FANDOM


Ciphrius Kane TalkContribs • Last 20 Forum - Main - User talk editsEdit count

Hello. I am making this request for administrator tools as I feel I can be trusted with them and that I would benefit from their use.

I use Suppa's RCH, as well as the Recent Changes Patrol to seek out and quickly deal with vandalism and bad edits. I also patrol Special:NewFiles to seek out files that need to be merged or are unneeded, tagging them for deletion. Already this year I've tagged around 127 pages and files for deletion for being unneeded, and that number is sure to grow. If I were to have access to the tools I could speed up the deletion process.

I consider myself to be fairly active in countervandalism and dealing with vandals. Already this year I have handed out around 79 warnings for various offences, whether that be for vandalising, being banned from the chat for disruptive behaviour or warnings about inappropriate behaviour regarding files.

I was the first chat moderator elected to the role, and this has helped me to establish a firm discipline model. In the chat I often have to deal with troublesome people. I have also taken steps to ensure that those who do end up banned from the chat are not treated harshly, trying to ensure that they receive bans similar to blocks they would have received for similar behaviour.

I 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, Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 17:08, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the nomineeEdit

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
I intend to deal with deleting images and pages that are surplus to requirement. I shall also merge any files that need to be merged, and deal with any vandals that need blocking.

2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
I would have to say my efforts within [[Special:Chat]]. As I have mentioned above, I was the first chat moderator, and I have taken pride in my efforts to keep it clean and fair for all. Outside of the chat I wouldn't really say I have any best contributions, but rather a collection of contributions that are all equally important.

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 had dealings with other users for various reasons, such as with Andorin and Suppa over their word choice, ElfAnurin and Adam over their image work, or with Flaysian over his messages and policy interpretations. In all of these situations I have attempted to remain calm and put across my meaning as best as possible.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)Edit

You're one of the more active users I see, and you're very active in the chat. But what makes you significant from other active users in the community? --Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 22:38, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, ingame I'm a player moderator, and I feel that many of the skills that I have obtained from this could be transferred to the role of administrator if this request passes. Many of the skills that seem to be necessary to be an administrator, such as leadership, maturity, judgement and discretion. My role as chat moderator has helped me to display these skills as well, in particular defusing potentionally hostile situations, and administering appropriate reprimands should the former fail Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 23:32, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Support - Ciph would make a good admin, has a need for the tools and would be more efficient at counter-vandalism than he is now as he won't have to ask for deletions, blocks and merges. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 22:03, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Ciph is constantly in chat asking for various tasks to be done. He needs this. Good luck! Big smile Hair 22:10, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Overly long way of saying support without any rhyme or reason to it - 22px-Logo.svg.pngTyA_userpage_image.png 22:12, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

But wait! There is some reason - for he is a good person who will be able to use the tools. 22px-Logo.svg.pngTyA_userpage_image.png 22:20, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Support - You annoy me, but you're a good egg. Bird's egg (blue) 00:25, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think Ciph would make a nice admin seeing as he is mostly responsible (aside from his cruel jokes) and is online when most others aren't. Also seeing that he is a Player mod in game, I have no doubt that we could trust him. 2-3 cake Feeshee yay!Corrupted Ascension signet III 00:28, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I think you could benefit from not having to request deletions and blocks, but I'm worried that you sometimes instigate controversy, not something I like to see in a potential sysop. I also don't really see how you being a player moderator is relevant, as our previous player moderator sysops have had a mixed track record with competing priorities. ʞooɔ 02:52, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, and in case anyone is interested, as far as I know the following sysops were/are player moderators: User:Eucarya (resigned from player mod-ship), User:Soldier 1033, User:Bonziiznob (no longer a sysop here), User:Chiafriend12, and User:Sir Revan125. --LiquidTalk 02:57, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
OK, if my name's going to be brought into it then I feel obligated to mention that I was sysopped well over a year before becoming a P-Mod. Just for the record of course. Wink Andrew talk 06:34, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
I think Cook was making the point that PMods/FMods have been known to make decisions with their ingame role in mind. cqm  12:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Great person, would really benefit well with the rights. And being a player mod is relevant. It shows that he is capable of having rights and mature enough. Haidro (talk) 05:48, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Per RS:NOT article 2.5 we are not jagex and therefore it is not relevent. Zaros symbol KDanger Talk 00:06, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I think Ciph might possibly benefit from administrator tools. However, first of all, you seem to randomly retire. The most recent occurrence of this was in October. Though it was several months ago, your thought that you weren't useful worries me. Secondly, you are very obsessed with RfAs and administrators/administrator tools. Nearly every single day you mention in the chat "Hmm, no RfAs still, that's not good" or "someone needs to run an RfA, we haven't had one in a while". It bugs me beyond no end - who cares if we have no RfAs open for a while. -.- You are constantly discussing prime or not-so-prime RfA candidates in the chat, and when someone mentions you you shoot them down, which is why I'm surprised to see this self-nomination. Sometimes you don't mention yourself as a candidate at all which makes me wonder if you are trying to get other people to put your name forward for you.

