RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Chiafriend12

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This request for bureaucratship is closed. Please stop voting on it, as your votes will not count.

Chiafriend12^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

I am nominating ChiaFriend12 for 'crat status because he is an excellent editor. He was been here in the rs wiki community since December 2006. (Over 16 months!). Since then he has accumulated 4775 edits, which is not as many compared to other players, but quality is etter than quantity. He has been very helpful, he is always willing to welcome new users, and has made excellent use of his SysOp powers. Mama mia! Let's all vote for chia!Puremexican , 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I, Chiafriend12, 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 offense 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,

Chiafriend12 05:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

• Support As nominator.Puremexican

, 05:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Definitely capable. A lot of bcrats are absent on the wiki so another none would be good; especially if their a good candadite. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 08:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Extremely Strong Support I am coming out of "Gone" status just to do this. Chia deserves this because he is a great admin, as well as a great person. Kevin-020 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) _{User does not have 50 main edits Christine 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)}

I've looked everywhere— where does it say one has to have 50 mainspace edits to vote?--Diberville 15:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The rule was set up for the RS:RFU nominations because it doesn't make sense for people to just come in and vote for friends when the person hasn't been around long enough to know the community well enough to support/oppose someone. It was always naturally applied to the RFA's though I guess never written on the page. It can be seen here. Christine 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just researched it a bit more to see if this is indeed a case of a de facto policy simply never made in writing and I have to remove the strike. I went through most of the RFA archives and couldn't find a single situation where someone's vote was invalidated due to lack of mainspace edits. To the contrary, I found this example where someone who has less than 50 mainspace edits was challenged and ultimately was allowed to vote, and this happened six months after the RFU talk page. If there is an implied policy, no one seems to be following it nor should they since the rules can't be "assumed" and they have to go through an explicit public discussion and have a general consensus before being applied board wide. So I would recommend bring this topic up on the Yew Grove for a discussion to officially apply or throw out this contentious point. I'd also add, and this is incidental and I freely admit that this reflects only my opinion, that the 50 edit requirement in a situation where only support votes are allowed makes a bit of sense. But for RFA or RFB, it is not a question of a democratic majority but of a general consensus between those people participating and so even if all of the nominees friends come and support, it is not the vote that matters but the argument behind it and so a strong, reasoned and persuasive minority vote will determine the end result over a weak and generic majority vote. We don't bring votes here, we bring arguments and no argument should be invalidated for reasons that go beyond the breadth of the argument itself.--Diberville 02:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Restriking vote per policy. --Charitwo^Talk 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been struck through again. Not only does he not have 50 main, but he also admitted that he only came back to vote which was not allowed to happen here. We're not changing from past decisions until it passes consensus. Christine 20:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I have noted and you have implied by your source, there is no rules stating that someone with less than 50 main space edits can't participate in here but based on a talk page discussion (which has not become official policy though the exemple demonstrates that it is unofficial) someone inactive can not come back to vote. Therefore, since this is the fourth revert now and you do have some basis for your seperate argument, I will conceed the point and start a discussion in the Yew Grove to set and clarify policy as to who may or may not participate in these discussions.--Diberville 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After again looking at the policy and discussions in the Yew Grove, the reinstauration of the striked votes not only goes against policy but is a violation of RuneScape:Gaming_the_system. Please go here to discuss the issue further but do not restore the strikes.--Diberville 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Chiafriend is a great person who is always willing to help. I have done lots of work with him on the Call of Duty wiki where he is a 'crat and he is defiantly the man for the job--Bigm2793 23:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to see evidence on this wiki, as this is the one we are concerned about here. Christine 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Awesome guy, is very friendly and is willing to help out in the community. It seems that he is always there for the Wiki. _{Done whoozy!} 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support*gasp!* chia isnt a b'crat?!?!?! its an outrage!Altarius95_{The Master Cook!}^{Talk to me}
• support --Iamsocool123 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)_{User does not have 50 mainspace edits yet (user has never even edited before this comment)}

• Support - Chiafriend is a great contributor to the wiki, and would make a great bureaucrat.  C Teng ^{talk · polls} 21:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Chia is a great and trustworthy user that has shown his 'crat ability on RSFFW.

