User talk:Calebchiam

I have archived my talkpage for the sixteenth time. I archive after every 50 sections or so. On my talkpage, please remember to be civil and polite. If you ask, I'll be glad to add you to my friends list. Also, remember not to leave messages like this after I archive (referring to certain dubious individuals). Thanks.

If you would like to request rollback/custodian rights, follow the instructions on RuneScape:Bureaucrat requests, and leave your request there or on my talkpage (if I happen to be around).

Wiki Family Photo
Hi, thanks for taking an interest in the family photo, to make things easier for both of us, please follow these steps.
 * 1) Take a screenshot in game with your character saying your name/a message
 * 2) Save the screenshot on paint or any other picture programme (Be sure to crop it or scale it to around 150x250px)
 * 3) Upload the file to ImageShack (No login required)
 * 4) Finally, post the image onto my talk page

Thanks and congratulations on becoming a 'crat! 20:02, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Rollback
Please use it only for obvious vandalism; good faith edits deserve an edit reason. - *rollbacks your account to the first edit*, anyway thank you it will help a lot on the fight against vandals. -- http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/2497/cakes.png  http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/1227/94385281.png  http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/2892/casal.png  http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/4954/cakj.png  http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2993/asdadq.png   08:29, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Lame
You don't archive everything now. You're lame 11:32, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
I hadn't noticed you even had an RfB. Congratulations. 01:05, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed I forgot to congratulate you. Anyways, congratulations! :) 08:51, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed you have been here a long time. ...I have a few questions.

1. How do I create a a profile? I cannot seem to be able to do it, all I get is page does not exist.

2. Can other people Edit my profile? :o

3. Is there anything important I should know?

I have made a few minor Edits already, but thats it. ...I noticed that were was some abusive comment that someone put about me. I think it said you deleted something of mine? Not sure.

...I think I am sending you a message right now, also not sure because I am new to this.

Flamin Chuck 07:44, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

first edit
I recentlty found this which may be my first edit. Which would put me here almost exactly a year prior to you, noooooob! --Degenret01 21:54, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

extra
ok calebchiam i know that this is not about runescape but an u provide me about the bakground of raffles institution since i am taking PSLE this year and RI is my dream school. 06:58, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

thanks 11:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Re:ZamorakO_o's RFA
Well I just woke up, you should have beat me to it seeing as how it was only 3 in the morning here. 11:51, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Blessed Chaps
hey, I'm not really an advanced wiki user, so I thought I'd go to someone else about this. The three blessed chaps wiki pages say they have the same stats as black d'hide chaps, but I found in-game, and on site, that the blessed absorb 4% magic and 2% ranged, while black d'hide absorb 7% magic and 3% ranged. I thought this rather signifigant, and thought I should point it out. thanks. -- Baulbi  20:54, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Featured images...
Hello! Uhh...you deleted my nomination for featured picture without giving any type of reason whatsoever, why so? 13:30, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I didn't read that, I just checked for summaries on the history, anyways, thanks, kinda sad I didn't get the honour for having my own featured image, but thanks again .  13:38, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser Log
This is just a cordial reminder that you should log any checkuser actions after running a checkuser on an account. The log is found here. Furthermore, please do not list any actions against IP addresses, since the usual method of checkusering an IP from a previous account checkuser makes it exceedingly easy to guess what some users' IP addresses are. (This is not a response to any of your actions; all five checkusers have gotten/will get this message). 23:25, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

IP Votes in RfAs
Even though Aeriana may own that account, and most likely owns that IP, we cannot assume. Sentra could easily pretend he was any old user in such a way, so therefore, unless Aeriana decides to log in and vote, it is a violation of "Any user with an account is welcome to comment." The vote should be discounted, either now, or by the closing bureaucrat. 08:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * My take on that particular phrase, is that users with an account logged in are welcome to comment. If they allowed everyone to vote, it would've said "Anyone is welcome to comment", or even just got rid of the "with an account" part. I'm also pretty sure I saw IP votes stricken in the past. Either way, Aeri's vote should make little difference as votes make little difference. Cheers, 08:32, February 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: Thanks! It might just be for the weekend, though, depending how busy I am


 * By votes, I mean "Supports" and "Opposes"; not the actual comments. I didn't strike Aeri's comment as that can still apply. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. XD  08:42, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

RE:
Eh the game is only fun playing with friends now, but I don't think I'll ever quit. I'll just be continuing to do something to pass the time. Jagex does seem like they are focusing more on the money instead of the community now. And nothing really new has changed at all. :/ 13:19, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Re:Sysopped
Thanks, don't think I have any questions...yet. 05:50, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

