RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Coelacanth0794

Coelacanth0794

Coelacanth0794 ^{Talk • Contribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk edits • Edit count}

Hello, everybody. I am Coelacanth0794, and I am requesting the additional user rights of System Manager (AKA sysop). Before voting, I do wish to please inform users, new or old, to read or re-read through the adminship guide on what to say or how to respond. I trust that you will ask specific questions I can happily answer or give detailed descriptions about something within your votes. I have been a part of this wiki family for just under three years, have currently slightly over 25,000 edits, and do most of my work fixing tidbits of information, reworking certain areas of articles, or doing general imagework. I can be found in Special:Chat and the Internet relay Chat. I am mostly known for generally non-specific work around the mainspace which may include templates an formatting, along with adding transparency to images, taking or retaking pictures with the orb of oculus, or obtaining newer versions of DIIs (Detailed Item Images) or inventory sprites. I wish to be given these rights due to my unwavering dedication to this wiki along with the time I’ve put into the rather over-inflated editcount and images. I plan to be more of a community-based assistant for the sort of work an administrator would do, such as deleting images/pages, closing threads, or removing disruptive people from chats or the recent changes. As I have mentioned before, I am rather active in the wiki chat, where, with requested assistance from some other users, I took on ChatHax, which allows me to be ‘pinged’ for a quicker summoning, so to speak. In that situation, I could handle a situation earlier on. I am also found within the IRC channel, which is less active (especially when it comes to disruptive behaviour in the channel). There as well I hope to be of some sort of use, although I admit I am reliant on Freenode, so some issues may arise out of that. One thing that will be relevant towards this request is the fact I ran a request for chat moderator a few months ago in July. The request for chat moderator failed mainly under the view of immaturity, which I have been working on proper behaviour and acting better around others. This RfA is not solely based off the RfCM. Along with the editcount and time spent improving articles, this request is mostly based on the amount of work I do on the wiki, not within chats (where I do tend to post a lot of images). One more thing I’d like to point out, I do feel that many other editors may see my small time between additional right requests as a sort of “power hunger” or rights collection; this is not the case. I did not feel I was not ready for a higher editing status. I have been encouraged within the past to start a request for adminship, and some other users have offered to nominate me, but have declined these. I hope that I may be seen as trustworthy enough, in editing or general chat, to be given these rights.

I, Coelacanth0794, 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, Coelacanth0794 Talk 13:00, October 17, 2012 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
I would most likely take part in anti-vandalism and deletion of spam/pages when it comes time to do so. Usually, I feel there ought to be more anti-vandalism page protection against IPs when there are multiple edits to pages, especially after a recent in-game update, but it seems around this time of year, things are slowing down due to more of the younger users (myself included) getting caught up with schoolwork. While there may be a lesser degree this sort of protection would be needed, I do feel it would be my additional duty to prevent devious attempts of vandalism on such pages under heavy traffic. This would also take some of the stress off the users who are busy gathering information about the update (such as pictures or quest guides) who may be constantly having their work removed or being edit-conflicted.

2. What have been your most helpful contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
I feel a large portion of my editing and notoriety of editing comes from my small-maintenance edits on articles (such as adding perimeters or cleaning up templates and tables), along with my imagework, which includes worn equipment retaking, detailed item images, NPC images, chatheads, inventory sprites, transparency, and more recently, feathered edges transparency 9which I also admit is not nearly as common). These are usually tasks others may not be willing to take the effort to do as opposed to something along the lines of creating a strategy guide or rewriting an article.

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 do admit I have had a number of small scuffles with a fair amount of other editors, such as Evil1888 , Haidro and Psycho Robot. The ones that are much older tended to be more about disagreements or personal matters, while the newer ones are mostly about my behaviour and things I have done/have not done/done incorrectly. I would prefer to have these end on a positive note, which may not always happen, but I do try to keep up a positive view of other users, even if we have had a loud disagreement. I hope to try and remain calmer and more collected within these situations, or to be more willing to lean my opinion to be more flexible towards theirs.

