RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Evil1888

Evil1888
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Evil is always helping the wiki in some way, whether helping out a new user, reverting vandalism, uploading improved versions of images etc. I feel that he could be trusted with admin powers and that he would use them very well and in a fair manner. For this reason would I like to nominate him for adminship. 07:32, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

''I, Evil1888, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realise that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realise 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,''.

Questions for the nominee
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

Maintenance, anti-vandalism, File moving, moving over redirect, fixing protected things. All of these I could request to be done but requesting is such a bother to others, as Rwojy's talk shows. With these tools, I'll be able to do the things that slowed me down in the past, stop annoying others with my requests, and be able to improve the wiki with greater efficiency.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?

I'm not very good at adding content, making a guide, making a fighting strategy, or thinking of money making ideas. I am good at the small improving things that you use on the wiki, reducing size of pages and images, and plain old maintenance. I think my best edits are my AWB edits, they are all minor but helps each page, even if it's just removing some space. I think of it as a snowball effect, with more and more you will eventually be able to make a snowman; small things to make a great thing. Because it helps, even in just a little bit, I feel those are my best.

'''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?'''

One user caused me a good amount of stress, User:Smileydiley2. The user tried to impersonate User:Smileydiley, and as you can see from Smileydiley2's talk, I don't take kindly to impersonators. I was arguing on the CC on how the situation should be taken seriously while other just made jokes about it. I was pretty steamed. But I got off my computer, made a sandwich, watched some TV, came back calm and collected. In the future, I'll try to not take it so seriously and get get off as soon as I feel frustrated.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
'''Question - As many people seem to be wondering if you will have a use for these tools, I would ask you to elaborate on that. You state that your best contributions are your AWB edits. I don't believe you need sysop tools to make AWB edits. Could you also clarify what you mean by "fixing protected things"? Thanks,''' 21:41, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you don't need sysop powers for AWB, I chose those because in my opinion they are the best. AWB can do so much; clean up, moving, deleting, creating, completing tasks (have not figured that part out yet, but getting closer), protecting (probably more than this list). But I currently cannot do half of the listed. I have told Wikipedia about things that could be changed to help our wiki (such as AWB wanting to replace Template:Otheruses4 with Template:About (we don't have Template:About)). I just love AWB so much. As for the second part of the question. I am continually finding little mistakes (typos, extra unneeded spaces, other tiny stuff) but find that they are fully protected and am forced to just walk away, I usually don't request it to be changed as it doesn't hurt the wiki and would be close to impossible for me to explain (I am not good with wording things), and are usually just passed off as pointless. 02:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

