Blaziken rjcfEdit

Blaziken rjcfTalkContribsEdit count

I was offered a position in the past, but refused, as I didn't deem it necessary at the time. Now, however, I feel the wiki needs more active admins.

Orion (T-B-C) 18:00, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

I, Blaziken rjcf, 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, [candidate signs here].

Questions for the nomineeEdit

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

Primarily fighting vandalism by reverting changes, locking articles, and, if need be, blocking vandals.

2. What are your best contributions to the Supernatural Wiki, and why?

I created the God and The Darkness article and helped clean up the entire wiki of speculative statements. I also used my bot to perform repetitive tasks across several articles.

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?

The user who has caused me the most grief was, perhaps, ImperiexSeed. I stopped editing the wiki until he was banned and demoted, as I had observed his tendency to ban anyone who disagreed with him, while imposing his own biased views on articles. In the future, should I have any conflict with another user regarding what should or should not be on an article, I intend to let a third, neutral party handle the situation.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)Edit

DiscussionEdit

Oppose- I'm sorry but it's a no for me. He is too condescending to other editors, and often acts like his opinion is the only one that matters.--ThomasNealy (talk) 18:49, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose- You honestly aren't that active and we have others who are more active and equally or even more deserving of Admin-ship. Once Dtol's Adminship goes through, we will have active Admins, and you really aren't that active in the first place. Also, Admins shouldn't get happy with their ability to lock pages. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:15, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

Did you check my contributions? I edit here every day, with few exceptions. Orion (T-B-C) 21:32, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
I re-checked them, I mistakenly thought you had taken a multi-month hiatus from the wiki, but I personally feel that our recent Rollbacks have proven equally deserving, if not more so. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:50, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
I did check your edits and most seem to be you overusing the undo button. Sometimes it is better to make the corrections instead of just undo it all. You told me once that you used undo because you did not think you had the time to edit it. Is that really the kind of admin we need? One that just takes the fast way out instead taking the time to correct an obvious typo?--ThomasNealy (talk) 21:52, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
I had to leave that one time out of the thousands of edits I've made here. I'm beginning to think your opposition has nothing to do with whether I'd make a good admin, but everything to do with a personal issue that you have with me. Orion (T-B-C) 22:01, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
No, I have no personal issues with you. I can't think of a single event where you angered or slighted me. I do believe Touchinos would make a much better Admin, it's that simple, and I intended to nominate him in a few weeks. Thomas does make good points, see below, and I was actually looking for the convo that he mentioned. Thomas perfectly said what I was too polite to say, I don't think you are Admin material. Zane T 69 (talk) 22:29, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Zane, that bit about personal issues was meant for ThomasNealy. Orion (T-B-C) 02:01, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
To me an admin should is more than just someone that blocks users, locks pages, and reverts things. An admin should be someone that that community can turn to for help, an ear to listen, a hand to guide. A friendly "face" so to speak that help users find their way. I have said it before and I will say it again, to many people are too quick to use the undo and revert. I would rather not have someone that has such a fast trigger finger as an admin. You tend to be short and abrupt with users as I see it. You have little patience with users, new or old. I see this as a power grab and you wanting Admin for all the wrong reasons. I have read the old convo you had about becoming and Admin before, And it read as more of a dictator then what I think an admin should be. It is nothing personal, you do contribute to the wiki, but I don't think you are admin material. --ThomasNealy (talk) 22:10, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
cited convo can be found Here If I were someone prone to abuse of power, or a power-hungry individual, I would've taken the admin position when it was literally offered to me (on more than one occasion, I might add). Just saying. --Orion (T-B-C) 02:05, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I support Blaziken rjfc for this role. We worked a lot in the past and he is one of most trustworthy person I have ever known. He has my full support (I don't have a PC, writing from mobile). - SeraphLucifer

If anyone suspects, this is the confirmation. Its really a pain to write from mobile. SeraphLucifer (talk) 21:46, December 31, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Comment - I don't know if you were present when the speculation crisis was happening between ImperiexSeed and EmpyreanSmoke but I and Blaziken were the only ones who removed the whole false content. It took months to fully erase the speculation and non-canon stuff from the articles. He helped me a lot and his communication skills, wiki knowledge etc. is very good. If you want me to give 3 names of those who I trust most, it'd be Zane, Kajune and Blaziken. If you want to check his other work, look at the Ben10 Wiki. He was a burec. and made that wiki perfect. I have been outside my town and home for a while, that is why I cannot intervene or participate any wiki stuff but I received a mail about Zane's promotion and that is why I logged in these hard circumstances. I can gladly say that these 2 alone could make the Wiki perfect. SeraphLucifer (talk) 22:51, December 31, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

