RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Earthere

My RfA

Archive 1

Examples of work

 * Created Grand Exchange Market Watch/Treasures
 * Created Grand Exchange Market Watch/Common
 * Helped revamp Barbarian Assault
 * Added a huge amount of GEMW articles to Melee
 * Am concerned with vandalism and how it hurts RSW as a whole (ignore the title =P)
 * Actively patrol the Recent Changes
 * Created an "essay"
 * Tagged many, many articles and images for speedy deletion

Examples of countering vandalism
    

How I will use sysop powers

 * Edit the protected pages
 * There are very few protected pages in the mainspace, so this really doesn't apply to RSW
 * Protect and unprotect pages.
 * I do not plan to protect pages in the mainspace often, bar temporary semi-protection in cases of heavy vandalism, temporary full-protection in the event of an edit war, permanent semi-protection on a "high risk" template (like Template:Infobox Item), and permanent full-protection on pages that should be blacklisted.
 * Delete pages, including images, and their history.
 * I will only delete pages that meet the criteria for Speedy Deletion (such criteria includes personal attacks, nonsense, vandalism etc.). If there is a reasonable doubt in my mind that the page should remain on RSW, I will not delete it.
 * View and restore deleted pages, including images, and their history.
 * A note to sysops: If I feel that a page was unjustly deleted, I will restore it. When I do this I will always have a good reason for it.
 * Block and unblock users, IP address, and IP ranges.
 * I will not be lenient towards a vandal unless I feel that their edit was a "test" (blanking content, breaking a template). Note that I currently do check for proxy or dynamic I.P. abuse; I will block proxies for an extended period of time, and will monitor possible dynamic I.P. vandals for a "pattern".
 * Revert pages quickly via the rollback method.
 * "Being in authority" is no excuse for edit warring, in my opinion.
 * Change the text and style of the interface by editing the pages in the MediaWiki namespace or MediaWiki:Monobook.css
 * If I catch a bug or a chance to improve an interface, I will take that opportunity.
 * Can view Special:Unwatchedpages to see pages which may be more vulnerable to vandalism.
 * I will use this to prevent more vandalism from occurring--don't know if admins already use it.
 * Can flag reported pages as not a problem, fixed, awaiting, or need staff help.
 * I've viewed several reports already, and have a good feel for how to close them.

On a personal note
It's painfully obvious that I do not get along with a certain user or two. (I do try to assume good faith with almost everyone). I ask that no one brings up my personal disputes with editors unless it directly shows that I am not fit for Adminship. I also ask that my 2nd request not revolve around "what everyone said in the 1st request". Learning from my mistakes is important, but that is the past, something I do not wish to dwell on any longer... (lol)

Earthere
...

''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, Earthere.