4. Should this request be successful, which of the following would you also accept: Username highlight; IRC operator; Clan chat administrator?
I would not like any sort of name highlight. This may not sound professional, but I just feel plain silly having my name in green. I would like to accept the IRC operator, although I may have to work out something with some of the more experienced IRC leaders on using something aside from freenode. I am active enough in the IRC to feel the need to warrant this right. I do spend a decent amount in time within RuneScape, but I cannot say I pay any particular amount of attention towards the clan chat, at least opposed to the attention I pay towards the game itself or the other chats. While it may be suitable to see another user have such rights in case of other ranked users not being available or such, I do not think I am active enough within the clan chat to warrant a higher ranking.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)

Even though you have done a lot of great things here that I often notice, such as imagework, some factual corrections, and minor edits; I usually do mainspace edits when I go Special:Random and see something wrong, so I think that's something great to be doing. Even with an excellent amount of contributions you've made, what imperfections do you see yourself doing on the wiki that you would like to address, and hopefully, improve on? -- Spine^Talk 13:15, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I do notice I am a very... bad typer. I make typos often, which is something I would like to improve on. Also noticing specific details is sometimes something I don't do as much as I should, such as noticing another thing to be edited, a typo, as said above, or noting another thing someone edited that may be relevant to the article but that I may have removed or undone in a previous edit.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

13:20, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

You say you are reliant on freenode, and would like to discuss moving away from freenode with "the more experienced IRC leaders". Why not before? Why do you want to discuss this with the leaders, and not the community? Would you respect the policy on consensus during the discussion for the move?

a proofreader ▸

17:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I am reliant on freenode, but what I mean by 'experienced IRC leaders' is those who are knowledgeable with the other IRC clients. I have looked into it before, but did not go further. I'm not sure why I didn't, I probably should have.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

17:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Why did you advise the readers to read and re-read the adminship guide before commenting, when it's right above your request in RS:RFA?

a proofreader ▸

17:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Because, in all honesty, newer users (and some experienced) aren't going to read the entire contents of the RFA page and just click on the links for the user's requests. It's just a safety precaution, mostly on the terms I'd like this to be more intellectual in nature a request as opposed to my RfCM. There, a majority of the votes were very simple - "Support because coel is a cool dude" isn't something I'd like to see as a strong point for a RFA page.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

17:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

What is the jump between "I contribute to the wiki" and "I am an administrator of the wiki" to you? Do you plan to learn about more of the tools with time?

a proofreader ▸

17:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Contributing and being an administrator are pretty much the same thing, except that system managers are able to do some of the more advanced options. Aside from that, the only possible thing that might come to mind is that being an administrator shows that you'd done a good quantity of contributions to a wiki. As for tools, I would like to learn to use them over time - I think runescape shows this trait too: Experience.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

17:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Oppose - Despite being an excellent editor, I still have concerns regarding interpretation of policy. On October 14th, the nominee quoted IRC chat involving a dispute between Cblair91 and Cursed Pyres. Specifically, <Cblair91> immo get on your knees and suck my mother fucking dick. Whilst I was not present at the time in S:C I am told Coel defended posting such a quote by saying he personally did not say it and thus posting it was completely acceptable. I am of the belief that you are responsible for whatever you post including quoting someone else, even more so considering the nature of the quoted material. Before this I would have agreed that the nominee has been making a definite effort to improve his maturity, but sadly I feel this is not acceptable behaviour for a sysop. see below

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

I still see it as perfectly acceptable. I posted it for a reason, and my reason is that he continued showing UTP violations within the IRC. I posted it to gain attention of someone who has the power to have him knock it off. If I had simply said "cblair is violating UTP in IRC", nobody would care due to a diffusion of responsibility. Unless I provided an example, nobody would have done something: and it did work, did it not? Fergs gave him a warning after we had this conversation. To have an oppose for a case of showcasing evidence saying isn't mature shows the opposite of what I believe to be correct.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

14:05, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I can understand the reasoning here, I still cannot agree with the execution. Private messaging exists for just this reason, or even creating a pastebin of the chat for a more balanced view of the incident. As I wasn't there at the time in S:C, I'm not sure of what the ensuing conversation was, but shocking someone into taking action isn't the way.

