SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship/Shadowcrest

NOTE: This user has since renamed to "Emmett".

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Result of discussion: promoted to bureaucrat

Shadowcrest (talk • contribs • edit count • RFA • RFB page)

Please direct all discussions to the talk page.

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

Since I'm running for bureaucrat- something only 3 users have done since my arrival for real- I'm going to bore you all with a wall of text explaining why I'm qualified and why I'm running.

To start, I want to help out the community. I do not mean to sound overly arrogant and self-important, but there aren't many people left who are viable candidates. Most of the current sysops either do not want to become bureaucrats or would not handle the role well. So in other words, I believe I am the best available candidate, offering at least a strong alternative to the few other possible candidates.

Something that I have to offer that other candidates don't is a different field of experience. Whereas others might know more about places like AllisBrawl and etc., I come from a background of other wikis. I've spent countless hours on multiple wikis, including GuildWiki, SmashWiki, Guild Wars Wiki and more recently DemiWiki- my second wiki-birthday is in 3 months. So I know how things work, and I know what's expected of me.

I also consider myself a good mediator/arbitrator. I have used my sysop tools when I have deemed it appropriate, but in general I have tried to resolve things via words or compromise if I feel the situation can be resolved in such a manner. So if you fear that I will become a dictator, as the joke goes, I don't think you have anything to worry about if you check through my contributions.

Speaking of contributions, I am quite proud of them. ~22/100 of all my contributions have been made in the SmashWiki/SmashWiki talk namespaces- about 3.3 times higher than C.Hawk, the next highest percentage from the active admins, and about 26.2 times higher than another admin from the active admins. I know I don't have one of the highest editcounts of the site, but the adage "quality, not quantity" is particularly apt here. I may not be very good at mainspace contributions, but mainspace isn't what you should be looking for in a bureaucrat- you should be looking at how they deal with policy matters and such. Seeing as policy was pretty much how I got into adminship (with handling user conflicts and dedication thrown in), it's pretty safe to say that if nothing else, I would excel in this field as a bureaucrat.

In terms of activity, I'd say I'm more active than every other admin except maybe Miles. Just throwing that out there :P
Edit: Also, as evidenced by the lengthy open time of this RfB and Defiant Elements' RfA, I think it is fair to say that I am more readily available for these types of things than C. Hawk.

The only thing I can't say that I could on my RfA is that I've done this before. I've been a sysop for over a year, but I have not ever been a bureaucrat before. But I have had experience dealing with them- I frequently discussed bureaucratic actions with them, finding out why they did what they did, questioning them, etc. So saying I am inexperienced is only true via technicality.

The last reason I feel I would be able to benefit the community as a bureaucrat is because of the "one man show" effect. I have never felt this way, but I know that many users have felt like past bureaucratic actions were sometimes elitist, ignored the people, or were insider decisions. While I disagree with this sentiment on nearly all cases, having two bureaucrats would lessen the feelings that the community is being dictated by a lone bureaucrat.

To those of you that read the WoT, thanks for reading.

To everyone who tl;dr'd: Shadowcrest McSerious 4 bcratz --Shadowcrest 17:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My candidate statement has become outdated. Random facts that need updating:

In 1 month, I'll have been editing wikis for 2 years. (And almost half that time on SmashWiki!)
The statistics about my edits to SmashWiki: namespaces are now incorrect. Defiant Elements now has the highest percentage other than me, at 16.1%; my percentage is now only 1.3x higher than the next highest admin. --Shadowcrest 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