Discussion
Soft Support - Is a good contributer, has helped a lot in reverting vandalisms, and understands the role 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation of any sorts? ^_^ (note, I'm not trying to oppose, I'll just probably do this for all votes that aren't explained). Here are some ideas: How would his becoming an admin benefit the wiki? How has he shown that he is ready? etc. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: this isn't a request for bureaucrat and so the onus is on those who would oppose the RfA. As DTM says, being a sysop should not be a big deal, so unless there's a good reason NOT to sysop someone, we will.  22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. According to RS:ADMIN, "RuneScape Wiki's practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular RuneScape Wiki contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects RuneScape Wiki policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community". Therefore, whoever gives in their two cents should be saying why so-and-so meets or does not meet these three criteria. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that these qualities are needed, and if those qualities aren't there, than that's a "good reason NOT to sysop someone." I simply disagree that supports on an RfA need to be heavily verbally supported. Editors that have been here a long time (like Amaurice) typically know what a good admin is, and (in my opinion) shouldn't need to be expected to cite RS:ADMIN verbatim for the reasons why someone is a good admin (which Amaurice was pretty much forced to do, and really added nothing to the argument). On the other hand, if there is supported opposition, then of course a responding support argument would be needed.  12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to RS:AEAE, what you said would be not allowed, about Amaurice not having to back his/her opinion up. According to the policy, "We are all equal, and with equality comes equal importance". Therefore, equal expectations. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If you want to start gaming the system, fine.  But you're taking a legalistic stance on RS:AEAE.  We've already been over this in many discussions, that AEAE is in many ways a sham.  The spirit of the policy is to establish a commonality in editing, but it's absolutely ridiculous to say that all editors are equal when it comes to community processes.  If we were all equal, than I would be able to sysop people.
 * Remember we're looking for consensus, which is STILL subjective. We're not a court of law.  We can still reach consensus if everyone agrees to support, even if we don't give reasons.  Discussion is obviously needed when the community is divided, but if everyone is supporting, there's absolutely no need for it (not that it would be a bad thing!).
 * The reason I'm making such a big deal is because you're starting to babysit our community discussions. People shouldn't have to feel talked down upon or corrected when they give their opinion.  It feels like you're being condescending, and you're changing what should be an informal discussion into a formal one.   21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to assume bad faith. All I'm trying to do is help. I'm not trying to suppress people; I'm trying to bring out why they believe what they believe, so we all can consider what everyone thinks in our own and in the closing bureaucrats' decision making. Because, this is sort of a big decision. Even RS:AEAE says, "all major decisions of this kind (such as requesting adminship) must be made by the community, and not by an individual". So I just want to help in the decision making, so it will ultimately benefit the wiki as a whole. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Dtm's word is not law. According to RS:AEAE, "Editors should also not claim "Admin name here said that we shouldn't do this, so we shouldn't". Also, it was Jimbo Wales (founder of Wikipedia) who said that, and that is not how "not a big deal" is interpreted. It means that people shouldn't be overly obsessed about getting adminship because it's cool and pretty and all that. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it was WP's founder, and if you knew as well, then you'd also know your first two sentences have no weight because the quote didn't come from Dtm. I was merely mentioning Dtm because I first heard it from him.  And your second sentence just goes on to prove that being an admin isn't a big deal.  And furthermore, when Jimbo Wales said it, he also said that pretty much everyone should have sysop status, and that it was just a technical thing that they don't.  So yeah, I'd say his intention was relevant here.  But we aren't WP, which was why I didn't bring those points up before.  12:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we aren't Wikipedia, which is why what Jimbo Wales says doesn't necessarily apply here. According to RS:ADMIN, "...administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community", and that "...users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information". And my first two sentences do have weight because Jimbo Wales himself has no weight. He's part of Wikipedia, not Wikia. Therefore, Dtm tried to apply it here and you used his saying as if we're expected to abide by it, which we're not. Of course, as RS:AEAE says, it's open to discussion, but it's not automatically into effect. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used his saying because we've used it in the past and the community has generally followed it. I was not trying to trump you by mentioning Dtm's name, for all I know he could disagree with me.  I'm sorry if it appeared that way.  I was merely giving credit where credit was due, because I identified Dtm as the source of the saying on this wiki. 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's fine. There are probably many different ways to interpret it, and I acknowledge what you think. Also, again, I'm not trying to trump or suppress anyone, I just want to help make it so that whatever decision comes out will best benefit the wiki. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Endasil, and give Earthere my Support, unless someone can give me a reason not to. 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since you more or less asked for one, he edited blanked my userpage, violation of RS:DEU. 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although the blanking of Chia's page was not good, as least he did revert it back himself the next minute. 09:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Soft Support - Earthere has edited a lot, re vert ed van dal ism, but has done some bad stuff. He has been blocked, numerous times (mostly minor stuff), and he blanked my userpage because I "owned" him with a 99-99-6,000 Dragon dagger special, if I remember right, violation of RS:DEU. 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think a few more people to block vandals would be good. Sometimes there is too long of a stretch with no sysops around to do the blocking. While Earthere has made a few mistakes, I think it would benefit the wiki to sysop him.--Varthlokkur 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I like how quick he reacts to vandalism when he is on the wiki. Quoted from RS:RFA "This is the primary reason why this wiki needs admins - fighting vandalism and acting as a volunteer to keep this wiki clean, readable, and accurate". Review his edits. He looks good for the wiki. --Degenret01 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I can't post links and show every instance..but he has vandalized in the past by blanking pages, and has also been blocked a few others. I don't look for those attributes in someone put into a leadership posistion. And do not tell me an admin is not a leadership posistion. New wikians look to admins for guidance and how to behave on the wiki. If a admin has vandalized and blanked pages, how does that look to the new user?Cheers! Atlandy 22:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought...Oppose per Atlandy. I didn't realize what happened until today! 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Instant, did you read some of the links provided for us to review? Instead of opposing per one wikian or supporting per another, we are supposed to read what happened/review the editors actions and come to our own conclusions. This is NOT a vote. For example, his blanking Chias page that you can look at. Yup, he did it, but you can see he fixed it a minute later and Chia still gives a "Soft support". I took that as a joke and not vandalism. --Varthlokkur 03:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked for things Earthere has done by myself and changed my opinion, and I didn't want to say something that had already been said, so I just said "per Atlandy" because I had the same reason as him. 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While the quick blanking of a page made have been "a joke" it is still wrong and not something any admin should be doing [[Image:Drunk Dragon.PNG|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but as I look at this RfA, I feel somewhat appalled at all of the things being said here. I don't know what the hell is going on, seriously. Spreading rumours about me seems to be popular. The number of editors who dislike me is rather large. There might even be a small group of people dedicated to making sure I leave this Wiki. I don't care much about that stuff, but one thing just keeps popping up: blatant mischaracterizations of other editors and I. I see it happen all the time, and it's just not funny. It's sort of like Wikipedia's policy on living persons; they do look at every fact very carefully because THE ACTUAL PERSON IN QUESTION could be looking at the article be offended by what's being said in it.

