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.

Shortcut:
SW:RFB

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

Rules

Only users 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.

Current Requests

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 failed.
	Reason:	It is clear at this point that there is too much debate around this candidate for a promotion to be in order. Toomai Glittershine The Pan-Galactic 10:33, 16 November 2015 (EST)

Miles of SmashWiki (talk • contribs • edit count • RFB page)

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

I'm Miles of SmashWiki. I have been a SmashWiki editor since May 2008, and a SmashWiki admin since December 2008. I previously presented myself as a candidate for bureaucratship in August 2009, and was unsuccessful. It has been 6 years since then, and circumstances are very different. The site is different, the userbase is different, and I feel that I have matured as a person, as an editor, and as a leader for this community.

A bit of history: for a very long period of time, SmashWiki has operated with a single bureaucrat, who as a result is responsible for managing all the responsibilities of that role. When SmashWiki moved from Wikia to being hosted by Porplemontage in 2010, our last active bureaucrat was Emmett, who was unable to continue in that role. Upon leaving, he promoted then-admin Toomai to bureaucrat without a formal RfB process. In the five years since that time, Toomai has been SmashWiki's sole bureaucrat.

Toomai has done an excellent job. Nevertheless, I believe that the site could be better off having more than one bureaucrat, so we are not singularly dependent upon him. In light of a few instances of somewhat reduced activity from Toomai, I feel that I would be a good candidate for the bureaucrat role.

There's a few main tasks that I would be empowered to act upon as a bureaucrat that I cannot as an admin:

Renaming users. Toomai has generally done a good job with this, and I feel I could do so as well.
Interwiki table management. Not a crucial point, but given that some Smash series lack NIWA wikis to link to, we may want to discuss if there are other wikis worth cross-linking to through Special:Interwiki (for example, the Xenoblade Wikia).
Managing user rights. Requests for rollback and requests for adminship have been languishing a bit of late. We've had 6 RfAs in the last few months; 4 of these have only been resolved by the candidate withdrawing themselves, including one case where the RfA more or less sat there unresolved for two months. I feel that nobody benefits from leaving things unresolved for so long, and a few weeks is usually plenty for most issues in the RfA process to be spelled out in such a way as to present consensus or lack thereof.

So what makes a good candidate for bureaucratship? This is a bit of a tough question, given that we have not had a new one in so long. However, I think I am a good candidate for the following reasons:

Experience. I am one of the most experienced editors on SmashWiki, in terms of time and quantity of edits; as to the latter point, counting both my old and current accounts, I have over 22,000 edits to SmashWiki. I have a deep familiarity with both Smash and this site.
Back-end contributions. I have contributed significantly towards writing and updating policy for this site. I authored pages like SW:NOT, SW:TRIVIA, SW:IMAGE, SW:NEWGAME, and SW:TONE; I also worked on a significant revision to SmashWiki's Help pages to make them less Wikia-styled. I regularly make updates and revisions to SmashWiki's infobox and navigation templates, in order to make the site more useful and navigable.
Front-end contributions. I also frequently work towards contributing to SmashWiki's mainspace content. This includes editing existing pages, but also implementing many other large pages from scratch. Recent examples of this include overhauling List of voice actors, and creating List of minor universes, List of Super Smash Bros. 4 character posters, List of composers, and Tournament legal (SSB4). I also have worked on large batch edits such as standardization of Japanese names, and implementing pages for Smash Tour items and Mii costume characters. Another area I frequently contribute to is managing ongoing projects like tracking recent appearances, keeping the amiibo page up to date, and updating the downloadable content page.
Dispute handling. Handling disputes between users is one of the most difficult tasks an admin is faced with, especially if both users are displaying good faith and are not factually incorrect. I will admit to having had difficulty with dispute handling in the past, but I believe I have gotten better at such things, and I take seriously the feedback of other users. I seek to find a middle ground where the needs of the wiki and the desires of the users involved are best satisfied, whenever possible. Consensus is key, and I frequently seek more users' opinions whenever a discussion appears to have gotten stuck, as a way of trying to reach a better conclusion.

With all that said, I would appreciate your thoughts, and would be glad to answer any questions. However you vote, I hope that I can continue to be a good leader for SmashWiki. Miles (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (EDT)

Support

Support We probably need more bureaucrats since Toomai hasn't been online frequently. ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is a never lover boy 00:53, 1 November 2015 (EDT)
Strong Support I've seen you around every day. You're a great sysop. Like ZeldaStarfoxfan2164, we may need more bureaucrats since some of the bureaucrats are inactive. That would be a fresh start to have a newer bureaucrats. Luigi540 (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (EDT)
Strong Support Per the previous two, we need a new bureaucrat, and you've done an amazing job as an admin. Also, no hard feelings on your opposition of my adminship, I've been doing my best to improve. Disaster Flare (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2015 (EDT)
Adding to my opinions due to suggestions on doing so. My main reason for thinking you'd do great is because of how well of a job you've done as admin. You've worked every day practically non-stop trying to protect the wiki, as well as the community, when you could've very easily decided to do something else instead. While you have made poor decisions in the past, the fact that you can say that you've learned from them and know now exactly what you should've done differently is a very commendable and respectable trait, a trait I honestly don't see a lot from people these days. Out of any admin, past, present, or future, you'd be the next most capable of being a Bureaucrat, and I'll be rooting for you on getting it. Good luck Miles. Disaster Flare (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2015 (EST)
~~VERY strong support~~ You are a very good administrator, very good at dispute handling, uses the blocking tool effectively, and last of all, we need a new bureaucrat, as toomai isn't on frequently. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 04:01, 1 November 2015 (EST)
I now switch to ~~VERY, VERY strong support~~, as I think you will not abuse the user rights tool, edit interwiki data effectively, etc. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 06:53, 1 November 2015 (EST)
I now switch back to VERY strong support, as OT is making everybody suddenly oppose, But this user is known for hating on Miles. (I still support Miles for being a fantastic admin. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:38, 15 November 2015 (EST)
You know a comment that doesn't address the arguments and only doubles down because "OT is just hating" only makes the support side look worse, and reinforces the point that the only people who approve of Miles are newer inexperienced/incompetent users who don't fully understand what goes into making this wiki successful? You can support Miles all you want, but if you actually want to see this RfB succeed, you need to put up a real argument. Omega Tyrant 11:46, 15 November 2015 (EST)
1. I ain't no newbie, I ain't no inexperienced, I ain't no incompetent user. 2. What makes a wiki successful? 1. Good sysops/bcrats/devs 2. Good faith users. 3. I'd rather not get into an arguement, OK? INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:54, 15 November 2015 (EST)
It's not an argument, it's basic supporting your opinion. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 15 November 2015 (EST)

So I checked and you been here for less than three months, and with your comments here...yeah it reinforces the aforementioned perception. And just so you know the wiki doesn't operate on vote count, so you'll need to put up a real argument in your support if you wish to counteract the opposition. No matter how strong one claims their support is will it mean anything if the commenter attached to it provides nothing of substance to support it. Omega Tyrant 12:16, 15 November 2015 (EST)

