RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Buzz 9 1990

Archive 1

Buzz 9 1990
Hello, ive been on the wiki a while, from Februari. I made a lot of edits and i reverted a lot of vandalism, i also have rollback rights to perform that. I don't think that will be enough to improve the wiki. I think that an extra admin would be good. An example would be me, that's why i made an RfA again..

My last RfA went a little bad, i was too new. But i saw that Robert Horning made 3800 edits in 6 months and became an admin, well, i got 3700+ in 5 months. I hope i will get enough support from you all, THANKS. 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

''I, Buzz 9 1990, 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, 10:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC).

Support
Support Thoughtful, prolific editor who is constantly tidying up pages and is clearly dedicated to the wiki.-- 16:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Just because it seems like the right thing to do. Planeshifted 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Soft Support - I share similar concerns with the neutral voters below me, but you've certainly contributed a lot to this Wiki and would be trustworthy as an admin.

Support Despite all the objections listed below, his edit history clearly shows he is trying to improve this wiki. If his only additional contributions were to be be blocking vandals, that would free up other sysops for the harder tasks. And, sometimes you have to get thrown in to learn how to swim. I think Buzz would swim well.--Varthlokkur 08:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Pretty much the same as Varthlokkur said, coupled with the "no big deal" thing we've all read a bunch. I do not see Buzz as someone who would abuse the extra tools. I do wish, however, he had done a community talk before adding equipable (was there one? did I miss it? Or am I real screwed up and someone else added it?) because I really hate that. And Buzz, ignore your edit count, focus on edit quality. Notwithstanding, I believe the community would be better off if he had sysop tools.--Degenret01 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support After seeing many of your most recent edits and your response to the many comments on this RFA I think that this wiki would benefit from having you as an admin.-- Matt   23:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you very much, now, let's hope for some more support. 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
Question The RfA seems to be rushed, and posted with very little concern for spelling or grammar. Basically, I'm wondering your motive behind posting this. Are you sincere about becoming an admin, or are you just "jumping on the bandwagon"? To me, a little grammar checking before posting would go a long way for a vote. 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not have to use any grammar to block vandals or deleting / undeleting pages.. 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral The amount of edits do not make an admin. The fact that you rushed to catch Robert to become an admin concerns me. Cheers! Atlandy 11:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Robert was an example, i saw that he made 3800 edits in 6 months and became an admin, i did that too. Got some little projects running about template improvements and calculators.. 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Everybody is talking about editcount, check out the new RFA's. "You are a little bit new and made only 200 edits.." . I've been here for 6 months with 3800 edits. Then i'll get this: "Forget your editcount, focus on edit quality.." Know what i mean? 15:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I support what atlandy said above, also I didn't think you were clued up enough about the whole of wiki policies and were a bit green last time you were put up for this, I still think that and am inclined to vote oppose, but for now I will stay neutral, although I may change my vote at a later date. 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I agree. You do have a lot of edits, but I'm not yet sure if you're ready to be an admin. I may also change my vote. 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I think you definitely have what it takes to be an admin and I think you would make a good one. However, I have to agree this does seem a bit rushed. You have done a good job and made some wonderful contributions, however a large edit count is not all that should be taken into account when becoming an admin. It seems that you think that it is. In all honesty, I think you have everything that it takes to be good admin. But since this does some a bit rushed, I would suggest you have more patience. After all I feel that patience is very important when it comes to being an admin. I have to say, I honestly think that there are many current admins on this wiki that lack patience, but I won't name any of them. Overall, I have to doubt your reasoning for wanting to become an admin. You have made excellent contributions but your reason for becoming an admin should be to improve the wiki with quality edits, not just the number of edits. By the way, I am actually on the fence of supporting you but have not made up my mind just yet. I still have a ways to go looking over you're most recent edits and future ones in the next few days. Good luck!! Matt  09:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that i want to improve the wiki a little bit more, fight against vandalism and helping others to become great contributors.. 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. I can see you've really been helping the wiki a lot. However, RS:ADMIN says that, "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". So are you an active and regular contributor? Yes, definitely. Are you familiar with and do you respect policy? Well, you do obey it mostly, but again, going back to that previous yew grove discussion about banning all IPs, I'm not sure that it will stay that way. So, I can't really say I trust you all that much. Finally, one of my own things is will you becoming an admin benefit the wiki? After all, that's why we're here. I can see you want to help out, but especially with the rushing with adminship and such, I'm not sure whether it would. Sorry to hamper on earlier mistakes, but I'm not so sure you completely understand your mistakes. However, if you can show that you really regret them, and not just saying that to get adminship, then I'll support. Butterman62 (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment - Since my name is being brought up and Buzz is insisting that somehow his RfA is somehow no different than mine, I'd suggest he re-read my RfA to see what the difference is. One of the major points I made to sell that I was capable of being an administrator here is that I'm an admin on Wikimedia projects and have had the experience... plus some experience on this wiki... and have expressly made requests to help improve the wiki that would require administrator tools. The edit count alone was not the key to my RfA. This isn't to say that Buzz is a vandal and somebody disruptive to the community. But you should be able to stand on your own merits and not try to compare to somebody else. I hope that you get the opportunity sooner or later to help out the community through using administrator tools, but what is being asked here is to see if you have the maturity necessary to not abuse those tools. --Robert Horning 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not about your rfa, it's about what you did on the wiki, with the calculators and stuff, editcount in 6 months, little projects and a big project. Well, the only thing is, i didn't do a big project on this wiki.. 06:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
Oppose -- I really want to support you...you're a good editor, you revert vandalism on sight, you're deferential...but you still don't follow instructions. On your last RFA I commented on how you didn't follow instructions for posting your RFA, and you didn't follow them this time either! If there's two important things I need to see in a sysop, it's the ability to learn from criticism and follow instructions. A sysop that doesn't follow Wiki policy can do a lot of harm, even if their intentions are for the best. So it kills me to do it, but I have to oppose this until you've shown your ability to follow instructions. For your reference, the instructions I'm talking about are in clear sight on the main RFA page, here. 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Whoaa.. The only thing i mis-read or didn't saw was the RFA template, tried to do everything oke, missed the RFA template. You are really good endasil, thank you very much. Whoa omg.. 15:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I have to agree with Endasil in saying that I can't support someone who is actually told what to do, then doesn't do it. Your last rfa only ended a little while ago, and I think your rush to put up this new one (and catch Robert Horning) show you aren't really ready to be an admin. When one rfa fails, you should not put up another one so soon. Christine 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - As i said, Robert was an example. Just an example, he is my example 06:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but I have to agree with Christine and Skill. This RfA does seem a bit rushed. 12:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You mean Christine and Endasil? 13:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. Endasil. 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose RfA seems a bit rushed and hastily put together. You don't seem ready for adminship quite yet, and failed to follow instructions. SudoKing 00:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

'''Note of intent: Because of the lack of full support/oppose votes, this RFA will be extended until July 10th. Consensus is difficult to determine at this point in time because of the many neutral comments. Neutral RFA contributors are encouraged to rethink their votes and change to full support or oppose.''' Dtm142 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)