RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Azaz129

Azaz129
Hello I have been active editting the wiki and my favorite task is combatting vandalism. I have used the rollback feature effectively against vandalism, however sometimes rollback just isn't enough and I would prefer to be able to block vandals before they're able to harm more than a page. If you look at my edits you'll notice that of my 1k+ mainspace edits most are reverting vandalism and various other tasks that would be made easier through the use of admin tools. I feel that with these tools I will better be able to help the wiki.

''I, Azaz129, 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,.

Discussion
Support - I've seen you around the wiki, and it's clear that you deserve sysop tools. You also have a knack for welcoming users. Keep up the good work. 16:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Neutral  - Some points why i can't support or oppose. Sorry, have to stay neutral. 08:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting vandalism will not say that you NEED sysop tools.
 * Don't look at you editcount, focus on edit quality.
 * Welcoming new users is good.
 * Comment - In no way was I focusing upon my edit count as it is clear I was simply stating that most of my edits (of which over 60% are mainspace) are reverting vandalism. Secondly, I'm rather confused as to why you emphasized need as if it states anywhere in this request that I "NEED" sysop tools because I've reverted vandalism, I apologise that you received the wrong impression from this request.

Strong Support I have always been fond of you and your work on the wiki. Im sure he will have a great fututre as an admin :D 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - In my eyes, you're almost qualified for adminship, but there's just one thing. I can see you revert vandalism a lot, but I think at some points, it's crossing into the line into assuming bad faith, such as with these edits. Please remember that most people who are editing the wiki are trying to help it, not hurt it, and that their contributions should not be treated like vandalism. I'd like an explanation for those edits, and others like them, before I can support. Butterman62 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the 1st edit I undid it due to the fact that it is a list of the herbs dropped and in all other articles we list the herbs that are dropped not the ones not dropped, if I was ABF I would have reported the person, however this was a simple error on their part and I simply put the article back in its original form.


 * For the second I'll admit a bit of error on my part, it was rather late where I was and after reading the sentence a few times did not comprehend its meaning (due mostly to the wording), as I read it now I see that the meaning is a valid thought wrapped in bad grammar, on that edit I admit I was wrong.


 * The third edit now, I simply felt that the edit did not add to the article and I'm still not exactly sure what their intent was, my assumption is simply they were saying the animation was in need of a graphic rework, in which case the edit should be added to the animation's page.


 * To explain for these edits I would also like to point out that the rollback feature (which I possess) is to be used for vandalism, I therefore use the undo feature not for vandalism but for incorrect good faith edits (though this does give the wrong impression at times), typically if I see the point being made then I'll fix it. Also I'm not the only one who's done this sort of thing  16:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but the reminder says whenever you try to undo a page, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message". It is not proper to just undo a good-faith edit without any explanation. So please remember in the future to put an explanation when undoing edits that are not simple vandalism, rather than just having the Undid revision ###### by so-and-so. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|15px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|15px]] 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WOAH WOAH WOAH Leave me the hell out of this. You don't even know what those edits were! Did you read the diffs? Yeah, clearly not! He tried adding PDF files to the article, which clearly do not work. There were seven revisions to restore, and "undoing" them would not work. Check your facts before you go around smearing my name. FFS. That's not assuming good faith, and I have to OPPOSE because of this behavior, and the other examples mentioned by Butterman. Christine 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I was justifying my edits by showing how you reverted those edits rightly. 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This conversation seems to have become centered not on if I'm qualified to be an admin, but whether I'm capable of assuming good faith. I've already explained the above three comments and the fourth is a missunderstanding of epic proportions. Excluding reverting of vandalism, almost all of my edits to the gemw are good faiths being corrected (via the times, price, etc.). Many of my anti-vandal edits also involve the bettering of good faith edits, yes I admit errors occur every now and then, however a few drops in the bucket cannot be the only things focused upon. 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I want to make sure that prospective administrators are familiar with and respect policy. Assume good faith is a policy. It is not enough to be familiar with "most" of them. Also, I want to make sure that (all users too, but especially) prospective adnimistrators can follow directions, because administrators have much more potential to mess things up than users without sysop access. Directions include messages in the wiki, such as the message that comes up when someone tries to undo an edit. Your explanations of these edits give me the impression that you have no intention of changing your behavior and that you will continue it in the future. That is unacceptable for my support. Now, if you say that yes, you will follow policies and wiki instructions in the future and that it won't happen again, then I may support, but for now, I don't. Butterman62 (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions

 * How would you use your blocking ability? Could you give me separate theoretical examples of when you would block a user, warn a user with no block given, and assume good faith with no warning given?

1-No block given-A person does a GF edit on an article, messing up the template or image, I fix the edit and give the user a message on their page on how to avoid future mistakes of that caliber.

2-No block with a warning-A one time minor vandalism with no vulgar or explicit content, if continued would receive a three day block due to warning.

3-Block-Repeated or offensive vandalism, page blanking, or repeated personal attacks upon a user.1-3 day block depending upon the severity, may be blocked for longer (week to a few depending on the severity/number of blocks in the case) if it is not the first block. 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)