Do want - Need I explain? He's enforced most of the wiki's policies, has proven to be capable of handling adminship, and is the most serious teenager on the internet. Blue Ninjakoopa 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
WOW... - You like massive walls of text, dont'cha? Anyways, you are obviously capable of being one, so all votes on Shadowcrest! --~The Blue Blur~^{New main in training!} 17:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Support You have shown that you are capable of quietly dealing with vandals and user conflicts, and I think you are experienced enough for bureaucratship. Cloned Pickle 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
SupportYou're a great admin and you do great work for the wiki.--Bek (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Of course. ~~(Doesn't this need to be transcluded onto SmashWiki:Requests for bureaucratship?)~~ (Already done). GT5162 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. More than competent. EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that the support votes could use a bit more substantiation, so here goes. Shadowcrest has made substantial contributions to the SmashWiki namespace (one of the hallmarks of a dedicated administrator) and he has, on countless occasions, proven himself to be capable of well-reasoned discourse and impartial decision-making (the hallmark of a good bureaucrat). Furthermore, there is nothing in his history that indicates that he would abuse the additional authority conferred upon him if this RfB were to be successful. Primarily for the reasons cited by Y462 below, I believe that it would be beneficial on the whole for there to be a second bureaucrat, and among the potential candidates (i.e. the sysops), I believe that Shadowcrest is the best suited for the role. I can elaborate further, if necessary, but I'd be surprised if I had anything to say that CHawk doesn't already know, so I'll leave it at that for the time being. – Defiant Elements +talk 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yuh-huh. He said my name! *backtosrs* Rly, though, Shadowcrest knows wikis. He earns this. Miles (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Shadowcretz noez his wiki tools. - Hatake91 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
SupportWell, Mr. Tin Plated Dictator with Delusions of Godhood, you've proven yourself capable at pretty much everything thaat a bureaucrat should be able to do.L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yea bro - Changed. Having only one bureaucrat that happens to be friends with a mod-bully is bad. Shadowcrest will do what he does best with power; neutralize. Dr. McSrs 4 bcratz. Blue Ninjakoopa 22:05, 7 May 2009 (U.TC)
(Putting support at the beginning of a vote fails since it's in the support section) Honestly he has been just in his use of his admin tools, and does have good judgment, which is the crucial for being a bureaucrat. UP/T/O 13:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. The Horror'^{Speak if you dare} 15:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Support - While I understand that it isn't absolutely mandatory for a wiki to have more than one bureaucrat, I do firmly believe that having more than one on a wiki will greatly benefit it for two main reasons.

One - As Shadowcrest mentioned on his request reason, there have been cases where users believed others or themselves were unfairly promoted/demoted of their status by the only active bureaucrat. Having more than one will lessen this effect.
Two - Lately, Clarinet Hawk's activity has been declining. As a result, the more recent RfR's, RfA's, and this RfB have lasted a much longer time than usual. In the event that Clarinet Hawk were to become inactive without promoting any other users to bureaucrat status, the wiki would start having issues with RfR's, RfA's, and RfB's. Having more than one bureaucrat increases the chances that there will always be an active bureaucrat handling them.

I trust Shadowcrest with the tools mainly because he has good judgement, and as SZL said it is crucial for being a bureaucrat. Y462 (T • C • E ) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:Section Header}} Catch 22: We need a new bureaucrat because the current one's inactive, but we can't get a new bureaucrat... because the current one's inactive - it's been almost three months, this is getting ridiculous. (I don't blame CHawk for being inactive, it's not his fault, and there's nothing he could do about it.) Shadowcrest has proven himself fully capable of handling the responsibilities that come with being a sysop, and I think that he would be even more useful to this wiki in the role of bureaucrat. Penguin of Death 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Support I'm really only doing this to give attention to this again. This place needs another B-crat, and this guy's the most qualified, simple enough. Will someone pass this one already? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

...

