RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Soldier 1033

Soldier 1033
Hi there. I'm Soldier 1033 (obviously). Some of you might not know me, but I spent at least 3-6 hours each day watching the recent changes, reverting and reporting vandalism, and welcome every new user I see. I've had rollback and have not abused it, and if you need more prove that I wouldn't abuse sysop powers, I am a bureaucrat on the RuneScape Clans Wiki. The main reason I think I should be an admin is because it's hard to keep control when people are going on vandalism sprees and there are no sysops around to block them. Sure, I can and have been reverting the vandalism, but that doesn't stop them from continuing on their spree. Sometimes it can take a little while too. I have also made many major contributions to certain articles. For example, I added a lot of information and images to the RuneScape Forums article. I also virtually rewrote the Glitch and Warriors' Guild articles because they were so full of second-person point of view. Other articles that I have contributed to include Law running and Easter egg. I have been around since mid-October. I was inactive for a little while due to real life reasons (school), but I'm back and have and will continue to be active daily. The reason that I don't have as may edits as some users is because I spend so much time reverting vandalism instead of making minor corrections to articles. In fact, a good chunk of my article contributions are major ones, especially on the RuneScape Forums article, so that's quality over quantity for you. I once again assure you that I would in no way abuse or attempt to abuse my sysop powers, and I have read through and understood this wiki's policies. Thanks for taking all of this into consideration, -- 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

''I, Soldier 1033, 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, -- 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

''' NOTE: When looking at my contributions and edit count, remember that it is quality over quantity. '''

Discussion


Support, you revert a lot of vandalism and could greatly improve the wiki with these tools. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support (see change to support comment near the bottom of the page)- I think you would be an excellent sysops. You are often on the wikia and so many times I have rollbacked or welcomed a user to find that you have already hit that enter key just before me granting you the post, lol. I only worry that you tell me I am not experienced enough in my time on this wikia, and you say I should wait to create my RfA, yet as I have more edits then you, you create yourself a RfA. This is why my support is weak., It's kinda contradicting what you say. 20:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You had about half the number of edits you do now when I said that. I didn't realize your edit count would go up so fast. I apologize for that. 20:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about it at all, I was just curious. Change support to Strong Support 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought, you are a very good friend and such on this Wikia and for that I thank you. I did however just come across a very interesting statement that you posted on Ignoreme's RfA. I quote VERY Strongly Oppose - Per Bronziizbob. You can get 92 edits in less than a day. You need to be active for at least three months and have at least 1,000 edits. 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC) . With this, I change my support to Neutral as you have not been with this Wikia for more then 3 months. It is best to follow what you believe, with is what I am doing.  01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3 months was a generalization and I am coming up on my 3rd month (couple more weeks now). I respect your opinion though. 01:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the whole reason I'm running a couple weeks early is because it's hard to deal with vandals when no admins are around. I can revert but I cannot block which makes it a lot harder. 01:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree that you are a very good editor, and in the end WILL get a support from me, but I just though I would point that out. Mentioning that you are runnings a few weeks early to speed up your sysops process may infact hurt your RfA then aid it, as it makes it sounds like your desperate for the rights. I have not seen any abuse though or anything of any negative nature, so all it good. 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not desperate for it, or I would've run as soon as I got rollback rights. :P It's mainly because it's a lot harder to deal with vandals when all you can do is quickly revert their edits but not stop them from vandalizing again. 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think you are expierenced enough to use sysop powers as you are only 2 months active. 21:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because I haven't been here as long as some doesn't mean I'm not experienced enough. I'm a bureaucrat on the RuneScape Clans Wiki. I know how to use sysop powers and I've read the policies regarding those powers. I'm curious as to what powers you think I'm too inexperienced to use. If you want, I could tell you how I would handle certain situations. 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support (see supporting comment below)- 300 main space edits. Not good. You are a good editor but you are new to wiki (relatively 2 months is not much). Best of luck., 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC:)
 * Why didn't you mention you were a 'crat on some other wiki -.-?, 04:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did in the reason for nominating lol. Feel free to check on my sysop and 'crat contributions there. 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about your contributions there, it's about your contributions here. 07:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, and the reason that my edit count is lower than some is because the majority of my contributions are major article edits and vandalism reverts. I could easily have a higher edit count by now, but I have chosen to spend more of my time monitoring recent changes and reverting vandalism. In regards to that and my major article contributions, it's quality over quantity. 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And according to Buzz himself, quality matters much more than edit count, so I can't see why he opposes. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 08:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well i looked at your contributions and out of 607 120 were on the mainspace and 189 were made on user talk. Sorry buddy I just feel you aren't quite ready., 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have over 300 main space edits. You're right, a lot of my earlier contributions were mostly on user talk, that was when I was inactive because of school. However, if you look at my more recent contributions you will notice it is mostly reverting vandalism. Most of the user talk edits within the past couple of weeks have been welcome notices that I've posted on new users' talk pages. 23:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been having a rough time at home and I have no reason to take it out on soldier here. The last 30 minutes he's been making good use of his rollback powers and reported vandalism like 6 or 7 times giving me the opportunity to go on a block fest :). I think a change in sides is in order. (My apologies for any harm done in the past 15 minutes or so :s)Support, 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose sorry mate, your edits is not even over 500, you need 1k (or very close) of edits for a support from me  Btzkillerv has entered the building!   13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My edit count is over 1k last I checked, and if you're talking about mainspace, I will reiterate that the reason it's lower is because I spend so much of my time reverting vandalism instead of making a lot of minor article contributions. Quality over quantity. 17:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am curious though as to why you've supported Kudos' RfA when he's been here since November and you're opposing mine even though I've been here since October. 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * not withstanding i'm not trying to sound rude or anything, whilt you have potental, your RFA motto is exactly what the germans did in the final days of world war 2, they made and invented marvellous and revolutionery new machines with their load of firsts (e.g the me-262, first ever jetfighter, the powerful panther tank etc...), but still thay lost under the massive numbers (the massive numbers of the shermans and mustangs) of the allied army, so for now, i'm afraid i cannot change my vote, as good as quality over quantity seems, the same principle still failed to prevent the allies from toppling hit'er's third reich, i'm not comparing you to the nazis, i'm just using tat as an example of that motto in action 

