RuneScape:Requests for adminship/9the Enigma9

First nomination

9the Enigma9
I think that Enigma here would truly make a perfect, mature and competent administrator. He has been with this wiki for a long, long time, and has made over three thousand edits. For almost two years, Enigma has actively contributed to the wiki forum discussions at the Yew Grove, even starting some himself to better this wiki. He has also made extraordinary contributions to hundreds of main articles on the wiki, and has helped shape and guide their development through his own unique viewpoints combined with his vast experience and knowledge. Already deemed worthy of having rollbacker rights, Enigma has proved himself useful in nearly all fields of the wiki, such as uploading different kinds of images, designing logos and backgrounds, and has even designed Emoticons in the past. Enigma can easily help others archive their talk pages, has helped this wiki monitor vandalism as well as warning many disruptive users of the consequences for their actions, is well-versed in the construction of various complex templates of this wiki, and is a generally civil and skilled user, one who will continue to help make this wiki among the best of all of Wikia's separate wikis. I offer nothing less than my whole-hearted support for this user, and I am proud to know him here, as a fellow contributor and as a friend. Ralnon (talk) 21:58, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

''I, 9the Enigma9, 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,'' 00:33, October 27, 2009 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in? Mainly, anti-vandalism. Many a time have I filled the CVU and not for hours does an administrator notice and block the vandals, and in some cases persistent vandals go on for a while until I can contact an administrator, it would be so much easier if I could just block them. I'd also clear up speedy deletion candidates, close discussions when consensus is achieved, and fix problem reports if they haven't already been fixed and are possible to fix and mark them for whatever they must be marked as.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why? Reverting the edits of vandals and contributing my views and opinions to the Yew Grove. I'm quite active in both fields.

'''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?''' Unless edit conflicts (having someone edit a page before you finish your revision), then no. There have been some misunderstandings, but were quickly resolved. And if I am given stress, which rarely happens, I try to handle the situation calmly and most logically as possible.

Discussion
Strong Support - Enigma is a sysop on a wiki I crat, What more need be said? He is trustworthy, nice, and helpful. I can't think of any reason as to not give him the sysop rights on this wiki as well. 01:01, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I've looked through his contributions, and he participates in discussions, warns vandals, welcomes new users, and has done a lot of anti-vandal work. -- 01:07, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He would use the sysop tools well and probably isn't a demon. 01:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with demons? They look cool and have really long and pointy horns... 02:07, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * CHANGED TO APPOSE COS HE IS DEMONS!!!!!!!!!! 02:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * demonz? DEMON!!! -- 02:11, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very appropriate to be joking about people like that, especially on a serious discussion like an RfA. Just because those two users have a past here doesn't mean you can make fun of them. RS:UTP 02:20, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've seen a lot of premature requests for closure made by Enigma (for those of you looking for an example, it's at the very top). I need to know for sure that any sysop won't jump the gun and close a discussion early. Also, I don't like seeing a lot of CVU reports for first-offense IPs unless it's serious. Adding a few naughty words or messing with a GEMW page isn't serious, at least in my eyes, and Enigma tends to report a lot of these IPs to the CVU after posting the warning template on their talk page. There really isn't much point to this as most sysops would only warn them anyways. It worries me when I see this because I wonder whether or not Enigma would block these IPs. 02:16, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the example you gave of him prematurely requesting for closure is quite fair, because that's a simple matter of him being confused by the Oli's proposal. To be honest his wording was a bit unclear to me as well. As for the premature reports to the CVU, I don't think that would translate to premature blockings, because the way I see it, and the way Enigma appears to see it, the CVU is not only for reporting people who should be banned, but for letting admins know when someone is a person of interest. Granted some of his reports were for quite minor infractions, but that could be completely fixed by telling him "hey you don't need to report/block for such minor things" (did you ever do that by the way?) and a read-through of the Block policy. The point is, he's patrolling recent changes, he's reverting unhelpful edits, and he's dealing with the users who made them, all of which would be made easier with admin tools. 02:45, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to dig up some more examples tomorrow. 02:48, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * "the CVU.....for letting admins know when someone is a person of interest...." Really? Since when? The Counter Vandalism Unit as the name suggests, is for reporting users that have vandalised or violated policies and should be blocked. I don't remember it being a place for users to contact administrators about persons of interest. 02:55, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "persons of interest" was a bad choice of words, as it made it sound like its for contacting admins about people who might vandalise... a better word choice perhaps would have been "minor vandals"? The point is if someone inserts spam or incorrectly updates the GEMW, it is still a violation of policies. 02:58, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I only report when they make the price obviously a lot higher or lower than it really is. Although minor, they are still vandals. 03:11, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet you yourself admin that it's minor. If you know nothing will happen because you've already warned them, why bother? 03:19, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also to comment on Psycho's comment about the example I provided.. my problem with that particular incident is that Enigma's first reaction was to make a request for closure. There was no discussion, no questions asked, just an immediate request for closure. 03:21, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the wording in a different way than was intended, and thought he was just proposing something that was already so. If I had the actual power to close the thread, though, I would have discussed it, because closing is a bigger deal than requesting a close. As for the vandals, if I myself had administrative rights, I wouldn't even block half the vandals I report. I only reported them so that, should someone more wise judge it may see it in a different way than me and possibly block the vandal, had my judgement been flawed. I of course can judge by myself, but multiple minds and better than one. 03:26, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand. At the risk of assuming bad faith, it seems that you're actually evading responsibility here. You request closure for discussions that (supposedly) you would rather discuss. And you report vandals that (supposedly) even if you yourself don't believe they should be blocked. The Counter Vandalism Unit is for requesting that users be blocked, and to put up users just to see if any administrators think that they should be blocked. How should we trust you to make the call yourself when you'd rather let "multiple minds" deal with the vandal? 12:25, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - For almost two years. It's actually one and a quarter. Nitpicking here. 12:06, October 27, 2009 (UTC)