Neutral

Meh - I'm not sure how you would work with this tool to be honest. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Decidedly neutral (a) I don't think we need another bureaucrat (b) you have an errant definition of 'trolling' to include things that are definitely not, I think (c) you don't have the willingness to deal with certain vandals the way they ought to, and the way policy dictates (d) you've dealt with user conflict very well (e) you aren't an idiot, (f) you've used your sysop power fairly and accurately. I think I need to come down neutral on this one. Semicolon (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't include being a jackass in the definition of trolling, then yes, you are correct that you're not a troll. If you do, however, you're dead wrong.
"The way they ought to be dealt with" is a crap line, because it's entirely subjective. In my opinion, you're doing it wrong- if you're going to use it to oppose me then it might as well be factual. And by the way, if we're using that idiotic policy (that really ought to be deleted) as a way to dictate when and for how long users are banned, we're all in violation- especially you. "Try not to block ISP proxies since this would affect a wide number of users." Hmm, I wonder who took that side of the argument. I'll give you a hint- it wasn't you. Another side note- governing blocks and deletions with a policy is an extremely bad move.
If all of the above weren't enough, then there's also the fact that these opposes have nothing to do with being a bureaucrat. The appropriate place to have put these comments would have been my RfA, but it's a little late for that. Remember what powers bureaucrats have and what they use them to do- and banning isn't in their list of tools. --Shadowcrest 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only take that as an insinuation that I am, in fact, a jackass, making that a personal attack. I don't think we should have people personally attacking other members, a sysop no less in this case, as a bureaucrat.
Yes, it is subjective. But I happen to disagree with you on this very critical point, thus I don't want it to be implemented. This is a spin off of the 'it's just your opinion' argument, which it is. Which I'm both right about and completely entitled to, and can be used as grounds to oppose you.
Of course they are. You are asking for the highest position on this wiki, asking for power equal to that of the person who makes the ultimate decisions on that wiki, and to be honest, I don't want that person to be you. Being a bureaucrat isn't the expansion of a sysop, it's being in the position to be make the final decisions on all big matters on the wiki, and as I significantly and substantively disagree with you on many points (rather than resorting to ad hominem nasty insinuations about my character) then I legitimately oppose you on these measures. You're not helping yourself here. Semicolon (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the insinuation is true. I can wait until I talk to you on irc to elaborate, but the fact of the matter is that your attitude is not exactly desirable.

I can make/defend my decision just as easily as a sysop than I could as a bureaucrat (and also just as easily as a user. l2yav). So again, not relevant.

For starters, the highest position on the wiki would be a staff member, so zzz.

All of those things you're saying about a bureaucrat arise because of who the bureaucrats are. Bureaucrats are people who promote/demote users. The end, hope you enjoyed the show. They are not the ultimate authority. They are not the highest users on the food chain. They are not mediators. They are not the representatives of the community. They do not get what they want just because they say so. The most correct statement you made in that paragraph was "Being a bureaucrat isn't the expansion of a sysop", because it's not- and everything you're talking about is the job of the sysops. Sysops are the judges, the jury, and the executioners in all but maybe .01% of conflicts. Sysops do everything you're describing- mediating conflicts, arbitrating, blocks, and all the other diplomatic stuff you're talking about. And I've done it as a user and a sysop, so right off the bat there's proof that it doesn't have to do with being a bureaucrat. So if you want to go request a reconfirmation on the RfA be my guest- but that still doesn't help your case here. --Shadowcrest 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me point a few things out. First of all, the simple tools granted are not all that this is about. There is a certain amount of prestige associated with the title of bureaucrat, regardless of if that prestige is artificial or if you disagree with it existing. Possibly on other wikis it doesn't matter, but here it does and perception is quite important. Two, considering that the tools (and as you argue the entire point of being a bureau) allow promoting/demoting of sysops, if someone has a problem with your actions as a sysop it stands to reason that s/he would not want you to be making other people sysops as well. Three, you established precedent that actions as sysops are fair use in RfBs when you opposed Randall on the grounds that you disapproved of his actions as a sysop. You don't get it both ways. Four, one of the descriptions of bureaus is that s/he mediates user conflicts that transcend normal levels, so you are dead wrong in assuming that all you do is promote/demote. Basically, I haven't made up my mind about where I stand on this (hence the placing in the neutral area), but I do feel a need to respond to some of the things that have been said above. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In that, you are correct. There is an "air of superiority" that is associated with bureaucrats. It's crap, and I really and honestly wish people would stop putting sysops/bcrats on pedestals because of their positions, but yes, it's there. But that's still not why I'm running- I don't wish to abuse perceptions, as useful as that would be to me. Perhaps I could even work to reduce the informal bonus that we get along with our rights? ;)

The tools are still why I'm here. In terms of user rights, bureaucrats really are the final say, and I'm not advocating change for that. But even given that this argument is about the tools, my role as a sysop would remain what it is if I were to become a bureaucrat because they're not related. The only thing they could possibly have in common is if I were abusing my powers and you didn't trust me because of it... but seeing as that is not the case (unless that's what you're actually trying to say here?), it's still not relevant. And judges of things don't have to be good at what they're judging; for example, Semi frequently comments on strategical things in Starcraft, but freely admits that he can't himself play at the top level. People can know what they're talking about even if they can't do it.