You might as well go back to VERY VERY strong support if your reason for a less supportive vote is OT causing this RFB to collapse around itself, because bandwagon is the worst reason to change vote. Same goes with Nintendofan. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 12:13, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Or, the opposition has a lot stronger arguments than the support and users are realising that. You can come up with counter-arguments instead of claiming it to be a "bandwagon". Omega Tyrant 12:16, 15 November 2015 (EST)
No Omega. He said word for word "OT is making everyone suddenly oppose". He said nothing about their arguments. You seem to be firing shots aimlessly at all sides, including your own. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 12:28, 15 November 2015 (EST)
So pointing out faults in one's argument (or lack of argument) is now "aimlessly firing shots"? Omega Tyrant 12:48, 15 November 2015 (EST)

~~Then support your argument with precise facts and examples to counteract this. Otherwise, you will win back no one. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 12:31, 15 November 2015 (EST)~~

@NB: At this point I have no idea who you are talking to, but even though you put your post just below mine, I believe that was directed to INoMed because notging in that comment had anything to do with what I said. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 12:38, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Whoops, I misunderstood what you were saying. My B. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 12:43, 15 November 2015 (EST)

@OT: My lack of argument? It's INoMed who I was talking to. He specifically said that he weakened his vote because you changed their minds, not because the opposers had a good argument. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 14:56, 15 November 2015 (EST)
I don't get this "VERY, VERY strong support" vote without bring up a "very, very positive that Miles should be bureaucrat argument" thing. Is it just trying to make the quantitative side of the support side stronger? Dots (talk) The Violin 15:20, 15 November 2015 (EST)
...yes...shouldn't that be obvious for you? Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 15:36, 15 November 2015 (EST)
ganonmew i only switched because i looked at their history more and i find that unless they can stop fighting i aint changing to support... you understand? Nintendofan1653 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Why do you even care he took off one "very" from his "support"? The wiki doesn't care how big you try claiming your support is, when the attached comments hold nothing of substance. You and the rest can say how your support is VERY STRONG with as many bolded adverbs you want, it's not going to magically make your "vote" worth more. Omega Tyrant 16:03, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Wow, looks like I'm not the only one making a bunch of mistakes. Not meaning to be rude here, though. Pika, Wild Turkey Appeared! 09:50, 16 November 2015 (EST)
~~Same as INoMed~~ Very strong support It's true you can be stubborn or hasty sometimes. But the important thing is, you learn from your mistakes. You've been an invaluable contributor to this wiki, and you've been doing just as well since the day I joined. Plus, a semi-active bureaucrat (Toomai) isn't enough. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (EST)
Just going to make my points a little bit more clear... Miles is unlikely to do the same mistake even twice, has contributed in everything regarding this wiki (SW:TONE for example), is always one of the first to assist other users, and actively fights for the wiki's well-being. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2015 (EST)
Shifting to support because... Omega Tyrant. While it is true you have to improve in a few ways, I still think you can do it. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2015 (EST)
Very Strong Support per everything I said so far. Toomai appears to be out-of-touch, and the Marth incident had been resolved nicely (no thanks to me of course...) feel you are the optimal bcrat as of now. Ganonmew, The TERRIFYING Evil Clone 05:27, 1 November 2015 (EST)
~~Very Strong Support.~~ You probably do more for this wiki than anybody else. Other users have already stated what you're good at on the wiki, so I won't be redundant. We need more bureaucrats too, and you're the best choice for that. John PK SMAAAASH!! 07:50, 1 November 2015 (EST)
Support Somewhat continuing DBM2's point; despite complaints that the userbase may give you at times, that doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, a good admin. You make sure people do what they need to do, you make sure that people are improving on the wiki (hell, to my understanding and memory, it was you who made the SW:TONE thing), and frankly, I think bureaucratship is a good way to head in the right direction. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 08:37, 1 November 2015 (EST)
support just yes that is all i have to say because you fit perfect for the job Nintendofan1653 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2015 (EST)
i am changing to oppose because you and omega fighting is really putting a bad taste in new users mouths and tainting your reputation, just forgive and forget Nintendofan1653 (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2015 (EST)
btw would you not like because of the change to oppose Nintendofan1653 (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Miles and Omega Tyrant has been warring for YEARS. (Not trying to light the fuse) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:22, 11 November 2015 (EST)
i just think that the new users would think we have bad admins if they them talk Nintendofan1653 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2015 (EST)
I understand, but new users are irrelevant to this RfB. (Just saying) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:28, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I actually think Miles is being a bit better with these latest discussions, if a little frank. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:45, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Support. I'm still not sure that your dispute handling is 100% there yet (I agree it is getting better), but you'd be a perfect bureaucrat otherwise IMO. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 10:40, 1 November 2015 (EST)
I'd like to point out that while, yes, Miles has definitely had significant problems in the past with disputes, he seems to be getting much better with them. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 11:23, 15 November 2015 (EST)
I highly suggest you read my posts in the comments where I thoroughly debunk this "improvement" claim, shit like the Marth incident and the attitude he displayed here wouldn't be happening if he was "better". Also, it shouldn't be a remote thought on anyone's mind if a 7 year admin has "improved" during his run for bureaucrat. You're an admin now, you should know better than this and fully understand what bureaucrat entails. Omega Tyrant 11:31, 15 November 2015 (EST)
An extra dose of level-headedness wouldn't go amiss, although the doses you've taken thus far are prevalant, and really, time will tell when it comes to this. I see no reason to oppose this. Just keep up your self-improvement and critique acceptance. All that said, Support. ScoreCo un ter 16:01, 1 November 2015 (EST)
Given the below commentary, I think I'll enhance my reasoning a bit more. Whilst it is true that we do indeed have an active B'crat, and that has seemed efficient for some time, the fact that there is no deliberate need to have an another should neither sway anyone towards Support or Oppose. We're trying to answer the question "Does/can this person need/deserve/be trusted with the related powers?" I do indeed think that Miles having these powers will at least be of some benefit to the wiki, as it will help the system run better, as that would mean more time is covered, so to speak. Based off his contributions both to the technical side of the wiki and the community aspect, I think that I am justified in saying that he does meet the requirements of being a BC. However, here, I hit a snag, as there has been some rough patches in the past, including multiple scuffles with OT, two of which coming to mind, which I really wouldn't want to migrate to scuffles between Miles and Toomai. However, I do note that, bar the exception that quite a few people had noted, and I don't feel like I need to, he has not had, to my memory, too many disputes with other editors on the wiki, particularly so in recent history - before that, not so much. Therefore, my end argument is this - I support this RFB not only because Miles, in my opinion, satisfies those conditions, but that I find no substancial reasoning not to. Certanly, should such reasons arise in the future, my opinion may change, but, until such a time, I will keep my opinion as support. However, I will note one other thing - should this RFB be passed, this will leave us in the slightly awkward position of having two BC's. To bring British Law into this, in a Magistrate's court, you either have one Magistrate, or three, never two. The reason for this is obvious - irresolvable disagreements are very likley, a 1/3 random chance, as opposed to a 1/5 random chance with, four. Hence why I really don't want disagreements between the two. However, I do think it's unlikley, and we can resolve it if it happens. ScoreCo un ter 16:44, 6 November 2015 (EST)
Full Support. If you've helped all past users like me, I'm all for it. Even if not, I'm sure that you'll make a good bureaucrat. Pika, Wild Turkey appeared! Talk 15:40, 6 November 2015 (EST)
I'd just like to note that you aren't just a good candidate, you're pretty much the only candidate, unless OT becomes fully active all of a sudden or Nyargle demonstrates a need for the b'crat powers. And speaking of needing, I'm not entirely convinced you need the powers (I'll change this to a support if you can prove me of this). It would definitely be beneficial if we had another user handling renames and RfRs, but outside of Serpent King we really haven't had a legitimate RfA candidate in a while (at least off the top of my head), and that seems to be the driving force behind this application (and that's something you outright say here). Overall, all that, combined with your generally consistent activity, leads me to a mild support. - EndGenuity (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2015 (EST)
I can prove that Miles needs Bcrat piwers. 1. Toomai is the only one currently promoting users to Rollbacker, admin, and bcrat status as of now. 2. Miles could help make interwiki linking easier by adding more wikis to the list using the interwiki table. 3. Miles would be able to rename users (SW:NAMECHANGE compliance needed) if Toomai is nowhere to be seen. (Does that change your vote to Support?) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:05, 7 November 2015 (EST)
Actually no it doesn't. I specifically asked Miles to be the one to prove that he needed the powers. I'll still bump it to a support anyway though, it's been quite the time since we had a fresh bureaucrat, I'd like to see how things would go if he was one. - EndGenuity (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2015 (EST)
I think you have improved a bit since the whole tirade between you and OT. In fact, I think both of you have improved. You also have been helpful for those that needed it. Thus, I'll lend my support. Berrenta (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2015 (EST)
Support. I find you to be one of the most helpful users I've met on here. Not a huge bunch else I can add, but you're still a really good contributor overall. F0rZ3r0F0r (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2015 (EST)
Very Strong Support. You are great at catching vandals, settling disputes, and just moderating the site in general. Aweso melink234 PK FLASHBOMB! 07:58, 9 November 2015 (EST)

