RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Haloolah123

Haloolah123
First RfA

I realize that Halo's last nomination was a little over a month ago. I believe that during that time he has done a lot of maturing and he has also made a lot of excellent contributions to this wiki. As most of you probably already know, he has been working very hard to improve AEAE and has also been very active in several other key Yew Grove discussions over the past few weeks. I have not seen him lose his cool, he isn't afraid to speak his mind, and he has done his fair share of anti vandal work (I haven't seen him misuse the rollback tool either). I was really confident last month that he would be a great admin. Well, take that confidence and double it now. Someone that has done this much for the community is my definition of an excellent admin candidate. Wouldn't you all agree? 05:40, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

''I accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realise that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realise 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,'' 05:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

I would participate in a bit of everything. I check speedy d/m quite a bit, as well as CVU. I also check category:images a lot (because people fail to read the thing that says don't put images here, but in the appropriate subcategory.) Many of the incoming images have date names, so with sysop tools I could move them while I am categorizing them. Another nice tool would be adding protection for closing yew grove threads, because I really like participating there.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?

Making an actual summoning training guide. Proposing the user requests page, which lead to the user help page. Significant work on dungeoneering pages of all types, especially the skill pages. I've also worked on reforming policies and minor changes to make them clearer. Currently I'm trying to find something that will communicate the spirit of AEAE, but keep everyone happy and the policy being used correctly.

'''3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?'''

I have had a few conflicts. I had a rather nasty one with Ajr, and I was a complete moron. It was my fault entirely, and I take full responsibility. I originally took it kind of badly, because I was thinking very egocentrically. I later realized how much of a dick I had been. I apologized to him, and we moved on, and now I believe we are friends. It was a very valuable lesson for me, as it taught me to not be so stringent and just take it easier. It helped me to realize that there are a lot of people in this community who know way more than me about some things, and to respect that and be grateful that they are here. I believe that in the future I will be able to handle conflicts better because I will be able to think back to this one and how idiotic I was throughout it.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
 Question - How have you changed and matured since your last RfA, and why should people who opposed you before, support you now? -- 05:57, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well one change is...I found this handy guide on RfAs. (Actually I found that during my last one-much to my dismay.) I've read that and learned a few important things. I believe I've matured much due to the fact that I've gone from being really annoyed with Ajr and being a complete jerk about that to quite the opposite direction. Now I have him on my RS friends list and I believe he considers me a friend. He was the bigger man in that argument, and through that I kind of realized that I had to ease off and cool down. I've just tried to relax a bit with wiki stuff and I think it's worked out well and I've matured. Many people who opposed me before, opposed me to do the argument that has been mentioned multiple times already. Hopefully they see that I have done all that I can to make amends to that and tried to move on a become a better editor/person from that experience. I believe the majority of all the other opposes had to do with me not having a clear understanding of AEAE. The evidence being that I commonly used quick chat to say my combat level and used that as an argument of why I was right. I'm pretty sure I've cut that down to almost nothing. I believe most people would agree that I have an adequate, if not exceptional understanding of AEAE, one of the major reasons I'm working on amending it right now, so that it still serves it purpose, but not other things that we don't want it to be working towards.