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Oppose - Not long ago I talked to Coel about this RFA. I can't remember exactly what was said, but I mentioned his immaturity issues in chat. He reassured me that he knew he had behavioral problems and was working on them. I considered forgetting his past behavior issues and focused solely on his behavior now - so I've been watching. There has not been enough of an improvement for me to support just yet. Just the other day we got into a short argument for something inappropriate he posted in Special:Chat for all users to see: http://pastebin.com/4BURxDUJ Okay, I can get if he thought it was okay for whatever reason. Except that it didn't end there - he argued with me saying it was okay to post for the reasons seen in the pastie. Wth? This on top of his past issue (like telling me he's not afraid to break the rules because he thinks I won't kick him) show his failure to understand policies properly. This leads me to believe that many conflicts will raise between him and other users when he's closing threads, blocking or warning - either in a chat or on wiki. In conclusion, he has not improved enough for me to support. Give it more time and try harder. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:06, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Please read the above. I wished for assistance from IRC administrators, which was you, because those in IRC certainly weren't gonna get involved.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

14:08, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

When I mentioned that you could have taken it to PM, you asked if you should have sent it to every person individually. Why do non-admins need to see it? They don't. Like I said I could have understood if you had posted it and left it at that, but you didn't, you argued about how it was okay. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:11, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

What would you have done if I had sent it via a PM? Would you have taken it as seriously? Please explain.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

14:13, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Why would I not have taken it seriously if you had sent it to me in PM requesting a block? The 'seriousness' you're referring to is my frustration at you for thinking it's okay to post inappropriate things like that in Special:Chat. If you had posted it in PM I would have talked to Cblair anyway since you asked me to. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:15, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Why do you feel it was so inappropriate? I understand it was very vulgar, and perhaps public chat wasn't the best place to put it, but I placed it there for administrative measures. Why is this specific event enough to warrant an total oppose?

Coelacanth0794 Talk

14:18, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said in my conclusion, it shows me that you haven't changed enough to be mature enough to handle being an admin. Arguing like that is just like you. I expect you to argue stupid things like that, because you always do. If you wanted to work on your maturity issues you would have not argued so much about it. It's not about who is right or who is wrong, just knowing when to stop or understand the other side. As you are now, you cannot do this. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 14:30, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Coelacanth is a very skilled editor and has a maturity that would be expected of a RSW admin. I wish I could write as much as the others but I'm not a fan of picking out the most minute details and drawing ultimate conclusions from that. Callofduty4 ^Talk 14:27, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The whole notion of opposing the RfA based on Coel quoting Cblair is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to not post what he posted in Special:Chat just because it contains 'bad words'. Sure, Coel could have posted that in a private message, but that would have absolutely no benefit over posting it in the public chat simply because there is no reason to apply useless censorship whereas posting that in the public chat did have certain benefits such as making it less likely for it to pass unseen by sysop. Moreover, any user that is offended by that quotation which is clearly not directed at them does not belong on the wiki, stop acting like we are dealing with five year olds. bad_fetus^talk 17:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - On your talk page I see very few conflicts, only some things like an unhelpful edit summary. In recent contributions I see lots of redirects. In recent forums I see some activity mainly related with image maintenance and creation policy. You do revert vandals a lot, but in June were told that you should warn vandals. In response, you started warning IPs with a meme image: 173.25.225.54, Oct 5; 173.210.190.131, Oct 8. You do warn for error1, test2 and such as well, though.

As for your understanding of policy, it's still a bit spotty. Asking users to re-read things, to guard against non-intellectual discourse, is going against Assume good faith; it is generally assumed that comments on an administrator request are going to be in-depth, and asking people to re-read things sounds patronising. Your handling of recent controversy is stirring controversy; though the fact that this is stirring controversy on your RFA is through no fault of your own, bringing a conflict from one medium into another, publicly, is frowned upon as back-talking and could devolve into more drama. I'd say leave it to an administrator, but this is about a request for administrator tools that would allow you to deal with this sort of controversy yourself! I'm not going so far as to say this is a major abuse of procedure, but it's not the best way to deal with things.

Finally, I like your answer to my third question. All of this averages to Neutral.

a proofreader ▸

18:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll do my best not to mince words here. I respect you as an editor & as a friend. I do not trust your judgement, ability to maintain a mature & clear head in conflict, or to make hard decisions when necessary, and would be uneasy with you taking part in consensus determination. I don't feel that you're fully ready for adminship tools and the added responsibility of using them. Ronan^Talk 20:04, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - While I feel you have come a long way with regards to maturity, I still do not believe it to be enough. As has been pointed out, you have been known to spread conflict in inappropriate manners (I'm talking about the thing with Cblair here). I also feel that you are a bit too quick to demand people be reprimanded, such as the other day when you demanded I think it was Demise36 banned from Special:Chat for sending you a private message with "You're stupid", when there had been no evidence of breaches of UTP prior to this. Also, the other day when you were getting people to ask you RfA style questions in Special:Chat, I rather got the feeling that you wanted a usergroup which excluded chat moderatorship from the adminship powers, and your use of the word "title" when referring to chat moderatorship gives me concern that you see things like adminship as a prize to be collected Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 00:27, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

