be implemented by Clarinet Hawk the user along with all the other users of SmashWiki via concensus, not arbitrarily put in place by C.Hawk the bureaucrat. I am interested to know how you will respond to this, because (imo) it's the most crucial bit I have against your promotion.
The only reason that I didn't say that I would implement these policies now is that Kirby King had expressed unease with him being the only bureaucrat that is available to mediate such policies. I felt that it would be unfair of me to implement or start the impetus to implement such policies that would require work that 1) I could not do myself, and 2) force it upon someone who had previously expressed his desire not to be the only one capable of such actions. Should I not be give the bureaucrat position, I would still whole-heartedly support such measures as I have suggested. However, given recent circumstances, I find it unfair and unwise to implement such actions in the status quo. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I am also concerned about some things including your wording in the 3rd paragraph. "I have also had to arbitrate many user disputes and edit wars." Arbitrate? While I'm fairly confident you won't be, I'd like to be certain that you won't become Tyrant McBureauhawk. Mediation would be prefered in 75%+ of situations imo. "When it has come to having to administrate in the cases of block worthy content, my leaning has be to always avoid permanent or long term blocks except in the case of vandal accounts." I can only assume you and I have drastically different perceptions of long-term then. A month doesn't seem 'short-term' to me. I do have another point involving contradiction and possible bias, but I myself am personally involved. So while I think I am unbiased, that may well not be the case; so I will try not to poison the well with the specifics. Email me if you must, or contact me on IRC.
  • In conclusion, I will neutral Clarinet Hawk's nomination for the time being, with very very mild leanings to support, assuming my questions are unanswered. When they are answered, my position will likely change. --Shadowcrest 01:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Just remember, wikez r srius bzns. Semicolon (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I Strongly Support. You're an awesome sysop, so i think you'll be an awesome bureaucrat! PLEASE, SOMEONE TALK TO ME! 02:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=SmashWiki:Requests_for_bureaucratship&oldid=275583"