RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Cashman286

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Cashman286 (5)

Cashman286^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I'm nominating Cashman286 for administrator because he is a veteran editor of the Wiki, making his first edit here on February 25th (7 months), he has rollback abilities, his block log is empty, has about 1,000 edits, and is pretty well known by many users here. Chiafriend12 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Current totals

Support: 10

Neutral/Pending: 1

Oppose: 8

I, Cashman286, 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, Cashman286 ^talk.

Discussion

Oppose - Seems to make obscure/non-direct decisions, some of which seen as in [1] and [2]. I believe an admin must be able to make decisions with appropriate reasoning to use such powers. Tarikochi 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Even though this is his fifth nomination, Cashman is a well known editor, and has been here for some time. Good luck on your nomination Cash! This dude is evil ^{like hell}Arnie 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Of his 981 edits, 346 are to his own user page and 177 are user talk. That is over 53% of his edits. I know that "Edits do not make the editor", but I think an edtior should have to put some more work towards other areas besides his own Atlandy 14:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: same reasons as all the others ones I've opposed before. Christine^Talk 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and 2 more links to go along with Tari's reasoning: [3] and [4]. Christine^Talk 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't wish to be in this discussion, but Whiplash says that smear campaigns aren't allowed. Cashman286 ^talk 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cash this isn't a smear campaign. She hasn't asked users to oppose you at least I don't think yet. But however I think Christine does have a prejudiced opinion towards Cashman and would say no even if he were doing good things and in someways I would like to make her vote invalid because she is obsessed with his negative rather then his positive. However Cash it would do you some good to not take it that the whole wiki is against you because this is your 5th nomination. Myself I would be happy to lend you my support as I think you are decent of adminship powers. But I currently need to see a thing or two before im absolutely satisfied. --Whiplash 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I am also not smearing, I just stated my opinion backed up by facts Atlandy 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Never said you were Atlandy. --Whiplash 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it important to look at the negative incidents involving a person for a RfA? If not, someone like Total Rune would be considered acceptable. Tarikochi 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

K then. What do you want to see? My userpage has lots of edits because I kinda have an obsession with letting everyone see my skills the way they really are, it's a compulsive thing I have. I admit I'd have far less total edits otherwise. But please, don't hold things against me. I only say things I say because it seems like some people's only purpose here now is to make other people hate me. And I'm talking about the links Tarikochi and Clv left. I was mad at people for what they have done to me. I have feelings too. Saying that, I'm off to a dinner party. Cashman286 ^talk 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember doing anything to you before opposing in this RfA. Tarikochi 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like my Admins to be active, and contributing to the betterment of the wiki, not just to their personal page. As a editor, you rank 63rd, which, to me, shows me someone who doesn't make many edits. An Admin should be active, not just wanting to become an admin becauce the belive that they deserve it. Rememeber, you asked my opinion Atlandy 20:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're point is kinda mute though as amount of edits dosen't decide if you get to become an admin of not and he is quite active. --Whiplash 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are the traits needed to be a Admin? Active on the wiki? Respected by others? If someone spends more than half their time updating their user page, should that person be an admin? I feel an Admin would be more active in all areas of the wiki then the average person. Perhaps creating pages, or editing existing ones, Reverting vandalism, using their vote to count for something, not on a whim. Cash being 63rd in edits shows me that he isn't as active as you may see.. Atlandy 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, Cashman's mainspace edits lack both quality and quantity. In the past he has displayed a lack of maturity; as an editor as well as his methods of communicating with others, and his recent comments have demonstrated that little has changed. In addition, he takes personal offense at valid evidence against him. The links posted above demonstrate this lack of judgement and maturity as well; that's not the kind of attitude an admin should have. I feel that comments such as this [5] shouldn't be ignored, given the content of the vote that he was giving assent to. --Themurasame ^Hiscores 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty convincing Mura. Though I don't see why this matters as he is not going for bureaucratship. --Whiplash 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to adminship, as giving adminship to someone who make inappropriate decisions and easily react to those who simply opposes them is dangerous. Tarikochi 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Whip: 1) Its moot, not mute. 2) How dare you say my vote should be invalid? I've said at least once or twice that Cashman's votes should be invalid because he fails, every single time, to give a justifiable reason for his voting. Needless to say, that wouldn't pass, and why? Because he's 11 and has "feelings"? As if I do not? As if I am worth less than him when at least I can give reasons for my opinions? RuneScape:All editors are equal, are they not?