Sometimes you have a hard time understanding what's going on. For example, if we are talking about a vandal in the chat, you either don't investigate far enough to see how much they've vandalized or you don't investigate at all. I don't have any logs of this but I recall you telling me several times to block/not block someone due to a misunderstanding/lack of being self-informed. You need to know what is going on. In addition to that, you're hard to get along with for some people. Your goofy personality never ceases and even in serious discussions in chat you still try to be silly (in a way that no one understands, causing more confusion), which doesn't impress me.

You went through a period where you were also obsessed with requesting edits from 2006 to be deleted. Every day I would get on wiki and see more requests from you to delete, in most cases, very trivial edits. Though there isn't any harm in this, it made me wonder if you were purposely fishing for things to delete to indicate that you needed the deletion or revision deletion tools. Otherwise I don't see what the point was. You do seem to be more active in countervandalism than you were (recently anyway), but even with that you are still less active than me, and I hardly do anything anymore (which isn't entirely relevant, just an interesting point I noticed).

That's all I have to say for now I guess. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 06:26, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I've only done that twice as far as I recall. The first was due to having really bad internet connection at the time, so I felt it was better to "retire" than to just disappear, and October was a rough time for me. I had a lot of private issues to deal with that I will not go into detail here. I felt that I could have prevented those things but couldn't, and when some of my decisions on the wiki got reversed, I snapped and left.
I believe you are exaggerating the point about my "obsession". I think that was mainly during the 6 month hiatus that we had, which I was keen to see end. Since then I have not really mentioned it very much if I recall correctly, and actually I've noticed, certainly in recent days, that it's been others who have been doing this.
Back in August last year I nearly ran a RfA but my nominator withdrew stating that although they supported me they did not want to set me up to fail. I used that as the basis of not running, that I was not ready, until last month, where I considered running but decided not to after an incident which I felt I handled badly. But I believe now that I am ready for a few reasons:
1:I've noticed recently there have been times when it's just been roughly 5 countervandals (Stygmata, FiendofLight, Joey, Ansela and myself) on and no admins around, and although Ansela is soon to be an admin I believe it would be good to have another round to back her up
2:I ran a spoof version of this in an attempt to gain some serious feedback and decided that seeing as I was ready to do a spoof that I may as well go the whole hog and run a RfA.
Also I had every intention of self nominating, as there's less chance of the nominator withdrawing, and it shows that the self nominator believes that they are ready, as with having other people nominate somebody it may leave a small chance that they do not truly believe themselves ready.
That was a little project I was doing, going through the articles that I thought were most likely to have dodgy links. It was not an attempt to show I needed the tools. My reasoning for that was that if I could do it, so could somebody else, and they might fall victim to a scam or virus, or they may use that site or similar for inspiration for scamming Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 17:03, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I don't really care too much if you have times when you "randomly retire", as real life does funny things sometimes, and I hardly think that affects ones ability to use sysop tools well. You've been fairly active in counter-vandalism, and I do think you could have use for these tools. I dunno what's with mentioning in chat about RfAs (from Fergie's post above, as I don't use [[Special:Chat]] myself), though I don't consider that to be of any influence here (I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to interpret it). Fergie has points with your goofy attitude sometimes, but I from your yew grove edits, I don't really find much faults in "serious" discussions. Overall, I think you could use the tools well, and are trustworthy enough to not abuse them. Hofmic Talk 06:35, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't consider myself well informed enough to present a proper opinion of you. I have not interacted with you as far as I remember, and we may have spoken once or twice. It seems though that you have a reasonable need for "the tools" as a maintenance and counter-vandalism orientated user. However, a few other editors have brought up some concerns about your character, and past actions. Unfortunately that has balanced the scales to create a neutral. 222 talk 06:45, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The random retiring to me is not an issue. No one can stay active for all 365 days a year. I don't share any major concerns over the RfA dispute that Fergie has opened up, it's a poor assumption backed up by a poor opposition vote. Let's balance out that little assumption against the positives; Great wikian, always working your backside off whilst others are just chilling around in chat and whatever else. You can help the wiki a ton with your tools, and I don't see you abusing them in any way. Good luck Broav pet Rhys Talk Completionist cape 17:41, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't necessarily agree with some of his logic, but I feel that it isn't something to oppose over. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 21:53, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - per the answered additional question. --Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 22:12, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - In general, per Fergles. I would write a large paragraph, but it'd turn out something more like hers, so I'd not wish to sound repetitive. That, along with your recent outburst with Aliddell, I'd like to see you attempt to handle stressful situations in a better way next time. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 22:33, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