Oppose

What the hell Miles shouldn't even be an admin, let alone a bureaucrat. Omega Tyrant 09:02, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Here we go, it's ToastUltimatum all over again. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 09:05, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Don't make it worse... Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:06, 11 November 2015 (EST)
it has begun Nintendofan1653 (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Yes, and I'm trying to stop it before it actually gets stared. Please, don't make it any worse than it needs to be. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 09:09, 11 November 2015 (EST)

...um, care to elaborate? Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:24, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Simply, the two necessary traits for a bureaucrat, are their judgment, and the ability to arbitrate. From my five years of observing and interacting with Miles, he has shown some astonishingly poor judgment that never improved, and there are nonadmins that shown better capability at arbitrating and handling user disputes. And unlike admins, there's no significant janitorial use for bureaucrats, so Miles' one true strength is irrelevant here. Not to mention this RfB strikingly reminds me of Miles' RfA, which was a textbook "why not?" promotion, and as Miles been a brilliant example of over the years, you should never promote users on the basis of "why not we need more". Omega Tyrant 11:03, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Personally, the way I see it is he's saying, in addition to the "why not have more", "I think I'm ready for this and can handle it well". (And that's not to say that he is or isn't.) Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 11:06, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I just want to point out that Miles has probably been assuming good faith in all users to OT. Now I've said this, I'm scared to the maximum. Pika, Wild Turkey Appeared! 09:55, 16 November 2015 (EST)
Light oppose I think Miles is a useful admin, certainly, but the iffy reputation surrounding him makes it hard to put Miles at the highest rank available, and I think that given time, Nyarglebargle and Serpent King would make better bureaucrats, thanks to the higher professionalism they show off. But if the need for a bureaucrat is there, who am I to stand in the way? Toast ltimatum 11:02, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Technically, a crat isn't the highest position available. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 11:04, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Iffy Oppose I think that when someone in a position of power uses that power for their benefit (as with the SSB4 Marth page incident), that's a sign that they shouldn't be given more power. While I did agree somewhat with what Miles was trying to do in that situation ("decisively" is rarely a word you can use in a neutral article IMO), the choice to protect the page came off as an abuse of power. To be fair, I haven't been around the wiki very often lately, so I don't really know how things have been for the past while, which is why I've labeled this as an "iffy" oppose. ♡FirstaLasto♥ 03:36, 14 November 2015 (EST)
Strong Oppose It took a lot of thought for me to come to this decision. I regretted supporting you ever since I first put support on here, because I didn't give it enough thought, and OT and the others are right. You've barely shown any signs of improving, as much as I hate to admit it, not just to you, but to myself as well. When it comes to the decisions I make here, there are people I always think of that go on here, my friends, no, my family, and how it'd affect them, and the fact that you've barely shown any improvement makes putting you in a bureaucrat position very dangerous, for you, me, and this entire wiki in general. This is my final vote. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2015 (EST)
Slight Oppose Me being mostly inactive the past year probably won't give this vote much weight, but even when I was active his track record was a bit spotty. An old friend and, most of the time, a decent admin, but a bureaucrat I'm going to have to say no. I agree per the votes above the incidents that have happened, especially the more recent ones, make him not the best choice for bureaucrat Unknown the Hedgehog 13:48, 14 November 2015 (EST)
VERY Strong Oppose I have to agree with what OmegaTyrant said in the first place-he's a decent moderator at best. Admittedly, he's of a sound an logical mind in casual situations he's needed, but when it comes to handling disputes on the wiki, Miles is incredibly one-sided, is often a late responder (see the end of [1] <- this, for example), and when it comes to following SmashWiki policies (SW: TALK, for example), he can be incredibly two-faced and hypocritical at times. Furthermore, I've noticed on many occasions that if he happens to be on the losing end of an argument, he'll immediately try to shut down his opposition with his positional power all while keeping quiet the whole time, often dodging any questions that come his way. To summarize, I see him come off as a megalomaniac (i.e., using a "my way or the highway" approach), which in my opinion, is not the right way to handle responsibility. 15DollarsWentSouth (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2015 (EST)
Strong Oppose I read all the comments in oppose section and some of your talk page response. This is why I have to reconsider it and agree with opponents. No, it's not a vendetta. Few supporters seems to say something that is somewhat meaningless. Otherwise, anyone would support him and say "why not we need more" or other negligible things. I haven't seen signs of improving. The fact that you are shutting down your opponents with your positional power, is more of obsessed with winning with reasons. I don't want to see any conspiracy of this wiki. Even you have a lot experience with it, you have another long way to go to correct your core problems. Are you out of your mind? Don't claim that you are improving and actually do it. That makes you sound like an arrogant, egotistical admin, which I don't want to see any bureaucratic user like that. Acknowledge yourself what you can do or couldn't do. Or otherwise, you won't be able to shoulder everything by yourself with this added powers in certain event. I see it as a high risk. Near my conclusion, I think that you don't deserve being promoted to Bureaucracy in my eyes. The dreams of becoming a bureaucratic will go up in smoke and become an illusion. Luigi540 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Oppose...? I regret saying this: from reading the opposition comments of Omega and 15DollarsWentSouth, I can agree that you don't have the right amount of responsibility to gain bureaucracy, since you don't seem to stop disputes and arguments frequently compared to other lower-ranked users (my buddy Disaster Flare went and solved this here ugly situation between me and the guy I can't stand; you also didn't respond to this dispute in time and posted your comment very late); in other words, I very seldom see you post on a user talk page that solves an argument between at least two users, and even if you do, it's just one or few comments, and then the next we know, you're gone, and the argument fails to cease at that moment. I can agree with everybody else (especially Omega) that you need to do more than just blocking vandals to earn bureaucracy power, despite how I think you're very good at spotting violators and ending their plots to screw this wiki up (don't argue, Omega). While I don't think you're a bad admin (if you read this, please contain yourself, Omega), I can agree with everybody else that you still need to improve on arbitration (ending arguments and debates), since you don't seem to notice disputes that much and how other users (like Disaster Flare) handle them way more often, though I do understand that at certain moments, you're busy with other stuff, along with Nyargleblargle, and I can respect that. Luckily for you, this bureaucracy request is going better than when you were Miles.oppenheimer. - Drilly the Hedgehog 03:38, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Strong Oppose: From the time I've been here on Smash Wiki, you've seemed to commit blunder after blunder with user interactions, while rarely learning from your mistakes, and rarely admitting that you're wrong. Your feedback page seems to do very little to support you actually actively trying to fix your shortcomings, and if you paid attention to the survey that Toomai conducted a while ago, you'd know what the userbase thought of you and tried to fix those problems in a more direct way, instead of having to make another feedback page where people have to directly call you out before you even consider any sort of action. You push for policies based on your opinions and are quick to dismiss users who have a different opinion than yourself, despite said opinions being founded on unsound assumptions about Smash and its competitive community, and think that we can sugarcoat extreme facts in a way that removes legitimate information from pages and backs widespread misguided views about characters' viability. Sorry, but in my eyes, you're far from ready for this position. An admin who can't even argue with normal users effectively has no business policing other admins. --Timson622222 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Not yet. Omega Tyrant does bring up a valid point in that it's taken you years to improve (as much as I feel he exaggerated it), so my perspective (six months) is indeed limited, and the improvement you've shown over the past few months is not marked enough to make up for all that. I do believe that you are slowly becoming more fit for bureaucrat, but there's still subtle traces of stubbornness that need to be eradicated before I'm ready to move back to support. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 12:01, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Oppose: I change my vote because your response to the comments below are less than satisfactory in my opinion. I believe I may have been misguided by my general "give them a chance" mindset. I see now that clearly, to give you a chance is to take a tremendous risk. That's all I have, I've said my piece below. I hate doing this, but no deal Miles. Serpent King 13:36, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Neutral