Discussion
Support - as nominator. 05:40, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I supported him in his last RfA, but it seems that he's matured greatly since then. I believe he's ready for the responsibility and will make good use of the tools he will have at his disposal. 05:48, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - He didn't answer the questions! I simply cannot vote for a known KKK member unless he explains himself. For all I know he could institute a racially intolerant policy to ban all trolls from the Wiki, and then where will I be? 05:50, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol... 05:52, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's in the middle of a dungeon atm and he said he'll answer them after that. 05:56, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * All done for now. 06:42, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Now that it has been sometime since his last confrontation I believe he would be an amazing admin, best of luck. 07:02, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I believe Haloolah is a great candidate for Adminship. Not only is he a helpful and friendly guy in the Clan Chat, but he also seems to have a lot of new ideas for our Wiki. He's constantly coming up with ways to make improvements and that's something that makes him a prime choice for Admin. in my opinion.  07:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I always thought that people were exaggerating when they said that you acted like an elitist, and I'm simply disappointed with the way you acted in the cc few days ago. Sorry, but I don't think I want an immature sysop. 07:14, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? While I'd rather this didn't turn into something that focuses on one little thing, I'd like to know what you're talking about. 07:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * * Wishes he had taken a screenie* Well, he first joined the cc and said that I was making him angry by opposing him on yg, then he talked about why I should support to aeae, and I responded his arguments. After that, he started to be a jerk, and simply was attacking me. Because of that, I said that I wouldn't take part in the discussion in the cc anymore, then he started baiting, and said things like "You stopped discussing, because you can't find valid points" etc. Someone in the cc even suggested that I should kick him if he continues. (Although I wasn't going to do that, he did deserve it.) 07:58, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * So him telling you what's up in an argument makes him an immature jerk that doesnt deserve adminship? Well what about all the admins/ranks in cc that are elitist jerks? 09:08, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ranks in the cc are not elitist jerks, and even if they are, that's completely irrelevant. And what exactly do you mean by telling öe what's up? 09:13, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it very unfortunate that you are letting one minor incident in the clan chat that could have easily been a misunderstanding influence your opinion so much. 17:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * On one hand, Soldier, its kinda hard to be sure that his reaction is unjustified when we don't know exactly what was said. Or do you? Anyways, on the other, everyone gets emotional sometimes. I've seen some of the most level-headed admins I know get into kind of a bad temper from time to time, but they never let that influence them into misusing their tools. Why does this one incident lead you to believe that Halo would misuse his tools? 19:01, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per what Psycho said, we are all human. We need to look at the big picture when judging someone for adminship, not isolated incidences. 19:08, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The person who suggested to kick me was Turok Obama. It was even stated in the clan chat that no one takes him seriously. And to Chess. I admit I wasn't a pleasant person (why I stated moments later that I had been a jerk and that I was sorry), but could you tell me what rule I had broken seriously enough to warrant a kick? 21:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * What you did could easily start a flamewar, and flaming is against the rules. You are also meant to stop discussing something if it starts to get heated and you are asked to stop, according to rules in RS:CC and you simply didn't. Anyways, I would probably only warn you. Sorry, but if you lose your temper that easily, I have no idea what you'd do if there really was something annoying. 15:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have defiantly become a lot more mature since your last rfa and i think you could really use the tools. 07:30, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support! - Hal is a face I have seen often in the community. He is helpful to those who need help and knows how to solve problems with simple, straightforward changes. Although he may seem brash at some instances, I am sure that he doesn't mean to hurt anyone, but is a very clear in his communication and isn't afraid to speak his opinion. I can trust Haloohah as an admin  14:20, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I trust you to use these well, just please do use them :) 15:20, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral - Per his actions on opposer's talk pages. 00:37, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose His last RFA is less than a month closed (closed on June 8) and now since he hasn't "lost his cool" in a few weeks he should now be an admin? I would like to see a prolonged time frame of maturity before anyone becomes a sysop. 18:35, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you say that I had only gained my cool once my RfA ended? Supposing that I had not kept my cool mostly from the point that I started editing? 21:10, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As per the other opposers, you argue way too much and I've noticed this during a bunch of Yew Grove threads, still not ready for the job. Atlandy took the words out of my mouth, a few weeks doesn't fix anything. 19:12, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You do realize that debating is supposed to happen on the Yew Grove, don't you...? Lol 20:33, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of this, except he "Overkills" the matter so much... Usually ending in tempers being lost 21:00, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to provide some examples of this? 21:19, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since his last RfA, or just generally all time? 21:23, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Preferably since his last RfA. 21:35, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I perhaps direct users to here and here? I have been very careful to try as hard as I can to do the exact opposite of what you are stating. I would be interested to see these examples as well. 21:15, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 1. He has cooled down. 2. What's wrong with debating. 3. He'll do great. 20:36, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Mostly for the same reasons in his previous RfA. Since then, he has matured, become more community oriented, and has become, in layman's terms, a "policy wonk". His understanding of the rules that govern this wiki will help us. 21:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I believe Hal deserves the admin tools, he's an all round great editor and is always willing to help people. As for the incident with Chess, everyone has their bad days and that was one for Hal, and you shouldn't be opposing just because of one problem. 16:40, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There has been more than one problem. I have had a few conflicts. 17:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I can't remember any of these conflicts that we supposedly had. Would you please jog my memory? Thank you, 21:05, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he was quoting you when he said I have had a few conflicts. 