RuneScape:Requests for adminship/ZamorakO o

ZamorakO_o
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

RfA

I'm nominating myself for 'cratship because I believe that we should work on changing the image of a 'crat from an elusive beast that comes out once every blue moon if summoned with a jar of 'crat treats to members of the active community who are visible to others and ones that are available at most hours of the day. Currently our 'crats are in a state of inactivity because they rarely join in discussions and be part of the community. I'd like to see a change from our current 'crat method to being one of active users who actively participate in the community.

I nominated myself because I believe I am a capable administrator who can be relied upon to do things in the best interest of the community. However, I do acknowledge that I am not perfect and have made some mistakes in my time here and believe that I have learned from those mistakes. So I now ask the community to decide if they will trust me with the position of 'crat.

''I accept this nomination for bureaucratship. I understand that the only difference between bureaucratship and the administrative ability that I already have is that I am able to assign user rights. I understand that I may not, for any reason, delegate any form of adminship to any user who has not passed an appropriate RFA or RFB. Lastly, I understand that the respective agreement in regards to standard adminship still applies. Signed,'' 20:43, December 11, 2011 (UTC).

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

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

'''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?'''

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)

 * What makes you significantly different from other active administrators? What jobs have you done that influenced the RuneScape Wiki today? -- 21:49, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not significantly different from the other active administrators. I'm usually in Chat and IRC, where people request me do things like blocks and deletions. As far as things go, a large portion of my use of tools have been done by the request of others. 23:23, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you have closed any of the RfAs this year differently? The ones this year are here, from yours down in the successful section and from Brains's down in the unsuccessful section. Please explain. 23:17, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fergie's would be a hard one to decide. I would have closed it as unsuccessful because with how I remember the RfA it was a lot more close, but reading over it again I find it hard to close it as unsuccessful. I cannot think of much else to say over that one or the the other ones. 00:28, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - Zamorak is an extremely helpful person in the community. He does great contributions to the wiki and helps out to all that need it. He will do fine as a bureaucrat, and hopefully shorten the time of getting people's requests by a day or two. 21:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Having another 'crat wouldnt hurt, especially since it can take a week + for a b'crat request to be completed. I think Zammy is active enough, and I have no doubt that he will do well as a crat 21:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support - most of the bureaucrats are either retired, inactive or go on once a week. Another one would help hugely. 21:53, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - To be honest, I didn't want to take this stand at first. But now, I feel that it is necessary to take an opposing position. I trust Ty with the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. He's already proven his ability to be a part of the community. He has stated himself that he can be bold through admitting his guilt in making up excuses, which I feel is actually a positive. He's active and has his number of high quality contributions. Another striking good point of his is that he is readily contactable through a number of methods. Obviously, Taylor isn't hot-headed, and can be called upon to close nominations as needed. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would make a good 'crat.