Btzkillerv has entered the building!   20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another example for you: Would you rather have an admin with 1000 main space edits that are mostly minor article edits or an admin with 500 main space edits that are virtually all administrative? The latter is dealing with issues that admins need to know how to deal with. The former is helpful and is not wrong or bad at all, but this is an example of where quality over quantity is a good thing. 23:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pending Per low edit count -- 19:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should look at the quality of my edits then? 21:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good edits. Active user. I say that's a support from me. 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose --Wartortle28 21:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your reason for opposing? 22:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Until he gives a reason it shouldn't be counted. (In my opinion)., 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it's your opinion doesn't give you a right to decide what votes count and what don't. I oppose due to above reasons. Wartortle28 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have that right but you should elaborate on your decision. Just "Oppose" doesn't do much. 01:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys I worded that a bit wrong. Lost my train of thought but what I do know is that I didn't mean it like that. Sorry :s., 02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Puremexican could you please respond to my comment under your oppose? 02:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so you guys know "votes" don't count since decisions are formed based on consensus (obviously most of you know that, however Wartortle apparently doesn't?). Therefore the reason why a "vote" should be used in the first place is to give reasoning about why or why not they should be admin, saying "oppose" or "support" don't mean anything except that you oppose or support them. Your "vote" doesn't count, it's the reasoning behind it. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 08:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pending 21:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC) well somewhat I say I support because you try your best but it sounds a bit cocky to me..., you have to edit a little more, put better/ stronger word choices, and be more supportive about it...

Support Very helpful and active user. Much experience in reverting vandalism Eric329 22:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT User has been very helpful in this wiki and has reverted loads and loads on vandalism and I Think they are ready for sysop rights. 08:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Active user user, haven't seen any abuse. Awesome contribs, and very good at reverting vandalism. Full support.  Wanabeagle  talk  03:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - As shown by his quick rise to bureaucracy on the RuneScape Clans Wiki, he is very trustworthy. 03:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support – A trustworthy user that will make good use of sysop tools, especially with his current work with CVU and Speedy Deletion tagging. 06:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed Support Status - As indicated above. Many things over the past few weeks have given me reason to ponder Soldier's possibility as an admin. Not once however did I think he would not make an EXCELLENT admin, just that something stated contradicted other actions and behaviors. With this said, Soldier has deeply improved his consistency with edits, statements and his overall wikia contributions. I change my support to Support 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for the constant changes. A vote is important and every vote counts. You want to make sure your opinion is for what you absolutely believe.

