RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Buzz 9 1990

Archive 1 Archive 2

This is a self nomination.

Buzz 9 1990
I reverted lots of vandalism in the time that i've been here, i asked for rollback rights later on. I also improved lots of templates (extended, lay-outs, lookings). I uploaded tons of images to improve the wikia. Worked on calculators, grand exchange prices, fixed errors. And best of all, i followed the instructions, my last RfA failed cause i didn't follow instructions.

Edit
 * Images - Uploaded images to improve pages. What the page is about.
 * Calculators - Fixed errors in calculators and I made a few calculators too.
 * Grand exchange - Helped on the grand exchange market watch project, added prices, added items to the gemw.
 * Fixed errors - Searhed deap into the wikia to search for errors. (Unexpected error). Calculations with commas, wrong GE prices. Fixed all errors i saw.
 * 3rd person - Changed pages to 3rd person, i even saw 1st person pages...
 * Vandalism - Reverted vandalism with rollback rights and reported the vandals.
 * Templates -
 * Extended - Added links and images to templates to make clear what the template is about.
 * New templates - For easy access to linked articles.
 * Lay-outs - Made templates wider. So they won't be long, and they will better fit into articles.
 * Added "equipable" to infobox item, nothing special but important.

''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, 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

Discussion
Neutral: Another self nomination... why do you want to be an admin so bad? -- 10:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - We could do with another admin, less vandalism, better watch over pages. Better watch over the wikia. Faster speedy deletion... Etc. 11:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On this persons talk page you told him to download a crack to gain an illegal copy of some screen recording software. This is not something I expect of an amabasador of the wiki. -- 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I tried to help this guy out, you think im a bad editor because of that? 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said you were a bad editor at all. You are a good editor. However its things like this which give me the view that you should probably not be an admin. While admins are just regular users they do hold responsibility and are looked up to people with respect. I cant respect someone who open advocates illegal software use. -- 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is nothing wrong with downloading a 30-day trail, i also didn't give him any codes. He could download it somewhere or even buy it. He wanted to improve the wikia. That's the main point. He almost didn't upload images or animations to the wikia so he wasn't using the program at all. 19:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant if he did it or not you told him to search google for codes. Crack sites almost all are full of drive-by-download spyware and other forms of malware and in telling someone to do that you potentially compromised his computer. This is bad advice no matter the reason why. -- 20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oke i get it, it was bad to tell him about those codes.. 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone votes--
 * Don't link to the position to an ambassador. Becoming an administrator is not a big deal.  You're given a set of tools to help RSW with--you definitely do not represent RSW as a whole however.  You could argue that representation belongs to only the Bureaucrats of this Wiki, but since Buzz is only running for administrator, you should not be weighing your argument so heavily into "why his personality is an issue" or how one good faith attempt to help a user automatically brings your support to a neutral.  Again, I'm going to be a bit repetitive about this: Don't base your vote on ONE isolated incident.  Don't support the nominee because he did a large clean-up to a VfD article, and don't oppose the nominee because he did something, in your opinion, questionable.  Given his thousands of edits, A GOOD opposing argument would cite no fewer than a dozen separate incidents for individual, varied, well explained reasons.  An oppose with a single-diff citation can be viewed as ignorant, bitter, or uncivil.  Likewise, Neutral votes also have weight as in they almost always weighed against the adminship taking place... these votes should be backed up with 5-6 citations imho... Reiterating that oppose votes with little merit will not be tolerated, as are oppose votes that appear to be the result of a personal vendetta 99.144.159.127 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have this strange feeling that you might be Buzz... you've been here for one hour, with 4 mainspace edits, and this? Besides, it doesn't appear that you really understand the policies. Besides, "don't oppose him because he did something that was in your opinion questionable"? Please, give me a break. Even Total Rune would have been sysopped if we all did that. Butterman62 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Being active is not an hour, but im talking about months, a few months ago i made 30+ edits a day.. 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, administrators, while probably unintentionally, do play a big part in representing the RuneScape Wiki. Even though they are normal users and they do not have any weight in what they do compared to anyone else, they are supposed to serve as role models to the community. Personality is a big issue. Besides, when is it now a policy that "votes with little merit will not be tolerated"? That never got approved by the community, and you have no right to make up rules and force them on other people at your will . No one can. Besides, even opinions that are based on personal vendettas are allowed. Why don't you try to find a policy that says we can't? Butterman62 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 99.144.159.127 is an american IP address. Buzz is dutch i belive so I dont think its a sock puppet. -- 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, he shouldn't just try to make us follow rules he made off the top of his/her head. Butterman62 (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I quite clearly explained my season for a neutral vote and it was most definitely not the result of a personal vendetta. I feel that Buzz is a very good editor and uses the roll back rights effectively and correctly. However a good editor does not necceserely make a good admin. These self nominations unfortunatly look negatively on the RFA in my eyes. Perhaps my opinion would differ if a longer period of time was between the mistake Buzz made and the RFA. At this moment in time I cannot ignore it, especially when he tried to defend the reasons why he gave the codes rather than simply admitting fault. I mean no offence to you Buzz and i think you are very good for the wiki with the additions you made but I would not feel confident right now about admin rights. If I were you I would have waited for other admins to pick up on your work and write a strong RFA. As it stands your RFA reasoning is very basic and not a good argument. There are lots of people on the wiki that help revert vandalism (including me, and i dont even have rollback access) and upload images. I am reading the other RFAs they are mostly much longer with a lot more detail and specific examples of work they have done to improve the wiki. Perhaps it would be useful to edit your RFA and include more "meat" than the single paragraph you have so far. Nore that my vote is Neutral and not Oppose and thus opportunity for change presents itself. -- 08:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support You have waited long enough, and I think you have finally proven yourself worthy to be an admin. 23:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Support It's definitely a good idea to make this user an admin. And we could do with another admin. 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose/not yet - Buzz, I've been looking at past contributions and this RfA, and I'm really worried about how you're making decisions, especially the recent incident about illegally downloading software. How I see it, administrators, while being equal to all other users, do play a very important role in maintaining the professionality and representing RuneScape Wiki as a whole, and need to act maturely and acknowledge constructive criticism, which I feel you don't believe in. What also worries me is that you only want to do this for more power, a concern which you still haven't resolved (when someone said this, you replied with this). Please remember, Buzz, that not being an admin is no big deal. Finally, looking only a bit back into your editing history, I found abuses of the rollback tool just yesterday. This leaves a very bad impression on me, because if we can't trust you with rollback tools, how can we trust you with admin tools? Please fix these problems, because I think you just aren't ready for adminship yet. Butterman62 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - 1st thing, you are pointing at old rfa's. What i said and replied there, i understand that. But this is a new rfa with new discussions. 2nd rollback, the editor placed 2nd person in the article, and i thought it was not needed, sorry bout that but a wikia needs 3rd person articles, 3rd, the software, i did not told him how or where to do that. Also excused for that, sorry i told him that. 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit - Click here 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, Buzz, you have never addressed what you said on previous RfAs. Second, concerning rollback, you are showing that you do not understand our policy. Had you read RS:AGF and H:RV, you would have known that you should never rollback a good-faith edit. If you aren't willing to read policies, I feel it would be inappropriate to trust you with adminship. Butterman62 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, but the editor replaced a good description with a second person view, i fixed it now and removed the second person. 06:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Buzz, you're missing the point. The point is that if you revert, you provide an explanation and do it manually. You do not use the rollback tool. That is inappropriate. Butterman62 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just another thing, Buzz, you aren't automatically "excused" when you make a mistake. Yes, mistakes do happen. However, when you do, you acknowledge them, apologize, say you won't do them again, and move on. The community decides whether to excuse you. Just going "excused for that" doesn't leave a good impression me, implies arrogance (a very bad trait in a potential administrator), and reduces the likelihood of me supporting now and in the future. Butterman62 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Note of intent - Since there has been little input and few support/oppose votes, this RFA will be extended for one week as consensus is too difficult to determine. Dtm142 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Buzz, most of the things you mentioned at the introduction proves that you are a good editor. This wiki really needs good editors.  What I want to know is: Why would I vote you to become an admin, and what would you do with sysop tools?  16:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the vandals i see are active when there is no admin, i can report them, rollback their edits and leave a message. But sometimes, they keep on going.. So, reporting is not enough. Speedy deletion: I am in search of pages who are not in use and need to be deleted. So i add the template d|"reason", and i heard that there is a list of speedy deletion pages..? Anyway, that's not good. I can focus on these two major things to improve the wiki. Less vandal comes first (duh lol). 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to be an admion and have only "heard" of the speedy delete list? Media wiki adds all pages with the delete template to the Speedy deletion candidates category. There are only two things on there right now, one page and one image. Both of which have only had the tag for a few hours and neither are urgent to be removed. In my own experience I have not had a problem with vandals going on a rampage and a look at the Report Vandal page shows that the time between reporting and an admin sorting the problem is very low indeed. Looking at that page I cant see any vandalism that has been longer than an hour between reported and fixed/blocked and in most cases it's only a few minutes. I would dispute that reporting people on that page is "not enough". You seem to have a lack of knowledge on the wikis own policies to not know about categories etc. If you were the only admin online you would not know to check that list and so speedy d pages would not be sorted by you anyway. -- 08:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I think you have doen plenty for this wiki. Nice job with all the quest articles. I do agree we need more admins so i dont see why you shouldn't be an admin. [[image:Prayer.gif |25px]] Sir Lenehan [[image:smite.PNG|25px]] 05:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanko's say: LOL, look at me, I'm popular! I assume you have better judgment than a harsh-blocking[1] [2] [3] hypocritical[4]|undefined and slow[5]|undefined admin. If I could vote, I would give ya a support. Oh well, not long until my #1 fan blocks me. See ya later, d000000000000000000000000000000000d. Also, don't cross out my comments, that's gay. 207.192.73.60 05:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC) User is a sockpuppet of Blankothe3rd and has been blocked indefinitely. Dtm142 01:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak support: I'm really not sure what to make of this. Buzz has made a lot of good contributions to the wiki, much more so than myself, but it seems the support is not there for admin rights. I can see from the comments here and in previous RfAs, that there are some problems, but I don't think they are large enough to deny such a veteran editor admin rights. Hurston 12:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note - There are big differences between my old rfa's and this one, well maybe not the rfa, but the person :) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Buzz, I am not opposing strictly because of previous RfAs. The reason why I am opposing is because I feel you haven't learned from your mistakes, and partly because of your rollback abuses. Butterman62 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Note of intent - This will be extended for another week. Dtm142 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Since this keeps getting extended I just wanted to mention I have not really been ignoring it, but could not come to a decision, hence my lack of a vote.--Degenret01 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, people! Discuss this RFA! Do we want it extended again? 00:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope not. It's extended 2 times now. 08:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)