Let's get to the point, however. There is absolutely no clear need for the tools presented by the candidate. Said candidate has only stated that his current standpoint on what a bureaucrat is is such: I disregard this as an inappropriate, incorrect declaration and believe that our currently semi-active 'crats are clearly working hard and doing what they can to provide for the community already. Zammy is already performing well in what he is being called forth to do, and can be extremely busy at times as well. Although it never hurts to have another 'crat, from what I have seen, Zamorak does not show a clear need for the tools, as defined here. Based on this, I can say that Zamorak, very unfortunately, is not under my jurisdiction and/or opinion, whichever you may call it, to be a bureaucrat at this time. 21:56, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Slight support - What everything Nessie said in the top half is true, and I can see what she means in the second part. However, whilst I think Tyler was trying to make a joke at the wrong place, I don't see that as being enough reason to oppose 22:11, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Not yet - You have the potential to do this, but it's too soon for you right now. It's things like this that tell me you still have quite a way to go. You blocked that user for absolutely zero reason, and the one half-hearted reason you did give (violation of UTP) was nonsense and untrue. You blocked him purely because another administrator asked you to, without considering the case at all yourself. It's careless behaviour like that, and the immaturity you show in IRC and on-site chat (and even in your above statement) that worry me. I know that everyone behaves more or less immaturely in IRC, but I feel that this would cloud your judgement when closing RfAs, and prevent you from being a neutral body. I've also found you too intimidating or rude to newer users, the most recent example of which that I can think of being the editor that was trying to upload an image of the Golden Scythe. The attitude conveyed to that user led to her trolling and insulting other users, which could easily have been avoided. I also don't like the way you slurred our current bureaucrats in your opening statement. It's been said many, many times that they aren't active enough, but it's not the sort of thing I'd want to see a prospective bureaucrat say on his application. I believe, in the future, you could make a fine bureaucrat, but not now. 22:44, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no law saying that bureaucrats can't have opinions. The fact that he admits that none of our bureaucrats are active is true, and he has every right to say it. I really don't understand what that has to do with him being able to neutrally close RfAs and such.
 * The fact is, there is no such thing as complete neutrality. What we want is someone who is able to set their opinions aside, and nothing that you have said suggests that Zammy couldn't do that. 00:56, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have at least read my comment before coming out with something like that. I said, at the start of my final point, that they're not active enough myself, and I have no issue with him doing the same. What I don't like about it is the immature and inappropriate way he insulted them. If you're saying that kind of thoughtlessness would have no effect when making important judgements, you need to reconsider. 16:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the difference of opinion here comes from my not seeing his comment as offensive, but rather a strong opinion. As I said, everyone has opinions - bureaucrats are no exception. 17:47, December 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Flay, just wondering, but since when is calling people inactive when it is true an insult? Because that is exactly what zam is saying, and there is nothing wrong with that. 09:58, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll say it a third time. We know they're inactive. He's perfectly within his rights to say as such. He is not, however, right to call users in the position he is seeking to attain "elusive beasts". They still put time and effort into what they do here, and don't deserve to be talked about that way by someone who is looking to fill their shoes. 16:04, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Some people may say I'm inactive by looking my contribs, and yes it's true that I haven't made any edits for awhile, but that doesn't mean I don't check the Yew Grove and RfA pages at least once a day, so I hope that my opinion is still taken into account here. Besides the fact that I don't believe we are in dire need of any new bureaucrats at the moment, you are still one of our newer administrators. You haven't even been a sysop for a year, so no offense, but if we need a new 'crat, then we should first look to the admins that have been around much longer (and of course I'm not talking about me, just to make sure I don't get jumped on, lol). You're a great guy, a great wikian, and an exceptional sysop, but I just don't see any reason to support this right now. 23:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support. Being a bureaucrat shouldn't be this big of a deal. We already trust this user with checkuser, a far more sensitive tool that could cause far more harm than 'crat rights. If we can't trust him with that, we're screwed.

The only concern that I'd have is that he doesn't explain his rational in as much detail as I'd like to see, but considering the complete lack of rational that our current 'crats give when closing discussions, this factor would seem to be moot. 00:39, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - While Ty is an excellent person and has served admirably in his role as administrator, I cannot support this for a number of reasons, which shall be enumerated below.

I agree with the statement that none of our bureaucrats are that active, but I think there are other users better suited for this position than Ty at this point, and I would rather have one of them take on the job.

I also have concerns about Ty's discretion as a bureaucrat. While he has been an excellent administrator, I would not want him to close RfAs yet, because his statements to me at various points in time, as well as his response to my question above, lead me to believe that Ty would take an activist approach to closing RfAs. I would rather not have that broad a scope for RfAs, and hence would not support this on those grounds alone. There are some who would disagree, but I do not believe that an activist approach is the best one.

Then, there is the issue of clarity and thoughtfulness. A bureaucrat must be able to clearly explain his decision should the need arise. This is not suggesting that they must do it all the time; rather, they should be able to give a clear and well-thought response should the need arise. I am concerned about Ty's ability to do this, as he is one of the more reticent users in formal discussions. Furthermore, his grammatical skills are not quite the best, and that is a barrier to professional communication.

Lastly, and least importantly, I believe that Ty is a bit too not-serious at times, using too many deliberate misspellings of words. I would rather a bureaucrat avoid that, but this is one of the lesser points, and something whose fulfillment I am not stringent about.