He also seems to have done that by acting like a king of it, at least from the cited convo and his "style of administrating," and that just won't fly here. Checks and balances keep everyone honest and controlled, Caleb can prevent me from becoming a tyrant and I can keep other users honest, and I won't hesitate to block him and start a forum for desyopping him; if he tries becoming a tyrant. Seraph, I hope you'll take his previous statements and stated style into account and reconsider your position... he even stated his disdain for consensus. He has offended our best new users, abused the "Undo" option and admits to being controlling and domineering. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:08, December 31, 2017 (UTC)
Where have I "abused" the "Undo" option or abused your "best new users", exactly? One example out of thousands of edits was cited, and I already explained why it'd happened. If something like that has never happened to you, ever, then I don't know what to say. As for my so-called "disdain for consensus", my concern is that if the "consensus" is to do something harmful for the wiki, then admins are supposed to uphold it, which is nonsensical, if not borderline insane. If consensus can't be reached, then admins are either supposed to do nothing, which upsets everyone who wanted action to be taken (i.e.: everyone who participated in the relevant discussion), or pick sides, which upsets the ones that don't get picked. -- Orion (T-B-C) 02:01, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
I was actually reiterating what Thomas said, but you rebutted it quite well. I never said abuse, and you've obviously offended Touchinos and Thomas; they oppose your adminship based on rudeness. Admins are basically servants, Blaze, yes the community may do something harmful to the wiki, but if we can see the flaws, we can lessen or outright remove them. Us abusing admin power will only remove those; likely due to desyopping, who can solve the problem either during or after they realize they made a mistake. People will make mistakes, and it's the Admins job to fix them. If consensus isn't reached, then we can offer an alternative. We aren't their rulers, who take unilateral action. We are the janitors who clean up the puke and don't get thanked for it. Zane T 69 (talk) 03:02, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
You actually did say "abuse", Zane. Go back and re-read your comment. It's right there, plain as day, on the last sentence of your comment. Actually, Zane, per your policies, if the consensus is to do something that lowers the quality of the wiki (like, say, allowing fanart on articles), then you have no choice but to do it exactly as the consensus dictates. That is my problem with "consensus", and is why I believe that admins should have veto power, only to be used in extreme circumstances. Thomas opposes my adminship based on some personal issue; that much is clear to me. Hell, Thomas is taking offense for my disagreeing with him. Touchinos has made his point clear, and I respect that. As for "offending" whomever, if I did, it was not intentional. Even if it had been, I don't see how "offending" is a reason for an opposing vote, but that's up to you. -- Orion (T-B-C) 11:05, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Veto power allows Admins greater influence over the wiki, it can allow us to over-rule a majority whenever we disagree with them. And who would interpret what counts as "extreme circumstances?" This is yet another reason to justify my opposition to your nomination. I said "offended our best new users" and "abused the "Undo" option." Though, I can't remember if proof was offered for the second. This debate is getting large and much harder to follow, and is getting quite toxic... I have nothing new to offer to it and will be withdrawing from the discussion, having stated my concerns/views as best as I could. I will be keeping an eye on it to preserve the integrity of consensus and to punish any rule-breaking. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:31, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't want to judge too harshly because he has made good edits, but I have some reservations about supporting from the cited conversation, examples given above, and concerns about his opinions on consensus. At this moment in time, I am more towards opposition. My vote could change, and go either way from here, depending on what else I see. Dtol (talk)

As for the cited convo, it's almost 2 years old. Obviously some things have changed since then. If your main concerns with my being an admin are one mistake out of over 2000 edits (literally less than 0.05% of all my edits) and a 2 year-old comment, I don't know what to say. -- Orion (T-B-C) 02:05, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
It is precisely due to its age that I maintain a neutral standpoint. Had it not been, I would have most definitely opposed. But I feel I cannot ignore the concerns multiple users have, as well as my own feelings that he can be too dismissive towards editors, so I still stand by my decision, although this may change, given time. Dtol (talk)

Oppose - Listen, I do appreciate the edits and stuff he has made but I feel like he's too "mean" to users (and anons) who makes a bad edit so it's a no from me. I apologize. - Touchinos (talk)

