RuneScape:Requests for adminship/ZamorakO o

ZamorakO_o
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

ZamorakO_o is a great guy who performs well in all facets of the wiki. First and foremost, he is one of the most active and best countervandalism users that I know, and looking at his contributions I have the utmost confidence in his blocking judgment. The wiki would greatly benefit from another sysop blocking vandals, and Zamorak fits the bill nicely. Furthermore, he performs quite a lot of work in the community aspects of the wiki. He constantly welcomes new users, and frequently shows up in discussions. He offers strong insight, which demonstrates his large capacity for rational thought. I have complete trust in his community judgment, and wouldn't have any hesitation with him closing community discussions. He is also one who isn't afraid to do work. When I needed help to implement a consensus that involved a lot of editing work, he always offered to help. I'm quite pleased with his work ethic. Lastly, I'm impressed by Zamorak's character. He never gets mad and never acts provocative. In fact, his presence often has the opposite effect. He is a very friendly user.

I really can't say enough about Zamorak. In fact, I think the only thing that I don't like about him is his name (I follow this guy). Anyways, it is my pleasure to nominate ZamorakO_o for adminship. 00:53, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

''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 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,'' 02:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC).

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

Basically, whatever needs to be done. Whether it's blocking vandals, deleting unneeded/bad images, or whatever the community decides upon.

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

Most of them seem to be of equal importance since most of my edits have been "behind the scene" so to speak.

'''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've been in a few issues with Jeff over various little things, and if there has been other issues I've forgotten. I tend to try to handle the situation based on what seems like will work, and if it doesn't work adjust the things til it does.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
Zamorak, I've known you since I've started working for the RuneScape Wikia, and I've frequently seen you do fantastic work, but I've got a question - what do you think sets you apart from a typical user? What can you give to the wiki using the tools if they're giving to you? 23:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is much that differentiates me from typical users except for maybe the kind of work I do on the wiki, since most of our editors edit the mainspace and add content to our wiki, while I tend to prefer to work behind the scenes and perform maintenance edits or anti-vandalism edits. If given the tools I could take care of issues I see faster then marking them with a tag or leaving a request on a page, so I'd bring the opportunity to help fix things in a faster fashion instead of by tagging. 22:38, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - As nominator. 00:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Full support, Liquid summed it up very well. Cbf waiting for Zammy to sign :P - 00:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - He's almost like me, except not as good. -- 00:58, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Fake God versus Mr. Seven-Eyed-BLAAAAAARGH-Laser-Firin'-Monster? I'm placing my money on the latter. 00:59, January 6, 2011 (UTC)  Unrelated discussion.  01:02, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support - I'm all in favor of him being a good guy, active in countervandalism, etc. if you're asking why. The only reason why this is weak is because I haven't seen much progress in the way of achieving with Zammy. Still, I think he is a great guy who is active, and I think he will make a great caek! 01:01, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Uotm doesn't count for anything? 0_o - 01:05, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would that affect an RfA? 02:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * He asked for achievements, what does he mean >_> - 05:36, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * UotM means nothing. It's just the community saying "thanks" for doing one hell of a good job. 16:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