What outburst with Aliddell are you talking about? Are there any logs of this? If not, could you please clarify? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:24, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe there are logs. Aliddell was using language that both myself and Ansela found offensive, something along the lines of fucking retard, and when we asked her to stop she refused. I was at that time also having a private discussion with Ansela and Hair, and when I looked back I saw Ali had started slating hair, stating he had no authority to tell her what to do, so I kicked her for that. I did not realise that 3 minutes had passed at that point Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 17:03, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that an outburst. Is it possible that there are some details missing, such as your or another's behaviour before you kicked her? Ronan Talk 08:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I've asked coel about it, and it seems like that is indeed what happened. Ciph did not leave any info behind, coel is just turning something small into something big. (btw, chatbot was offline at the time, so there are no "official" chat logs of the conversation. Everyone who took part can confirm this happened though) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:17, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Ciph may have made some mistakes, but I think he is a great user and a good antivandal, and cold use the administrator tools well. I don't think he will ever abuse the tools, so I don't see a problem in him having them. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:55, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I don't think a few small scuffles matter in the long run. I think he'd be a good edition to the team of sysops, yadda yadda... Adam SavageSpeech cursor 12:44, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support - Whilst I think you will have a use for the tools, the point Cook brought up about moderators and their mixed priorities is a small cause for concern. However, I have not come across anything that you have done that displays such mixed priorities, and thus feel it inappropriate to base my decision on what others have done in a similar position. We are all different after all. cqm  12:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to oppose per Liquid's instance. cqm  13:46, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I find it very surprising that some users are stereotyping about the view of player moderators, your individual opinion on how you perceive a player moderator shouldn't affect your view on the candidate, unless he has given you reason to do so. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 04:47, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to be blunt here. I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, because I think that Ciph (and everyone else that may be implicated here) is a very good person, but I am not comfortable with making him an administrator on the wiki yet.

I've looked at the temperament issues mentioned above, and I have to agree with Fergs on this one. As it's been debated above, I won't mention too much more about this.

My bigger issue is with Ciphrius's player-modship. This wouldn't normally be an issue, but I am aware of instances where Ciph has tried to enforce Jagex's rules on the wiki. Call the following hearsay if you must, but it comes from a trusted source. I won't yet divulge the identities of the users involved, but they know who they are. I believe in December, a user (hereby christened User A) asked two others (Users B and C respectively) to write a wiki article for him, and offered to pay them for it. I do not remember the exact going rate, but it was on the order of 2m per page. When Ciph caught wind of this, he got mad at User A (and I assume B and C) for what was essentially real world trading. I heard that ban threats were issued.

While I must say that I don't particularly approve of trading in-game assets for out-of-game services, I think that the application of RuneScape rules to something mundane like writing a wiki article is taking things too far.