I can cite 3 other pages that should have been fixed instead of undone or deleted as well. With in the last two weeks at that. Barack Obama, Sara Canning, Quran Those are just the ones I noticed personally since I was reading the page or noticed the edit in the activity. That old convo shows history and is also what you are citing by saying that Admin was offered before. I have other issues too if you want? You edit other peoples talk pages and messages for "coding", or grammar problems, delete messages instead of archiving or striking them, something that only an admin/b-crat or the user is supposed to do. You think that notifications to participate in community concensses are "spam" I think you called it. Funny doesn't seem much like unwanted spam now that you are the one that needs it. --ThomasNealy (talk) 02:31, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Let's break this down, and show why I believe your opposing vote is simply the result of a personal problem.
My edit on Barack Obama's article. What I did was undo vandalism, plain and simple. There's nothing in that edit that's worth saving.
My edit on Sara Canning's article. You and I had a difference of opinion on what was considered "interesting". I ignored it afterward because I didn't want to waste my time.
My edit on the Quran article. I removed religious wording and exaltation, giving the article a neutral tone.
I have never edited someone else's message, ever. Show me where I have done this, or apologize for this scurrilous accusation. I have, on at least one occasion, fixed issues with coding, to make pages load more easily, but I have never changed another user's message. You, however, have done so, and even received a warning for it.
Your "notifications" were posted on several users' talk pages - mine included - without being prompted. That's spam. You'll note that I didn't do the same, nor do I feel compelled to, so I'm not sure why you're making it sound ironic.
All this tells me that you have a personal problem with me. Orion (T-B-C) 02:42, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
You just edited both mine and Dtol's posts. I don't care if you are removing extra space or fixing a link. You DO NOT touch another users post. Edit your own all you want, but leave my alone. or tell me about it so i can edit it. I was never given a warning for editing a users message. The event you speak of was not a warning, second it was because I moved the message to right part of the conversation instead of the middle of my post. Second I suggest you read the policies that you are wanting to enforce. Supernatural_Wiki:Consensus Solicited or not notifications for a wiki wide consensus are part of the process. I posted it on all active users with over 100 posts that had posted with in the last month. That is part of the consensus process you seem to hate so much, tough luck on that. The religious terms were there to provide accuracy for a religious article. The Barack page, the editor quoted the character only the second half was vandalism. the part about the drug dealer was just fine. As for what is interesting and not. That is not your call, and this statement in of itself demonstrates your arrogance, it is a trivia section. that is the exact kind of thing you place there. This did not start off personal, but you sure are making it that way. IF you can't handle the process and people saying things like this then you really should not be an admin. Did you think you could self nominate and have us crown you king of the wiki? --ThomasNealy (talk) 03:12, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
I went back and checked my edits. My only conclusion is that Wikia did that automatically, as it often does for other edits (and for proof, here's another edit by Zane that triggers the same double space removal). I didn't touch your messages. You accuse me of being arrogant and rude, yet you're here doing everything you accuse me of, and more.
You were actually given a warning for changing another user's message. This is the warning itself, just FYI: "Don't change anothers (sic) message on a talkpage, that is not acceptable and can get you blocked."
I read the policy. You said to vote for the candidates, which falls under "Campaigning", which is deemed as "inappropriate".
The Barack thing probably occurred because I clicked the "Edit" button on the edit before the "half black" thing, instead of the "Undo" button by accident. You can see that there's no edit summary.
The religious terms are not there to provide accuracy. They're non-neutral language that's not present in any other religious-themed article. Having articles written from a neutral PoV is important, wouldn't you say?
What I meant by "You and I had a disagreement on what's considered interesting" is that you considered it interesting, whereas I did not. That's why I removed it, and you put it back. That's our prerogative as editors. Usually, these matters would be solved on a talk page, with input from other users. Instead, I let it go, because I didn't think it was worth my time getting a single piece of trivia off the article. Furthermore, disagreements with this stuff happen all the time, and I never claimed my PoV was all that mattered. You're misinterpreting my words, purposefully or otherwise.
Thomas, your last bit once again demonstrates your personal problem with me. I made this request with the intent to help protect the wiki from vandalism, but you're digging up literally anything you can (2 year-old convo, <0.05% of my edits, a disagreement I didn't press, arrogance I didn't demonstrate, policies that show I was right to do what I did, blatant false statements, twisting my words, blatant attempts at character assassination, etc.) to portray me as some kind of power-hungry maniac who's out to destroy the wiki. I don't care about the results of this request, believe it or not, so long as the wiki gets better protection from vandals, but you're clearly out to make me look like a villain. Orion (T-B-C) 11:05, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Warning: "The first post on your wall was NOT an official warning, it was a suggestion to avoid having to give you an official warning. As such, I removed the warning, so that others wouldn't mistaken block you in the future. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:19, December 9, 2017 (UTC)" Get your facts right.
    • "==New staff nominations.==
	+

Dtol has been nominated for Admin Vote for her HERE .