Neutral leaning towards support: First off, I do not disagree with anything you said below. The reason this is not a full support is because I have not forgotten the Marth argument (and similar, that's just the one that stands out most to me), which I felt that you handled entirely wrong (as you probably recall). That was a while ago though, and because I have not seen anything remotely like that since Marth, I can move past it (mostly). Looking back on it, would you have handled the situation differently? Serpent∞King (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2015 (EDT)
Yes. That was a situation I handled poorly, and I most certainly could have (and should have) done better. If nothing else, I have proven to myself exactly the kind of behavior I know I need to avoid going forward. Miles (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2015 (EDT)
I am changing to neutral leaning very slightly to oppose. I have been giving this a lot of thought...and here is the thing. I am not opposed to you getting the extra powers (changing user rights, interwiki stuff, etc)...no, what's hanging me up is, and correct me if I am wrong, a 'crat can more or less make decisions and not be opposed by anyone (other than porple, who's inactive) who you have to listen to. That is not a step I am comfortable with. Already, you sometimes have difficulty listening to other users oppose things that you have your mind set on. As a 'crat, you don't have that extra person above you suggesting that you should back off. I don't know, the more I think about this, the more uneasy I become. Please, someone tell me if I am being silly. Serpent King 04:30, 12 November 2015 (EST)
You're not being silly, I've observed his behavior and have come up with the same conclusion. I could glean that from the one interaction I had with him, where I made a sweeping edit and he undid it out of fear of it being subjective and contentious, when the material I edited out was already subjective and contentious being there in the first place. This, among other logical inconsistencies, are among my other various observations... Aardvarkian (Talk • Contributions) 04:46, 12 November 2015 (EST)

That said, that's the one glaring flaw I've seen in him as a user/Admin here that's consistent across the board. Every other reason that comes to mind points back to this. Aardvarkian (Talk • Contributions) 04:54, 12 November 2015 (EST)
Oh bugger I knew this would happen eventually and was not looking forward to discussing it. My initial reaction is "neutral", and that is primarily because my kneejerk visualization of a wiki where you are bureaucrat is not any better or worse than it is now. I'm going to have to do a lot more thinking on this before coming to a better result. Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 10:06, 1 November 2015 (EST)
That has to be the most bizarre vote in the neutral section I have ever seen. xD INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:12, 1 November 2015 (EST)
That moment when an RFB vote (From a bureaucrat) actually makes your day... INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:15, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Okay so in an attempt to make my thought process a little more transparent I'll be documenting some of the kind of stuff I'm thinking of here.
Why should I pass this RfB?
- Having certain abilities be under control by only a single person is usually not the best idea. It would be nice to not be the only guy who can pass RfXs and renames.
- Most of a bureaucrat's powers are no-brainer decisions. Renames? We have a cut-and-dry policy on how to handle them. RfRs? It's usually pretty obvious whether someone understands the rollback tool. Hiding revisions? Only the most egregious cases would require it. RfAs (and RfBs) are really the only part that requires thinking.
- Promoting people to bureaucrat, after they've already proven themselves trustworthy as admin, really shouldn't be that big a deal. I would put it as a bigger deal than "user" to "rollback", but not as big as "rollback" to "admin".
Why should I fail this RfB?
- Having certain abilities be under control by only a single person ensures consistency in decisions.
- For lack of a better phrase, Miles has a spotty history, and arguably the most cases of poor judgement of any currently-active user. Granted, some of this is just because he's been around longer than anyone else, and it's mostly content disputes rather than personnel disputes, but I can't deny it leaves a sour taste.
- Good admins do not always make good bureaucrats; some wikis break the two positions into two different branches of progression instead of putting one above the other, because it can be argued that they have completely different roles (maintenance of the wiki versus maintenance of personnel). I would in fact argue that we've been a bit of a headless wiki for some time now.
- I'd no longer be the only active gold name in Recent Changes. (no, this is not a serious reason)
At the moment, I am leaning towards "yes, passing this is probably good for the wiki". I'm currently trying to figure out if my reservations have a legitimate basis, or if they're just the annoying human habit of not wanting to give away power. Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 12:12, 3 November 2015 (EST)
Ok, that last one is probably the funniest thing I've ever heard you say. Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 12:19, 3 November 2015 (EST)
Err... From my past experience, you certainly had your ups and downs. Granted like Serpent King said for the Marth conflict, I took your side on the debate and defended you but protecting a page just to get your way was unjust. Couple that with other complaints from other admins over the years, it's hard for me to decide if this is right for you. Dots (talk) The Left 4 Dead 10:57, 1 November 2015 (EST)
Completely middle-of-the-road neutral leaning towards no way at all. On one hand, I totally agree we need another 'crat. On the other hand, you've kinda left a bad taste in my mouth as an admin. Admittedly, you have improved lately and really haven't done anything wrong to upset me for several months (which is why I'm neutral, not opposed), but because it was one of my first impressions on the wiki it sticks. So yeah. I wouldn't be upset if you got 'cratship, but I can't honestly say that I would be overly happy if you did either. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by BOO! Or maybe Nutta. 21:01, 1 November 2015 (EST)
I feel the useless need to say this, so I'm going to. I'm not going to be users who have changed their vote simply because OT raised a good point (as good of a point as it is), seeing as I personally have not been a part of or really even seen any of these apparent terrible things. While I highly doubt they are false, I see no reason to change my vote when my personal experiences with Miles have been neutral at their worst within the last two or three months. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 16:14, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Yeah I'm not really seeing a demonstrable need of b'crat powers. What happened with SK's RfA was in my opinion a one off; we really don't need another crat until RfRs and rename requests happen more frequently. The failed RfAs are mostly irrelevant, as most of the time the verdict can be foreseen the moment you know who the applicant is. I'm not going anywhere lower than neutral though. - EndGenuity (talk) 11:15, 11 November 2015 (EST)
Now neutral. While I think that OT has exaggerated this situation somewhat, he still brought up some important points that need to be addressed before Miles can become a bureaucrat. I still think that Miles has done more for the wiki than anybody else since I joined, but he is not ready for the higher rank yet. John PK SMAAAASH!! 12:51, 15 November 2015 (EST)
Neutral leaning towards oppose Miles really isn't a bad admin or anything, at least in my opinion, but he very much has a "I'm right and you're wrong, end of story" type of attitude (take any example from this thread, and also take a look a while back to the amiibo head icon debates). He's got a really thick skull and I'm sure a lot of you can agree with me on that. But because of this, I'm don't really think giving him more power is a good idea. I'm only putting my vote in Neutral instead of Oppose because I'm not entirely convinced that he'd do any worse with the bureaucrat powers. Laikue (talk | contribs) 16:17, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Comments

