RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Joeytje50

Joeytje50
First Nomination

Second Nomination

I'm nominating Joey for adminship because he is an active countervandal in a time where we don't have as many. He has also proven himself as a valuable member for maintenance, and giving him the sysop rights would allow him to do this more easily and quickly. His time on the wiki may not have been the easiest, but I believe it has made Joey better because of it. He isn't perfect and has said a few things that will haunt him, but he can be trusted to use the tools.

''I 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 tools because I realise that this is a serious offence. If the community finds that I have done so, my tools will be revoked, and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed,'' 21:49, January 29, 2012 (UTC).

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

I think I would mainly be blocking vandals and deleting pages when necessary. Also, because I know quite a lot of coding, I will be editing the MediaWiki namespace when necessary. Because I would be one of the few admins active during UTC midday, I would likely be dealing with a lot of antivandalism and requests on the wiki itself, Special:Chat and IRC.

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

I think my best contributions are the images I made when I had my computer with AA on it, and my antivandalism. I keep an eye on the recent changes whenever I am on, reverting vandalism when needed.

'''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?'''

I haven't had any problems on the wiki itself for a long time now, but I did have a conflict about the 9/11 attacks with a few other users on IRC last September. I said some things I shouldn't have. I realise that I offended these users, and learned from that mistake I made 5 months ago.

3.1 A more detailed explaination of the conflicts I had on this wiki The first summer after I started editing here, I got in a conflict with Degenret01. It started with me telling Dead evil84, who was creating articles in a very fast rate, that he should not make more then 5 edits a minute to prevent filling up the RecentChanges too much. Degen replied to me about this, and because I left that message just to help, with good intentions, so I replied to degen. This got us in this discussion. Because Degen kept ignoring me, his only reply was higly sarcastic and all other people who were involved were mocking me or telling me I was totally wrong, I kept getting angrier. When Degen archived without replying again I had no idea what I could do to reach him and just talk to him, so I decided to put spam on his talk page. This got reverted, then people left messages about it on my talk, and then Andorin blocked me for 3 days. I asked Ajraddatz via Special:EmailUser and his talk page on my wiki to unblock me, and he decreased it to 1 day. Like I have said a lot before already, I know I shouldn't have become that angry, and I should have taken a break before it got as far as me spamming him and getting blocked. I know apologising doesn't make anything right, but I did learn from it and I didn't get this angry again. The reason why I did it was because I felt mocked and I didn't know anything else I could do. Since that moment, I have changed a lot, and if a case like this would ever occur again, I would step out of the situation for a moment before continuing.

The next major conflict I had was Forum:De-op Andorin from IRC. There, the main problem was that I didn't drop the subject in the discussion on IRC when I was told to by others, and kept going. After that, I talked to Megan and she convinced me to make the thread. I did, because I thought what Andorin did was wrong (it was a situation like the one that caused Forum:RS:IRC and the impersonation rule, other than in that case it wasn't one user against others, but the other way around). I know I should have a personal opinion instead of listening to what others say and then just do that because they asked, and then I learned that I should reconsider things others tell me to do before I do it. I know saying this might make you think the fact I still have contact with Megan is indeed a threat to the wki, but I learned from the mistake I made with the de-op forum, and I saw the result. I won't do it again, and reconsider things with the policies of the wiki before doing it.

Then there was Forum:Patrolling pages. I suggested this major change to the wiki's systems, and when Soldier replied, he was talking about something that wasn't my proposal (he acted like I wanted a kind of change that would make it easier to find an admin creating spam pages). I replied, and Soldier told me he did understand what my proposal was. Then there was some more discussion where we both completely missed each other's points, while further down the thread was a lot more discussion. I kept replying to people's comments with replies that didn't explain what I meant well enough, and I saw an increasing amount of people who didn't understand what I meant, talking about something that wasn't what I proposed. Because of that, the situation kept getting more heated up and in the end I withdrew it. In that thread, I should have stayed calmer and took more time to explain myself, and try to understand what exactly others were asking. After this thread, I haven't had cases like this anymore, and when people disagreed with me, I didn't jump on it like I did in that thread.