RfA consensus
Just out of curiosity, how did you determine that the consensus in this RfA was to op the candidate? Looking through the discussion, I see a fair amount of controversy over the candidate's qualifications, and a fair amount of opposition. This does not strike me as consensus. -- 07:33, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that (and I think a few others do too). 08:21, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like having a private conversation with the candidate that in all likelihood affected the outcome of your judgement is not the kind of transparency I would like to see when rendering a decision like this. 08:25, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andorin on this one. I read your comment on Andorin's talk page, though I don't really think that the objections raised were addressed to a sufficient degree to achieve the level of consensus needed to close the RfA as successful. Another thing I should say is about the trust aspect. That is intrinsic to each member of the community, and a bureaucrat cannot alter it, downplay it, or exaggerate it. Even if you disagreed with the specific points that I and others have raised, I did hope that you would recognize the trust aspect of the decision. However, it is your decision and I will respect it. 15:30, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I must agree with the others here and was very surprised at the decision made. I read the full comment that was made on Andorin's talk page, and must say you made some fantastic reasons for the weight you gave the opposition. Except maybe the maturity issue. The fact that there is no actual concrete evidence doesn't matter; it does come down to the impression he gives, and this attitude could've always have been obtained through things like IRC and the CC. I also want to say that although many of the opposition arguments carried little weight after your analysis, did the support comments carry any weight? I think it is important that 'crats come to the discussion neutral, which you did, but also come to the discussion knowing that the applicant has failed until proven passed. All applicants are nominated as non-administrators, so they have not passed a discussion so are therefore failed at that point. Strong points need to be made for why the user should be given administrator and why we need him/her. The supporting arguments given were extremely basic, imho. There wasn't even a nominator to give primary arguments for. Anyway, I just wanted to put in my 2c and respect your decision and will live with it. Cheers, 07:47, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sentras RFA
Hey Caleb, there are some question regarding how you reached your conclusion to sysop Sentra on his RFA. Particularly with the vast number, and breadth, of opposes for various reasons. Could you leave a summation on the RFA explaining a few of the more salient points? This will help stop any talk of collusion or any other nonsense that may spring up. Thanks.--Degenret01 08:37, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S Side note, when are you coming back in game? Dungeoneering is very badass in the 40s floors. I haven't reached the 50s yet.--Degenret01 08:37, March 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Real Life? sounds neat, I may have to try that sometime.--Degenret01 08:44, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

I also question this. If you haven't yet, please write up your explanation and link to it on the RFA page. Honestly this looks ridiculous. Christine 17:06, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Not to whip a dead horse, but I'm also concerned about Sentra's RFA closing. Most of the reasoning, although some is a bit out there, is still there. There are numerous editors, both ranked and non, wondering the reasoning behind your brief closing statement. 17:09, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to make sure the horse is dead and completely beaten, I'm also concerned. The discussion, as it appears to me, is either a "Sentra will not be sysopped" or a "no consensus". I'm not aware of any situation where we revoked somebody's adminship because we didn't determine consensus properly, but that may be the best option here (as far as following consensus goes). 17:19, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Christine: I already wrote the explanation on Andorin's talkpage quite a while ago, just linked it on the RfA however. Thanks.
 * @Chaos: As to the short closure statement at the end of Sentra's RfA, it's simply because it is not my habit to explain the closure every time I close something. I only leave the final statement, so that's all there is to it (although other 'crats like Karlis might do otherwise).
 * @Stelercus: Consensus is not a vote-counting process, yet from the reactions of some individuals, it might as well be one. Personally, I am wondering if 5 more users had supported Sentra in his RfA with the exact same reasoning as the previous supporters, whether my closure would have aroused this much controversy. Conversely, if his RfA had 20 supporters, all with roughly the same reasoning, but 1 opposer with a long argument with more than 10 solid points on why Sentra should not be sysopped, if I were to close it as unsuccessful, would it have aroused this much controversy? The point I am making is that we seem to be tending more towards closing discussions simply based on the number of votes. If the number of supports and opposes are equal, we say that the community is divided over this issue. If the number of supports greatly outweighs the number of opposes, we say that there is a clear consensus for a certain stand. What ever happened to the analogy that if a hundred users were to support something with arguments that were nonsensical or without any merit at all, and a single user opposed with a solid argument, that there would be no consensus for that issue? In any case, I believed that I'd looked closely into the arguments and found the correct consensus based on the strengths of the arguments presented when I closed Sentra's RfA. Even so, I'll acknowledge that I could have been wrong in my judgment. If the rest of the community sees it to be necessary, then do ask any other bureaucrat to review the discussion and to close it appropriately. Cheers. 07:21, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Again, looking at the thread as neutrally as I can, it appears to me that the opposers have more valid points than those supporting; the number of votes is not a factor. I will point out, however, that number of votes in one direction and the strength of that direction's argument are almost a function of one another (did that come out right?). Obviously, if one person has more valid points than another, chances are more people will agree with the first. This creates the illusion that we count votes, though there is the rare situation when the majority is thrown out. 19:16, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
Mmk, completely understandable, I thought I might as well take a shot in the dark by requesting it early. Anyway, if I somehow amass the required amount of edits by the end of the day, can I submit a new request?