ToaBionicle | Wanderer

We need to see evidence on this wiki, as this is the one we are concerned about here. Christine 22:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - You made great contributors and you are helping a lot of people on this wiki, awesome!

Buzz 9 1990 ^{(Talk • # • √ • P )} 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I think Chia is deserving of this. I have seen and heard of quite a few great things he has done. —Patranous (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Like? Christine 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I think that Chia would be a great choice. I have found that many of the things he writes are very useful and just believe he would be even more helpful to this wiki. Smart28^talk 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As Endasil said, being a 'crat isn't about the contribs, it's about the judgments made by the user. Christine 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That is partly true, but contribs are part of judgement. Contribs help us know if the user is going to be responsible with their new powers and if they will be active long enough to make good use of them. Votes still shouldn't be entirely based on contribs, but they should still be considered. Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Chia, you deserve this! I know you can win, just have confidence and stay up to date whenever possible and never give up your goal that us here are nominating for! #1 man! Elder God91 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

*Support - I believe that Chia should deserve this nomination, I am a good friend of his and I helped him out with certain things on Runescape and now I am confident that he should be an Administrator! Elder God91 15:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, amazing! You even deleted your old post to a) hide the fact that you were Chia's friend, and b) hide the fact that you didn't even know that the nomination was for bureaucrat and not normal administrator. It's all great that Chia has friends, but this is not an election. A support vote doesn't help him if you don't have a shard of reasoning behind your opinion! Endasil (Talk) @  15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember, this nomination is not to help Chia; it's to help the wiki. What we must decide is whether Chia becoming a bureaucrat will help the wiki. Butterman62 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I deleted my vote? Who are you talking about, I'm confused? Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not you, Elder God.  C Teng ^{talk · polls} 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. He is a really nice person to talk to on RuneScape, so he has the mentality of a good 'crat, and he makes many edits and helps the wiki in many ways. I'm with you all the way! (And please don't void my vote, I've made a few hundred main edits as Cashman) InstantWinston^{old edits new edits} 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in-game behavior cannot be considered in this. Butterman62 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Does my vote still count? InstantWinston^{old edits new edits} 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh, for the (probably not) last time, this isn't an election or a vote! It wouldn't matter if Chia had 95% support, that by itself would not be enough for him to be 'cratted! Endasil (Talk) @  14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would seem things have changed since I was gone...but anyway, can I still give my support without it being eaten by the <s> monster? InstantWinston^{old edits new edits} 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it's consensus and not democracy you can keep your vote but it wont make a difference since there isn't a (good enough) reason behind it. Ilyas Talk Contribs 23:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*Support Well, I know my vote doesn't count, but I'm voting for Chiafriend. I don't know Chia very well, but I do know that he is a good editor, a polite person, welcoming new players to the site all the time, (worse can be said of some people), and, well, to make this brief, I fully support him for bureaucrat status. And I also want to make a point. You say it is Consensus, not Democracy. Quote: "Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." Another quote: "...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." To continue my point: "Democracy is currently understood and most frequently used, the rule by majority." If I may say so, consensus and democracy are extremely similar. Each comment and vote is a part of the debate, and in the end, the votes do matter, if it is a consensus, as you say. Thank you for reading my vote and point, if you did. Liwolf1 22:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, is the voting already over? cuz the last comment was twelve days ago. Forget my comments if the "voting" proccess if over.

This discussion is over. The editors did not reach a general agreement, therefore there is no consensus. Dtm142 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just keep discussing it until there is a general agreement?  C Teng ^{talk · polls} 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's over. Maybe after a while, Chia will have another RFB. But for now, it's over. Butterman62 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is unlikely at this point in time. There have been no comments in two weeks. This would be more likely to gain consensus if it was started over in a while. Dtm142 17:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just, um commenting. You guys sound like something from Star Trek, you keep talk about consensus. Consensus seems a hell of a lot similar to democracy, right? So this is kind of like a democracy. that would contradict a point that I often see on this wikia, that supposedly this is a"consensus and not a democracy". My point was made earlier. Does anyone agree with this statement? Just curious. : D Liwolf1 18:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

By "not a democracy", we mean that it isn't solely based on majority vote. If there is significant opposition that isn't addressed, it is not a consensus. Dtm142 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ty for makin that clear for me. Liwolf1 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I've seen so many good things that this user did for the wiki. Definately Cratting material. 01:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Avenged ^Talk

This discussion is closed! Please stop voting on it! Dtm142 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

• No vote because I still don't know what sh0gm means. --Charitwo 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

comment Sh0gm may be a sort of tackle. I believe he made that word up. I'm not sure ill have to ask him.Puremexican

, 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He won't tell anyone. Christine 22:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have told people, but they all seem to have left.

