RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Earthere


 * The Phantom Menace
 * Attack of the Clones
 * Revenge of the Sith

Earthere
Reasons described.

''I, Earthere, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed, earth (t) 11:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC).

we're in the middle of a RfA storm, so I guess I can post my fourth request for adminship. let's see if this works.
 * 11th highest contributions (mainspace) [source http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:WikiaStats]
 * active at RuneScape Wiki for about 13 months. registered 16 months ago.  I hate math
 * I frequently assume good faith and I do not typically bite newcomers.  when a newcomer makes a positive contribution which may not be correct, you can see me reverting with a "good faith" label and a short explanation.  check my contributions. =p
 * I tend to create redirects that are useless to 90% of our editors. they're created to help n00bs to hit the article they want, regardless of how terrible or misconceived the search term is.   although an editor once said they were helpful to him once. :)
 * I've edited many templates and reduced the filesize of their images. I'm a bit anal about website design and how it should be minimalistic--like bandwidth is the whole world to me. =p  if admin'd you'll find me optimizing and rewording text the MediaWiki mainspace; generally boring stuff that I coincidentally have an interest in.
 * if in the event you believe you were unfairly unblocked blocked by me, leave a message in your talk page with Template:Unblock and it will be examined as soon as possible. blocks are serious business;  if I made a mistake or have some doubt over the legitimacy of the block, you will be unblocked. benefit of the doubt always.
 * similar stuff goes with speedy deletion. disagree with my deletion? message me on my talk and make a short request and I'll undelete, unless it's absolute garbage ( Your mother loves runescape, zezima sux ).  if I still believe the deletion was justified, but the article wasn't a snowball attempting to survive in hell, I'll restore it and nominate it for deletion.  in that case rsw's community should decide instead.

chances are, this request will fail. but let's see how it goes.

