RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Joeytje50

Joeytje50

Joeytje50 ^{Talk • Contribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk edits • Edit 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, JOEYTJE50TALK pull 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.

Discussion

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.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 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 Feeshee ^yay! 13:24, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per previous Rfa. Just excellent. -- Spine^Talk 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. User:TyA/sig 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. AnselaJonla 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.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 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. Rhys ^Talk 02:07, May 6, 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.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature 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)