Comment - I removed some of the excess " Support, Oppose , etc" text to get rid of the clutter and make the RfA a bit easier to read. 14:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Bonzi, Soldier, Congratz and Kudos 2 U, isnt it a littlebit coincedence that you guys joined the Wiki about the same time and completely support eachother for Uotm's and Rfa's?--. 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I joined in October. Kudos joined a month later and Bonzii joined in early December. My support for Kudos' RfA had independent reasons that were stated there was well as on the User of the Month page for Bonzii. 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhm, RuneScape:Yew Grove by you, but where are they in your rfa?? You want to be sysop right?? 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The RfA questions policy isn't official yet and there aren't any questions yet because I don't know what kind of questions the community wants answered. Feel free to ask some. 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't support Congratz any day. I didn't support bonziiznob in his first RFA. I supported soldier because he's a very good editor who does good anti-vandal work. They both supported my RFA because, according to them I'm a good editor who does anti-vandal work. But, of course, if you had read the above discussion, my RFA, and Bonziiznob's former RFA, you would know that. (Sorry if I come off a little angry, I don't mean to offend anyone) Kudos 2 U  Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As for Congratz, I fail to see where I supported him. I didn't even vote in his RfA. If you check my vote for Bonzii's RfA it was an oppose. I would advise you to check on those. ;)  21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - per everyone. --http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk119/spencemac724/thheadshot-1.png  Spencer   TalkundefinedContribsundefinedEdits  07:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am truly bad at discussing, so I guess this is an apology. I thought, it was quite weird that you, Bonzi and Kudos were always active with eachother. But you're right, the same counts for me and Buzz. I'll change my vote into Neutral, as you áre a good editor, but just haven't been on this wiki long enough...--. 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - You are a great editor. I think you will be a great admin. Theboy1001 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question Would you personally have blocked every one of the IPs that you have reported on the CVU? --Degenret01 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer - it would depend on what they had done and what the block policy says. However, there are times where I am not reporting because I am certain they are vandalizing, but to allow an admin to look into it to make sure the judgement is accurate. I wasn't reporting any of those IPs to get them blocked and I never do for that reason. I was reporting them to allow an admin to look into it and deal with the situation as deemed necessary. As quoted from the CVU, "If you have noticed vandalism on an article, please post the article and name of the offending user or IP address under the Current vandalism section, and it will be dealt with." If I were to be sysopped and I was unsure of whether or not an IP should be blocked I would ask another admin to help to avoid any mistakes. 22:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - if you wouldn't mind naming a few situations and asking me how I would deal with them as an admin it would be appreciated. 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ideal Question for an Admin - Not an IP but a dedicated user has recently been updating the slang dictionary with vulgar and inappropriate content that is quote from the user "Very encyclopedic to this dictionary". As determined by the recent failed VfD, you are confused on weather to allow this content or not, as one it is very vulgar and rude, but two it stands against the consensus of the community. You can't undo the edits cause the user just re-does them stating they are encyclopedic and no other admin is available at the time for comment. What do you do? 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Soldier, please do not answer until he has clarified his question in one small way. In exactly what way is the information "inappropriate" if that whole page is already filled with similar content?--Degenret01 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification - That's the point of this question. When is what allowed and when is what not allowed. When do we allow things but not others. The Slang Dictionary is basically an excuse to add any content without censorship or a filter. When does it get to the extreme that it has to be filtered and censored. I could add anything to that article and get away with it cause it's educational. So for instance, and note that I do not believe in swearing, YMFCCW - Your mother is a f***ing crusty crack wh**e. Is that tolerable because it is educational? That what I am trying to get at. When does it become the discretion of the admin to determine when enough is enough on an article such as this? It's a fairly simple question. Do you allow it or don't you? 01:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If they were adding definitions for slang terms I would allow it. For example, "FFS - For F*** Sake". However, if they were just inserting swear words then I wouldn't allow it because it's a slang dictionary, not a swear to your heart's content and hope that others consider it educational dictionary. For example, if they inserted something like "Your mom is a f***ing wh*** and suck my ****" then I wouldn't allow it. However, I wouldn't block for that. I would undo the edit and let the person know on their talk page why I undid their revision. If they persisted in adding this content then I would protect the page and move the discussion to the slang dictionary talk page. I wouldn't block for that because they weren't actually attacking anyone with that language, they were trying to contribute to the article. Although the information they added shouldn't have been added, they did it in good faith per the edit summaries and the fact that they weren't vandalizing anything on the page. 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I do not understand the "rush" to become an admin after only 3 months of activity. I understand that you have 400+ edits but also another 400+ user talk edits, which leads me to believe that there may be quite a bit of talking, and not as much editing. Do not get me wrong you are heading in the right direction, but until your stay here is longer than a few months, I have to oppose ‎Atlandy 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually most of those talk edits are me welcoming new users, and I don't have as many main space edits because I spend more time watching recent changes and reverting vandalism. ;) 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)