On a side note, what are the requirements I'd need to run a bot account, and does a bot need to pass community consensus before it can be run? 13:41, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've browsed it, but I'm a bit confused on the testing phase of the bot -- where would it be conducted, and how? 13:59, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Am i not aloud to make a tribute page O.O??? *kinda new to this*

steps are wrong in elemental workshop 3
hey ide like to in form you that on the elemental workshop 3 page "step E" is wrong at the end but easy to figure out but the set of moves after it is incomplete it gets into the formation around the pillar thing but their isnt a gear box to connect the spinning gear to the rest thx

Grats, newbcrat!
Don't be a | N00B, newbcrat. Grats anyway. Go kick some butt. -- PIKWIT 22:55, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
Thanks for granting me the right! I'll be sure to use it only for vandalism, feel free to stab me with a large knife or kill me with a LiquidHelm if I don't!

Updated with new information
fire giants drop dragon daggers, i tried to put it in but someone removed it...

i got a dragon dagger off a fire giant yesterday.

Seasonal decoration
Hey. I think the seasonal images in Template:Random skill1 and 2 are a bit obsolete. Could you perhaps update them? E.g. File:Pumpkin Pete chat.png for H'ween and File:Easter Bunny Head 2.png for Easter. 16:50, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

I have the tire 4 '''Duellist's cap. if you want to film me doing emote i can do it. email me at karatydolphi@gmail.com'''

POOR
Hey im a level 77, MY name is M9 Expert IV and i am really poor with only 19k, is anyone rich enough to give me some money =) ? i NEED it thanx =)

POOR
Hey im a level 77, MY name is M9 Expert IV and i am really poor with only 19k, is anyone rich enough to give me some money =) ? i NEED it thanx =)

Birthday
Happy birthday, even though it is a day too late 19:34, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry for the late reply, I've been away at a camp.  07:17, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

btw
Deleting the revision of that file was completely pointless. As an admin, I can still view the image, because the deleterevision right was not designed to be a complete oversight, and thus gives admins the ability to view deleted revisions anyways. So, since admins can see it anyways, and custodians can't view it without the token thing, there really is no need to delete revisions like those. 16:22, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it might have just been updated recently with the MediaWiki update (happened after you were cratted iirc). But yea, it shows a little (show) button beside every hidden revision now. 16:41, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

New outfits
Hey guys! About that loyality programme? if you need a photo of one of the outfits contact me, i'll give first outhit for 100pts :) skype: donciux14   email: donaatas15@gmail.com

Rfa consensus
Just wondering how you came to your conclusion on fergie's rfa... I'm probably not the only one after this so maybe it'd best go on the actual rfa page or something. Whatever seems good for you! 18:16, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Urbancowgurl777's RfA
Hi, it's me again, requesting another potential textwall concerning your decision here. While I'm sure that you read the entire discussion before making your decision, I do wish you had provided some reasoning when closing it in order to demonstrate your thoughts on the rather substantial controversy surrounding the RfA. I'm reading over the last time you explained a decision to me (your reasoning behind closing Sentra's RfA) and noting a couple of things that I want to ask about. For example, it appears that a substantial part of your decision to op Sentra was that there was no evidence of wrongdoing or immature behavior on his part, despite what the opposition was claiming. In Fergie's RfA, Cook posted a pair of private conversation logs as evidence for his claim that Fergie cannot handle the duties of adminship, but he then revoked his comments and his opposition, and asked that the logs not be considered at closing time. Therefore, a substantial portion of the opposition (who were basically opposing per Cook) no longer have grounds for their votes. Like Sentra, Fergie has demonstrated an unmistakeable ability to use admin tools, and, like Sentra, she may not be perfect, but so far she's kept it together rather well on the wiki.

Essentially, I would just like to see some rationale for your closing of a fairly contentious RfA as unsuccessful. Thanks. -- 18:19, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I likewise wish to read your rational for closing it as such. 18:20, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say that I was disheartened by your lack of explanation in closing that RfA. With the amount of contention surrounding it, I was expecting at least some shred or reasoning. Some sort of explanation would be nice. 21:14, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I will just remind you that it has never been my habit to explain closures while closing the RfA although perhaps some of the other bureaucrats may do it. I am more than willing to provide the rationale, but I am not supposed to be on at the moment (see userpage). I will post it as soon as I can, probably on Friday. Thanks. 06:30, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Andorin: Just because Cook asked the evidence to be disregarded does not stop them from being evidence. After the evidence is provided, there certainly is no need for the approval of the person who provided the evidence. I do not know whether or not the closing was right, but your reasoning for claiming that it's irrational is invalid. 10:34, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * If Caleb decided to take the logs into account, I expect that he will include this in his explanation. -- 19:33, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, we've waited four days. I hope you're ready to discuss your reasons for the RfA's closure. -- 19:33, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sorry if this is short, but I don't have the luxury of time, so I'll get straight to the point.