The next conflict I had was the one in IRC about 9/11. I admit I shouldn't have said people were "herp derping" about the deaths, and after I realised that, seeing people tell me to stop, I stopped talking about it. Cook and Liquid kept on arguing about it, while I had already dropped it. The next day, I was browsing the imgur gallery, and found a couple of images related to 9/11. I posted one in the channel as a joke, and made another joke about it after that. After a while, Evil posted my line "or r u such a merkan who mourns about this one thingy that happened 10 years ago too" again in the chat to comment on something else (apparently related to it), and Warthog got angry. I posted some more images about 9/11 in the chat, and then Warthog got angrier. I think in the chat that followed, I only compared the 9/11 attacks in a quite reasonable way, staying calm. It can be argued about if I am right or not saying what I said there, but that is not what this discussion is about. In conclusion of this, I admit I should not have said the things I have said in such an insensitive way, but I think the reaction the others had to that (this and the reaction of Warthog to that one thing I said) made the situation a lot worse than it would be if we would all stay calm. In the future I will watch the way I say things more carefully. 18:23, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
Joey, besides seeing you as an inspiration to image-makers like me, and being a very understanding person in times of distress, you are a perfect candidate. But besides those, in your opinion, what makes you significantly different from other active users within our community? -- 22:40, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest difference between other active users and me is my experience in different languages that can be used on the wiki. I've made quite a few complicated templates and scripts in my time here, and I think my experience would be useful in the MediaWiki namespace and AbuseFilters too. 12:22, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - As the bringer of life to this thread to eat this poor man's soul. 21:46, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Not having been really active on the wiki when the last Rfa took place, I think joey has come a long way from what I read about in the last rfa to what I see from him today. For me, the #1 most important question that I always ask myself before responding to any rfa/rfcm is can this user be trusted with the tools?. I think that he can be, and has demonstrated that time and time again in his contributions to the wiki. 22:25, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - You're a good editor and you've been around for a while and you know how things work around here. However, you are much less active than you were when you did your last two RfAs, and there are a few things that worry me. I know you mentioned the 9/11 conversation in answering your question, but saying something like "amg I so mad so many people died herp derp derp" is so out of line I don't really know how to respond to it. It's also problematic because you've said you changed before September. You can't just keep saying you've changed, screw up, and then a month later say you've changed again. Maybe you said that because Megan was there, which brings me to my second point -- I am nervous that your continued friendship with Megan could cause some harm to the wiki. She may be the worst thing to happen to this wiki in the last year, and the fact that you still talk to her (and paste logs of IRC to her) not only makes me question your judgment, but it also would keep me up at night wondering whether she managed to get you to do something stupid on the wiki; I can't really trust you. I'm not sure whether it's proper for me to take your personal relationships into account here (and I'm sure you don't want your RfA to end up being about Megan), but I think it's something that needs to be addressed. Feel free to respond to this if you want to. 22:31, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought about it some more, changed to oppose. I had forgotten about some of the more recent things like the CheckUsers thread Proof brought up. 00:19, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am less active in general on the wiki than last year, but I am not less active in antivandalism. My editcount goes up less quickly because I don't make images anymore because my computer doesn't have AA. That doesn't mean I am less active on the wiki, or do less antivandalism. I'm still as active in those things than I was back then. About that 9/11 incident, I think everyone who was involved wasn't at his best. That happens, everyone has his moments where it doesn't go that well, and I wasn't the only one who was being less mature at that moment. I already said I agree I should not have said those things like I said it, but I don't see why this one off-site incident should affect this RfA so badly. Like I said, everyone makes mistakes, admins included. Also, doesn't the fact you can only think of one case where I was being immature since my previous RfA mean that in those 7 months I made one mistake, and that I haven't made any mistakes for over 5 months now? If being mature for over 5 months isn't enough to show that I am ready for this, what is? I can't change the past, but I can show you these 5 and a half months I have been mature enough.
 * About your point of me still talking to Megan regularly, I think that argument holds no weight at all. Why would contact with users in private ever affect anything on the wiki. I can think by myself well enough not to blindly do what someone else says, and the fact I talk to Megan doesn't mean that makes me any less trustworthy. What I do in my time, completely seperated from the wiki, has nothing to do with the wiki, so I don't see how this would have anything to do with this RfA. 09:51, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add to the point about Megan. I also talk to her regulary and she knows that I am administrator at the cod wiki but she has not tried to do anything to the wiki via me. 12:07, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think Joey is very helpful and responsible. He brings the wiki (mainly chat though) back to life when it's dead. I think that he can be trusted with the tools, and the caek. I wish you liked ponies though. 22:38, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - Not really happy with your answer to the third question. How have you changed? I see no evidence other than your statement that you have changed. Also, in reference to the 9/11 incidents, the first time you may not have started it, but the second time the next day you defiently did, making jokes about the incident happening, which to me isn't really the sort of thing I'd really want to see in an admin 22:39, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak oppose - As proofreader pointed out, you have been using unconstructive comments such as "hurr" and "durr", as well as the occasional "tl;dr". I took a stand against another admin who used comments such as that. That does not really show maturity, nor is it necessary 23:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I've been reading this over, and the thing I was most interested in seeing was a reflection of how you've changed since you blew up and were blocked for it. Then, there's Forum:Patrolling pages (which I believe was cited on the previous RfAs), among other things, in which you displayed quite a hostile attitude.