	+
Zane T 69 has been nominated for Bureaucrat Vote for him HERE" that is the message. Maybe you do not live in a nation that votes, I don't know but when you cast a vote for someone it can be either yes or no. or in our case yes, no, and the other 4.
You displayed your arrogance by implying that your opinion was the only one that mattered. You do understand that this is a public wiki and not your personal one right? the community decides what is worth putting on a page not just you. statements like "It was not worth my time." is arrogant and condescending.
As for the islamic terms. I do believe the only Admin on the wiki that can say with 100% certainty what is and what is not overly religious or what is appropriate is Seraph, since if I remember right he lives in an islamic nation. If a user adds word to convey in a accurate way how important a object like the Quran is to Islam than unless you are Islamic, you really have no business altering it without a community concensses. It was not praising Islam or trying to convert people it was nutrural while maintaining respect for a very real belief system.
auto edit: If that is the case then I apologies for that. But it does not change to the fact that you still delete messages which was the other part of the statement.
The funny thing is before all this I did not have an issue with you at all, in fact I kinda liked you. I just did not think you should have been an admin. that did not mean I could not get along with or like you otherwise. The even more funny part is that when I was making my nominations I considered you for both admin and B-crat so I went looking to see if you would be a good fit for either. I found that you would not be so nominated Dtol for admin, and Zane for B-crat. but after all this, well now I think you are a jerk and want nothing to do with you.
Now I am going to take a page out of Touchinos's book and leave this topic. If you make Admin then you do, if not then you don't but I done with it all. ThomasNealy (talk) 16:37, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to leave the discussion if you wish. I'm not gonna bother with your lies any more either. Anyone who checks what I actually said and did and compares that to what you said I said and did will know that you are lying. Orion (T-B-C) 16:45, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Comment- Jesus, this got weird fast but oh well. I want to point out the way he calls out people who doesn't know English well. English may be the universal language but it is not everyone's first language (including me) so don't expect every user that edits on this wiki to have perfect English. If someone edits and it's not in perfect grammar, you could just change it back without calling them out or if you do, do it in a nice way. Learning that language is very difficult. Also, if someone is editing an article about their religion, let them. They know more about it. - Touchinos (talk)

My take on this: if you can't speak a certain language very well, you should not be editing in that language, because every edit you make will just leave behind a mess to clean. Multiple edits to the same article means that the problems multiply, and sometimes it's nigh-impossible to decipher what someone meant to say when they can't speak a language very well. Better leave it to someone who actually speaks the language, to avoid problems, especially if you're using an online translator. Orion (T-B-C) 11:05, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
Lmao, wow. Just wow. If non-SPN GIFs are allowed on this wiki, I'd post the perfect one for your dumbass reply. Is there a certain rule that says "Hey, sweetie. If you're a non-English speaker, f*ck all the way off"? If you can't spend time on at least trying harder to redo or correct an edit, then "Blaziken rjcf" and "Admin" shouldn't be in the same sentence. - Touchinos (talk)
Yet again someone twists my words...
I'm saying that if your edits do more harm than good, even if it's through no fault of your own, you should not edit articles, for the sake of the wiki. I don't see why you take offense to this. I don't edit, for example, the Russian wiki, even though there are several mistakes there, because I know I would just make it worse. Why does that make me a dick? Orion (T-B-C) 12:03, January 1, 2018 (UTC)
I... I... OK? I'm tired of this discussion. I suggest you read what you said again and double check your future replies before you go around and say people are twisting your words. I still stand by my decision. Have a good day x - Touchinos (talk)
That's fine. I didn't expect you to change your mind. The only person I believe might change their vote is Dtol, from neutral to opposing.
I expected ThomasNealy to oppose for whatever personal problem he has with me, just as he did, I expected Seraph to support because he recognizes I've done a lot of work for the wiki, just as he did, and I expected everyone else would either vote overwhelmingly in favor or overwhelmingly to oppose my application.
At this point, I'm primarily addressing everyone's grievances, as I don't expect my application to pass, no matter what I say. For example, Zane cited his reasons for opposing my request, which I addressed, and then he just cited more. ThomasNealy keeps bringing up stuff that's blatantly false (I'm arrogant for having a reason for editing something? Or is it for not even trying to get it done my way?) or mainly irrelevant (2 year-old convo and 1 edit out of nearly 2500, anyone?) to justify opposing me. Hell, both said I was abusing the Undo feature. I told that to an admin friend of mine from another wiki, and he facepalmed by how ridiculous that statement is. That tells me their minds are made up, and they'll keep finding reasons for opposing my request no matter what. Orion (T-B-C) 13:36, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral- Ok short summation. Well he is a good editor but he can be ridgid. I mean speculation shouldn’t be added to articles. But unclear facts are different. Example was I remember the debate about Death and the Natural Order. While it is clear that Reapers are bound to the Natural Order. Death can ignore it but not without consequence. So he can at least be agreeable in situations like previously listed. But my official status is neutral. Also not the best place, but with my work I can’t be as active as I would like.[[User:Twilight Despair 5|]] ([[The God of Creation]]) (talk) 14:44, January 1, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - This discussion got quite heated at some points and several accusations of abuse and violation of policy were thrown around. Now that I've gone through the discussion in its entirety prior to closure, I'd like to address a few issues in order to set the record straight.