21:24, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. That makes sense. Would you prefer me to lie and say that the world is a perfect place where I never argue with anyone? I think the obvious answer is no. Would you then state that anyone who has had a conflict should never become a sysop? It should not be whether some one has had a conflict, but what they have done to fix them. And I've done my best to do just that. 21:40, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that when I opposed, that you found the need to go through my 10,000+ edits and question my judgment on one (see my talk page). This RFA is about you and how you would be as an admin, not me. The fact that you are playing this game of "you voted oppose..so now you have to explain yourself" is something this wiki does not need in an admin. I am sorry that I take RFA's seriously and while I may not comment on everyone's, I do want to make sure we get the right admins here at the wiki. People who are level-headed. 11:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I hate to base this solely on time, but after a failed RfA the candidate needs time to show that his or her actions have changed significantly enough to warrant another look. Just under a month is simply not enough time. I need more time to see if you have taken the advice given to you during your last request. Sorry- 04:01, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - ''I realize that Halo's last nomination was a little over a month ago. I believe that during that time he has done a lot of maturing''—That's not how maturity works; you can't mature in any substantial way in one-and-a-half months. That silliness aside, Halo is an amiable enough guy (and seems to be mature enough to be an admin on a wiki about Runescape...). I just find him not very sensible and much too concerned with stifling propriety. I don't really want to give his opinions the extra weight in discussions that comes with the sysop flag (AEAE nonsense notwithstanding). Otherwise he will probably be an acceptable user of the tools. (wszx)  06:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * I'm not sure I understand your comment. You first state that you oppose because I can't mature in one and a half months. Then you state that's silliness? Then you state that I'm mature? You seem to be disagreeing with yourself in the space of a few sentences. I'm puzzled. 07:16, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposing you because you can't have matured in that time (and I said you didn't need to have done). I'm simply saying that the notion that you can have matured in that time is silliness. (wszx)  07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Edit conflicts, lag, and some other random stuff delayed this post:
 * 07:44, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying he is mature enough, but everyone is saying he has matured in a month and a half you think is wrong so you are opposing for what other people are saying? 07:34, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm still very confused. AEAE aside, you don't want my points to have extra weight, but why is that? Is it because I make bad points or something else? Also-Propriety is the conformity to established standards of good or proper behavior or manners. So are you saying it's bad I have respect for rules? I just don't get this at all I'm afraid. 07:38, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's clearly too much for you all to handle, ignore the maturity part since I was never opposing or supporting because of anything to do with maturity. I'm opposing because I think you lack sense, and having a blue crown would give you extra weight in discussions no matter what AEAE says. I also think you have too much of a respect for rules and empty niceties. Rules and decorum have their place, but too much is a Bad Thing (which is why IAR/UCS is such a good policy). (wszx)  07:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Examples please. I believe myself to be a strong proponent of UCS. You still didn't answer my question. I agree with you that sysops get extra weight in discussions and no amount of policies will change that. But why is this extra weight bad for me, and good for other people. That's what I'm asking you. I would also like examples of why you think I lack sense. If you would be so kind as to provide them. 08:00, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * He's got lots of sense, his guides make sense, his ideas make sense, his opinions make sense, where is this sense he's lacking? 08:36, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There's a huge difference between occasionally getting a bit testy with other editors, and the type of mindset that would cause one to abuse the tools to cause havoc for the wiki. As I said earlier, I've seen even the most level headed admins lose their temper and say some things I don't approve of, but even then, I know they'd never abuse their power. And if Halo ever does decide to abuse the power, he'll just lose it. How much damage could he do before a bureaucrat got on and fixed it? Not to mention there's always a staff member avaliable, if one of our crats aren't. The way I see it, the tools aren't important enough to warrant this kind of caution, especially with someone who could make real use of them. 07:39, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Per Psycho, I think he could use them, and would never misuse them. From his last RFA I wanted to see if Halo could walk away from an argument that was going nowhere, and I think he is more able to do so now.--Degenret01 08:03, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Psycho's reasoning that "And if Halo ever does decide to abuse the power, he'll just lose it. How much damage could he do before a bureaucrat got on and fixed it? Not to mention there's always a staff member avaliable, if one of our crats aren't." is not a reason that we should give admin tools to anyone. Degen, see my comment above about walking away 11:22, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support Enough though this is outside my normally territory, I got involved in a discussion with him. I believe him can handle being an admin. He just got defensive, like so many of us do on our first rfa. He apologised for what he thought was wrong, and that's good enough for me. But it may not be enough for the rest of you. I think he wants to help, and he has even posted on atlandy's talk after some discussion with me. I didn't know about it until a few minutes ago, but to me it shows the change he said he would try, to listen and reason with, instead of irate and aggravate. I fully trust him after the discussion. I think he is ready. He has made some mistakes, but we are all human, none of ud are perfect. It's fine for someone to show human emotions, as long as they have some reign on it. I say that he has control now, and therefore is now a good candidate for receiving the tools. 14:44, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do agree that he wants to help, and he would try. I do not doubt that for a second. However, giving someone admin rights who is going to try to be a better person is foolish. Let him be the better person first, then he should try to become and admin. Also, please keep in mind that not everyone gets defensive during their RFA (good or bad). To say so is a poor generalization. 14:53, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that I believe he will be the better person. I truly do, or else I have wasted several hours for nothing. 14:56, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that he wants to be a calmer, less aggressive wikian, however, giving someone the admin tools to "try it out" is not in the best interest of the wiki 15:05, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that he is the better person. Look at the new comment he made on your talkpage. That was after 20 mins or so of talking. I spent 2 hours trying to help. It made me believe that he is better. Anyway, I can't continue this now, it's 10am and I have to go to sleep. 15:07, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