Can you provide me some specific examples of currently unhandled tasks that require a bureaucrat, and additionally, how exactly you would handle them? Serpent∞King (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (EDT)

I mentioned the three types of task that are bureaucrat-specific that I cannot do as an admin. Renames are fine as they are, and interwiki things I haven't proposed yet (but a related task is on my to-do list). That leaves requests for _____, of which there are two active. Nutta/Nutty's RfR has been left hanging without a reply on Toom's part for most of a week, which is questionable (I would answer him with yes, seek another, clearer example). DF's RfA is new enough to warrant more time before a decision. The main issue I was noting lately was, as I stated above, the several withdrawn RfAs recently. Several were indeed skewed towards opposition, but yours in particular seemed to be withdrawn more due to delay than anything. Instances like that lead me to believe that having more than one bcrat would be beneficial.

Miles (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (EDT)

I think you've already proven to us all you are a major help-out to Smashwiki. No offense(BTW, I misplaced this.). Pika, Wild Turkey appeared! Talk 15:51, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Already, this RFB is looking successful, with 8 supporting, 0 opposing, and 1 neutral. (Leaning towards support) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:21, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Whoopsy daisies. Misplaced a comment. Pika, Wild Turkey appeared! Talk 15:51, 6 November 2015 (EST)

To everyone in support: Please understand that this is not something to take lightly. Like with RfAs "He should pass because we need more bcrats" is, in my opinion, not a valid point. I am not trying to tell you all to change your vote, but some of you may want to give a more substantial reason for supporting this RfB. Serpent King 13:51, 1 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah... As it seems like I'm the only one who actually presents proper reasons for support. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:26, 1 November 2015 (EST)

What's wrong with my support? Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (EST)

"but some of you may want to give a more substantial reason for supporting this RfB." Serpent King 14:33, 1 November 2015 (EST)

I was more talking to INoMed. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 21:13, 1 November 2015 (EST)

So far, so good. 11 support, 4 neutral (1 leaning towards support), and 0 oppose. This could work. (Unless Toomai or someone like OT comes up and makes a giant oppose post to end it all...) Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 07:13, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Toomai voted neutral, with (Warning: this will be my only case of swearing ever!) Oh bugger as the vote. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:16, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Excuse my rotten words there. (I didn't use it to offend anyway!) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:17, 2 November 2015 (EST)

First off, that's a swear? Second, I mean if Toomai decides to oppose. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 15:37, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Not THAT kind of swearing. Swearing as in "S**t". (Censored because a Ganonmew (A youngster) needs to know) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:41, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Excuse my rotten words there #2. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:41, 2 November 2015 (EST)

I will never use such words ever again on SmashWiki. (Sorry for using the words #2) INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:44, 2 November 2015 (EST)

(Reset indent) You're kinda overreacting... Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior 16:00, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Uhhh... I don't understand what's going on. :/ Pika, Wild Turkey appeared! Talk 15:44, 6 November 2015 (EST)

*sigh* ...I wish we had more people who vote on this stuff. Serpent King 00:02, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Agreed, in Miles' case, it doesn't help the fact that an RfB doesn't even show up on the things to do table. :/ Disaster Flare (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Check again. This needs more attention from the community. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 07:34, 6 November 2015 (EST)

Agreed with Ganonmew. Pika, Wild Turkey appeared! Talk 15:41, 6 November 2015 (EST)

You know, I feel like that this RfB is already turning out to be successful with Miles being well liked by the community. Unless if Omega Tyrant shows up and puts up a 9001KB wall of text of opposition, I think this is going to pass easily. Dots (talk) The G-Man 00:10, 7 November 2015 (EST)

Community approval isn't all it needs though. He could have 9,000 three-paragraph-long supports and no opposition, but if Toomai doesn't think he should be 'crat he's not gonna be 'crat. Obviously community approval helps, but... ---Preceding unsigned comment added by a turkey! Or maybe DatNuttyKid. 07:13, 7 November 2015 (EST)

Dude trust me, if you want this RfB to succeed easily, don't bring OT into this. Both of them had a very long and bad history with each other. Dots (talk)

The Five by Five 10:15, 7 November 2015 (EST)

Dat second one doh. I'm starting to wonder about these two after that, especially OT. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 16:18, 7 November 2015 (EST)

I had no idea this existed. I knew that there was tension at one point between these two, but I had no idea that it was this serious. Or that it happened not so long ago. I am not going to hold this against Miles though, as I definitely feel that OT overstepped his boundaries much worse, and I feel that Miles has improved drastically since then.

Now, I will say this. I feel it may be ...harmful somewhat... to the wiki if this topic was brought up in full once again, so I suggest we simply leave it here. Serpent King 21:40, 8 November 2015 (EST)

To be quite honest, I know Miles and Brian get a lot of disapproval from OT, and I do too although I do sometimes support Miles on things, but I kinda always didn't like OT since 2014 to begin with, since I feel like he's the one harming the wiki in a way. Dots (talk)

The Wii 09:31, 9 November 2015 (EST)

To be frank, I understand why Miles and Brian get disapproval from OT (I mean, I wish OT was harder on Brian than he is), but even as someone who's favorite YouTuber and maybe user is OT, I have to agree. He tends to be a little bit too heavy with his comebacks, which more than usually toe the line of SW:NPA. But anyway yeah let's keep Omega Tyrant out of this for the wiki's sake. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 16:56, 10 November 2015 (EST)

God damn it. We're too late. Dots (talk)

The Restful 09:27, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Look, I'm sure none of us want huge piles of text about something almost unnecessary, so please, for the sake of all of us here at the wiki, please do not make it noticeable.

Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior

09:28, 11 November 2015 (EST)

This comment section and its completely counter-productive over-dramatization is an eyesore. Omega Tyrant 09:39, 11 November 2015 (EST)

I concur; a lot of it isn't actually about the RfB.

Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:11, 11 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah those comments are irrelevant. And to you guys who mentions about OT (before he responds) and made a reaction, just because of not telling him or not showing this does not mean that he can't see it. You leave the post and anyone will see or read it (especially on the recent change) . It's not private. Even if I log off the account or not logging in, I can see what you guys are doing when I check in. It's more like I'm watching you guys. Luigi540 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2015 (EST)

All I did was say the RfB was doing well....and this happened. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 07:16, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Commentator's curse. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Now I feel bad for myself, as if this fails, I'll say its my fault. Dots (talk)

The Belmont 10:10, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Then you need to learn what a wiki requires to flourish. Also stop the needless dramatizing already. Omega Tyrant 10:21, 13 November 2015 (EST)

I'm not unnecessarily overreacting per se, just taking to myself. What is your criteria for a good SmashWiki then? Dots (talk)

The (person who's name is) StarCraft 10:31, 14 November 2015 (EST)

The wiki provides an easily-searchable repository with the best unfiltered and easily-read information possible, about the Smash games and the greater Smash community. The wiki additionally must not keep itself in a bubble from the greater Smash community, keep individual user-bias from seeping onto and controlling the pages, have a competent administration that can properly handle the behind-the-scenes stuff to prevent the information from being degraded and facilitate the addition of new factual information, and upkeep a community that fosters valuable contributions and the drive towards this goal. Omega Tyrant 11:25, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Speaking of it, something must be done about this. Even though I'm good at neutralising articles, I never felt comfortable doing so. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2015 (EST)

I'll like to bring this up for the kind of shit Miles does on a routine basis, since from the beginning of his adminship, and that he never once shown any improvement. This power-abusing admin, who has always shown himself to be out-of-touch, and has shown no collaborative skills whatsoever, is who the lot of you are supporting for bureaucrat. Omega Tyrant 03:00, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Already brought it up, see my vote. Serpent King 03:05, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Yeah I missed that, but either way a much bigger deal of it should be made here. It completely exemplifies all the problems I said Miles had in the past on why he's such a detriment to the wiki, and is proof-positive that, no, he has not improved one bit, and that no, it's not just with me it happens with. Omega Tyrant 03:11, 14 November 2015 (EST)

I have mostly endeavored to stay quiet and let the community discuss this RfB without adding excess commentary to it myself, posting only to address specific questions directed at me. Nevertheless, I feel I am left with no choice but to comment on certain statements being made about me.

Let me say this to you in particular, Omega Tyrant. It is frustrating to see that after this long, you continue to use the same kind of ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit me and my statements. Rather than address the main points of my RfB, you've instead chosen to jump in with overdramatic, dismissive language of little real substance. Your tendency towards this kind of behavior ill suits an admin, and has not changed in a long time. This isn't just me, either.

The Marth page incident was a mistake on my part. So what did I do? I dropped the point, admitted my mistake, and opened a feedback page so I could get specific constructive criticism in a direct way. And I have gone to great lengths since that time to improve upon myself as a contributor to this site, and worked hard to achieve a level of professionalism that is often lacking around here. And after all this, you make the claim that I have not improved? You've hardly even been here enough to make such a statement. Meanwhile, your incendiary monologues look the same as ever.

I have learned from the times where I made mistakes, and will continue to do so; I am by no means infallible. I hope that you can come to see this perspective for yourself someday as well. Miles (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2015 (EST)

"It is frustrating to see that after this long, you continue to use the same kind of ad hominem attack in an attempt to discredit me and my statements."

Already a big red flag, trying to pass off criticism of your actions as a "ad hominem". Do learn what an ad hominem is.

"you've instead chosen to jump in with overdramatic, dismissive language of little real substance."

Again you dismiss criticism of yourself, and yet you wonder why me and many others disapprove of you so heavily?

"Your tendency towards this kind of behavior ill suits an admin, and has not changed in a long time. This isn't just me, either."

So calling out administrators that should be living up to the responsibilities the position entails is "ill-suiting"?

"The Marth page incident was a mistake on my part. So what did I do? I dropped the point, admitted my mistake, and opened a feedback page so I could get specific constructive criticism in a direct way. And I have gone to great lengths since that time to improve upon myself as a contributor to this site, and worked hard to achieve a level of professionalism that is often lacking around here. And after all this, you make the claim that I have not improved?"

How long ago did the Marth incident occur? Just three months ago. How long have you been an admin? Since 2008. It's 2015 Miles, and yet seven years later you still are abusing powers and doing the same old shit that you've been repeatedly called out on through those seven years by various users. After seven years and incident after incident, you can't just pass it off as a mere "mistake" anymore, especially when like always, you only backed off after getting called out by a bureaucrat. Yet you're going to try to say with a straight face here that you've improved? And you try to say you're working towards "professionalism", yet this is the way you act on a constant basis?

"You've hardly even been here enough to make such a statement. Meanwhile, your incendiary monologues look the same as ever."

Can't refute the criticism, so hey, lets try discrediting the criticizer! What was that about ad hominems? But anyway, I don't need to be fully active here anymore to know what this wiki requires to be as good a source as possible, and what conduct is required for an administrator anywhere.

"I have learned from the times where I made mistakes, and will continue to do so; I am by no means infallible"

Yet again, 7 years later, stuff like the Marth page incident still happens. Actions speak louder than words, and once again, you cannot give the wiki this drivel when your actions repeatedly contradict this "I'm learning and improving!" claim of yours.

"I hope that you can come to see this perspective for yourself someday as well."

Words you should actually abide by yourself.

Now since you complained I didn't go through your RfB fluff and instead brought up very relevant points on why you aren't fit for a bureaucrat, I'll do so now:

"Renaming users. Toomai has generally done a good job with this, and I feel I could do so as well. "

This is like blocking vandals and deleting junk, anyone can do it, this isn't a special point for you.

"Interwiki table management. Not a crucial point, but given that some Smash series lack NIWA wikis to link to, we may want to discuss if there are other wikis worth cross-linking to through Special:Interwiki (for example, the Xenoblade Wikia)."

"Not a crucial point" pretty much sums it up.

"Requests for rollback and requests for adminship have been languishing a bit of late. We've had 6 RfAs in the last few months; 4 of these have only been resolved by the candidate withdrawing themselves, including one case where the RfA more or less sat there unresolved for two months. I feel that nobody benefits from leaving things unresolved for so long, and a few weeks is usually plenty for most issues in the RfA process to be spelled out in such a way as to present consensus or lack thereof."