It pains me to say this, but I have to say that player moderators do have competing loyalties, and Ciph may be too swayed by his player modship to take a neutral view on wiki affairs. --LiquidTalk 23:51, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I was going to mention this, but decided to omit it when I made my comment because I couldn't think of specific examples. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 16:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support- I Believe that Ciphrius is a very hard worker and is very active on the chat. to put this very simply he will stop at nothing to stop spammers vandels and Trolls. --- Link1995 (talk) 19:59, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - At least 75% of certain comments above this, in particular Fergie's and Coel's, are assuming an astonishingly unreasonable level of bad faith. Self-comparisons, time oversights, and vague assumptions based on topics brought up in S:C do not constitute a just reason for opposition. Needed to post on this because it appears to be causing others to abruptly and completely change their minds about someone they have known for quite some time. Ronan Talk 20:37, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Weak oppose - I'm afraid that I need to echo Liquid's concerns. An example from a couple of months back was at Forum:Overzealous_chat_moderation, where the candidate essentially interrogated someone over a violation of RuneScape's rules, and proceeded to support banning them on this wiki's chat for that. Since it is only my personal view that we shouldn't kick someone without warning for breaking RuneScape's rules, this incident and evidence of it repeating would only make me neutral on this request. However, the other concerns raised make this a weak oppose. ajr 20:40, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I had forgotten about that forum, but that more or less reinforces my earlier point. --LiquidTalk 22:29, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Support - Ciph has a clear use for the tools and will undoubtedly use them well. However, from some discussions mentioned here, I have become aware that Ciph might have some different priorities. But knowing Ciph, I don't really believe that they will, at least now, get in the way of his abilities as an admin. I think from this discussion Ciph has become aware that, on this wiki, he would be an admin first and a player-mod second. ɳex undique 22:48, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I didn't know this was the last day to comment on this RfA, so I will try to keep this brief. Will the candidate utilise administrative tools, and constantly? Yes, he will, and it would be foolish to say otherwise. Has he put time and effort into making the wiki that bit better since he joined us here? Yes, he has, and it is both acknowledged and appreciated. However, I have never felt comfortable with his judgement and views. His is, I believe, an aggressive personality. It may or may not have been noted by others that every single one of the past conflicts the candidate has listed above were started by the candidate himself, many of which I believe unnecessarily. This is largely what Cook stated above, but I wanted to give my own interpretation of it. I am then left to balance a user that would actively utilise most of these tools against a user whose judgement and level-headedness in making administrative decisions I do not trust. This balance brings my comment to a neutral. Ronan Talk 23:17, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

The only 2 that I've seen that could be considered unnecessary are our discussion about RS:SAOW, which I started there to avoid clogging up the thread, the thing with Elf which could have been continued by spine, and my warning to Andorin as I was only made aware of it by another who did not wish to confront him. All the others were, in my view, necessary, either to avoid escalating into revert wars or because I believed they had overstepped a boundry Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 23:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Okay, so, I'm a bit late to the party, but I felt like I had to say something. I originally wasn't going to comment on this and I was just going to see how it played, but now I feel obligated now to voice my opinions.

So yeah, I support Ciphrius. Why do I support Ciphrius, you ask? Well, he's a great, experienced, responsible editor. He frequently tags stuff for deletion, and frequently participates in anti-vandalism. I'm sure he would value admin tools in this regard. Ciph is a all-round great guy and would do fine as an admin.

Now I'm going to voice my opinions on the opposition to this, and I'm going to start by echoing what Flay said above about assuming bad faith and stuff.

Firstly, Fergie's comment. I must say, the only somewhat valid points I see are about Ciph not investigating stuff and about him going inactive, which I don't agree with, but I don't think is invalid. But the rest I have a problem with. Your comment about him being 'obsessesd' with administrators assumes so much bad faith it's not funny. "Though it was several months ago, your thought that you weren't useful worries me." How is his view of himself a valid reason for opposing? "Secondly, you are very obsessed with RfAs and administrators/administrator tools. Nearly every single day you mention in the chat "Hmm, no RfAs still, that's not good" or "someone needs to run an RfA, we haven't had one in a while". It bugs me beyond no end - who cares if we have no RfAs open for a while. -.-" Obviously, he cares. I care. But how does that possibly affect anything? We all have different opinions about Rfas, and I'm not going to start ranting about sysop deficiencies, but he's allowed to think we need more admins, and those views aren't going to change anything. It's most definitely not valid opposition. "and when someone mentions you you shoot them down, which is why I'm surprised to see this self-nomination. Sometimes you don't mention yourself as a candidate at all which makes me wonder if you are trying to get other people to put your name forward for you." Are seriously saying that by not thinking he's good enough to be an admin, he's doing some reverse psychology thing to try and get people to nominate him? Seriously, how much bad faith can you assume?

"You went through a period where you were also obsessed with requesting edits from 2006 to be deleted. Every day I would get on wiki and see more requests from you to delete, in most cases, very trivial edits. Though there isn't any harm in this, it made me wonder if you were purposely fishing for things to delete to indicate that you needed the deletion or revision deletion tools." How else could someone reasonably attain an explicit need for the deletion tool other than by tagging trivial things?