support-halo is a very good contributor and i think that he deserve adminship and would contribute way more if halo had adminship so i support this i hope he gets this so good luck 16:28, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an edit count requirement to vote? 17:36, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, since RS:CONSENSUS apparently removes the need to watch for sockpuppets. 18:05, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I admit I wasn't a pleasant person (why I stated moments later that I had been a jerk and that I was sorry) ...Sorry... 05:38, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Strong Oppose - I'm sorry Halo, but I will not comply to your demands. This is a request from the community, a right and a tool, and for you to be hostile at my oppose only leads me to the direction that you are not ready, and will not be for some time to come. I have stated nothing on here about me saying you "would abuse your tools" either, so why you question this on my talk page is beyond me. Your not ready for the tools. (in response to - I've only ever had a few conflicts. And everytime one happens I do my best to fix it and leave everyone happy. Would you rather me lie/not fix the problem? And then you apologize? If you are going to oppose do it full heartedly. Also, what reason do you have to believe that I would ever abuse these tools? by Halo on my talk page). 16:28, July 8, 2010 (UTC) Oppose Strong Oppose - I'm really sad that this was reopened so quickly after the last one, and my doubts have only grown since the last rfa. 09:50, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you argue too much, as demonstrated repeatedly. You act extremely hostile wherever there is a problem and even more-so when you receive an oppose. This is the exactly the kind of behavior that I wouldn't trust to give somebody admin tools. 00:32, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ok, I don't really agree with u about anything, and I have argued with u in the past quite a bit, and you do seem at least a bit arrogant. However, I see halo MUCH more then I see alot of other admins, both on the mainspace and on the yew grove. We NEED more aggressive and less calm wikians, and maby finally something useful will get done around here. Furthermore, '''THERES NO SUCH THING AS ARGUING TOO MUCH. ''' 17:26, July 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. It has happened enough times to me... A lot of "stuff" has already been done around here. 01:07, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "less calm wikians"? You cannot be serious. 01:09, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all who say Halo has aggressive and hostile characteristics. 01:07, July 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have read all those talk pages... So I know what I am talking about. 01:20, July 9, 2010 (UTC)