This point is disingenuous. I looked through the recent RfAs that were withdrawn, and a common thread with them all is that they were contentious at best or flatout opposed, with Toomai in particular remarking on one that it was mostly supported by new less-experienced/less-competent users (sounds familiar eh?). No one who had a legitimate RfA that should have passed gotten negatively affected by the wiki's current bureaucrat setup, and there's no demonstratable instance here of how another bureaucrat (regardless of their abilities) would have really helped.

"Experience. I am one of the most experienced editors on SmashWiki, in terms of time and quantity of edits; as to the latter point, counting both my old and current accounts, I have over 22,000 edits to SmashWiki. I have a deep familiarity with both Smash and this site."

Oh man, you try passing yourself as experienced, and use edit count as a point towards for why you should be bureaucrat? You should know better than to seriously put down your edit count as a point towards you, especially in a RfB. Simply put, the amount of years you been here and your edit count has next to nothing to do with your capabilities to be a bureaucrat. Also, "deep familiarity with Smash" yet just as the Marth page shown, you are as out-of-touch as ever with the Smash community.

"Back-end contributions. I have contributed significantly towards writing and updating policy for this site. I authored pages like SW:NOT, SW:TRIVIA, SW:IMAGE, SW:NEWGAME, and SW:TONE; I also worked on a significant revision to SmashWiki's Help pages to make them less Wikia-styled. I regularly make updates and revisions to SmashWiki's infobox and navigation templates, in order to make the site more useful and navigable."

The first four policies/guidelines are useful and necessary to the wiki, but putting into words something that the wiki enforced beforehand as an unwritten rule, that ends up being significantly modified by others, isn't a special point for you and not indicative of your capabilities as bureaucrat (or administrator for that matter). The last guideline however, is a perfect example of how your attitude and overall behavior is a direct detriment to the wiki's content, and again reinforces my point on how you're out-of-touch with the greater Smash community. Template work is yet another thing that has absolutely nothing to do with being a bureaucrat.

"I also frequently work towards contributing to SmashWiki's mainspace content. This includes editing existing pages, but also implementing many other large pages from scratch. Recent examples of this include overhauling List of voice actors, and creating List of minor universes, List of Super Smash Bros. 4 character posters, List of composers, and Tournament legal (SSB4). I also have worked on large batch edits such as standardization of Japanese names, and implementing pages for Smash Tour items and Mii costume characters. Another area I frequently contribute to is managing ongoing projects like tracking recent appearances, keeping the amiibo page up to date, and updating the downloadable content page. "

So you can be a useful contributor at organizing stuff, but what does this have to do with being a bureaucrat?

"Dispute handling. Handling disputes between users is one of the most difficult tasks an admin is faced with, especially if both users are displaying good faith and are not factually incorrect. I will admit to having had difficulty with dispute handling in the past, but I believe I have gotten better at such things, and I take seriously the feedback of other users. I seek to find a middle ground where the needs of the wiki and the desires of the users involved are best satisfied, whenever possible."

Yet as the Marth page shown, seven years later, you're still absolutely dreadful at handling user conflict, especially when it involves yourself. Again, no you have not improved, actions speak louder than words, and a "feedback" page means absolutely nothing when you don't actually listen to it.

" Consensus is key, and I frequently seek more users' opinions whenever a discussion appears to have gotten stuck, as a way of trying to reach a better conclusion. "

Are you trying to be a comedian? "I seek and value consensus, except when it goes against what I want, and I won't even bother to argue it but I will protect the page and keep everyone else from adding the content I don't like".

There you go Miles, my conviction against you has only grown, as the stuff you present in your RfB as for why you should be a bureaucrat is either irrelevant fluff, disingenuous, or outright bullshit. I'm not going to tolerate one putting up a charlatan act to get greater power here. Omega Tyrant 07:42, 14 November 2015 (EST)

I can't help but notice that you, OT, are fixated on past events from multiple years ago, whereas Miles is more or less focused on more recent events.

Aidan, the Wandering Space Warrior

11:10, 14 November 2015 (EST)

The Marth incident is recent, and "past events" are fully relevant, when Miles has shown absolutely no indication of any improvement and repeats all the things he is criticized for. Omega Tyrant 11:13, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Even I will admit that I felt like we need a petition to get rid of Miles from administration around the time of the Marth incident but I don't have all that too many personal qualms with him doing his regular admin routines. Miles also allows users to constructively criticize him on here too and hopefully he has improved since? Dots (talk)

The N64 14:17, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Read my direct reply to Miles, where I address the "feedback" page and his supposed "improvement". Omega Tyrant 15:16, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Well yes, I see. It was just another option. Dots (talk)

The Penguin 18:01, 14 November 2015 (EST)

Dare I ask... exactly what is this "Marth Incident" that everyone seems to treat as a major point of contention? Pleasedontflameme! *ducks for cover* infernape 612 16:15, 14 November 2015 (EST)

This, I assume. --Menshay (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2015 (EST)

"The Marth page incident was a mistake on my part. So what did I do? I dropped the point, admitted my mistake, and opened a feedback page so I could get specific constructive criticism in a direct way. And I have gone to great lengths since that time to improve upon myself as a contributor to this site, and worked hard to achieve a level of professionalism that is often lacking around here. And after all this, you make the claim that I have not improved?"

That's not true, at least initially. You and Brian continually edit-warred over various parts of the article, only bringing it to the talk page as per policy AFTER Timson and Toomai stepped in. After the...discussion if you can call it that... you proceeded to protect the page against another policy, claiming that you had no intention of removing protection. Only after Toomai finally suggested that you were, perhaps, incorrect, did you decide that protection was needless. I have seen no admittance of the mistake other than in this RfB almost 4 months later. I am sorry for bringing this back up, but this comment actually angered me. You once again show your habit of making condescending comments (something that I noted in your feedback page) by claiming that professionalism is lacking by users other than yourself. I though you had improved, but in this one comment, you have proved me wrong. I mean no offense by this, and I respect you as an admin and editor, but if you want the bureaucrat position, you need to work on your flaws more. Only a fool does not know what his or her flaws are, and you do not strike me as a fool. Serpent King 02:09, 15 November 2015 (EST)

What I have tried to say repeatedly here is that I have made what I believe to be significant improvement over time, and especially in the months since the Marth page incident. I understand that a negative impression is difficult to change once made, but it is admittedly frustrating to see that even significant effort on my part makes little apparent difference in how I am perceived by the userbase. I make efforts to guide new users. I make efforts to resolve user disputes. I make efforts to take disagreements to talk pages when there's not a clear answer, seek a compromise where possible, and seek to hear more voices whenever there's a stalemate between viewpoints. When given constructive criticism, I take it to heart. Nevertheless, I'm not sure I understand what more you are expecting of me than I have done in the months since the incident in question, especially in terms of specific behaviors. Miles (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Seven years, seven years Miles. An admin of seven years shouldn't still need to be improving on adminship basics, an admin of seven years shouldn't still be abusing their power to get their way, an admin of seven years shouldn't still be doing the shit they been called out on countless times, an admin of seven years shouldn't be still failing the criteria here, an admin of seven years in their run for bureaucrat shouldn't be having the crux of their support be "I'll improve!".