 Neutral Support - I don't see him doing much that requires "the tools", if I come across something that tells me he does, I'll support. (Time to interrogate him in IRC) After interrogating him, it appears that Zammy would benefit both himself and the wiki by having sysop tools. 02:38, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That does mean support right? Because you forgot to add it. 03:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thanks for pointing it out, must have been tired after my interrogating  04:43, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Good guy and deserves the tools. -- 02:40, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We need more active anti-vandals. Smart, mature and ready to do this. 02:54, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The wiki's need was, with consensus on the YG, going to be considered void. For support and oppose. 16:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ajr. If you read the thread you'll see nothing about the wiki's need in relation to supporting. 23:01, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - After some hard consideration (about 20 seconds), I've decided to support. No doubt he would use the tools and use them well. Plus we need more counter-vandal admins, since I'm rather busy these days. 03:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * The wiki's need was, with consensus on the YG, going to be considered void. For support and oppose. 16:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I can read. You only need to post it once. Second, no, you are abusing consensus - the consensus was to disallow opposing votes saying that the wiki doesn't need more admins. I am saying that the wiki could benefit from another countervandalism admin. See the difference? At any rate, it doesn't matter. This request will pass regardless of my position on it. 19:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That the wiki could benefit or not is actually the part that doesn't count per Forum:Certain unfair RfA arguments...: "Closed - The consensus here is that "the wiki's need" for another sysop should not be used as an argument in an RfA, so users are asked to avoid using that argument against (or even for, if we ever get to that) a candidate, and such arguments may be considered void when the RfA is closed." so "or even for, if we ever get to that" is now. I consider "we need more counter-vandal admins" a very much "the wiki's need" like reason. 19:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't care what you think. If the closing words did not properly reflect consensus, oh well. The fact is that another countervandalism admin would help. If the closing bureaucrat isn't going to count my say, fine. The fact remains. Now please stop wasting both of our time. 19:19, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Per all. Zamorak would do a wonderful job being an admin. 04:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Could use the tools, and he'll use them well. 16:47, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Complete trust. 16:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support of the most strong variety - Per Liquid and Burn U Plz. 17:28, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - He's kind, active, rational; I don't imagine anything bad could come from this. 23:47, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Trustworthy and bound to use the tools well. Full support. 23:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Looks like an excellent antivandal, and he seems to be trustworthy 23:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Concur - per all, and I refuse to conform by writing "support" like everyone else@@@@@ 23:32, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid due to my absence in terms of relationships with users, I don't know you that well, however I felt obligated to let you know that I've seen your RfA, acknowledge your dedication to our wiki, and with the support, seems to be well on there way to joining the admin team. Good luck! 04:46, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Has a great use for the tools. 07:43, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Even though I haven't been too active as of late< I still remember that Zammy is a good guy and responsible. I'd have no problem with him having sysop tools/ super top secret sysop only informa- I mean, kicking powers in the CC. 21:49, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Mature, kind, and great with anti-vandalism. Zamorak definitely would benefit with sysop tools. -- 08:11, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - He brings out the serious whoop-ass on vandals. I respect that. I trust him. He will benefit the wiki as a sysop. That's all I got, 03:31, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - duh 03:38, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I have nothing but positive regards for him. Great anti-vandal work and a really down-to-earth person. Zammy (not the god) has done so much for this wiki, and I hope you use those tools well. 05:51, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Great antivandal. Just make sure you stay as active as you are now. 21:49, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It just feels too fast, I just don't think that any member who joined in 2010 should warrant an administrative role already, no matter what they have done. If you asked me again in 6 months, I would HAPPILY support. I would except an administrator on the wiki to have numerous years of experience through the wiki. Sorry. 17:01, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I completely agree. We should save sysop tools for those who have been around for over a year, not those that need them. Ajraddatz 17:05, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a case of trust, I just dont feel I can trust him 100% yet 17:06, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support but also Oppose - I suppose him because when ever i come online i see that he has eddited post's/ reverted vandalism. RS Wiki needs people like this. On the other hand as the post above has said he only joined in 2010 so he's not been active for long. Taafe 17:11, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * So what if he's only been here around a year? Zammy's accomplished a lot, and he's a great editor. An editor's "wiki age" shouldn't overshadow the quality of their hard work. 17:48, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Although you could say that, I can't trust anyone with less than a year's activity on the website to have administrative tools that potentially could cause trouble... I would support this guy 100% in say 6-12 months time, but he has only been around for 10 months... 17:58, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that myself, Cook Me Plox, and Halo (to name three) have done a terrible job as admins? None of us had been around for over 12 months. Ajraddatz 18:00, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are blind right? I dont see at any point I mentioned your names, nor did I mention doing a terrible job... 18:07, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * You said you didn't trust anyone that's been here <1 year with the tools, and they could cause trouble. That's like saying that anyone with less than 1 years' experience will do a bad job as an admin. 18:11, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion... 18:13, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It only matters up to a point how long someone's been here. If they've proven themselves to do a good job like Zamorak has, then what's the problem with being here for under a year? 18:29, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * OPINION 18:32, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * People have a right to argue your opinion if they think it's wrong or unfair. 18:35, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever then, I still stand as an opposition. 18:39, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that a hell of a lot of the sysoppings in the past couple years have been for people here less than a year. I was here for about 3 months when I became a sysop just to give you an example. If you're going to say, "You haven't been here long enough so I don't trust you," you'd better be ready to back it up. Has Zamorak done anything prove their untrustworthiness or potential for power abuse? 04:08, January 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm curious. If he would become semi-active for 6 months now, and then he would run a RfA, would you support? then he is here for a lot longer. Does that make him more trustworthy? 22:23, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can play that game too, your telling me that I can make an account, no life the wiki for a while getting 5000 edits, then I instantly warrant administrative tools? My issue with him being such a low timeframed account, is the fact that we don't know 100% who he/she is yet, we don't really know if this person can be tempermental (Like me) and start turning around causing trouble. Also, if you note the previous Rfas where you exampled other '1 year' sysops, you would notice I also stood in opposition for those. Joey, your point is very irrelevent, I would clearly oppose if he turned around and became a lazy ass, I just personally think, 1 year of decent experience just isn't enough. 10:52, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't the case here, though. Zamorak regularly interacts with the community (on IRC especially), and per the flood of supports it is obvious that that the majority of the active users on the wiki know and trust him. Beyond all that, adminship really isn't a big deal. Zamorak has shown quite clearly that he has a use for the tools. Nobody but you and the person opposing per you seem to have a problem with him as a person - and even at that, it is because you aren't active on the wiki and as such have no way of knowing him. If you are going to participate on RfAs, I suggest that you become more active so you can actually get to know future candidates, instead of needing to oppose with reasons like this one. I'm done here; this request will pass with or without your support. Ajraddatz 15:57, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty snide remark for such a "Mr Good guy" administrator to use, you just said that my vote seems to be valued less just because I don't use the wiki as much? So much for RS:AEAE or whatever it got renamed to... 18:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * ...umadbro -- 18:48, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * He never said your opinion was valued any less..all he's saying is that you should spend more time on the wiki in order to become more informed about certain wiki users. That way, when you go to vote on an RFA, you'll know all the facts. 22:43, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - duh. 18:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Zamorak, despit your name in which is totally the opposite of what you actually are, you're an awesome guy, very honest, I don't think there is a reason to oppose. 00:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Zamorak is a classic anti-vandal during daily workarounds of the project. These tools will decrease assistance from other administrators with the ability to perform the actions himself. I see nothing wrong with lending out the sysop group right to User:ZamorakO o. 20:54, January 14, 2011 (UTC)