  • Accusations of comment editing - There have been bad-faith accusations of comment editing in what could have very easily been an accidental backspace or visual editor issues - which we already know can be buggy. I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing on Blaziken's part and as fellow editors, we should put those changes in perspective and see if there was any significant / actual change to the other users' comments. In this case, there were none, and I don't think a dogmatic attitude of "the user's comment is sacred and must not be touched" is helpful or appropriate. Spelling errors or language choices should be left in, but peripheral elements like formatting or extraneous spaces can be ignored because the message has not actually been changed. Use common sense.
  • Abuse/Overuse of Undo - Perhaps there were cases of these in Blaziken's edit history, but the examples cited here were not particularly strong. Apart from Blaziken's assessment of the anon. user's edit of the Barack Obama article as vandalism, which I disagree with because the edit introduces no factual inaccuracies and should be taken in good faith, the undos seem to be sound. Note that while undoing, it is encouraged that users explain the reason for why the edit is being undone, however, not doing so is not considered abuse - though it is certainly frowned upon. A reason is typically expected for clarity except in the cases of vandalism - but a user would use rollback in those cases (if he / she had it.) Overall, the "Undo" issue is very minor and I have not given it much weight in this closing judgment.
  • Status and opinion-weight - ThomasNealy made an argument at one point that only users from Islamic countries can decide what is appropriate for the Quran article. This is a dangerous line of thinking and should have been called out by other experienced members of the Wiki. Not only is it impossible to check the religious and societal background of users of the Wiki, but saying that only a specific subset of users can edit specific articles is antithetical to the ethos of the Wiki, which is that anyone can edit. All users, regardless of background, should strive to be fair and insert neutral content into articles, and back their additions up with references if possible, with other users independently checking the veracity of the information presented themselves and serving as a check against any bias. I see no issues with Blaziken's edit here.
  • In the same vein, however, even users with poor language abilities can edit the Wiki. Whether they cause more harm than good is up for debate, but I lean towards having more information (albeit poorly written) than less information (but mostly grammatically and syntactically accurate) because I'd argue that editing for language is than writing new content. This is a matter of opinion though. Blaziken has received some flak for his views and his treatment of users with poor English language proficiency, which is a fair criticism given that administrators should treat other users civilly and decently.
  • Canvassing vs Campaigning - Not going to belabour the point here. "To cast a vote in a discussion" is a neutral phrase because you can cast a vote in support or opposition. However, to vote for someone is indeed to lend your support for the individual, as in "Please vote for Clinton in the voting booths". Voting "for" is to be in favour of an idea/proposal, and the opposite would be voting "against". Asking someone to "vote for a candidate" is campaigning, whereas asking someone to "weigh in on the discussion" is canvassing. There seems to be a genuine misunderstanding on some users' parts and I will leave a warning on said users' talk pages, but this is, as with all policy violations, a blockable offence.

That being said, even if one were to put aside the aforementioned criticisms here, the fact remains that most of the community does not feel comfortable with Blaziken in an administrative role and have issues with his behaviour towards other users, which can be condescending at times. I would also like to point out that Blaziken claims to have been offered adminship in the past, which cannot be the case because I have not offered him adminship (certainly not without him passing an RfA) nor were there any other bureaucrats that could have granted him adminship. The claim of having been offered adminship but rejecting it is thus false. Regardless, there is no consensus for Blaziken rjcf to be sysopped. Calebchiam Talk 04:42, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.