I feel that people are taking several of my edits and blowing them out of proportion. Did I purposefully blank his page? Yes. Did it violate RSW policy? Yes. Did you know the meaning of that edit? No. I don't think that anyone here has the right to judge that edit. I've known Chia since about that time. I know him reasonably well, often have friendly chats with him in RuneScape private chat, and bear no malice toward him whatsoever. He's a pretty cool guy. The logic being used here infers that I would treat every other editor the same level of maturity that I do with editors like Chia, and that simply is not the case.

I do know how to act maturely as evidenced by my dozens of good faith assumptions toward I.P.s. Do I ever act immaturely in serious situations? Yes, but only when being endlessly provoked by others. I'm human; I do lose my temper occasionally, and I sure as hell am not perfect. Again I feel that I see no legitimate complaints in this entire RfA. People are bringing up things that have already been discredited; I don't vandalise, and the blocks were all given by one administrator, with whom common sense says I get along with to the likes of Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell.

It's getting to a point where I'm afraid of editing the RuneScape: and Talk: space AT ALL because "someone will use that edit against me later on". It feels terrible, and it's not fair for me, or anyone, to go through this sort of paranoia. If there's something I'm doing wrong--like hogging the Recent Changes--please do say it here. I have no problem with constructive criticism, but the things being said here and my previous RfA are downright hurtful, and in my opinion, shouldn't be said at all. Keeping all of that in mind, I'm slightly tempted to leave RSW, but won't so long as this RfA is resolved in a way that makes me satisfied. Satisfaction is not winning the prize; satisfaction is finding a way to earn and win the prize. It's not the main reason for my editing, but adminship means nothing to me if no one wants me to have it. So long as comments that are left give me "room for improvement", I will have something to work for, and will have another purpose for remaining at RSW. If I feel that my hours of editing have led to minimal improvement to RSW, then I feel that I should find something better to do in my spare time. Do not take this as a plea for sympathy or a case of blackmail; I am yet another teenager who is frustrated, confused, and maybe a little crazy. =P

I really had to say all of that. ty for reading all of that if you did.