'''Some of your opposers are doing so because of your AWB edits. Could you please explain how the were useful (especially the whitespace ones)?''' 10:12, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with the unneeded space removed, the page will load faster for those viewing it, this is like compressing an image but with a page. I also do grammar/spelling but the unneeded space comes up more often and I'm only in the C's. I usually try to make things more user friendly and what's better than a faster loading wiki? 04:23, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - As nominator. 07:38, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose for the time being Just a plain oppose now - Question is: does he need admin powers right now. Just because you can edit well, friendly, whatever - which he is - it doesn't necessarily mean you require admin privileges. This is something Evil will need to answer. 08:15, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think need is the right word. The more admins who will use their powers correctly the better, right? 08:50, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many admins already, and I don't see a reason for another. You can't just say the more admins, the better. Then why doesn't every editor who makes good amount/decent contributions become an admin? It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work like that. There should be a solid reason WHY he needs adminship when there are perfectly good editors out there that could also become an admin. IMO, everyone can be friendly without the need of adminship. Until he provides a good reason, I'm oppose. 09:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remember that "we don't need more admins" isn't a valid reason for admins, only for crats. 10:24, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily Matt. Phantom explains it well. 11:02, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As stated above 09:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I worded it wrong, didn't I? 09:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well everything you stated that he does "whether helping out a new user, reverting vandalism, uploading improved versions of images etc." does not require adminship, so we're going to have to see what further things he will/can do if he becomes an admin. For that, we need him to answer the questions =) 10:16, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he's doing it now. 10:25, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pending - I want to see his answers to the questions. 09:28, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Finally finished the questions. 10:36, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Sorry, but I don't see why you need the tools. 10:42, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, no one needs the tools. We could have one crat who did everything, and that's all we would need. 11:01, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we need to get done things fast. Pretty obviously, what I said means I don't think you'd contribute to it. 11:33, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Slight oppose - per Chess, I think there are enough admins on the wiki for small tasks. You rarely see the recent changes without one. I suppose you would make things a little faster but so could anyone else. Also, the things that you do slow us all down 11:10, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not sure you quite realise what admins are actually meant to do for some things like here. Also i think you putting your best edits as your AWB edits kind of proves you don't need the admin tools, mostly because almost anyone can get use of AWB and make those edits, i kind of see your reason for it, but i think there can be better edits than those. I think you have enough maturity ect. just you need a little bit more experience and need to learn a little but more. 11:16, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, nowhere does it say that an admin cannot request for closure and must only close. Second, again, no one needs the tools, Chicken, Cook, Degen, Liquidhelm, Iiii I I I; none of them will die without them, in fact, absolutely no admins are needed at all, Merovingian could be the only person with power and the world will still spin. It's not a question of "Do they need the tools?", as this is almost impossible to show (What should I do? Pound at the "Permissions Error" message until it let's me edit?), but a question of "Could they use the tools wisely to better the wiki?", which I am pretty capable of. 11:56, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I hate when I see people say that it's not about needing tools, its obvious that people who use the statement of needing tools use it to mean improving the wiki using these tools. 12:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is entirely about needing the tools. We don't need yet another admin who only uses the sysop tools once in a blue moon; we already have about 25 of those active right now. 14:45, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are 2 reasons i hate and they are we only need one __ and (i had one but i forgot it, i will put it here when i remember) so please don't use the we only need 1 admin/anything as that seems to always come up, also if Merovingian was the only person with tools, we would need a lot of staff/vstf help because he hasn't been active for years. Also Yes it doesn't say admins can't request closure but it doesn't say admins can't request speedy deletion either, but it is part of there duty to close/delete/move or what ever. Also i think you missed a main bit of my reason "you need a little bit more experience and need to learn a little but more". 06:32, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but I don't feel you've been here long enough. Just a few weeks ago you told me you had not intention at all to become an admin and you've suddenly changed your mind? Most of your edits are just botted and the rest are mostly meaningless. You have done hardly any anti vandal work. Because of these reasons, I think you're the kinda person who'd use their tools as a status symbol. However, If you were to go and work hard and prove to me and tohers you deserve the tools I'll be happy to support. 