I agree completely with Atlandy and Mura's reasons. And if you want my reasons, go read the archives for the last 3 or 4 nominations he's had. WikiStats don't lie. IE won't display the page at the moment, but when I checked earlier, Cashman had like 47 mainspace edits in the last 30 days. I don't even want to know how many of those are probably redirects. I was just a few away from 700, and Atlandy has well over 600 (so you don't think I feel I'm better or anything). I don't call 47 mainspace edits active, sorry. And clearly maturity is an issue, with those diffs that have been posted. He only opposed because he felt "lonely" or because he himself was not supported. Christine^Talk 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral: Took that userbox thing without my permission, direct copy. I'm tryin' to be as polite as I can :|. Maybe if you remove it or re-add it when you get my permission I will support. @(-_-)@ _{Done whoozy!} 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to Christine - Yes, you have 700+ mainspace edits in the last 30 days. You also just made 60 redirects to the articles of various seeds. I find it pretty hypocritical when you make comments about how Cashman doesn't contribute except to make redirects when most of your edits are redirects (and the 60 you just made were all capitals or plurals of the redirected article, which are kind of unnecessary). I think I'm going to go recreate the Tavvy redirect; it can't be any more useless than Asgarnian Seeds is...  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this RFA is about Cashman, not Christine. Tes^Fan 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Extactly right Tes..There is no reason to flame Christine on Cash's nom. Gang, you should at least cast a vote. Atlandy 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Gangsterls: As I said on whatever other page I just edited, I made those pages to prevent them from appearing as wanted pages in the future. You KNOW that I have made real edits to mainspace pages, so don't accuse me of only making redirects because it happens to be my latest project. Before I became an admin I DID make mainspace edits that were valuable, however now I'm doing stupid little projects that no one else (but maybe Atlandy) want to do. My edits aren't the ones that should be under scrutiny right now. Christine^Talk 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, when I brought up the comment about numbers, I was talking about how active he is, not the quality of his edits. Not then, at least. Christine^Talk 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured this nomination would turn out like this. Not trying to be a hippy, but stop this fighting and vote if you haven't. I know you, Christine, have a grudge on Cash but you have had your say. Maybe it would be better if your comments weren't flooding this nom. Thank you. This dude is evil ^{like hell}Arnie 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

-.-. I knew this was a bad idea. And I'm not 11 anymore. I'm 12 =P. Cashman286 ^talk 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. I've been critical in the past, and I've opposed in all his past RfA's (I think I did, might have missed one). He makes poor decisions occasionally, we all do. However, I haven't seen him abuse the actual wiki itself, and as far as I've noticed he hasn't vandalised or done anything wrong since he's been here. He may not be extremely active in the sense that he edits all the time (have you seen my edit count? it's lousy) or that he contributes tons of awesome information, but he doesn't abuse the system, and the examples that have been given don't show me that he would "destroy" the wiki or any articles within it. As that's my real concern about giving people admin rights, I'm not too worried about Cashman. In fact, the examples given really don't seem to do anything to support either way. If we were to use similar examples in everyone else's nominations, I seriously doubt we'd have as many admins as we have at the moment, I'm sure we can find comments that have been made that would equal or excede the examples given about Cashman. Don't forget, adminship isn't that big of a step, it doesn't really give that much "power" per se, and it's not like he's going to do anything bad with it. IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL!! ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. I've been saying that all along. Whiplash 21:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is he even going to do with admin powers? He doesn't report vandalism so what will blocking rights do for him..? He doesn't mark pages for speedy deletion so what will deletion powers do for him..? I see no reason for him to have admin rights. And as for your comment evil dude, I only commented again because my name was brought up again. Christine^Talk 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you're right, he probably won't use them much, but so what? Does it really matter? Have you noticed how many of our sysops have left? Some not long after they got admin "powers". He's not going to abuse 'em, at least from what I've noticed, so it's not going to hurt to give them to him. Sorry you two don't get along, and I don't have any problems with you Christine, but I'm going to take Cashman's side this time. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Cashman286 has done many good things for our community, and Cashman286 is a person who would not abuse his powers as an admin, so I think he should be voted to the role of an admin. The bald sheep master TalkBeanball36