Would you care less if I changed the word "sysop" to "user"? Because really that's what it comes down to. I don't really trust Randall not to be a bad influence on SmashWiki even as a regular user; I am a perfect example of how much regular users can influence things. So, given the lack of trust I have in his abilities at all, it's valid. You can argue that I'm trying to play both sides of the field, but that's not it; it was a wording inaccuracy.

Key words in that last point: "mediates user conflicts that transcend normal levels". As in, the only time a bureaucrat is really needed is when two sysops start a banning war. For everything else, a sysop can/should/will handle it. So no, I am not dead wrong that 99.99% of your job as a bureaucrat is promoting/demoting users. Everything else you do because of who you are. --Shadowcrest 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Two thing I still want cleared up. First, why exactly do you feel that you (or for that matter anyone besides me) needs the pro/demote tools. The use of those tools hardly ever comes up and the "one man show" perception argument that you forwarded has no basis in any dialogue I've seen out of users. If I've missed something, please point me in the direction of it and I'll be happy to review it. So, to use a question that you've popularized on the RfAs, "why do you need the tools to do your job better?" Secondly, your argument about judging not being equal to executing is legit, but the comparison you used is a false analogy. Semicolon's comments on Starcraft theory versus his playing are not (in his argument) equivocal to his comments on your sysop abilities. There is a difference between knowing what you need to do yet not being able to do it and not knowing what to do and still not doing it. In the case of Starcraft theory, Semi understands what needs to be done, he just lacks the means to execute it. His argument above (I believe) is that you don't understand how to effectively use the tools, ergo he doesn't trust you to be the one judging others capability to use them. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking me for DE, because I hate the "why do you need them" questions. It's basically a trick question- almost nobody ever needs the tools. The answer is always "I want to help the wiki", which sounds ridiculously lame, no matter how true it is. What can I offer that you can't? Not much, just a different perspective; but then, what other answers can be given? I would have access to the same tools as you, so...

Have you really never noticed the inferior attitude that most regular users give us? "I apologize for asking an off sunject question to an admin, but I can't find/ask you anywhere else. ", "The major difference between you and Salad is that he's the administrator, you aren't.", "C. Hawk will pass you within the instant he feels necessary to, [...] but he knows that we know youre one of his favorite users, so he's trying to hide it", "if CHawk opposes your RfB, I believe you will fail [...] if he opposes anyone on any thing, they will fail", "one thing I have been thinking for a while is that even though Semicolon said we don't need more than 1 Bcrat we cannot have users thinking that we have a corrupt BCrat"... etc etc... as much as it sucks (see 1 for my opinion), YAV is probably the most ignored "guideline" on the wiki.

Sure, there's a difference between knowing what to do and not being able to and not knowing what to do and not doing it. But, my case is the first. Take my ability to argue. I have good ideas, and it all makes sense in my head.. but when I start actually talking about it, I frequently talk myself into a corner and lose. I've been watching great sysops for close to two years, and I'm still not as good at my job as they are. I know what they're doing and why they're doing it, but when I try to defend it it sometimes gets mangled and distorted. So really, it's less that I don't know how to go about doing it than I don't know what I'm doing. Thankfully, being a bureaucrat doesn't require my sysop abilities, so don't bother trying to use the above paragraph to purport that I'm not competent enough. --Shadowcrest 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple things: YAV is a guideline not a policy. It isn't the official line, it's a recommendation. It's funny, too, because you're showing right now that you have absolutely no clue what an administrator is for. Let me show you how:

You say: "They are not the ultimate authority. They are not the highest users on the food chain. They are not mediators. They are not the representatives of the community."
Smashwiki official policy says: "They are usually entrusted to mediate user disputes, arbitrate users, and interpret policy during times of argument."

The simple fact of the matter is, they are the highest users on the food chain. What that page is meant to convey is that they are no more important than any other user. However, having additional privilegesby definition puts you on a higher plane than one who does not have those rights by definition. And Smashwiki official policy says they are mediators" and thus are representatives. I now move to oppose your nomination, given that you have (a) no idea what an administrator does (b) personally attacked me on this page (c) don't know what a troll is (d) we don't need another bureaucrat. Let's do one more of these, shall we?

