RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Aburnett001

NOTE: This page has been protected for 24 hours at the request of Aburnett. Please do not edit this page until the protection has expired. Thank you. 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unprotected at Aburnett's request on IRC. 05:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aburnett001

 * RfA #1

Aburnett001 is a fabulous, wonderful, determind, productive, (running out of adjectives :S) and enthusiastic editor because of his countless acts of reverting vandalism, welcoming new users, and uploading many updated images. He has also actively pacticipates in various community discussions such as the Yew Grove and many other areas related to that. He has over 3,000 total edits, over 1,000 being mainspace edits. He is a very wise and trustworthy editor and shows that he is mature and respectful in many places in the wiki. He is very active (almost) everyday in his edits, scarcely missing any days without editing. He is quite mindful of our policies and follows them whenever making a decision. I believe that he will not abuse his sysops powers and he will use those tools to help better this wiki in many aspects of the community. I think he will be a marvelous sysops. -- 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

''I, Aburnett001, 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,'' -- 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC).

Discussion
Support as nominator. -- 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Countless acts of reverting vandalism. Would use admin tools well. -- 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Has a great mainspace-edit count, and I frequently see his name on the Recent Changes page. 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - sorry, to soon after your last RfA. 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Soldier, I do understand your opposition, but keep in mind that I didn't nominate myself (not to say I didn't have a choice), and I firmly believe that I've demonstrated by devotion to this wiki not only in the time between this RfA and the last one, but also in the year that I have been a member of this wiki. -- 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - From these quotes (just today, actually):

''"To Aburnett, no, he abuses his powers and ignores established policy"- I can haz proof? I see no strong basis for these claims. -- 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC) - 'When Diberville did provide proof. Later, you said that the evidence did not prove anything, when (imo) it did. This shows that you have.....an inability to read (for lack of a better term)?'''

''Against- Stinko is very direct and can rub people the wrong way, but he is not a bad admin. Although he isn't exactly the most caring admin on the wiki, he is essentially a good administrator and a valuable addition to this wiki. There is no reason for Stinko to by de-sysopped. - 'Using that same reasoning, if say, Buzz 9 1990 was rude and uncivil to many users of the wiki and he happened to hold an RfA....then comments like this "Support- Even if he is rude and uncivil, he has made many good contributions" would be allowed. Also, in that discussion there were many reasons for him to be desysopped.'''

''Very true. For anyone who hasn't yet, be sure to educate yourself by viewing Vhosythe's block log as well as his talk page. -- 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 'Whether or not the user has been blocked for something in the past, is not important in such a discussion. Here you were actually sort of...destroying Vhosythe's credibility by making such a comment.'''

''"...not even TRY to change his ways" Simply put, you have not been here long enough to make that statement. I have noting against new users, but new users that accuse older ones of things that, quite frankly, they don't even understand is simply unacceptable. 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 'If the user has seen an older user (in this case, Stinkowing) to do something wrong, there is nothing wrong with accusing that user (provided that there is satisfactory evidence). It has nothing to do with how long that user has been here.'''

''Oppose- Per everything I've said above, Stinko still deserves his adminship. -- 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)'' No one deserves adminship.

Basically, I oppose because of your thinking, which does not make a lot of sense to me. The quotes are just evidence to back my statement up. 02:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Umm, OK... Lets try and take this one step at a time...
 * As you said, in your opinion the proof provided by Diberville backed up his accusations against Stinko. In my opinion, they did not.
 * Different users have different expectations of their sysops. In my opinion, Sysops should be chosen on the basis that they will help the wiki, not on "if they're a nice guy".
 * His blocking was quite relevant to the discussion due to the fact that most of his disagreement with Stinko was over the length of his block.
 * In this case, I felt that there was not satisfactory evidence that Stinko was acting inappropriately. I was more focused on the fact that he stated that stink hadn't changed, I felt that he wouldn't be able to accurately make that assessment as he hadn't been here to see Stinkos changes.
 * My word choice on this last one was regrettable, what i am realy trying to say here is that Stinko is essentially a good administrator, and because of this he should not have hos sysop rights revoked.