About the log-evidence and subsequent revocation. As Chess has rightly mentioned, simply because Cook verbally requested that the evidence not be taken into consideration did not make it the case. As far as I can recall, there hasn't been a precedent where a user actually withdrew their evidence, but in any case, from my understanding, once evidence has actually been presented and put forth in an RfA, you can't take it out of the picture, especially so when several users base their opposes on the evidence given. As such, each oppose based on that evidence still remains valid, as does the evidence itself.

Undoubtedly, Fergie has shown herself to be reasonably competent on the Wiki, and has indeed shown a need for the tools. However, an RfA is meant to determine whether the community is ready to entrust a user with the tools. Upon reviewing the arguments presented by both sides (while disregarding a few extraneous comments), I found that while for the most part, no one doubted her profieciency on the Wiki, a substantial portion of the community was still unsure or completely against trusting her with the tools at this present point of time, hence I decided to close it as a no-consensus.

Hope this answers your questions, cheers. 10:40, July 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have a few issues with this. You claimed that the opposition appeared reluctant in allowing for her to receive the tools based on trust? I'm sorry, but are we looking at the same RfA? Some of the users opposing explicitly stated that while they were not sure that she was "ready" for it, she had presented a clear need for the tools and would be able to use it well. I agree that just because someone recalls their vote it does not mean that it should be disregarded in its entirety, and it is clear that the majority of the opposition was centered around the logs posted by Cook. My main problem with this is that they should be treated as what they are, and they were not. They are snippets of private conversation provided without context. To me, allowing this seemingly insignificant piece to alone influence the eventual outcome of the RfA is absolutely absurd. The vast amount of other contributions that she has made to various discussions across many different areas in the wiki shows quite the opposite. It seems to me that the outcome of this RfA was merely the result of several poorly picked, unrepresentative examples taking precedence.


 * Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that you spoke with Sentra in private prior to closing his RfA a few months back. As far as I know, this did not happen here. While I disapprove of this practice, I believe that if this has been previously employed to determine a positive consensus, then it should be used consistently. Anyway, just a few of my concerns regarding the closure. 04:03, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I haven't made my point clear enough. What I meant with the paragraph about entrusting Fergie with the tools is simply that a significant part of the community is unwilling to trust her with the tools, be it because of maturity, doubts about how prepared she is, etc, and it was not to imply that she was deceitful in any way.


 * Next, it wasn't so much that the pieces of evidence were so damning that they completely determined the final decision. First of all, from what I saw, no one disputed the accuracy of the evidence, it was what it was. The only concerns I could see regarding the evidence was perhaps that it shouldn't be fully taken into consideration since it was after all, a private conversation. Neither Fergie nor anyone else said that the conversation was taken out of context either, or that it had a different meaning.
 * What was significant was that not one or a few, but quite a number of users (regardless of whether they referenced the evidence or not) still opposed the RfA based on a variety of reasons, and a large percentage did oppose based on the evidence and other factors. Without this, the evidence would not have been worth anything at all. This is hardly a case of "poorly picked, unrepresentative examples taking precedence".


 * And to your next point, I don't particularly see any relevance. For one, the conversation (which seems to have been dramatised and taken out of context) was simply to understand the context of an incident referenced by an opposer on Sentra's RfA. It was meant simply to obtain information to get a full understanding on the situaton. On Fergie's RfA, I haven't seen any unclear/vague points, so why would I have any conversation with her then?


 * I've said my piece on this issue. I am neither an opposer nor a supporter of Fergie for adminship, and I've never spoken with her before. That being said, I respect the work that she does on the Wiki. Nevertheless, this is the conclusion that I drew from the RfA. Cheers. 11:08, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Caleb, I am still not satisfied. Per RS:CONSENSUS and RS:NOT, consensus is to be determined by the strength of arguments and not by a majority vote. With this in mind, this is a summary of the opposition's argument: "Despite Fergie's excellent contributions to the wiki, which clearly demonstrate a need for administrator tools, the logs posted by Cook constitute evidence that she is not mature enough to make the difficult decisions that are part of an administrator's role." Do you truly believe that this is a strong argument against her adminship? That small, off-site, private conversation logs show that a candidate isn't ready for adminship when a year of mainspace edits and healthy participation in on-site discussions don't show a single significant example of what the opposition seems so afraid of? I strongly believe that the opposition's arguments are weak, and that with this in mind, the fact that many users opposed her nomination per Cook's logs does not by itself constitute a good reason to close the RfA as unsuccessful. Strength of arguments, not majority vote.