Sh0gm: (v.) To push Themurasame down the stairs. Mura and stairs are substituted for anything else that may be put in their/its place (e.g.: "/me sh0gms Chari off a car.").

Matt Degoth made the word, not me. Chiafriend12 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And btw, the neutral wasn't a joke vote, I really don't have enough opinion on you to either support or oppose. --Charitwo^Talk 22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - I don't really know Chia well enough to support or oppose. Pointy 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I have used the wikia for a long time and have found it to be the best resource so I would like to be careful about who I nominate. I have not done much editing (mostly spelling and grammar errors) :(. I do lean towards Chia but I do not want to have my vote counted cause I might be stealing the election from those who are really involved. I do have sympathy for Buzz. He seems like he really wants to have high standards for this site, however he must remember he is working with imperfect humans and the spirit of the wikia is a site that everyone can contribute to. Wikias however are easily sabotaged so some caution, and sadly policing and banning are very important. Also there are criticizers of Chia's age. There was a pole previously about the age of people who visit the site and most of them are young. Dr_d_djk

Buzz's nomination is entirely something different. First of all, Chia here is running for bureaucrat. Buzz is running for sysop. Second, there's more than one of each. There's no limit. I don't think Buzz is really related here. Butterman62 (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there seems to be a misconception with many users here as to what "consensus" means. Our nominations for adminship are not "elections", they are based on consensus. If you don't understand the word, look it up. But basically what it means is that even if there were 100 supporters who have made like 10 edits in the last 4 months (like most of the supporters), if there is reasonable opposition, consensus hasn't been reached and the nomination won't be successful. Endasil (Talk) @  20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To add on to what Endasil said, I also think it wouldn't be consensus if many supported but if like 2 people on opposition brought up points the support didn't address, and vice versa. Butterman62 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Dr_d_djk Thank you for clearing that up, I am kind of a newbie here and I understand consensus. I appreciate your patience and your willingness to explain.

Oppose

• Oppose - I don't think Chia really has the maturity level to handle being a bureaucrat (no offence Chia, you're just a youngin!). Chia is a great, active and helpful editor but I really don't think any of that matters in light of being a 'crat. I want a crat to be the most neutral, unangerable, passive (yet active), deferential SOB out there. Endasil (Talk) @  14:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• I also have to oppose, mostly based on what Endasil said about maturity level. Chia seems very opposed to ever blocking people on the wiki, which he has admitted himself before. I think one should be able to tell the difference between assuming good faith based on one bad edit (maybe clearing one page, it's very possible that it happening just once was an accident), but replacing pages with swears or anything really is not in good faith at all. I'm afraid that with Chia's tendency to always see the best of people, mostly ignoring anything bad at all, he won't be completely fair if trying to pass or fail an RFA or a VFD, as I think he will always lean more towards the good qualities of either, rather than the bad. Christine 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chia has conditionally supported RFAs, "pushing his agenda on people". There is currently no wiki policy stating that it is necessary to warn the offender before blocking them. He also has a history of opposing RFAs either due to personal conflicts (shouldn't affect wiki decisions) and silly rules that never gained consensus. You need to understand that there's a time and a place for silly rules that take the fun out of everything: Competitive Super Smash Bros. tournaments. Not Wikia. Dtm142 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not going to deny that, but that is considered a personal attack and someone running for 'crat status should know to control themselves better.Puremexican , 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was made in IRC, not the main site where bureaucrat powers actually take effect. Furthermore, it was a very minor insult comparable to calling him silly. Actual bureaucrats have used much worse attacks on IRC (including some very strong sexual slurs that I don't feel like repeating). Chia's wording for his reason for opposing wasn't really relevant to the community (lack of respect for user treatment policy would have been better) and instead seemed to be based on a minor, personal, offsite dispute. These types of things should not go into account when making community decisions. Dtm142 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Without going into much detail, the maturity level of Chia is not what is expected of a crat. I would like my 'crats to be mindful of the rules, but decisive in their decisions. Cheers! Atlandy 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• (edit conflict...)I'm sorry, Chia, for saying this to one of my favorite Wikians, but I'm going to have to oppose. I say this because, almost all of the time, whenever there's a new policy in the works (or old one being revised) you give some faulty "proof" to how you think it should work or whatever. You've actually admitted this (last thing Chia's said on that comment, for those of you who want to look), which makes me wonder what made you come up with half of those ideas anyway. Also, per everyone else's oppose reasons (sliding over bad qualities, "silly rules", and the like)...oppose...--Stinkowing_{(I'm hungry.)}
• Oppose - Chia, you're a great editor and a great person to talk to. I think you ARE worthy of crat status, and you've made tons of edits, but there are other users ahead of you in the waiting line. I think after we crat a few people and a few more crats leave you could become a crat, but people like Atlandy and Christine had made tons of more edits. Now don't get me wrong, you ARE indeed worthy of crat status and I think you would handle it very well, but there are some other users who've made more edits and are a wee bit more active in the community. Please please please don't misunderstand me, this isn't a hard oppose, it's a bit of a "maybe later oppose". Infact I think I should make this a neutral, but I'm "anti-neutral". Anyways, good luck. Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'll say it before Chia does, I am not even an admin Cheers! Atlandy 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