12:41, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Errr.... that was 2 months ago... 22:24, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's while I was getting 99 fishing. That means at most it was 6 weeks ago. 08:54, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still on your talk, but w/e 6wks is close to 2 months. 09:14, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Evil, you are misunderstanding what everyone is saying. By "needing the tools" they are saying that you have not demonstrated any legitimate ways that you would make use of the sysop tools. For example, if it would help you delete/merge a bunch of images or you are a frequent anti vandal then you would have a legitimate use or "need" for sysop tools. Now, I have some advice for you: don't argue with everyone that opposes. RfAs are for people to offer their opinion and feedback to help you improve and to decide whether or not you are ready to be a sysop. If you don't like what they have to say, that's fine, but RfAs aren't for debating every single oppose. 14:35, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I'd like to first say that Evil has no need for sysop tools, and then I'll say that I wouldn't trust him with them either. Also, I am not impressed with his 1000+ edits of removing whitespace from pages. I am also not impressed with how he has handled opposes on this RfA. 14:40, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It seems Evil has ignored my advice and continued arguing with opposers. Until he learns to accept the criticism and not argue every time, he will not become an admin. 03:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * What? I was just correcting Swizz. I wasn't arguing. 03:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lay off him for a moment, eh Andrew. 06:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * A RFA isn't for "laying off people" as Andrew said "RfAs are for people to offer their opinion and feedback to help you improve and to decide whether or not you are ready to be a sysop" it is often quite harsh, and Andrew was actually being quite polite. 06:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying I didn't argue since his comment, so I am thoroughly confused on what he is talking about. (14:35, 3 August 2010: His; 22:24, 3 August 2010: Mine (correcting Swiz); 03:44, 4 August 2010: His (the oppose)) Can you see how I am confused? 06:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking to 222 there, i wasn't commenting on what you did because i hadn't looked at the times of when you and he did it. 06:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was only saying that because Evil was just pointing out/correcting some facts. From my point of view, he wasn't really "arguing" Actually, he kinda was except for the last one. Also, I know Andrew wasn't being rude or anything. 07:21, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Evil, you are now arguing with the Soldier person about whether or not you were arguing. Do you realize how ironic that is? 15:03, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lay off? That's kind of pathetic. 15:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey, hey! Don't call me pathetic. Or anyone else for that matter. 06:21, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not call you pathetic. Don't twist my words. I said that telling me to "lay off" for giving my opinion is pathetic because it is. 15:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't say I'm "twisting your words". You insulted my comments, so I am therefore insulted. I do not care for or want an apology, that won't be necessary. I was simply trying to be supportive, if you think I'm too considerate, well too bad. 10:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * But, don't worry about it mate. Forgive and forget, I don't want this carrying on. 11:05, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand this at all... 16:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just visited your polls subpage, and I noticed that your first poll asks if you'd be supported if you went for a RfA. As you already have no use for the tools, that proves that you want the tools for the status. 10:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * At no time have I ever said or thought that I want it for the status. I just think I would make good use of the tools. I don't know where you came up with such an idea. 01:14, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I have not checked those polls in months and have not care about the results of any of the polls, and seeing as you have finally gone there (I'm guessing no one else has either), the results don't matter, if those really bother you, I'll just have the page deleted. I don't care either way.  01:21, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Evil rivals anyone on the wiki currently, in his commitment. He can use the tools, and will. He's always doing a variety of tasks, many of which would be aided by sysop tools. I'll elaborate more on this later, I'm busy cleaning up this Treasure Trails mess. 06:45, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he rivals everyone in commitment, he mainly does pretty simple tasks imho. Using the AWB is fairly simple and doesn't require much effort (imo) and that is what his most valuable/largest contributions are. In my eyes, being dedicated is taking time to add information, not just edit and alter. For example, in his last 50 edits I have only seen about three edits that have added info; this is what he mainly does. The rest of the edits were welcome messages, and uploading images from RS website. I don't doubt he will use the tools, however as I have said before, what makes it so that he should use them and not another editor who has spent a larger amount of time/effort on this wiki. 09:48, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some people edit differently than others. People like myself and Evil do small things that add up all around the wiki.  You mainly focus on images if I'm not mistaken.  And people like Morian add content and histories.  Everyone has a different editing style, and not adding enough content shouldn't be part of a reason to oppose an RfA.  