 * Fergie has been able to handle herself just fine so far as an editor. No one has been able to prove otherwise. If adminship is no big deal, then there would be no reason to not trust her to maintain similarly high standards of conduct if she were granted administrator tools. She has extremely constructive contributions and is active enough in countervandalism that the wiki would benefit from granting her administrator tools. I strongly believe that denying us this benefit based on poorly argued opposition votes is a detriment to the wiki, and I urge you to reconsider your decision. -- 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from. Nevertheless, while there is no doubt that the supporters would find the chat-log evidence particularly weak, from my neutral and open-minded (I try not to reject arguments outright) perspective, I could see some validity in the arguments of the opposers. And to avoid reiterating everything that the opposers have already said, let me say that although logs of private conversations might not have been the greatest evidence ever (in the sense that it could be seen as particularly rude, etc), it can and did provide some insight on Fergie's temperament, maturity, etc. The examples did not seem to be isolated either (see Matthew2602's example). If I am to take what the opposers have said to be true (as far as I can see, no one has disputed the occurrences of these conversations), then the examples of Fergie going off on a rant about another user simply because they had an RfA before her, and complaining about getting opposes, would indicate some lack of control of emotions on her part, and might even hint and some more significant mindset issues with regards to the Wiki. Even if I was to give little weight to all the examples, the fact that the examples are rather available and numerous would imply a lack of tact on her part.


 * Again, not to deny her excellent contributions to the Wiki, but being an admin is more than simply knowing when to block/delete, etc. It never was as mindless as that. Knowledge on use of the tools is only one aspect, so I cannot simply ignore the other factors (level of maturity, tact, self-control) based on the excellence of one aspect. Simply being an admin is not a big deal, but the conduct, attitude and use of the tools for an admin is absolutely important.


 * I hope that I haven't given the impression that I was merely vote-counting and throwing a final verdict. In the first place, I'll admit that I should have made it more explicit that I considered the arguments of the opposers to be valid. Not trying to be stubborn here, but I do hope you see where I'm coming from. Of course, there's always the possibility that I might have been wrong, but at this point of time, I see no reason to change the final decision of the RfA. Thanks. 11:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to echo Suppa here and ask if we're looking at the same RfA. You say that examples of her poor temperament are "rather available and numerous." Aside from Cook's logs, do you know of any? More importantly, do you know of any on-site examples? Unless there's proof of Fergie losing control somewhere on the site, I really think that we should assume she will conduct herself well on-site with sysop tools, even if she occasionally complains to someone in an off-site private conversation about something. After all, as I said, she's been making mainspace edits for a year and no one has shown significant on-site examples of poor conduct on her part. You would think something would have surfaced by now if it were as big a problem as the opposition seems to believe.


 * You speak of level of maturity, tact, and self-control. Quite frankly, I don't think that even the logs Cook posted do a good job of demonstrating that she has none of these. How many administrators have gone their entire careers as sysops without complaining in private to someone about something? I sure as hell haven't. I've had conversations in the past that show me expressing strong emotion about a particular subject, but that doesn't retroactively mean that I've been abusing my administrator powers because there is a disconnection between what someone says and what someone does. Fergie may have said something that you don't like. Fine. Whoop de doo, she has feelings and she expresses them privately. What has she done that you don't like? So she's complained in private about something... did she then go and start drama on a talk page or something? As I have said countless times, no one can show proof of on-site misconduct on her part. There's maturity and self-control for you. Tact? Maybe if she were complaining in public, it wouldn't be tactful, but it was a private conversation that she expected would remain private. Sadly, this did not turn out to be the case, but nonetheless, administrators are allowed to express themselves privately. It's what you do that really matters.


 * This isn't even completely about Fergie anymore for me. I really really really dislike the precedent, as set by this RfA, that this type of evidence is permissible. The way I see it, a really shoddy piece of evidence (a couple of private conversation logs) completely derailed the RfA of a user who is one of our best non-sysop countervandals and who has shown an awful lot of commitment to the wiki. By closing this RfA as unsuccessful for the reasoning you're providing, you're telling everyone that we have to be as mature and impartial in private, off-site conversations as we do when participating in a discussion on the wiki. This is completely unacceptable. This sort of evidence should not be valid for an RfA; rather, people ought to be looking at what she does on the wiki and judging her worthiness, or lack thereof, of adminship based on that. -- 16:33, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is another point I would like you to address. RS:NOT states the following: "References to outside discussion that may be relevant in an on-site discussion are acceptable, but they may not be used as the basis for a consensus or decision by themselves." If there is no on-site evidence of misconduct on Fergie's part, then the logs that Cook posted are logically the sole reason why the RfA was unsuccessful. This seems like it would go directly against RS:NOT#OFFSITE, as all of Fergie's history of positive wiki contributions was disregarded in light of a pair of off-site private conversation logs. -- 21:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Dungeoneering shields
Hello, I belive that I've found a MAJOR misunderstanding about how the dungeoneering shields work.