Discussion
I don't know what to say here, but I'll address your promises. 1) Posting an RFA during an RFA storm is a bad thing IMO. 2) Nice. Keep the edits a-comin'. 3) Good, but time doesn't matter sometimes. 4) Sometimes I think you assume good faith too much, even in the face of blatant vandalism. Admins need to be uptight. 5) I like that, the more redirects, the merrier. 6) Good job. 7) Did you mean "unfairly blocked"? If blocks are serious business, your block log might pose a little problem :X. I guess that's enough for me to weak support. Don't screw up >_>. 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - Earthere has been a good editor thus far, and will make a good admin. However, the self-nomination was not signed, and this makes me wonder whether you really accepted this nomination or... not. LOL. 11:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd be willing to support you had I not seen your actions after :your last failed RfA, after witnessing your last temper tantrum though, I doubt that you could truly be trusted with these tools.-- 19:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't a temper tantrum. The way I barbarically closed my RfA was certainly frustration, not temper. My THIRD RfA to be precise, the first one where I had no intentions of withdrawing if things were to go bad.  And who exactly withdraws during a temper tantrum? =)
 * Az and Buzz, I was unsure of when to sign. Do I sign after a bit of support or before that... I don't know. and I did sign a day ago... I suppose you two support in that case.  09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - People usually sign when they are nominated. But, in the case of self-nomination, you should have signed right away. My Neutral vote was not due to you NOT signing the nomination, but that you self-nominated, again... If you really think you deserved being an admin, someone would have noticed and nominated you.  I'm sorry, but I'm slightly put off by self-nominations, or nominations by "friends".  You would have gained my support if someone else had nominated you.   12:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's the thing. You know, with controversial blocks, RfAs, and just way too much drama. no one will ever nominate me, bar a month old editor who hasn't skimmed my past RfAs...   21:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - As Azliq7 21:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I agree on the poor reaction to the results of the prior attempt. The work on the site is good, and I have enjoyed some of his comments. Further, I believe he would probably be better than at least one active Administrator, but I'd rather see that individual recalled than Earth added at this point. Perhaps a calmer reaction this time will gain vote next time? --RumplePug 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - You have been here a long time and i think you are seasoned enough as an editor to be given sysop rights. with a large edit log, I believe giving you sysop rights will benefit for the community  Btzkillerv has entered the building!   13:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - You have a lot of good edits, although from what I've seen (in just the past few days I've been on the wiki) you assume good faith maybe a little too much (as Azliq said). But in this case the good seems to outweigh the bad, and you don't seem like the type of person who would abuse the admin tools. Kudos 2 U 05:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not yet - I can see that you have a good understanding of policy, and the text given at the top of this page is well thought through. What does concern me is the length, and proximity, of your block log. I'm not sure of the exact circumstances under which these blocks happened, and I certainly have nothing against you personally, but I can see that several admins have become involved. If there has been a change, and I'm quite prepared to ignore old blocks, as people do change, then you will have my support, but they are a little too close for comfort at the moment. Perhaps after another three months or so, and not with a self-nomination. 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- '''I'm open to a "Reevaluation for adminship." (which sort of means that I'm open to resignation should I not be ok for the job). Should three established editors in good standing ask me to resign, I will. broadly construed. some of the things i've always hated about positions of authority (both IRL and in the internet) were chilling effects, speedy punishments, and refusal to just sit down and say, "Damn, I messed up that time". I'd really hate to become an admin like that, but if worse came to worse, my powers would (and should) be stripped away. emphasizing that again i'm open to discussion over my powers... 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)'''
 * Who defines "in good standing"? You? Your friends? Ha.
 * You know that wikia doesn't want anyone sysopped who is not 100% ready. Desysopping is a pain and you cannot test drive being an admin. Christine 02:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * although to be honest you're not exactly in good standing, you can be one of those three people if you'd like. examples of other editors in good standing are dragon, azaz, azliq, c teng, and butterman, among many others. (pardon me if you do not want your name mentioned =/) most of them aren't "friends", but i think they would be able to make an educated judgment without any bias.
 * i'm 99% ready. or somewhere around that.  =p  03:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I have seen you make many edits on this wiki, and everyone of them has been well thought out. (including your last post) For what its worth, i give you my support and approval. -- Rune ldr 88  00:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, for the moment. I really don't know. Kevin-020 03:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I have noticed a lot of the work you do and your name, to me, seems familiar around the Wiki, I feel with your tight philosophies, and your ability to use people's contradictory thoughts against them, "this request will probably fail but..." thats simply genius! I def. feel you could make a wonderful administrator. As far as the oppositions go...I am fairly certain, rules and regulation have been updated, making oppose comments 'illegal' lets clear those so that Earth wont have to block people on his first day as an admin! I hope you get adminship...just dont let me down by abusing your power! Noob 4 Lfetalk 06:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really sure where you have been but, there's never been so much as a peep about getting rid of oppose votes since that notion is absurd. Also "lets clear those so that Earth wont have to block people on his first day as an admin!"- 2 of the opposes/not yets have been from admins, therefore I doubt anyone's getting blocked, I sincerely hope half that statment was a joke otherwise you need to really review the RfA policy.-- 06:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Terribly sorry my dear, oppose votes are not approved for requested 'featured users.' That was my bad, but I still stand beside Earth fully. [[Image:MagicHoodDetail.png]] Noob 4 Lfetalk [[Image:MagicCapeDetail.png]] 06:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the part that irked me, my comment had nothing to do with any other part of your support. Also, the reason that has a large impact as well is the time, had this been two or three months down the road, without another incident, I probably would have supported, unfortunately this is just too close to the last nom for me to support.-- 06:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Earthere, in the interested of informed voting, could you add the links of your previous RfAs to the top of your current RfA like last time. (Too lazy to do it myself right now.)-- 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you, nice titles by the way .-- 16:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, thanks. 16:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - I think it has been 4 months or more since anyone has had any kind of dispute with Earthere. And I am most clearly not saying whether she was at fault then. Looking solely at her edits since that time, she has been very active and diligent in working for the benefit of the wiki. I for one believe that even if some other dispute arose down the road that she would not misuse the tools in any way. There's my 2 cents--Varthlokkur 09:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Earthere is a guy :X. 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No she isn't but thats not the issue here anyhow--Degenret01 23:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure, because that would mean I totally got the wrong impression from Earth's userpage-- 02:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I wasn't sure how to go here at first. I think Earth is cool and would do a good job, but could she hold her temper when it counted? Yes, I truly think so. And her contributions the last few months show she cares about the wiki.--Degenret01 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, oh man. thanks.  Instant wins. I really am a guy... never said I wasn't. ever. sick.  no girls exist on the internet.
 * dege, didn't you once also think I was in college as well??
 * kind of sucks to hear someone thinks I'm effeminate... and lol at Azaz's link, I'd forgotten about that.
 * don't get me wrong, your support is quite useful. as is varth's  04:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, ok then. Earth had a pic of a female in full rune as their personal image at one time like forever ago. I guess he was messing with me when he told me ingame that he is female. Ok, funny joke, especially since it lasted like 9 months. Lol, funny stuff.--Degenret01 06:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The full rune was female because any sort of male in full rune didn't have a picture on this wiki... it's derilith's btw. donn't remember saying I was female either.  16:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

People! Earthere is male! 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But really, it's not central to the topic at hand and has gotten this discussion a bit away from the subject.--Degenret01 06:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Per Azaz ‎Atlandy 00:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Azaz was neutral... 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No he wasn't. Dtm142 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Would make a healthy addition to our team of admins here. A little heavy on using 4chan images when respond to people, however. 24.184.206.83 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unregistered users may not participate in RFAs. Dtm142 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean stuff like lolcats and Serious Business. 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support That's complete bull that I can't support through my IP. Oh well, I'll support here then. Wartortle28 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support – In spite of your history, your recent contributions have shown that you will make a good administrator. If anything does get out of hand in the future, a staff member can always remove sysop permissions. 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - Earthere, you are a great contributor, but I'm not sure should be an admin just yet, because I've seen some various outbursts of anger/volatility, something that, would someone have sysop tools at the same time, could mean bad things for the wiki. Yet, I think you are experienced enough to have learned from your experiences, which would, in my opinion, make you a good admin. My opinion is wavy now, so if anyone wants to go ahead and try to push me, go ahead. :P Earthere, again, you are a great contributor and a wonderful and valuable asset to the wiki, but there is a time and place for everything, and I'm 50% sure you should be an admin now. ;) Butterman62 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)