Weak Support - I would have found this decision easier if Cashman286 had done more significant mainspace edits, but he is an active member of the community and I believe he could contribute in an admin role.  Amaurice ^talk 08:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh oppose Give me a reason to support Ice 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

:Comment. Cash, you need to be careful with Beanball. Whether he's a friend or a sockpuppet (I've read all the stuff about him on talk pages, I know the arguments both ways), either way he really seems to show up only when you are getting elected for RfA and always in support of you. The few edits he's made here and there have been very minor in nature, he's not really an active part of this community, so unless something changes with him, I'm inclined to take back my vote of support. Don't forget, I'm one of the few batting for you, but if you start pulling things like this, getting friends to vote for you even though they aren't really a part of the community, I'm going to oppose your election. If I do oppose, I'll have some good reasons too, so don't make me get to that point. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 15:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support - Altghough some of you may disagree, Cash is the most deserving of admin status out of all users here, or at least in my opinion. He's been here much longer than some, he's very responsible, and he's a good person. Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I know I may be showing up when Cash is elected, but I haven't had the time to edit more, and I pledge to start editing more. The bald sheep master Talk

:Changing vote to Neutral. Regardless of what you (Beanball) may or may not do in the future, the only thing I see is what has already been done (or not done). You aren't active in the community (except really when Cash is being elected), so I don't think you should have a vote. I wonder if Cash could get elected without outside friends helping him out. Again, I'm not likely to keep my vote as a support if he's trying to get extra friends to help him. So, make a choice soon (either keep your vote or revoke it) because I'm sure the elections will be finishing soon, and I'd like to put a permanant vote in. If you keep your vote I'll be opposing, and I'll give some good reasons for it, not just because Beanball voted. If you revoke it, I'll keep fighting for Cash. Your choice. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment OK, I revoked my vote, but don't think I don't want Cash to be an admin.The bald sheep master Talk

Comment. I would have had the same problem with someone who just showed up to oppose Cash, we need the active users to be the ones who vote. I have no problem with you voting at a later time, after you've edited some or been active on the site, but I couldn't agree with it this time, sorry. I know there are others out there who've been thinking the same thing too, so hopefully Cash might get some more support now, when he's not relying on you. Again, I don't see that Cash would abuse the abilities that admins have, whether he'll use them or not I don't know, but I don't think it would hurt to give him them at this time. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 20:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin rights shouldn't be given out just for the sake of giving them out though. Christine^Talk 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Taken from [here], a quote by Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia):

"I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*. I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone. I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing."