Wow, that's an amazing speech. About how I felt when I left the wiki in October of last year. Of course, the whole "group of people with an aim to get you to leave the wiki" is a load of bullshit. Not to be an insult, though (I felt that way as well). I'll respond to you paragraph by paragraph:

"No offense, but as I look at this RfA, I feel somewhat appalled at all of the things being said here. I don't know what the hell is going on, seriously. Spreading rumours about me  seems to be popular.  The number of editors who dislike me is rather large. There might even be a small group of people dedicated to making sure I leave this Wiki.  I don't care much about that stuff, but one thing just keeps popping up: blatant mischaracterizations of other  editors and I. I see it happen all the time, and it's just not funny.  It's sort of like Wikipedia's policy on living persons; they do look at every fact very carefully because THE ACTUAL PERSON IN QUESTION could be looking at the article be offended by what's being said in it." Agreed, but don't think we all hate you. I don't for instance :). And as I said earlier, there are no conspiracies to get you outta here or I'll make sure it doesn't go through, one way or another. Nobody needs to deal with that.

"I feel that people are taking several of my edits and blowing them out of proportion. Did I purposefully blank his page? Yes. Did it violate RSW policy? Yes.  Did you know the meaning of that edit? No.  I don't think that anyone here has the right to judge that edit.  I've known Chia since about that time.  I know him reasonably well, often have friendly chats with him in RuneScape private chat, and bear no malice toward him whatsoever.  He's a pretty cool guy.  The logic being used here infers that I would treat every other editor the same level of maturity that I do with editors like Chia, and that simply is not the case." All is forgiven.

"I do know how to act maturely as evidenced by my dozens of good faith assumptions toward I.P.s. Do I ever act immaturely in serious situations?  Yes, but only when being endlessly provoked by others.  I'm human; I do lose my temper occasionally, and I sure as hell am not perfect. Again I feel that I see no legitimate complaints in this entire RfA.  People are bringing up things that have already been discredited; I don't vandalise, and the blocks were all given by one administrator, with whom common sense says I get along with to the likes of Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell." Yes, you are human, as far as I know. But people don't seem to care...I think the problem is there are people of lots of different ages here and are all expected to act a certain way by other editors. And I don't know if these complaints are illegitimate, but they certainly aren't the best reasons I've seen for things. And I have no clue what you're saying on that last sentence :P.

"''It's getting to a point where I'm afraid of editing the RuneScape: and Talk: space AT ALL because "someone will use that edit against me later on". It feels terrible, and it's not fair for me, or anyone, to go through this sort of paranoia. If there's something I'm doing wrong--like hogging the Recent Changes--please do say it here.  I have no problem with constructive criticism, but the things being said here and my previous RfA are downright hurtful, and in my opinion, shouldn't be said at all.  Keeping all of that in mind, I'm slightly tempted to leave RSW, but won't so long as this RfA is resolved in a way that makes me satisfied.  Satisfaction is not winning the prize; satisfaction is finding a way to earn and win the prize. It's not the main reason for my editing, but adminship means nothing to me if no one wants me to have it. So long as comments that are left give me "room for improvement", I will have something to work for, and will have another purpose for remaining at RSW. If I feel that my hours of editing have led to minimal improvement to RSW, then I feel that I should find something better to do in my spare time. Do not take this as a plea for sympathy or a case of blackmail; I am yet another teenager who is frustrated, confused, and maybe a little crazy. =P''" Oh...this is JUST like my situation I was in. Everything I said, offensive or not, was used against me and I couldn't say anything about it because THAT would be used against me. And this might seem a little harsh, but people don't care. They didn't care when they insulted me. They called me a bastard and admitted it, and no consequences came. I told them to shut up and I got a caps-lock paragraph saying "leave me alone -.-" many times. But don't leave, or at least only go on wikibreak. And if you would like examples, check out my RFA archives, the UOTM archives, and some talk pages. Let's just face it, some of us just need to shut up and accept the fact that we'll never be admins here due to some people not liking us, and I think you might become one of them (me included). Rollback might be the furthest we get, but we should at least make the best of that and make this wiki a better place...in the mainspace. 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Comment When looking to support or oppose an admin there are certain things that I look for and one is no blocks or vandalism. I am sorry that you have committed both. I dont "hate" anyone on the wiki, I just hold admins to a standard that they are obligated to hold others toCheers! Atlandy 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I go back in time: never argue with administrators, and stop myself from "vandalising" Chia's user page? I don't think I can.
 * Am I permanently not allowed to become an administrator because of these events? If there is something that I can improve on, what is it? (I'm not trying to badger you, am only wondering)