Buzz 9 1990[]
Buzz 9 1990 Talk • Contribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk edits • Edit count
I, bonziiznob, hereby withdraw my nomination as per Buzz 9 1990 withdrawing from campaign.
I, Buzz 9 1990, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban. Signed,
Discussion[]
Support - As mentioned in my nomination.
- Comment - This is not to be directed at you at all, but I'm rather curious as to why somebody who has been on the Wiki for 6 days (Bonziiznob) is nominating you for adminship just 2 months after your last one. It's curious that they took such an interest in you and decided to nominate you in such a short time. Many users after 6 days are still working on their userpage, not extensively researching potential sysops. I notice that you have not accepted as of now, kinda curious as to what happens. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, take note that the user who nominated has an account that is only 6 days old, but don't allow that to bias my knowledge of the wikia. My programming in Wikia may not be to date or as advanced as some but don't let that deter from my experience. I have been using Wikia for awhile now, just never edited. I created the account a week ago to allow me to help, but lol to me that mostly all I know has already been published on the site. For awhile I have seen Buzz 9 1990, more then 6 days, and he deserves these privileges. And the nomination is brand new, perhaps he has not found it yet :S. And your right, why target my inexperience as negative for Buzz 9 1990. It's not fair to him. You must at least acknowledge his dedication and service.
22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you would take the time to at least read the first sentence I wrote, you would see that I meant nothing toward
him: This is not to be directed at you at all
. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- lol, relax, I know that it wasn't directed to him. When you responded above I decided to bold the and your right to let you know you were correct. Your a good guy too, I've watched you. I know you wouldn't discredit him.
He is user of the month, which attracts users to him, in a way. I support. Any UOTM deserves adminship.
21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Buzz has over 3,000 mainspace edits and has been here for almost a year. He would use sysop powers well. User:C Teng/sig 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, has a lot of edits and could be very beneficial to the wiki as a sysop. 
Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support... he's a great editor and all, but I'm a bit concerned noted how this has only been two months after your most recent (it is worth noting, though, that is not a self nomination this time around, so don't come and blow holes through me). Then again, some of what discredited you in many editors eyes (in peticular, a certain incident) the last time seems to be water under the bridge and no longer revelent... I'm going to go with Weak Support for the time being, but I'm going to be keeping an eye out for any signs of trouble. (And, don't be too overconfident Buzz... including me, you only have 4 supports. There's still plenty of time for things to blow the other way.) --Pikaandpi 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:
RuneScape Wiki's practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular RuneScape Wiki contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects RuneScape Wiki policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community.
While Buzz has been a regular contributor for a while, his adherence to policies needs some work and his trustworthiness, in my opinion, leaves a lot to be asked for. His actions before, during, and after his last RfA and failure to acknowledge them lead me to believe that he should not be trusted with adminship.
First of all, I am concerned with Buzz’s underlying motives for becoming an administrator. While I am trying to assume good faith, various actions of his have worried me that either Buzz is trying to become an admin for respect or to satisfy some desire for power ([1] -> [2]). I’ve almost seen some sort of desperation to become one from him ([3]). If someone wants to rush to become an admin, that worries me.
Also, Buzz has, in my opinion, has occasionally acted somewhat immature. For example, Buzz has that feeling that he is automatically “excused” every time he does something [4], for which I responded with [5]. In addition, Buzz had an attitude on his last RfA that whatever happened before doesn’t matter, something which I heavily dislike because it shrugs off responsibility, something an admin cannot do.
Finally, Buzz has violated policies and has abused a tool he already has: Rollback. I brought this issue up on his last RfA, and Buzz, unfortunately, completely ignored me and tried to justify his edit with that he didn’t like the other user’s style, even though it was a violation of RS:AGF and H:RV to use the rollback tool for that reason. Since his last RfA, he has abused rollback again ([6], [7]), which further dissuades me from trusting him with adminship.
In conclusion, while the wiki may benefit from giving Buzz adminship and Buzz is a wonderful asset to the wiki and its community, I am deeply concerned with his underlying motives, and am worried that he is using them either to gain respect or to satisfy some need of power. This, along with abuses of tools he already has and his failure to acknowledge and fix his previous issues, means that I would not trust him with these tools. Unless Buzz can satisfactorily acknowledge and rectify these issues, I remain opposed. Butterman62 (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per Butterman. az talk 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - ANOTHER RFA???? Too soon. See previous RFA for detailed reasoning.--
Mercifull 
(Talk) 09:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Please close, too early for me and too early for an account that has been active for 4 days to nominate me. Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 10:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh Butterman, i was working on my thrustworthiness and stuff. Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Withdrawn[]
Nom Withdrawn - As Buzz 9 1990 requests his name to be withdrawn from the list of RfA's, I withdraw my nomination. Sorry for any inconvenience this has caused you Buzz 9 1990. I did not mean this to count as a discredit to yourself nor should it be seen as one. Other wikia user, including Buzz 9 1990, I underestimated the courtesy of you. Please note that Wikia states All Editors are Equal. By judging this nomination by my user's recent creation you are clearly not following this protocol as I am being targeting for bias inexperience. Please accept my apologies for inconveniencing any users by this nomination, I just figured that any player of the month, regardless of previous "mistakes" in edit's, should be given a grant of pardon as he has been awarded this honor. This is not saying it should be forgotten, as no pardon is, but granted that this user has changed since his last self nomination.
Thanks,
- Closed. Nominee has withdrawn. Dtm142 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)