That last point is the very opposite that I'd wish to be seen. One of the excuses I used for delaying adminship was that I may be taken as 'rights collector'. To see you believe this hurts me.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

00:42, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Just want to go on record that I don't see this at all. He's put off requests to do RfAs for more than a year because he didn't think he was ready for it, but suddenly you think he's doing it for the prize? Where do you get this from? ʞo oɔ 12:28, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like assuming bad faith saying that he's a rights collector because of one thing that he said. I'm the only rights collector around here D:<

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 12:32, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Per Ajr and Cook.

Callofduty4 ^Talk 13:12, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

So he used a word that implies something. Big deal. And his idea to have an admin usergroup without chatmod rights is an idea that's been around since the dawn of Wikia chat - his idea isn't anything silly.

Callofduty4 ^Talk 13:12, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Where did he even reference chat moderatorship as a title? There's no mention of it on his RfCM and it certainly doesn't sound like something Coel would say. Ronan^Talk 14:55, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

This was in a little Q&A that he held in the chat. If you had bothered reading what I had put you would have seen that. However it seems RSChatBot didn't pick up the little session. Also, a further point, on 16 October he posted a quote from the IRC into S:C which did not need to be posted, and when questioned as to why he posted it he just ignored me. <01:14 <Coelacanth0794> [21:14] <Lashazior> I got 6 iron tits>. That's the quote, no need for that to be spread yet he did so, and I heard no reason for him doing so Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think Coel would be perfectly fine with admin rights. It seems that a big issue here is that he is too immature or not good well in a conflict. I do think this is relevant to the discussion but I feel as if this is taken out of proportion. It seems that users in Special:Chat would overreact to your images if they contain an "inappropriate" word complaining as if you aren't responsible, mature and other nonsense. How does this even relate though? It's irrelevant. It doesn't really register to me how an imgur image can relate to the right of deleting an image. Besides this, I think Coel is someone okay regarding conflicts, but only the bad instances are being brought up (which is few) and not looking at the big picture. Looking at Fergie's pastebin log, I think Coel was simply trying to do the right thing. He was simply trying to report someone to be dealt yet brought down because of it. Though I do agree he should've thought through a tad bit, everyone makes mistakes, and you sometimes just need to understand that. Overall, I think Coel would be a suitable admin. Hair 01:13, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Who mentioned anything about his image posting? I see nobody opposing Coel due to the images he posts in S:C Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

~~Oppose~~ Comment - Before I begin, I would like to say that I wanted to stay away from talking about Coel's level of maturity, because I feel I don't know much about it, so far.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anywhere you saying what you need the sysop tools for. You said:

“

I wish to be given these rights due to my unwavering dedication to this wiki along with the time I’ve put into the rather over-inflated editcount and images.

”

Why do you want the sysop tools, and, if you were to have these tools, how would this benefit the wiki? What you have said above hasn't told me that you need them. What you're doing currently is fine: uploading files and adding info, you don't need sysop tools for these tasks. You're telling me that you want the tools because you have been here for a long time, which I should see no reason why that should be put into consideration.

“

I plan to be more of a community-based assistant for the sort of work an administrator would do, such as deleting images/pages, closing threads, or removing disruptive people from chats or the recent changes.

”

You really haven't been involved with consensus much. Looking at your last 20 forum edits, I noticed that you would only comment on a thread around once or twice a month. You have only been involved with 9 threads this whole year, something I would like to see you improve on. Also, about you "removing disruptive people from chat or the recent changes", I don't feel you are ready for this. I'm not going to repeat your RfCM, but I think that you just don't give people a chance and don't assume good faith. You also don't really contribute much to the Chat. I mainly see you just post imgur links. Haidro ^(talk) 09:58, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to add on that I have changed from oppose to neutral/comment. Coel does do a lot of editing which is very useful for the wiki, and I feel that my oppose was a bit too harsh against him. Haidro ^(talk) 19:56, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's been said before nobody needs the tools. The most use for the rights I would get would be deleting, and of that mostly images.

Coelacanth0794 Talk

10:04, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Have there been any circumstances where you would have benefited with the sysop tools? If so, please explain further what happened. Haidro ^(talk) 10:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm decently active in counter-vandalism, so I could use a variety of examples from that. Another thing would be images - Updated images, deleting personal uploads, or removing images that aren't able to be reuploaded (say, a JPG to a PNG).

