Joeytje50 TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count

Previous nominations provided for reference:

First Nomination

Second Nomination

Third Nomination

It's nothing but a pleasure for me to nominate Joey for adminship. I cannot stress enough just how much he has matured and developed into a truly exemplary and invaluable editor for us here, and his outstanding contributions have long since surpassed the point where he both requires and wholeheartedly deserves administrative tools.

Joeytje50's work on this wiki can be found scattered across the site in countless places. Whether it be his extensive efforts and improvements to the wiki's MediaWiki features, scripts (both on-site and for Special:Chat), dedicated commitment to counter-vandalism, active participation on the Yew Grove, excellent image work or just quality edits to regular articles, Joey has given so much over the years and has a blatant need for these additional abilities.

His attitude has grown into what can only be described as friendly, helpful, warm and cheerful, and these people skills are vital to the role of administrator, where community integration, familiarity and likeability are essential. In Special:Chat, IRC and talk pages alike, he has persistently made a name for himself as the go-to person for coding queries, as his is a well recognised and trusted personality.

Finally, in all of Joey's time here, which has not been the easiest, I cannot praise enough just how much he has taken on board the constructive criticism he has been given, and how better an editor and friend he has become as a result. To wrap this up; Joey will benefit greatly from administrative tools - but not as much as the community will. Good luck, Mr. Tje50. Ronan Talk 07:07, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

I, Joeytje50, 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, JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:21, May 5, 2012 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
I could use the tools during my antivandalism, but I could also greatly use it with my CSS and JavaScript work. I have to ask others very often to do something in the MediaWiki namespace very often for me, and it would be a lot easier and quicker if I would have access to those pages. I would also create and modify abusefilters, which have been untouched very long because few administrators know how to use them.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
I still consider my imagework as some of my best contributions to the wiki, even though I am not able to make images with anti-aliasing anymore, and haven't been for almost a year now. I also consider my antivandalism as some of my better contributions to the wiki, but I think the my best contributions are the many JS/CSS things I've made and fixed for this wiki.

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 have, and I have discussed these extensively on my previous RfA. I do not wish to make another huge textwall on this RfA, so if you want to know my opinions about that, please read about it here.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)


Support - It's been three months since the last nomination, and don't see much of a reason to change my comment from the last RfA considerable. At any rate, I think that Joey is a strong editor with the definite need of the tools, and hold confidence that he will be more mature and these previous conflicts will be behind him. Thus, I support the RfA, and because of the length of time without any recent conflicts (that I know of), I'll give full support this time. Hofmic Talk 07:14, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per my comment on the previous Rfa and Hofmic above. Raglough 07:24, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I personally said that I would support a future RfA of Joey's if he did not involve himself in any drama for a reasonable period of time. Joey will make a fantastic sysop with the coding skills he will bring to the wiki and the community work he has already done in Special:Chat. 222 talk 08:49, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey would make an excellent sysop, per all supporters. Haidro (talk) 08:53, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey is worth it. He's a great community builder and antivandal. --Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 11:36, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Mr Joeytje50 is a good anti-vandal. He is brilliant when it comes to coding and he is efficient at anti-vandalism. Thus he has support from me. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 11:41, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Yup. Matt (t) 12:09, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - All I have to say is this. Hair 12:48, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey is a very awesome, very talented with script stuff, very responsible, very respectful, and very so much more. I've been counting down the days for his RfA, and I personally think he'd make the most wonderful admin. He's been with us for a long time, showing his responsibility in edits, and when talking with others. If anyone, Joey is the best choice in my mind for this. Good luck, Joeytje50 <^><3 Cake Chocolate cake 2-3 cake Feeshee yay!Corrupted Ascension signet III 13:24, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per previous Rfa. Just excellent. --Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 14:06, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Weak support - While you may make a good sysop, I am slightly concerned you are a bit overkeen to block people. At the end of March he requested I block this vandal, but I refused on the grounds that the last act of vandalism and the last warning given by Joey were both at 19:53. Also, I have received complaints about Joey only warning once then requesting blocks Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 15:08, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