In your second RfA, you said you've learned to stay calm and changed a lot during the last two months (which would be the time period from roughly mid-April to mid-June of last year at the time of writing). For a bit, I was able to believe that, as you were fairly calm and professional in your conduct. However, then the 9/11 episode came along, and, there's no other way to put it, I was absolutely disgusted by your conduct. It was exactly the same type of behavior that I've seen previously on the crap page and on the Patrolling pages forum. You've said that you've changed in the last RfA, but yet here we are again with another one of those episodes. Have you really changed that much?

The last point I'd like to make is that I'm severely unimpressed by the answers you've given to Question 3 (the one about conflicts) in all three of your RfAs. For someone who's had a history like yours, who's been blocked (a serious block) for it, you should know better than to just act like it never happened. I was expecting a more thorough explanation. For comparison, Ajr didn't even do that much and he wrote a much better explanation. Your explanations above make me feel like you are trying to dodge the issue, which does not exactly make me feel comfortable about trust.

I may change my opinion later, if I feel a satisfactory explanation has been given, but as of now, I will have to oppose. 22:47, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Cook. However, if you continue to demonstrate that you have improved and that you can handle the responsibilities and tools that come with being an admin, then I'll definitely support you next time. Good luck, Joey. 22:53, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support - Your image contributions and counter-vandalism work, as well as your work for the site in general such as Forum:Calculators in infoboxes and bringing my attention to Forum:Filenames so I could attempt a file move bot, are a great asset to the wiki. You can contribute very well, as well as get others to contribute very well. However, I have a few bones to pick.

Using "herp", "derp", "durr" etc. in edit summaries for reverting edits made by other editors is not very editor-friendly. I would suggest using more relevant edit summaries that accurately describe the reason for undoing an edit, or just "undid revision" or "reverted edits". (I understand that you can rage at your own edits and curse at yourself, though.)

You get angry at people on forum threads far too easily it seems, holding some grudges and/or sometimes answering in an uncivil manner. Since your last RFA nomination, I have only seen one example; I don't know if there are more. Otherwise, your Yew Grove behaviour is good.

I have not seen your contributions to Special:Chat as I almost never visit it.

These arguments average to a weak support. 23:04, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support - Have seen some cases where it would be helpful, nothing other than that. 23:37, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Initially, I would have supported this RfA, citing your maturity since your previous RfA in June. However, I was recently told about the 9/11 IRC incident as well as your private conversations with Megan. It's good that you acknowledge that what you said was in the wrong, and offensive, but your attitude during the incident was a little concerning. I'm not sure if in future, if multiple users disagree with you and get offended, whether you would respond like you did during the IRC incident, or with more maturity. Then there's the usage of "herp", "derp", "hurr", etc. which doesn't amount to maturity at all. You pretty much tick the boxes in everything else though, you have shown a need for "the tools" and I believe you are active enough. If you can show us that you can be reasonably mature without occasionally displaying behaviour such as 9/11, that's everything I look for in a potential sysop; I can be certain of supporting you next time. 00:04, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't support this request. There has been too much of a pattern of behaviour going on here, and no real signs of long-term improvement to the qualities that I'd like to see in an admin. Per above. 00:53, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - From what I can see from irc (and stalking yo cvn) Joey would really benifit from the tools administrator brings. 12:07, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Support - A great inspiration, very sociable, and gets the job done. -- 15:26, January 30, 2012 (UTC)