If you "don't doubt he will use the tools", I don't see the problem.  It's not like we have an administrator quota or limit.   10:09, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll let you continue this, then I'll present my "counter-argument" (notice the quotation marks). I guess Ajr has said everything I was going to say. 10:06, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to get some more information before I continue.  10:11, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cook, it's been said many times here that nobody needs sysop rights to use AWB. You are slightly different in this regard, because you use AWB for image maintenance, whereas most others use it for cleaning up articles. Also, while we don't have an admin quota limit, we have enough admins that only use their tools once in a blue moon, and use their adminship as more of a status symbol. We don't need another of those. 14:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Ajraddatz, he has said everything I think about this. 10:29, August 5, 2010 (UTC) Support - I can see Evil using the tools to help improve his work around the wiki. I can see him moving pages to grammatically correct names and other considerably boring tasks around the wiki (No offense). For those who claim he is using the admin rights as a trophy and will not correctly use them, consider RS:AGF. Also, the opposers who are complaining about the large amount of AWB work that Evil does, Was it not just recently we had a new admin, Cook me plox, who in a sense also used the AWB to a large extent? 16:59, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of people could "use the tools to help improve their work around the wiki', but not everyone needs them. I would say we have a good 50 or so users that could use the tools, but that doesn't mean they need them, that's the line that people are arguing.  I can not speak to other people's place on AGF.  It's not about the amount of AWB, but about the quality (yes, AWB edits have quality.)  Many of edits remove space (which doesn't actually affect the page appearance in most cases, but rather just the number of bytes.)  Often times, these spaces are useful for people to distinguish in between paragraphs, infoboxes, etc.  Whereas most of Cook's edits were correcting grammar, spelling, or changing templates (stuff that more affected quality of the page, not just the number of bytes).  I'm not voicing an opinion yet, but rather explaining why people have said these things.   19:58, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is taking AGF way too far, AGF is there to help deciding if an edit is vandalism or not. 06:36, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all opposers who have stated that he needs no need for the tools. 00:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very unfortunate that one of the most corrosive memes from en.wiki RfA, "no need for the tools", has taken root here. Having a superfluity of admins is not a bad thing. Promoting an administrator who has not demonstrated he will use the tools to some voter's arbitrary satisfaction is not a bad thing. Prior behavior is often imprecise at predicting future behavior on wikis, so supposing that a candidate will make frequent use of his tools because he was active in admin areas prior to promotion is stupid, as is the converse. Even if he uses his tools once, that is a net positive for the wikia. If you are truly concerned about inactive admins, enact an aggressive retirement policy for ones who neglect their tools. Don't prevent a potentially good administrator from being promoted simply because he might be inactive. (wszx)  00:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * In your logic, we should make almost everyone sysops. I'm sure someone that had 100 edits would use sysop powers if they were granted once or twice. Also, we are not assuming that he'll be inactive, we know that he will not use his sysop tools occasionally. Why? Does he occasionally tag pages for deletion/move? No. Does he occasionally need to ban vandals? No. Also, I'm not going to trust someone who has a "would you support my RfA" poll with sysop tools. Tell me one good reason why he should be sysopped. 08:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure you are trolling me, because your comment is so flagrantly stupid I would be embarrassed for you otherwise. But I shall respond nonetheless. "In your logic, we should make almost everyone sysops" does not follow at all from my statement. I said nothing about promotion standards, only that merely supposing someone would not use his tools actively because of past behavior is a stupid reason to not give him the chance. If you have other reasons to oppose, such as evidence of unsuitability, then by all means use that. But editors' focuses change after they become administrators on wikis; deciding that because he has not done administrator-related tasks in the past he will not do so in the future is so lacking in sense it is breathtaking. You have the gall to say you know he will not use his tools occasionally? If you managed to write that with a straight face you deserve an award. You are not a god. You do not know the future, you do not know if Evil will make use of his tools. You will note I did not make any comment on Evil's suitability to adminship. In fact, had I actually cast a vote, I would have opposed Evil because I think he is not intelligent enough to be a worthwhile administrator here. But that is a valid reason to oppose someone; opposing because he might (might!) not use the tools is emphatically not. (wszx)  10:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 
 * Don't call him "flagrantly stupid" and don't say he's trolling you because it is so obvious he's not. Calling people "unintelligent" isn't very nice either. 10:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude this has nothing to do with you so you shouldn't get involved, plus he didn't call him "flagrantly stupid" he said his comment was. Also someone's opinion doesn't always have to be nice, if everyone's opinion was nice the world would go nowhere and stay the same. 11:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)