I don't want to edit it myself, (1. I'm lazy 2. I've never edited before save a minor mistake) but this REALLY needs attention, so.. well i found your talk page, hopefully it'll get attnetion here, no idea where this belongs.

to the problem:

The Runescape Knowledge Base says:

The three reward shields of Daemonheim 'soak' up damage from any attack that would have hit for more than 200 life points. The initial 200 damage would remain unaffected, but anything above this would have the soak effect applied. For example, a melee hit for 300 points would mean that, using the farseer shield, you would only take 286 points of damage (14% of 100). Each shield offers slightly different variations of this same ability:

The chaotic shield soaks up to 7% of all received melee damage and up to 14% of all received ranged damage. Magic damage is not soaked up at all.

Summoning attacks are dealt with according to the familiar's attack type. So, if a familiar attacks you with a ranged attack (for 200 damage or more), then a shield will soak up some of that damage as long as it has a ranged soaking ability.

The misunderstanding: The shields only reduces the damage ABOVE 200, example: (from kb) 300 hit: 200 unaffected, 14% reduce from the additional 100, 14 damage reduced, result: 286 damage. This wiki says something entirely different. Also, the chaotic kiteshield article doesn't even mention the 200 lp limitation, it seems to imply that the shield has flat absorbation bonuses which just isn't true.

// Jonatan

f2p-runescape wikia
hello, i am the buureoctat(grrr you know what i mean) from f2p-runescape.wikia i would like some help with this wiki as i just became selected for this position. thanks in advance.

re
Okay, but did you notice the 'Obi juann' part? 03:18, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well to me it showed that he wasn't being serious, like the first time which is why I told him to stop. 20:44, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Must be boring at the boarding school. :L 23:32, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

In the quest Desert Treasure, there are no mentions about safespots against dessous, so I thought that maybe it would be usefull to add such thing there. You can trap him behind that steel fence that surrounds his tomb, as long as you are "touching" the fence, meaning that u are not 1 step away from the fence or anything, and as long as he is "touching" it aswell. Would be kinda helpful for people who dont have 43 prayer and also dont want that (pures for example). Works atleast with magic.

Active
Would you consider yourself an "active" bureaucrat? 04:30, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Runescape Wiki in 2011
Hey there! Wikia is trying out something new this year where we are trying to make a "yearbook" for the biggest wikis, and we want to know what big things happened this year at Runescape Wiki! Can you check out this blog post and either give some details in the comments, or just write on my wall if it is easier. We're looking for fairly detailed information, such as what the community's favorite character/item/location is or if there was new content that people got excited about, things like that. If you have any questions, shoot me a message! Thanks so much! Soldierscuzzy 01:31, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

PNGOptimisationBot

 * This message is cross-posted to User talk:Dtm142 due to you two being active bureaucrats. To avoid both doing the same thing, please check for replies by the other bureaucrat at User talk:A proofreader before proceeding, and post a reply there.

Per Forum:Bot specification: PNGOptimisationBot, I am hereby requesting a bot flag on the account User:PNGOptimisationBot. No other permissions are needed, including custodian.

The actions it will perform are outlined in its user page. Its source code is posted under User:PNGOptimisationBot/Source and consists of 2 files. Testing has been done on Joey's wiki for the bot, under my account 'A proofreader'. You may view the upload log at w:c:joeytje50:Special:Log. 03:48, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism
Could you please ban this user? He keeps on vandalising the wiki, you may check it in his/hers contribitions. Greetings, --Idoreconise (My Talk here!/Moja dyskusja tutaj!) 12:19, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Poke
Hellooo I recently put in a RfCu here, and nothing's happened for over a week =O I posted this on Karlis' page and he didn't reply either. Maybe it's because I put it in wrongly or the world just hates me, but since you're a B'crat can you please evaluate meh and click ze butun (if I qualify of course)? 20:41, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like Karlis got to it, sorry for the delay. It seems no email was sent when you edited the page, which is why I didn't respond to it (not sure about the others). Cheers. 04:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you re-add administrators to my user rights? Thanks. 04:15, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. 04:16, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, although I shan't ask why. ;-) 04:18, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

hey celebchiam. its me. after a long time away from this wiki, i am back. i got an aggregate score of 252 for my psle. thanks to u. however, im in need of another help. some1 has hacked my account and i lost everything. if thers any chance that u can give me 1 mil so i can start everything anew. pls man i need your help ASAP.