Therefore, I cannot support Ty for bureaucrat at this time. 01:08, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - This is reminiscent of the request that Gareth had back in May of this year to become a bureaucrat. As Murphy had stated in that request, "When the day comes we need another 'crat, Gaz will be the first to have my full support." As I go on to state back on May 19, "Until such a time arises, I do not feel that anyone needs the additional rights of UserManagement or RevisionDelete as the later can be solved through additional and enhancing the existing edit filters."

We might be making the bureaucrat group right bigger and more difficult to be requested than it should. It's like the elephant in the room when one of these users makes an edit or a decision. I am hesitant to say that points on time as an administrator to play a role when some individuals get the sysop group right in under a year from joining. Others wait years, it shouldn't be treated like a rare jewel, but it also shouldn't become the norm. We have 14 out of 86 sysops (including bureaucrats) currently active on the wiki including myself. Maybe we should change this or maybe not. The tools that a bureaucrat has that are separate from a sysop are really just the expanded UserManagement and DeleteRevision (of which, only five non-bureaucrats have meaning one step away from all non-staff/helper/vstf rights.).

In relation to Liquid above, I take my time writing just about everything I do. If it sounds remotely out of place, I leave it out or catch it quickly and attempt to correct the viewpoint in a following comment or reply. I may not be as active as I once was, I might not be giving opinions in the Yew Grove as much as I used to, but this has not meant I've spent less time trying to read. This is how I think other sysops, users and other bureaucrats are from time to time. Not all bureaucrats should be judged on the opinions they give or if they are rushed. I do like any user that can explain his or her decision without regard for their own well-being. That might be putting someone on the spot, but giving a decision without an explanation is equivalent to the Department of Motor Vehicles denying you a license without a summary of why you have been pushed away.

Regarding the grammar that an individual uses, it might be fine for a typo and for friends here and there. However, I do not know if Zamorak does this more often than that of using proper English, so I further extend my neutrality to this point. Sorry Zamorak, but I don't see a case for really obtaining or outright preventing the group right from your account. 06:31, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm all with the Helmet of Liquidation here... Ty is a great guy and all, and we are starting to borderline on the fact that we might need a new 'crat soon, but if I look at the administrator list right now, there's a few names that I would place above Ty in who is most trustworthy and suited for the job. Set up another RfB in late 2012 or early 2013, and I would say yes... But for now, I just don't think you're ready for this. 23:07, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Nuetral- Zam, although I would think you would be great as a 'crat, to me it seems like the wiki is running smoothy right now and always has been. So what if we have to summon the 'crats with a mystical cookie jar? Everything is still under control and going fine. As far as we know, or I know anyways, the 'crats could be behind the scenes, checking up from time to time making sure everything is going as planned for the wiki. But until that time when the 'crats vanish, just keep doin' what your doin', being a great administrator and a community member. 03:47, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It took over a week for a bureaucrat request to be filled recently, fyi. 04:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * So? What does that hav to do with anything? 22:18, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Zamorak's a good guy, from what I've seen. I think he's capable. So let's 'crat him? Oh come on guys, there's more to it then that. I agree with your interpretation of the current bureaucrat situation. They are very inactive, and we do need to draw them out with special 'crat cookies. But is that such an issue? We never have circumstances where there is an urgent need for a bureaucrat. And even then, if we require a 'crat, posting on their talk page usually nudges them to do their thing.

I think we need to consider whether 'crats being overly inactive is such a bad thing? Has there been problems in the past where we haven't had enough 'crats to deal with a situation? Specific problems? The administrator role has become one that is frequent throughout the community, and many members of our community are admins. This is somewhat good, because it brings the role more down to Earth and there are always admins available to fight vandalism (back in the day, we used to have terrible situations where hours on end there would be no admins available to block vandals). But 'crats should be neutral, and so really, it is better for them not to become involved in popular issues throughout the wiki.