In the single example provided from two months ago, the user's actions certainly did warrant a block - editors should not be allowed to vandalise an article three times before finally being shut down. Additionally, where is the problem with Joey warning the vandal in the same minute that he was permitted to vandalise that article again, other than showing how swiftly Joey reacted? Also, this is the first time I've ever heard of any such "complaints". What on earth is the issue with warning a vandal once before blocking if the relevant vandalism was severe? Obviously, this goes on a case by case basis, but unless you can produce even one scrap of evidence to show that Joey ever incorrectly requested a block, I see no weight in any of the above. Ronan Talk 16:05, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
I can only assume the reason why you never heard of these complaints was cause I was the only one who Ansela complained to about them. Also, I do not know for sure if Joey warned the vandal before the third act of vandalism or after, but either way I could only assume that they had not had time to read the warning, so to block them at that time would effectively nullify the warning Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:23, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
Surely asking for someone (who did vandalize) to be blocked doesn't always mean that someone is overkeen on blocking people? I get your point, but couldn't you just put a block statement on that? Also, seeming that they were warned and probably active, they probably would've seen the warnings. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 16:27, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
If Ansela herself does not consider it significant, I don't see why someone else would. Ronan Talk 16:32, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
(This is to neitz) I think you've missed the point. I do not know for sure which came first: the third vandalism or the second warning, so for all I know they vandalised and then saw the second warning, which again brings me to the point that to block at that point would be to pretty much act as if the second warning had never happened. Also, I am not using that one incident as the basis for the overkeenness, but also the complaints that I received. (To Flay) Had it just been those complaints, then I would have just ignored them, but the IP incident indicates to me that Joey may be slightly overkeen Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:39, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Smart man, who will hopefully be able to bring forth much to the Administrative Cabal that does not actually Exist. My biggest concern would perhaps being a tad bit to bold at times, but I'm sure that'll be worked out. 22px-Logo.svg.png22#.png 15:20, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - not seen much conflict involving him, and he's a good anti-vandal. It will be good to have another UK/western Europe timezone admin around. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 15:44, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Blocks aren't some three-strike system, they are there to prevent further abuse. I am OK with Joey having a few extra abilities here. ajr 18:32, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I personally feel this is a little too quick off of the bat of a recently failed RfA. I still share those concerns that I expressed in that RfA, although the improvement over the last few months has helped your cause. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 02:07, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose - Per Liquid, he has brought up a pretty valid point. Perhaps if someone fails one RfA, you can make an exception, but saying someone has changed in half of the time they failed to change in the past is being to generous. Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 23:28, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think Flaysian summed up the positives of Joey receiving these tools perfectly. The only criticism I can bring against Joey is a lack of assumption of good faith on rare occasion. Sometimes I feel him a little too quick to warn or a little too quick to kick someone from chat. However, this is but a minor point. cqm  00:04, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Like Rhys I feel that this is too soon after the last RfA, especially given the circumstances surrounding it. Obviously this one will pass, but I will nevertheless make my opinion known. Andrew talk 01:04, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