04:20, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

RE:
Thanks, and could you please block this dude, that's why I requested those rights in the first place - I chased him on recent changes and reverted like 20 edits :P 14:05, December 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! If only I was a sysop, I could have blocked him quickly and without causing you hassle... *winks* 14:11, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on ZamorakO_o's RfB
Hey, I just wanted to respond to a few things that you said [ here] since Zamorak's RfB isn't exactly the best place to have a discussion on bureaucrats in general. In your comment, you mentioned that having active bureaucrats might demystify the perception of bureaucrats, but you then went on to say that there has not been a large issue with the perception of administrators on this wiki even though the "rights gap" between admins and 'crats is much smaller than that between regular users and admins. I'm not quite sure what you're hinting at here, but the lack of activity that many of our bureaucrats display is precisely the reason for this issue. Given the fact that each bureaucrat has only given some form of input into a community discussion a handful of times this year, it shouldn't really be a surprise that some newer members of the community have a misguided perception of the current bureaucrats. After all, how can they form their own impressions of what the role of a bureaucrat is/should be when they have no experience dealing with one? I'm not saying that the current level of activity of the current bureaucrats is causing a detrimental harm, but it should not be denied that changing perception for the better is really a positive development.

However, perception really isn't the true issue. Bureaucrats and administrators alike should remain neutral when determining consensus. It just so happens that bureaucrats are entrusted with the additional task of determining whether or not the community has established consensus to grant a user administrative (or bureaucrat) tools. Granted, remaining neutral can prove to be increasingly difficult if you happen to be good friends with the candidate. But it absolutely absurd to claim that becoming involved in wiki activities will create an emotional attachment to certain issues which could in turn affect potential judgement calls. Sure, there's a line between being active enough to know what's going on and being so emotionally invested in various areas of the wiki that it becomes impossible to neutrally close an RfA, but none of the current bureaucrats are even CLOSE to that level of activity. Increased activity would certainly help bureaucrats understand the situations in which the user has shown a need for the tools; it's not purely about what the comments on the page say. And just looking through contributions doesn't give the same picture. Being there at times like these give insight to different users' backgrounds without creating any sort of emotional attachment whatsoever. In any case, just looking at the Yew Grove doesn't always give a clear picture of what's going on. Plus, for some reason, I doubt that all of the active bureaucrats read through every single comment on each thread.

I'm not trying to attack your position, this is just my take on your "long comment" on Zamorak's RfB. But what really motivated me to write this was that your comment, regardless of what you stated, really is a sort of flat-out oppose. You presented arguments that refuted Zamorak's assertion that an active bureaucrat would benefit the wiki, stated that we have "a more-than-sufficient number" of active bureaucrats, and then rebuked several users' arguments that since he is trusted with CheckUser that he should be trusted with bureaucrat tools. These points are clearly in opposition to the RfB and attempting to disguise it as a comment is really unacceptable. The comment would have been much better suited to a different place and/or a different time. 08:25, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with suppa above, and would also like to recommend that you do not close RfBs. You obviously have a bias towards what you feel a bureaucrat should be, so it might not be a good idea for you to be closing those requests. 16:51, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * If your concern is with regard to Zamorak's RfB, I assure you that I do not plan on closing it since I am already involved. If you're requesting that I do not close RfBs in general, I would remind you that neither you nor I decide the standards that bureaucrats are held to. The community decides its own standards. To bar myself from closing any sort of RfA because my philosophies (about sysops and crats) and yours differ is a ridiculous notion. 17:08, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone who isn't me should be removed!!!! But beyond that, no, I am suggesting that your obvious preconceptions about what a bureaucrat should be make you unable to close such requests in an unbiased matter. This obviously isn't about what the community thinks, since you just wrote a multi-paragraph explanation of your views of a bureaucrat on an RfB. 17:13, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ajr, if you read what I wrote on the RfB, you'll realise that what I wrote was "more for the clarity and facilitation of discussion by straightening out the standards we seem to be holding bureaucrats to." Is it about what the community thinks? Of course it is! If I were to believe I was infallible and absolutely correct, I would have disregarded all the arguments I disagreed with and closed it as I saw fit. But no, I acknowledge that there are definitely very different viewpoints on this matter, and the standards are evolving and changing from how they were in the past.