I hate the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it seems that having more bureaucrats would be fixing a non-existent problem. 04:59, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. He's active, trustworthy, and knows what he's doing. I think people are taking this far too seriously and are looking at this too deeply. Take it for what it is - the ability to grant other users rights. Can Zamorak be trusted to do that? Yes. That's all bureaucrat is, and that's all it's ever been, and that's all it ever will be. 13:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * EDIT - He already has checkuser anyway, which prerequisites far more ability and trust than bureaucrat rights do. Giving him bureaucrat rights is a very small jump in comparison to giving him checkuser. 13:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification, I don't oppose because I don't trust his ability to check a few boxes in Special:UserRights. Anyone can do that. I have a bigger issue with his positions in closing RfAs. 15:42, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing RfAs is a subjective process. Everyone will have differing opinions, and it's not hard to tally up votes and weigh up opinions to determine consensus. If he can be trusted to check those boxes, he will be trusted to perform the required paperwork before checking those boxes. 19:23, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Callofduty4, and would further expand upon the fact that we already trust him with highly confidential and sensitive information from checkuser - if we can't trust him to make appropriate judgements as a bureaucrat, how can we trust him with tools that can have legal repercussions? I am really dissapointed by the massive deal that bureaucrat is being inflated into here. 21:35, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely about trust, you know. I do agree with you that bureaucrat isn't a very important role; however, is it ultimately necessary to hand this out like street vendors do with flyers? Absolutely not. Personally, I will continue to stay faithful to my belief that the number of bureaucrats should stay low. 21:41, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? What possible benefit is there to having a small number of bureaucrats? More bureaucrats means that requests get done faster, and considering that we are all volunteers here, that is a good thing. I do not get this attitude about bureaucrat being some elusive trophy for only the best of our admins. Seriously, all they can do is check an addition five boxes and press another button - it should not be this big of a deal. 21:43, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand on this, why are we limiting the number of bureaucrats when we don't limit the number of admins? User -> admin is a massive step up in terms of abilities gained, and as such that should be a big leap in trust. All bureaucrats get is a bit more access to a couple of tools, that should be a very small leap in trust. In practicality, it should be easier to pass an RfB as an admin than an RfA as a non-admin.
 * Furthermore, before someone tells me that we don't need 50 people jumping over each other to check those boxes, why not? This wiki could run with one bureaucrat, yes. We could also run with one admin. We could also run with one user. However, since we are all volunteers with lives outside of this wiki, there is no harm at all in letting more people help out in more ways - especially if they are very trusted users as ZamorakO_o obviously is. 21:47, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I was hoping to avoid this, but since it's been brought up, I might as well. The point of checkuser is different from the point of a bureaucrat. Checkuser is primarily a countervandalism technical tool. Bureaucrat is primarily consensus determination (the relevant portion being RfAs). I trust his judgment on the former; I don't quite trust it on the latter. I don't see why the comparison to checkuser is being brought up so much, as the Ty's ability to use checkuser has little to do with this request. 21:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, so you can trust him with a sensitive tool which is only available to 19 local checkusers across Wikia, but you can't trust him with the simple task of reading through a discussion and finding which arguments are common to both sides, and which side is getting more widespread support? In my experience, there is only one type of trust on wikiland - you either trust someone or you don't. You either trust someone with closing YG threads (like sysops can do), or you don't trust them to be able to remove their own opinions enough to do that. If you have multiple types of trust depending on what the tools do, that is your choice, but I respectfully suggest that you are making these tools into a bigger deal than they are as a result. 22:08, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * (I can't count the colons anymore) Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? I don't give a damn about the tools. Any man and his dog can go fiddle with a few check boxes. If Ty was just going to take orders from Karlis and fiddle with the check boxes, I don't care. But the point is, the process of finding the prevailing arguments and giving them weight is a highly judgmental process, particularly the weight assignment portion. I'm not comfortable with Ty in that regard. However, checkuser judgment is quite different. You go and determine if there is probable cause for two accounts being the same person... just go and look at the names and half the time you'll be right. There isn't a heavy analogous "weight assignment" step in checkuser, which I do not believe is all that sensitive. 22:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

No, bureaucrat rights are not a dramatic "elusive trophy", but nor are they intended to be handed out like sweets. 22:34, December 13, 2011 (UTC)