On halo's 2nd RfA you said Halo matured a lot during the single month between his two RfAs. You obviously believe in maturing in a period of one month, but what makes you believe I have not matured in those 3 months since my last RfA (or 8 months since the last serious incident I've been in, the 9/11 discussion)? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:30, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
No two people or situations are alike. I have my reasons. I never said you haven't matured, though. If you read what I said again you'll find that I simply feel that this is too soon given the circumstances surrounding your last RfA. Andrew talk 11:49, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
"I have my reasons"? Andrew, come on, your entire opposition is based on complete rubbish and you know it. Ronan Talk 07:27, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
He's allowed to have his reasons for opposing, whether his points are valid or not. If he feels like joey hasn't matured as much as he or others claim, then that's valid. It's just that if only a few people agree with him, the outcome of this RfA won't likely be affected by his opinions. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:31, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the first time, but thanks to the consensus system, the weight and validity of the arguments in the eyes of the closing bureaucrat are what matters. 222 talk 08:32, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please continue to belittle me, Flaysian and Thebrains. Real mature. I'm entitled to my opinion without being attacked just because someone doesn't agree. If you don't like it, get over it. Andrew talk 21:38, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
Nobody likes to belittle anyone, but they have their reasons. Ardougne cloak 4 Raging Bull Talk 03:08, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
XD 222 talk 06:46, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Enough. I have just as much right as you or anyone else to voice my opinion on an RfA or anywhere else without being mocked or belittled. Just because you don't agree or don't like my views doesn't make them wrong or any less valid than yours. Frankly, this is one of the reasons I don't come here often anymore. I am well aware that this RfA will pass and wish Joey the best of luck, but I wanted to make my opinion known before it did. The way you all have treated me here is pretty despicable, and I'm quite shocked, especially when one of you is another sysop, and all of you should know better than that. I don't know about you, but I don't find it funny at all when someone is made to feel like they aren't welcome to voice their opinion anymore or that people don't want to hear what they have to say. That is not how we treat people on a free and open wiki that anyone can edit. It's quite sad. Andrew talk 11:49, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone replies to this, I'd like to ask you to move further discussion about mocking, voicing opinions, or about anything unrelated to this RfA to your talk pages. Thanks. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:04, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you've actually explained your opposition. All you've said is that it is too soon since the last rfa and that you have reasons, which you haven't told us. The "too soon since last rfa" argument isn't valid unless you feel that there were concerns raised in the previous rfa which you feel haven't been resolved. If so, please elaborate. You're allowed to have reasons for not wanting Joey to be an admin, but being cryptic and not telling us them doesn't help anything. Matt (t) 12:26, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
We would love to hear what you have to say - if only you would tell us what that actually is :-) Ardougne cloak 4 Raging Bull Talk 12:40, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where this prima donna display came out of, but I'm going to move on from it as it's largely irrelevant, and say that if a user opposes a request such as this and refuses to supply any legitimate reasons, it can't be taken seriously. I won't bother with the rest of the comments directed at myself and others. Ronan Talk 15:47, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
Also this. Ronan Talk 19:07, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear that "too soon" is my reason. If not, my bad, and the comment you're linking to is completely unrelated. Are we done here? Andrew talk 21:27, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
It quite obviously is not, and I certainly am. Ronan Talk 22:13, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
If you're fine with your opposition being extremely superficial, being completely invalid and holding zero weight, then sure, we're done here. Matt (t) 00:52, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
In addition, I believe what Ronan is hinting at is quite simply, you're a hypocrite. Quoting yourself, "you should spend more time on the wiki in order to become more informed about certain wiki users" and so you'll "know all the facts". 222 talk 00:55, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I expected a few more petty attacks from you three. Not even worthy of a response. Just posting here one last time to officially withdraw from the discussion. I do wish Joey the best of luck in his new role. Andrew talk 02:47, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to acknowledge such goading attempts to aggravate myself or my fellow editors. I'm sure I'm not the only who believes our collective comments consist of superior reasoning than yours, but of course that should not alter the course of this previously civil discussion. For the record, these comments were made in good faith in an attempt to explain to you that posting superficial reasoning and constantly refusing to accept the contributions of other editors by either classing them as "arguing" or "petty attacks" is hurting absolutely no one else but yourself. I'm also apologising to Joey for dragging this RfA off-topic. 222 talk 13:38, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this part should be closed. This isn't going anywhere tbh, and this also might go out of hand. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 14:46, May 12, 2012 (UTC)
Aaron has already said all that there is to say, and no one involved in the above would have let it go out of hand. Ronan Talk 14:54, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support, just like last time. - :3 Adam SavageSpeech cursor 19:13, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey has been mature and continues to be a mature individual. I have read the negatives of previous discussions and I do think enough time has passed as it is now water under the bridge. He can use the tools that he requests of current administrators to fulfill such as fixing or adding new Abuse Filters and Javscript additions as well as fixes. It's not like the whole sysop role has to revolve around blocking people. As it is for me, it's maintaining current filters, JS and CSS including keeping up with what changes are in store for the wiki as dictated by Wikia. Ryan PM 20:53, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I really don't see any issues. FiendOfLight (talk) 20:59, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey has shown the need for the tools and I don't see a problem with him having them. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 05:33, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Support - He needs them to do these annoying mediawiki tasks he keeps signing me up for. ):< I have small things to nitpick at though. The way you type in chat absolutely irks me, of course, but I wish you would mature a bit more so we don't appear to be a wiki which supports 11 year olds. If I entered a chat and saw "lul u du liek dis" I would leave. Be a positive and mature influence, please. Second thing I want to pick at is that you are constantly telling admins what to do. Lord forbid if I do something in a different order than what you want, like warning and then blocking. We all know what we're doing here, back off bruh. Other than my small personal reasons (which I really hope you fix), you have come a long way and I think you're finally ready. :3= Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 19:56, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Question for the candidate - Sorry, I should have thought of this long before now. Will you be accepting CC admin or a wiki highlight once this request is completed? Ronan Talk 18:56, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

And possibly IRC op. cqm  00:32, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
And possibly IRC op. Ronan Talk 09:30, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
I will not be accepting CC rank (and I can't, as this RfA has no mentioning of CC ranks), and I will not be taking the highlight. I will be accepting IRC op for my activity there. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:54, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Like I said before, Joey has tremendous use for the tools, and I am confident that he would use them effectively. Smithing (talk | contribs) 20:32, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey is a friendly and helpful person, who I think would use the tools greatly, I don't see any problem with him getting adminship :) Star Talk Star sprite 20:41, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey is a damn good antivandal and wikian. He would make great use of these tools. S T Y G 23:18, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey would make a great admin now, there really is no reason to oppose this. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 00:33, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I have my reasons. bad_fetustalk 19:37, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I did not intend to comment on this RfA, but given the discussion above concerning Andrew's position, I believe that I should make a statement. I see Andrew's point, and agree with it to an extent (enough to push me to oppose). However, I think that Andrew has done a less than exemplary job at articulating his point, so I will attempt to explain it better here.