 * Secondly, of course what I wrote was entirely my opinion. In my original draft, I actually wrote the statement "I don't claim that this is necessarily the correct view of the situation, but merely that it is my perspective of the issue.", but I decided to leave it out because I assumed it be understood. As such, I expressed my own beliefs regarding the situation because I believed it would be beneficial for the community to discuss this further rather than leave it at the semi-bickering that has been going on. Unlike the role of the sysop, the role of the bureaucrat is rather hazy, what with the lack of any guidelines or perhaps a D.A. project. If you're interesting in helping the Wiki (which I believe you are), I would encourage you to engage in healthy debate rather than toeing the line with some of your comments on my talkpage. I believe we're looking towards the benefit of the Wiki here, so I don't really see a need for antagonism here. Thanks. 17:27, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Caleb shouldn't close this particular RfB; that's for sure. But, there is nothing barring him from the faithful execution of his duties in the future. When he passed his RfB, he was entrusted with the ability to close these discussions. You can't just turn around now and tell him not to do exactly what a bureaucrat is supposed to do. (One of the main reasons, I might add, why I'm a bit skeptical towards Ty's RfB.) 17:21, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is your perspective on this issue, and that's why I recommended that you don't close RfBs - per your own logic, near-complete neutrality is the key, and so you having opinions about what a bureaucrat could/should/would do make any closure that you do biased. I disagree with this logic, and was hoping to use that as a jumping point to show how bias will always exist, and how the qualities that we should be looking for in a bureaucrat are their ability to put aside their personal opinions. Instead, I get accusations of crossing the line as you and liquid back up your arguments by saying the same things over and over again. Obviously this isn't going anywhere, so I am going to stop this. Also, please note that I left the comment on the RfB first, then decided to take it to your talk page. 19:15, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning that having preconceptions about the role of a bureaucrat should prevent me from closing RfBs is flawed, to say the least. There is nothing wrong with having preconceptions about the role of a crat. To the contrary, if a crat were to not have any preconceptions about administrators (be it sysop or crat), I would believe that to be dangerous and harmful to the Wiki. Take sysops for an example. I believe that sysop nominees should generally have a degree of maturity, good judgment, a need for the tools and trust from the community. Would you like to request that I not close RfAs in the future as well? I doubt so. Preconceived notions of the role of sysops/crats will definitely play a part in the closing of RfAs. How else would bureaucrats be trusted to close RfAs if they have no prior perception/comprehension of the role of an administrator? These very perceptions should be the standards by which sysops/crats are evaluated upon, the standards by which arguments for/against candidates should be referenced to.


 * As such, it is unwise to argue that I (or any bureaucrat) should be disallowed from closing RfBs because of personal preconceptions of crats. If you really wish for me to never close RfBs in the future, then you may as well post the same message on Dtm's and Karlis's talkpages because I am confident that they too have their own perceptions as to the role of the bureaucrat. Ultimately, it is the community who decides the standards that we want to hold our sysops/crats by. I'm sure you don't have any disagreements with what I wrote with regards to the standards that sysops should be held to, mainly because it has already been decided by consensus and listed on the RfA page for anyone and everyone to see. It also happens to be the very reason why we are having these debates and arguments, because we have never truly defined the role of the bureaucrat. Hence, while I will not close this RfB, I don't plan to accede to your request that I never close RfBs. I'm glad to see that Cook has opened a Yg topic on it so that we can take action to define the role of the bureaucrat in greater detail.


 * Finally, with regard to my statement about you "toeing the line". It's not so much in relation to any of the arguments you're presenting here, it's with reference to your tone and abrasive attitude, because some of your comments border on rude and uncivil, which I find counterproductive to having a well-reasoned and mature discussion. That's really my sincere opinion on this matter. I'll admit it's not my place to lecture you, so disregard this if you wish to. Thanks. 17:50, December 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I entirely disagree with the notion that a bureaucrat should be distant from the community in order to remain impartial. It's the kind of thinking that has led to the identity crisis we currently have about bureaucrats. Part of what we look at in potential bureaucrats is their ability to remove themselves from emotional attachments when considering RfAs. It's quite often that a Yew Grove thread comes along where the sysop closing it has a relationship with the topic-creator or an investment in the outcome of the thread. In nearly all cases, the closer manages to be neutral and closes the thread correctly. Why can't you bureaucrats do the same? There are plenty of benefits to having active bureaucrats; they're experienced editors, tend to be knowledgeable about policies and previous discussions, and being active within the community gives them a better paradigm to view the opinions of users through. Throwing all of that away in a misguided attempt to maintain neutrality is just not worth it.
 * I also think it was out of line for you to take such an active position against the candidate. It's one thing for you to clear up your interpretation of a bureaucrat's role on the thread like Dtm did on Lord's RfA (although I would even prefer that went elsewhere), but I find you've really gone out of your way to rebut specific arguments in support of him. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not, it's opposition in all but name, and I think it's wrong for a bureaucrat to do this. I would agree with Ajraddatz that it may be best for you to not close any RfBs until we can decide what our community's view is on bureaucrats in general, because no part of this ideology showed up on your RfB, or anywhere else that I am aware of. You should think about whether your judgment is clouded and if anything needs to change. 20:31, December 17, 2011 (UTC)