That almost sounds like what he was saying Christine. Please keep those words in mind everyone! ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Tirrian, threatening Beanball with your vote for Cashman isn't going to help, it's simply a hostage situation. If Beanball wants to vote for Cashman, he's welcome to, and although you have all the right to withdraw your vote, it's not doing any good to threaten an innocent person. Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't matter. I phailed anyway =(. Cashman286 ^talk 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Ilyas, he's not holding a gun to his head. Christine^Talk 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn, edit conflict. Anyways, I need to shorten this. Cash, don't look at it that way. And if you fail, you're not alone. Gang's ship sunk right before your nom opened and mine might sink too. Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious I will fail. I have 6 supports and 5 opposes. That's just over 50%. I need 70% to be sysoped, so either a bunch of people would need to change votes, or a flood of new users would need to support. It's unlikely. Not that I care...I expected things would end up like this. Cashman286 ^talk 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well new users can't vote. Christine^Talk 16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. So that only would leave it up to everyone else. Cashman286 ^talk 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. First off, I had almost as many user edits as main edits when I was sysopped, so I see no reason that this should hurt him. Secondly, Cash, don't hunt and be a pessimist, I've talked to you on RS about that. Also, I'm wondering if my vote even counts because I'm hardly here much with the finicky internet. But anyways, I think fights are inevitable in a place like this, where a lot of us are grouped together. I won't name names, but two other sysop candidates had a fight similar to Cashman's fight. I don't think the fight got out of hand, it was handled and it's fine (I think) now. Finally, I don't know whether or not Bean is a sock, but I've seen them on in the same world, they seem to have two completely different personas and I think that would be challenging. That's all. Syugecin^spam 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ilyas, my point is that Beanball doesn't have a right to vote, not considering the lack of activity that he has on the wiki. My "threat" is only that I would basically cancel his vote out. If he voted for, I'd vote against, and it could basically be as if neither of us had voted. I would lose my vote in that case, and Cash would lose one support. If beanball becomes active (and the only reason he's known is because of the past controversy about whether he was a sock or not), I wouldn't do it. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 14:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I do believe that Beanball36 is a person in his own right. Yes, he is a friend of Cashman in real life, so will have a bias. However, he did first appear on 6 May (maybe introduced to the wiki by Cashman), and has made about 10 updates to main articles during June and July. This was BEFORE the clash with Christine at the end of July. He has continued to update articles since then too (total of 35 updates to main articles).  Amaurice ^talk 15:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a biased vote is still a vote, as long as it has a valid reason as to why it is supporting/opposing. Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was nominated for sysop by someone (Tenista, Quill, Rspker can't remember) that wasn't a user and nominated me for fun, as a friend. I don't think Beanball should hurt Cashman. Syugecin^spam 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Based on information that's been provided, and having thought about it more thouroughly, I'll stop being the bad guy here and step out of the way of Beanball voting. I'll leave a message on his talk page recalling my previous "threat" of changing my vote. ^TIRRIAN_GANT ^(TALK) 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support Now I can vote again, so I'm going to support Cash again because he has been very helpful to the community, and has the kind of personality an admin should have. He also introduced me to this community, and I am thankful for that. GO CASHMAN!! The bald sheep master Talk

Support Chrislee33 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this rfa end tomorrow? Cashman286 ^talk 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:Notice of intent:Cashman286 will be sysoped tommorow October 8, 2007 unless their is major objection now. --Whiplash 11:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sysoped on Columbus day, nice! Cash, you deserve this. I have no doubt that you will use your sysop powers wisely, nobody wants to be a Dreadnought/Shadowdancer =D. Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Columbus day has no meaning to me lol. I noticed that I'll be sysop #30, though :D. (Not that having 30 sysops is a good thing O_o) Cashman286 ^talk 15:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like for you to re-read the entire discussion before you make the decision Whiplash, especially the reasons on the supports and opposes.

I still do not think that "he won't misuse it" is a good reason to just give him adminship, along with my previous notes of maturity and ability to make decisions given in the first two examples. Tarikochi 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority rules anyway, and I got 9 supports and only 5 opposes. Cashman286 ^talk 15:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't want me to be a sysop with all of your heart, doesn't mean I can't be one. And it's not Whip's decision, it's the majority that chooses. Cashman286 ^talk 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not majority decision. It is a concensus, which is different than a vote. The Wiki is not a democracy, so it is based on the best arguments used, not on how many votes you have. This kind of knowledge is something I expect a sysop to already know.