Seriously, drop this "I'm improving" act already. No matter how much you shout it, your actions have clearly shown otherwise over seven long years. And the ship has long sailed on you being given leniency for your "mistakes" to "improve" on, 2008 was seven years ago. Omega Tyrant 05:12, 15 November 2015 (EST)

If you're that willing to immediately disregard months and years of hard work towards self-improvement as an "act", it sounds like personal vendetta more than thoughtful criticism. You're entitled to your own opinion, OT, but I'd appreciate if you didn't try to pass it off as fact. Additionally, the main reason I started this RfB to begin with was that I thought we would be better having more than one bcrat, and thus less singularly dependent on Toomai; I considered myself the best available candidate. This RfB is about nothing more than helping the wiki deal with certain tasks more effectively. Miles (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2015 (EST)

"If you're that willing to immediately disregard months and years of hard work towards self-improvement as an "act", it sounds like personal vendetta more than thoughtful criticism."

So you again disregard everything that is brought up against you while shouting "I improved" and try to pass it off as a vendetta, the self-victimising mentality of yours does you no favors to me nor any other rational-thinking users.

"You're entitled to your own opinion, OT, but I'd appreciate if you didn't try to pass it off as fact."

Yeah because your actions that everyone can observe are "opinion" and certainly not factual.

"Additionally, the main reason I started this RfB to begin with was that I thought we would be better having more than one bcrat, and thus less singularly dependent on Toomai; I considered myself the best available candidate."

Sure another bureaucrat will be helpful, but there is nothing demonstrating that we absolutely need another one right now. Additionally, best available candidate? Ignoring the ridiculousness of that statement, even if the wiki was in such a sorry state that you were the best candidate while it really needed a new bureaucrat, you're such a terrible candidate that it's well in everyone's interests to just wait for a more suitable candidate to come along; it's certainly not a standard that's hard to surpass.

Now I'm going to give you a heart-to-heart here Miles. Do you really ever just stop and think, that there's a reason me and so many other users disapprove of you so strongly? You really have that much of a self-victimising mentality that you think we all just decided to start hating you because of your funny name, because you play "Bluigi", because you seriously use comic sans in your sig, or because we thought you looked like a dork in that one picture Smoreking posted of you on AiB? Have you ever stop to think that you're not always right, that you may in fact be often wrong, and that people aren't going against you so often just because they have a vendetta against you? Have you ever consider, that just maybe, you really aren't fit for the job anymore, and that it would be in the wiki's best interest if you stepped down and took a less active role?

I don't hold vendettas against people Miles, I don't know a damn thing about you in your personal life, and we have next to no offwiki interaction, not even on IRC, there's absolutely nothing personal I can hold against you. All I have to judge you by is what you do on this wiki (and your prior administrating on AiB), and unfortunately blunder after blunder combined with your general disposition has led me (and others) to judge you so harshly. I don't criticize and confront people here just for the sake of conflict, I do it to keep the wiki striving towards its ultimate goal and help the userbase improve as much as it can. And when it is the same user with the same problem over and over, I'm going to have to get more and more blunt. On the flipside, I don't hold back praise when I see users doing good; for example how much have I publicly gushed here about what users I would have supported for adminship like HavocReaper, Monsieur Crow, Megatron1, and Mousehunter? If you were doing genuine good for the wiki, you would hear it.

I'm someone who is a big believer in the philosophy of self-improvement, whether it be physical, mental, or emotional. Just recently for example, after having neglected my physical shape over the past couple of years, I got serious about my fitness and nutritional intake, lost nearly all the fat I gained, and am now poised to soon do a proper bulk/cut cycle. I'm also a strong believer in redemption and giving people the chance to right their wrongs, BNK is a brilliant example on this wiki on how people can improve so much after they seemed like a lost cause. As such, I absolutely do not think it's impossible for you to truly improve and become not only the great admin all the newbies (including myself when I was one) perceive you as, but also a legitimately great bureaucrat candidate. But I also to have to factor in the reality; you been like this for seven years, and people who are so set in their ways for so long are among the unlikeliest people to actually change and improve. Besides the fact we should judge one's RfX, especially for such an important position as bureaucrat, primarily on their actions throughout their tenure, it gives me incredibly low confidence that you would have the potential to do any remote good with the position.

If you are serious about improving yourself, here is my honest advice for you. Back away from this RfB, take a break from the wiki, ponder why you've been involved with the wiki to such a great degree for so long, and really ponder why you've gotten such significant disapproval over your really long adminship tenure. It takes a lot more than a feedback page on a wiki to really understand where you falter and on how you really can make yourself the best possible person you can be. Omega Tyrant 15:49, 15 November 2015 (EST)

What more am I expecting of you? I am expecting an admin who can set aside their opinions during decision making and instead use their power to better the wiki. I am expecting an admin who will not belittle other users because you have a higher power. I am expecting an admin who can properly and professionally represent our wiki and the many hours our userbase has put into it. I am expecting an admin who won't bite the head off of a newer contributor because they disagree with you (or tell them that they have no business editing the wiki). I am expecting an admin who can get along with the rest of the staff, thus improving our image (I do understand that OT has acted less then professional in this instance, possibly provoking an irritable response, but this is not the only instance. It isn't even the only recent instance). Consider all of these and improve. Stop saying that you are improving and actually do it. I am sorry I have to be so blunt, but I have already tried a softer approach at this and it has gotten me nowhere. Serpent King 13:27, 15 November 2015 (EST)

You also do realize that I was even planning to have a petition to get rid of you from administration because of the Marth (not only incident but) scandal among the other faults that you have done to the wiki. Seriously, this among other things summarize how many problems established users have with you. To be honest Miles. Miles never changes. Dots (talk)

The Goldfinger 14:58, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Ok, the amount of bytes you added scared me. Also, this is painfully right, not gonna lie. Ganonmew, The Thankful Evil Clone 15:09, 15 November 2015 (EST)

I would like to share my thought concerning the common response I see you give Miles when told about your mishaps which are basically "I have been improving" or more literally: If you're that willing to immediately disregard months and years of hard work towards self-improvement as an "act", it sounds like personal vendetta more than thoughtful criticism. First off, you're really not in the right to say that you are in fact improving and everybody else is just being unreasonable. Why? Because it is those same people who pointed out that you have problems in the first place; how could you know you're in fact getting better except through those same people telling you you are since they're the ones who brought it to attention to begin with. You cannot independently determine if you're improving apart from the ones telling you the problems. Imagine a math teacher telling a student that his grades have been slipping and have been doing bad for half the year now. But then the student responds with that he IS getting better at math, it's just the teacher just has something against him and that's why his grades are slipping (or claims the teacher is just being unreasonable). He's the one who pointed out the student's problem with math; he determines if the student is getting better, not the student. When you say "I am getting better at being admin", that is a claim that can only be corraborated by people other than you, since it is them that pointed out the problem to start with. If you're saying you're getting better, but the same people who brought issue with you to begin with say you're not, you're obviously not improving. This isn't to say you can't feel as though you're improving, but rather you cannot corraborate that you are when it was them who brought the issue to you. If you feel like you've been doing better, you need to check with the ones making the claim against you to see if that feeling is true. And finally secondly, it does not matter how hard you work towards something, but rather the results of that work. I know nobody likes hearing that, but it is true. If you're working hard at something with no results then it is your methods that is in error. Unknown the Hedgehog 16:32, 15 November 2015 (EST)