You say: "Sysops do everything you're describing- mediating conflicts, arbitrating, blocks, and all the other diplomatic stuff you're talking about."
I say: "Being a bureaucrat isn't the expansion of a sysop, it's being in the position to be make the final decisions on all big matters on the wiki."
I say: "I don't trust or agree with you on most big matters pertaining to this wiki, that you would have position to rule on would you become a bureaucrat"

THUS this has everything to do with you being a bureaucrat, and nothing to do with you being a sysop. These aren't objections to you being a sysop. These are objections to you being a bureaucrat, by the transitive law of obvious, which you staunchly ignore. Also, an addendum:

You say: "And judges of things don't have to be good at what they're judging; for example, Semi frequently comments on strategical things in Starcraft, but freely admits that he can't himself play at the top level. People can know what they're talking about even if they can't do it."

Here's something to consider: Joe the plumber judging figure skating, or Charlie Manson judging the relative performances of sumo wrestlers. What you seem to be saying is that you don't need to know what you're talking about in order to judge it, which is just downright ridiculous. You say 'be good at' but I consider knowing what you're talking about to be 'good at.' C-Hawk rightly distinguishes between execution and knowledge, but you don't, and I can't abide that. I understand the theory of StarCraft, to take your example and run with it, but my APM is only ~120 average. In order to properly execute everything I know, I'd need twice that. When I'm watching the games, I can see where this player or that player should have done something differently, and I can judge who should come out on top by their respective strategies. Similarly, however, some shmoe on his couch on Sunday's watching the Steelers play and yelling at the screen because he thinks he knows what they should have done is not the same thing. In this analogy, I'm equating you with the armchair quarterback. Semicolon (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're enjoying pulling technicalities. I also find it funny that you continue to staunchly ignore the fact that administrators are not bureaucrats, and they never have been. Please read Help:User access levels#What can bureaucrats do on a wiki?; you're in the entirely wrong section for all those admin (please note, admin is NOT synonymous with bureaucrat) duties you continue to assert are the admin's jobs. But if you're going to keep quoting the policy at me anyway, reread SmashWiki:Administrators#What can administrators not do?, specifically the second to last line: "Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered 'in charge'." So, the simple fact of the matter is not that they're the top of the food chain; ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A. Your definition of who is higher fails, because according to you "the definition is what the people make of it on smashwiki: there are some very powerful individuals and those without and powerful ones decide what becomes policy and what doesn't." Not only have you just supported my "one man show" theory, but it doesn't even hold water because I, as a regular user with no extra tools, managed to change the wiki more than everyone else I've seen since I've been here. So already there's a case that breaks your definition. So in my opinion, you have even less of an idea of what you're talking about than I do. And do note this is an opinion, so it is just as valid as yours, which is entirely opinion anyway- you said so yourself.

So, those three points of yours don't have to do with me being a bureaucrat, and everything to do with me being a sysop. The only time a bureaucrat truly has the final say is when sysops can't resolve things themselves, and they usually do, so bureaucrats usually don't. In fact, you are partly responsible for giving bureaucrats all the implied powers you're talking about. So if you don't like it, change it. You said you enjoy arguing; get to it, go convince people to stop putting us on pedestals.

Unlike in your examples about Joe the Plumber (though I appreciate the reference, politics ftw), I know what I'm talking about. I am not saying you don't have to know what you're talking about in order to be a good judge, but just because you're not good at what you do doesn't mean you can't judge it. The step team teacher at my high school is a fat lady who is extremely uncoordinated, but the step team is awesome. She's a great coach, even if she can't do it herself. So, like Ms. Horman, I am able to judge whether or not a candidate is viable even though I may not be the perfect sysop myself. In this analogy, you're Sarah Palin- you're not in Kansas anymore.

And oceans of opinion ftl. --Shadowcrest 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

More important than the penultimate line of this paragraph is its last line: "The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community." It seems that replacing "admin" with "bureaucrat" is also a good statement to keep in mind. This isn't about Shadowcrest's "delusions of godhood" -- it's about him trying to reduce the amount of work required of C-Hawk by creating redundancy in the system. And that's an important step. Miles (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To Semicolon: If you oppose him now, shouldn't you put a vote in the oppose section?L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)