And seeing as how Whiplash has even declared that he will set sysop in a day, it already seems he made the decision without commenting about the argument at all. Tarikochi 15:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Support, he was here when I left for 4 months and I know him to be a good editor. 10/5, you have 2x more Supports than Opposes. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Commment I have be against this admin for one reason only and that is edits. I feel that an admin should be active not only "on the wiki", but using their time to look over articles, finding problem sites. When Cash's edit count came into question at the beginning of his RFA i pointed out that his count was awful. (Over 60 % of those edits are to his own page, ranks 63rd in main edits) As a result of the criticism on his edit count..he has added 2 mainspace edits this week. If someone questioned my ability as an editor, and it was holding me back, I know that, instead of upsating my page 60 or so times, I would try and get more than 2 mainspace. For those who will critize that "doing mainspace just to do them is wrong" There are a few projects out there. Added races to NPC's, Adding images, Wanted pages, and Stubs. All of these could have been addressed by Cash to bolster his main edit count, but he took zero intiative,, insted whined "oh well maybe next time". Atlandy 16:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some people just don't have time to. Also, people have trouble finding things to edit. He made 2 main edits this week, I made none. As people always say, a little is better than none. =/ Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Ilyas that is a poor arguemnet. First of all if he is having trouble finding time to edit, why is he going to be an Admin, also, he had plenty of time to update his user page numerous time, and to chat on the IRC. Second, 21 people have started after Cash that are not admins and have more mainspace edits than him. Granted, some of them may not want to be admins, but to give it to him because of "he has been here long" is total garbage considering he barely edits, and when he does it is only self serving Atlandy 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of updating your userpage? I just do it more often than you do. I don't see why you even care, because my adminship will hopefully never involve you, for good or bad reasons. You won't be affected, so why not? What bad could come of it? Cashman286 ^talk 18:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Just making a quick comment, he wasn't criticizing your ratio of userpage edits to main, he was saying that there's no way that you don't have the time to edit if you edit your userpage so much. Also, you don't need to be affected by someone's adminship to have a reason to oppose. --Mura 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree you update your userpage more than I do, and that is fine. However, when your edit count came into question, you ran out and knocked out....2 edits. Do not say that your admin will not effect me. It effects every wikian on here. With admin comes responsiblity that you you have been craving. You want the "respect" that comes with it (your words not mine) and I feel that the 63 editors who have more edits than you would agree. You feel you "deserve" (your words) this because you have been on here so long. You have been here a long time, but sitting around waiting for admin, and not doing Anything to help you cause is wrong Atlandy 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith, even if what you are saying is true or false. --Mura 18:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whiplash if you still say you are going to sysop Cash tomorrow I'm going to have Central look into this. Cash has received only 56.25% of the votes, just barely over the majority and you refuse to look at the arguments that were made in opposition to him. I feel you are only agreeing to sysop him because you feel he should have it, and that will not fly. You cannot use your powers in that way. Also, if RR's vote was not counted (here), neither shall Huanghe's, as he has no idea what's been going on these past 4 months (not 2). Christine^Talk 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, as said before, more edits should be required. Cool Spy0 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

10 out of 17 votes is more than 56%. Cashman286 ^talk 21:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Its only 9. Christine^Talk 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Christine - At least Huanghe made more than 4 mainspace edits before he left the wiki... RR was never even a real member. And I support Cashman because he gets put-down all the time but remains dedicated and doesn't quit and then come back 3 times like so many do. That makes 11 supports out of 18, which is over 61%.  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol if yours can't pass with 70% then his can't pass with 52%. Christine^Talk 21:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And Cool Spy's oppose should still count if Huanghe's can't?! Either way, Whip says that for normal rfa's, the majority, no matter how close it is, is the final decision, and as you once flamed to me, he's a friggin crat! Nobody should undo this!. Your own words used against you. Cashman286 ^talk 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Comment, you also said "It's obvious I will fail. I have 6 supports and 5 opposes. That's just over 50%. I need 70% to be sysoped, so either a bunch of people would need to change votes, or a flood of new users would need to support. It's unlikely. Not that I care...I expected things would end up like this." So do you need 70% or 51%? (Sorry if that seems rude, but I'm just wondering) Tes^Fan 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry Cash, but I have to question the rationale for some of your votes in the past. I'm not going to say "edit count", because I think that is a worthless statistic, but things other than that do matter for an admin, in my opinion. I really haven't seen anything that's made me thing that's changed in the past few months, so I'm opposing for now. Skill 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