Coelacanth0794 Talk

11:05, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Haidro, I do think you've missed the answer to question 1, namely "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?". Also, consensus-determination is an extremely small part of adminship, with maybe 20 threads closed per month, most of them completely non-controversial, and even then the majority of them closed by one or two people. It's always nice to have someone active in decision-making, but don't make your decision based on whether you think they're fit to close threads. As far as I know there have been very few cases where there was dissent over the way a YG thread was closed. It's not that hard to know what to do. ʞo oɔ 12:28, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Mostly support - First let me say that I think the "quotation" incident has been overblown to epic proportions. It astonishes me that something so benign is changing votes. I don't even think that what he did was necessarily a bad thing, although in retrospect he probably would have handled it differently. Yes, he's quoting someone saying something offensive. It's not like those are his words, and I'm sort of getting a vibe from the opposition that that's what they're thinking to themselves. I don't see any difference between what he did and what Courts did by posting this on Forum:Derank Degeneret01, Glenndora, +others. If that's the worst case you have of him being immature, then maybe he's not so bad.

I think Coelacanth would benefit nearly as much as any current non-sysop would from gaining admin rights, as he's fairly active in countervandalism and makes a great number of various administrative requests in chat and IRC. There's no question in my mind that he would have a positive impact on maintenance, even though it's always difficult for a candidate to explain "circumstances where you would have benefited with the sysop tools".

There are a few things that concern me; I thought telling everyone to read up on the RfA guide was a bit condescending, he can be too rough with enforcement (with Demise36), and admittedly he can be less than mature at times. For the most part, though, I'm really not seeing the major immaturity or incivility that other people are claiming here. If you guys have evidence of this besides some bad faith chat log, please do present it and I may well change my vote. But I'm just seeing vague, scornful complaints about immaturity without much meat on them.

There's also one more like I'd like to add - there are different types of immaturity, and we'd do well to recognize that. There are the people that can really lose their minds at times and do stupid, harmful things. We've seen some people who've done that (I'm not going to name names because that doesn't always end well). The other, less bad type of immaturity occurs when someone is not always serious, and they sometimes have a hard time drawing the line. There are tons of sysops (including myself) that would fall into that category, and I think Coel would as well. The guy has plenty of faults, but he's one of the last people I would expect to really screw up and cause us harm. ʞo oɔ 12:28, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I know Coel will be able to handle himself appropriately with the tools. He is a somewhat immature user, but then again I can be too. I personally *hate* how you told us to reread the guidelines to commenting on an RfA, but I don't think I'll oppose simply on you how you decided to setup your RfA. User:TyA/sig 14:26, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think the case where Coel put the quote he put in S:C to request a ban is not a bad thing at all. It is nothing worse than Cam posting the exact same quote on this RfA to serve as clarification for his argument. Other than that argument, I don't think the single other argument of the request to ban Demise36, mentioned above, is reason enough to oppose at all. I think you would be a great admin. Good luck. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 14:39, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Upon reflection, and I feel I was hasty, and took the incident in Special:Chat out of proportion. I have no doubt as an experienced editor you would put the tools to good use and can see you have worked on the issues raised in your RfCM. Good luck!

REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Support - IRC quotes are minor. I don't have any problem with his maturity. He's already much more mature than me --Iiii I I I 17:57, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I actually thought that Coel should run an RfA for a while, and I don't know why he didn't. In my mind, he is completely ready and I wholeheartedly trust him with them. He's a pretty mature guy, and one bout where he quoted something inappropriate that someone said (with the purpose of getting him kicked) or occasionally posting links to quasi-immature images doesn't tell me otherwise. He's a great asset to the wiki and he'd be a great admin. ɳex undique 19:01, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Support Canadian self-nominated RfA. Seriously, what could be better? A good candidate who has a need for the tools and can be trusted to use them well?

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:43, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

An AMERICAN self-nominated RfA. ʞo oɔ 11:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Cola is a great editor and would make a great sysop. I agree the note at the top of the rfa seemed a little patronising, but that's not going to affect my opinion. I see no problem with quoting something like he did on chat, I've done that before on irc, possibly worse, and wouldn't be unhappy if anyone else did it. I also haven't seen any problems with his maturity, so I can't see any reason to oppose. Sentra246 12:35, October 20, 2012 (UTC)