The main point is that this is too soon after the last RfA, which got lost in translation among all the "I have my reasons" comments. The last RfA was in February, so it's been 3 months. Given the circumstances of the previous RfA, in which temperamental issues between the second and third RfA were brought up as reasons for opposition, I feel that it would be imprudent to leave a significantly shorter period of time between this RfA and the third one, than occured between the second and third.

On the second RfA, Ajr suggested waiting six months until the third RfA, advice which was heeded, as indicated by the 8-month stretch between the second and third RfAs. However, despite the indication of change between the first and second RfAs, an incident still occurred between the second and third RfAs. Henceforth, I do not believe that a wait time of less than half the time of the previous 8-month wait time is sufficient to demonstrate significant change.

I do understand that 3 months is a significant wait period. Normally, I don't really care about the time scale of RfAs. (The more observant among you may note that I had less than 1 month of downtime between my two RfAs.) However, as Andrew stated and I elaborated above, given the circumstances of the previous RfA, this is a special case. I do not feel that 3 months is a sufficient period because of that. --LiquidTalk 21:48, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over this, Kevin, but I really dislike how people are still attempting to use an isolated incident from 9 months ago as the prime reason for their opposition, especially as Joey was only one of three or four quite serious offenders. It isn't my intention to start yet another discussion on that incident, but I feel it's important to say that this reason should hold little weight at this stage. Joey has proven to me and everyone else time and time again just how much he can take on board what others say to him and adjust himself because of it, and this was no exception. Ronan Talk 07:27, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
The prime reason for opposition is not the 9/11 incident; it is the time of this RfA and that I feel it is too soon. Again, given the circumstances of the previous RfA, I do not feel that it is prudent to hold this one earlier than 6 months after the previous RfA (in other words, in August). The previous incident occurred 3 months after the second RfA, so I feel that waiting only 3 months since the third RfA is cutting it. --LiquidTalk 18:20, May 14, 2012 (UTC)
Why does the time between RfAs even count for anything? An RfA is about the user. Surely what should be taken into consideration is the development and maturation of a user between a failed RfA and their next attempt as they try to address whatever concerns are raised in the previous RfA(s). Not the actual time that has passed. Raglough 10:05, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree. As I said above, my own RfAs were but a month apart. However, this is a special case. Consider the circumstances of the previous (3rd) RfA, where an issue was revealed 3 months after the 2nd RfA. For this particular candidate, it takes time to reveal any issues, and henceforth waiting only 3 months since the last RfA is short. --LiquidTalk 13:51, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
So, to clarify, your main reason for opposing is that you believe there is some as yet unsurfaced, unpublicised incident that would cast serious doubt on Joey's decision making process and damage our trust in his ability to use the tools effectively? Or that you are expecting Joey to make another major slip up like before with the same results I outlined? I may just be rather dense when it comes to understanding RS:AGF here, but that seems like a assumption of bad faith on a rather large scale. I might see your point, although not necessarily agree, if there were a number of smaller incidents in the past 3 months that could cast doubt on Joey's suitability for the tools, but such events either do not exist or everyone above has mysteriously forgotten them. cqm  23:32, May 15, 2012 (UTC)
I do not believe that there is some unsurfaced, unpublicized incident (otherwise that would be my reason for opposition), nor do I expect a major slip-up (or that could have been a reason for opposition as well). The point is that I believe that due diligence requires us to wait some more before before conferring adminship.
As to the point about AGF, that does not apply here as I am not referring to any action. The policy refers to the assumption that a specific edit or action was made in good faith. As there is no specific action here, the policy does not apply. It is simply a matter of due diligence that I believe we should wait more. --LiquidTalk 23:39, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support He has proven himself to be an optimal candidate. Over and over again. Dragon 2h sword oldCallofduty4 Talk 13:01, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Joey has shown us that he is one of the best editors on the wiki for a couple of years now. He has plenty of flaws, but they are minor enough that they shouldn't interfere with his ability to be a good administrator. ʞooɔ 21:25, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Joeytje50 will be given administrator tools. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 22:37, May 18, 2012 (UTC)