as he has no idea what's been going on these past 4 months Don's act like it's all my fault. You played a HUGE part in this, and you have no right to give me the entire blame. Cashman286 ^talk 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you specifically ffs. I mean in GENERAL. Christine^Talk 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose For the reasons stated above. Tes^Fan 21:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As said before Cashman, it is not majority, it is consensus as said in the RuneScape:Requests_for_adminship#How_to_nominate page, regardless of what Whiplash said. Tarikochi 21:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, for all those people going on about Huanghe: [6] Christine^Talk 21:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Christine - Have you failed to notice the difference between an RfA and an RfB? RfAs are decided by a simple majority. RfBs used to be decided by a majority, but apparently they now require an unknown margin of support to be successful. I thought it was 2/3rds, but mine failed with 70% and I've heard stuff about someone deciding it should be 75% or 80%. Still waiting for a consensus on that, but that's irrelevant, sysops only need a majority.  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I hear it's 80%. And also, if it was decided his vote shouldn't count, why doesn't someone remove it? I'll be glad to. Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. =P Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So Tari, you're saying that my RfB didn't have a consensus? As I recall, I had 12 supports and 6 opposes. Your RfA had 12 supports and 5 opposes. Since your RfA passed and my RfB didn't, that single oppose must be the slim difference that determines consensus, no?  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk21:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not equal majority vote. Majority vote is democracy. This is consensus. Tarikochi 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job completely ignoring what I said. Unless we're setting the line for consensus at 12 supports, 5 opposes being successful, and 12 supports 6 opposes being unsuccessful, then either I should be a crat and you should be a sysop, or I shouldn't be a crat and you shouldn't be a sysop. We had almost the exact same vote counts.  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk21:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you just say that RFA's and RFB's were differnt? Now I'm REALLY confuesed. Tes^Fan 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I read what you said. Consensus [7] means a discussion, not the value of how many votes you get, which should only be used as a guideline, not as a decision maker as a democracy. Tarikochi 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tesfan, my meaning was that the general policy for success on all RfAs/RfBs appears to be no definite percentage of support, but "consensus". I was asking if we could say that 12 supports versus 5 opposes was a consensus, but 12 supports versus 6 opposes was not a consensus. If so, it seems to be a very inflexible system, just like a required percentage of support is inflexible.  ^GANGSTERLS   _talk21:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All of you PLEASE calm down! Consensus is meant to be a general agreement between members of the community. If one more person supports than opposes, that's not really a consensus and should be taken into account. We're not a democracy in that although all community members get an equal say, the decision isn't always based on the majority vote. This isn't based on whether or not I like Cashman (I've decided to abstain from this one), but I really don't think this has reached consensus. Dtm142 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Il withdraw my notice of intent. We had a disscussion on the IRC we will probally be changing the format of RFA's anyways so this one is closed until the replacement system comes into effect. Whiplash 23:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Whip and Christine, WTH is wrong with my vote? I just came back, I look at the wiki and know about some people, look at their edits and their quality, vote if they could be a b'crat/admin, and you scrap my vote on what condition? ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk

I'd like to oppose this nomination, on a number of grounds. Firstly, as has been stated, a large proportion of his contributions are towards personal interest rather than the point of the wiki. I realise that it is nice to keep yourself updated, but recent activity is also very heavily bias towards user talk pages as well. Secondly, I'm not sure whether he (he's not the only 1 - but their individual positions aren't relevant for the purpose of this RfA) posesses the maturity required. Thirdly, I would have hoped that after a couple of rejections, he would have taken much more time before approaching the request box again, and so be in no position such as this. Fourthly, I'm not actually convinced we need more admins. Finally, he doesn't seem to show that he cares enough (as above comments). Thanks King Runite1 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this nomination was closed to voting a while ago. And since Huanghe63's vote couldn't count, I have every right to void this one. This guy is new. Thanks and don't you dare revert this. Cashman286 ^talk 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And just sayin', I didn't nominate myself or even ask Chia to nominate me this time, so you can't use that against me. Cashman286 ^talk 20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I nominated you without a request. Chiafriend12 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been closed for a while, please don't vote on it. The result is no consensus. Dtm142 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean we will continue on getting on consensus after the RFA format is changed? Cashman286 ^talk 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't really been any official discussion on that. I don't see what needs to be changed. Either way, this RFA is unlikely to get consensus at this point in time. You're welcome to start another RFA in the future. Dtm142 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)