Then there's Coel's argument. "That, along with your recent outburst with Aliddell, I'd like to see you attempt to handle stressful situations in a better way next time." Okay look. I was there. I saw what happened. And although I don't necessarily agree with the actions Ciphrius took, let me just point out that that's one chat ban. One measly, 1-day chat ban.

The day we oppose someone for adminship over one chat ban is the day we set ourselves up for disaster.

I know that's melodramatic, but have a good think about it.

Liquid's comment. While you do second fergie's comment, you only make one other point, and that's of his player-modship, and you give an example of him having competing loyalties.

My bigger issue is with Ciphrius's player-modship. This wouldn't normally be an issue, but I am aware of instances

where Ciph has tried to enforce Jagex's rules on the wiki. Call the following hearsay if you must, but it comes from a trusted source. I won't yet divulge the identities of the users involved, but they know who they are. I believe in December, a user (hereby christened User A) asked two others (Users B and C respectively) to write a wiki article for him, and offered to pay them for it. I do not remember the exact going rate, but it was on the order of 2m per page. When Ciph caught wind of this, he got mad at User A (and I assume B and C) for what was essentially real world trading. I heard that ban threats were issued.

While I must say that I don't particularly approve of trading in-game assets for out-of-game services, I think that the application of RuneScape rules to something mundane like writing a wiki article is taking things too far.

Firstly, I'm just going to point out the Rules of RuneScape are one of the core building blocks of our rules, and some people have stronger opinions about them then others, and there's nothing wrong with that. Although I don't necessarily agree with doing something like that, him having some bad judgement occasionally is not a valid reason for opposing. I have bad judgement occaionally, you have judgement ocasionally, we all have bad judgement occaionally. We're human. And that's your only other reason for opposing.

Finally, ajr's comment. I think I'm just going to copy paste what I wrote above.

The day we oppose someone for adminship over one chat ban is the day we set ourselves up for disaster.

Even if it's a few chat bans, we all have bad judgement sometimes. And it's not just opposing. Better phrasing would be "The day we don't support someone".

Okay, I'm done.

Have a nice day. Matt (t) 23:36, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on commenting again, but seeing that you have questioned my position it is only proper to reply. Our policies on the wiki are not based around the Rules of RuneScape. Sure, a lot of stuff is not allowed in both places, but that has more to do with us disallowing it than the fact that they're against the Rules of RuneScape. If this was a request for whatever rank in the clan chat, I'd like that, as our clan chat rules are based off of the Rules of RuneScape, but on the wiki, our policies are not.
Furthermore, you say that I "only" make one other point as if the number of points has something to do with it. I could have multiple issues against a candidate and still support him (and I have in the past) and I can have only one issue and oppose. It's not the number of issues that's relevant; it's their importance.
That aside, repeated overapplication of Jagex rules to the wiki is a complete dealbreaker for me. I'm weary of attempts by Jagex to influence our content. It isn't the fact that Ciph is a player moderator that makes me oppose; I'm fine with it as long as the two worlds are separate. However, there are too many instances (including Forum:Overzealous chat moderation mentioned by Ajr above) in addition to to incident that I mentioned (for which I still have yet to see a reply from Ciph...) for me to be comfortable with giving him the right to close discussions pertinent to our relationship with Jagex.
It is not one instance of bad judgment. It is a repeated series of events that I am worried about. Bad judgment is indeed a valid reason for opposing, especially when repeated. --LiquidTalk 00:06, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
Also what do you mean by opposing due to a ban from chat? Ciph was never banned from the chat (for anything other than join/quit spam) and no one is opposing because of anything resembling a "ban from chat" reason. --LiquidTalk 01:16, March 5, 2012 (UTC) Never mind. --LiquidTalk 01:31, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Regarding the arguments brought up by the opposers, ignoring those that seem to be based on bad faith and are a bit of stretch, I think the main concern brought up is regarding his player-modship and its relation to his role on the Wiki. I'm fairly sure that most aren't opposing based on his player-modship alone but based on his decisions/judgment calls being based on the former. While the situation about 'overzealous chat moderation' is a little iffy since it was arguably based on IRC rules, the '2m-per-Wikipage' issue however is, definitely a legitimate concern. Any sysop should know that on the Wiki, Wiki policies take precedence over any RuneScape Rules of Conduct. If Ciphrius does act on the latter at the expense of the former, then he will have to answer to the community. That being said, there is generally support from the community, hence there is rough consensus for Ciphrius Kane to be sysopped. C.ChiamTalk 12:18, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.