God help us if our rationale for giving someone 'crat status is whether they've been waiting long enough. Endasil (Talk) @  16:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When I say "waiting in line" I don't mean how long they have been here, I mean how far up in line they are. That means (imo) Chia isn't first in line (again, in my opinion) to be cratted, meaning I think there are other people who deserve it a bit more. And Atlandy, you're not an admin but you're very active in the community and you edit... A LOT... Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ilyas, you could nominate someone else if you feel there are others more worthy. But just please don't say yourself >_< you gave a nice speech and it'd be kinda bad if you were talking yourself up the whole time >_> Christine 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Endasil here, in principle at least. Your vote should be about whether the candidate is capable of being responsible with the proposed rights or not, rather than whether anyone else is 'more deserving'. Opposing for the reason you gave is similar to saying "there's too many admins" on an RfA - which I think is also unfair to the candidate. Having said that, I'm actually neutral in this case (see above) :-) Pointy 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Too many admins" have been the reason Chia opposed numerous RFA's, except those of his friends. Another reason I don't think he's ready to be a 'crat. It's not like in those times we lost admins, so he had no reason to support them at all, based on his past reasons. Christine 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Endasil, why did you say that helpfulness and being active doesn't matter when you're a bureaucrat? I thought that was mostly the point.  C Teng ^{talk · polls} 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat is a purely administrative status, and adds absolutely nothing to one's ability to edit. One can make excellent contributions, be extremely helpful to new users, and be very active, and yet not gain anything or add anything to the community by having b'crat status. We need to evaluate how candidates represent the spirit of the Wiki, how responsible they are, how neutral they are, etc. Concentrating on a user's edits and not these qualities can be disastrous, as a bureaucrat is really the only status that has any critical power. Endasil (Talk) @  02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I wasn't talking about myself. I meant people like you (Christine), Gangsterls, and Atlandy. I'm barely even active anymore! I have been here for a year and a half and have only 1000 or so mainspace edits. A crat should be active and should be watching the wiki more often than I do. Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gang's inactive. >_> Christine 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't check people's contribs so I would have no way of knowing that (Gang didn't use the forums much). Ilyas Talk Contribs 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his contribs. I don't really think 20 days is considered "inactive". Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've found Chia to be incompetent as a sysop. I appreciate the work he's done for the wiki, but don't think he should be an admin. --Wowbagger421 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean crat =\... Ilyas Talk Contribs 23:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure he means he never thought Chia should've even received admin status. Christine 23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Any examples? That's quite a harsh claim without any explanation or proof to back it up. Butterman62 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we want to go there, I'll say this: it seems like Chia is only in pursuit of fame or notoriety. It explains why he voted down almost all RFA's after his own on the basis of "there being too many admins", even when the community told him many, many times that there really can't be too many sysops.: It always seemed like he was trying to keep sysop a special role because he was one. It further explains why the front page [1] of the Fan Fiction wiki notes Chia as the founder (to gain him fame around there as well) when claiming to be a founder of a wiki on the main page goes so far against the spirit of a wiki it sickens me. Endasil (Talk) @  14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about the front page of the Fan Fiction Wiki. If the wiki is fairly new (which it is) or if it is fairly small (which it is) then it would be ok to put the history of the wiki (including the founder) on the front page. However, if it said on the front page of Wikipedia "Wikipedia was founded by so and so on July 7, 2002 (random date)" then that would be pushing it... Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think such a statement tries to bring ownership of the project to a given editor, and emphasizes a sense of superiority or authority that really isn't there. Endasil (Talk) @  20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chia, I just realized I used quotes for "there being too many admins" and when I went back, I couldn't find one instance of you saying that. I'm sorry for misrepresenting you. I think I was thinking more of your oppositions based on edit count alone or for no reason at all. I also wanted to say that you've handled this nomination very well. Being under such tight scrutiny is never easy, and while necessary, such criticism doesn't often make anyone feel that great. You've clarified things only when unclear and have stayed out of the discussion so as to avoid any chance of things getting heated up or dissolving into personal attacks. Even though this nomination probably won't succeed, you've shown your quality throughout it. Endasil (Talk) @  20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but Emosworld listed me as the founder on RSFF, not me. Oh, there I go clarifying again... Chiafriend12 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo is another one who loves to put his name on stuff..look at all his uploads. The wiki is not a populatrity contest—atlandy (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Endasil, I found SIX examples... "STRONG OPPOSE - Too many people are being sysoped. I think we should stop getting more admins" - "Oppose <blah blah blah> 2) Whip was just b'cratted, I think we should have some down time before 'cratting somone else. 3) I think that we don't need any more b'crats" - "STRONG OPPOSE - Too many people are being sysoped. I think we should stop getting more admins." AGAIN - "Neutral - I don't really like RfA/B bursts...I'll just stay out" - "Neutral now I've come to the conclusion that there is already too many sysops" - "OPPOSE - <blah blah blah> Also, we are gettting to have a lot of admins, I might start saying we have too many". Christine 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Christine. I guess I didn't look far enough along. Good to know I wasn't dreaming all of that! Endasil (Talk) @  00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To Butterman: why do opposes need reasons if supports don't? I've said it a few times on here, and no one has give me examples of why Chia is a good sysop. Generalities are not viable evidence at all, like "oh he's a nice guy." Christine 16:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that supports don't need reasons too. See InstantWinston's vote above. Butterman62 (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I know Chia has put a lot of effort into making the wiki better, but as Endasil pointed out, the bureaucrat flag has little to do with editing. The primary criterion here should be the nominee's ability to close a controversial discussion (like this one) in a way that reflects the general consensus or lack thereof. I'm not too sure how much I could trust Chia to do this, honestly. Especially considering that there are far fewer bureaucrats around to check each other's actions than there are sysops, this creates some serious doubt in my mind. Skill 18:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - To Endasil's comment on ownership of a wiki, it may also just be telling the history of the wiki, but you're more likely to find that on a new wiki. Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - To Christine's links, I agree to some of those but the ones on bureaucrat nominations are different. We can never have too many sysops, but we can have too many crats, since the job of a crat is different than that of a sysop. Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As much as I think that any user should be a sysop unless there's a good reason for them not to be, I think that no user should be a bureaucrat unless there's a good and sound argument for them to be. Endasil (Talk) @  00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - As Dtm kindly pointed out above, you're voting has been made quickly, and without much of any solid reason. This brings your judgment into question and as such I cannot support. I am however open changing my vote in the future if you can show significant development. --Whiplash 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Closed: Although this RFB has gained majority vote, RFAs are not based solely on majority vote. There is no general consensus and the supporters have failed to address many of the concerns of the opposers. Therefore, this has not passed. Dtm142 02:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.