 * Finally, I want to point out that I cant help feeling that you opposed my RfA simply because of the stance I took on this debate over Stinko today. I personally feel that that is unfair.  Your vote in an RfA should be based on your thoughts about how the user will benefit or detriment the wiki, not about their opinions on specific topics. -- 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also, I find the fact that you basically called me illiterate (This shows that you have.....an inability to read) as well as accused me of trying to destroy another users reputation (Here you were actually sort of...destroying Vhosythe's credibility) downright offensive.  An RfA (or any place on the wiki, for that matter) is no place for personal attacks. -- 03:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If they did not, then how did they not?
 * That's happens to be similiar to my expectations of a sysop. But Stinko isn't bordering on "not so nice" but "rude".
 * That is actually opinion as Vhosythe did give a proper reason. Also, Vhosythe was blocked for an infinite amount of time by Stinko, which is not justifiable because Vhosythe may have been rude to other users but he did not vandalise or anything like that. A one-month block (imo), would have been the maximum amount of time for him to be blocked for.
 * Well, the fact remains that Stinko did abuse his powers. Also, if that's your point, then the I have noting against new users, but new users that accuse older ones of things that, quite frankly, they don't even understand is simply unacceptable. was simply uncalled for, yes?
 * Administrators should not be judged only by their contribs, but their character too.


 * It may seem that way, but I assure you it's not. And I know very well what my vote in an RfA should be based on, thank you very much. I was just reading through the Yew Grove and whenever I stumbled upon one of your comments, a bell would ring in my head. It is honestly because I disagree with your thinking. Also, please refrain from saying that you think that something is "fair" or "not fair". Leave that out until I have confirmed that I opposed your RfA because of that (which I did not). Also, I did not call you illiterate. I am not trying be offensive to you in any way. It was based on the comment that you wanted proof when Diberville did provide proof right there! Also, providing links to a supporter's block log and talkpage? I don't see how that is really helpful. Also, I was not 100% sure, so I said "sort of". Please stop jumping to conclusions. 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "It may seem that way, but I assure you it's not." Very well, please tell me why I am unfit to become an admin Without drawing from the Stinko debate. I have no problem with people opposing me because they don't think I am ready for admin powers (such as Soldier), but opposing based on my opinions is not right. Also, I'm not jumping to conclusions at all.  If you tell someone that they have "An inability to read", you are most insulting them, there is no dancing around that one. Really, I just want this to be separated from the whole Stinko incident that just turned the wiki on its head.  Everyone lost it, and a lot of things happened that shouldn't have happened. I am not asking you to ignore what happened during this whole debate, I am merely asking you to judge me on more than just that debate, like what I have done for the wiki over the coarse of my time here, from reverting vandalism, to welcoming users, to improving pages.  No one is perfect, we all know that and I am the first to admit that I am not without flaws.  As I see it tho, my flaws are greatly overshadowed by my better qualities, and because of this I do think I would make a good admin.  -- 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - I was going to support at first. Good edits (especially images and mainspace, probably the most important ones for the wiki, nice job) and a large amount of overall edits. I like that you've reverted vandalism (which is good, but not as good as a contribution; removing bad things is not as good as adding good things). But as others have stated it's been pretty soon after your previous RFA. In fact, I don't think it's been enough time for you to change much at all. However, you've tried. I also agree with Caleb on a few points which makes a weak oppose for me. However, my "vote" is subject to change depending on your contributions within the next few days. 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I do hope that you will consider changing your mind Kudos. My contributions, as you pointed out, do contain a lot of reverts, which I also agree is much less than an actual contribution.  I just want to point out, however, that because I spend a great majority of my time reverting vandalism I would make better use of sysop tools than someone who only works on building articles.  I also realize that it hasn't been very long since my last RfA, however I feel that my level of activity as of late along with  overall wiki activity (while I was gone from this wiki, I was serving as a b'crat on another wiki, and I was quite active before taking that time off) warrants at least a second glance. -- 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

All-out SUPPORT - Regardless of above, you are an extremely trustworthy person. You revert vandalism and have fun. 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - regardless of your being a nice guy, not holding people accountable to their misuse of powers is unacceptable to me. Personal accountablity is of the utmost importance.--Degenret01 05:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say that people characterize me as more than just a nice guy. As all of my supporters have mentioned, I frequent the recent changes and constantly revert vandalism.  People who are vandalizing our wiki are 100% guilty of their actions and should face the punishment for it.  It is for this exact reason that I want to become a sysop, so that I can keep our wiki free of people who edit for the sole purpose of disruption.  If you are referring to my stance on the Stinko debate, I would just encourage you to read my above posts and try and leave that out of this discussion. -- 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)