Previous nomination: RfB1
I have seen alot of good work from him and i think he deserves bureaucrat rights. He has also been using his sysop rights very well, he has alot of edits and after reading his last RfB, it was pretty good. Good luck chia! Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the nominee
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to the RuneScape Wiki, and why?
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?
Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
Oppose - It's not that I don't think Chia is nice enough - but that is exactly the problem. I've been with the wiki almost as long as Chia, and so I mean it when I say that through the YEARS, he has shown too much leniency when dealing with vandals and disruptive users. I get the impression that he doesn't see any bad in most people - meaning he will be too biased in important discussions crats must weigh in on, and will likely therefore make ill-informed decisions. Although he can show maturity, I feel that it does not show through during important discussions and I really question his ability to make decisions with a clear mind. Christine 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Bureaucratship is a quite a serious responsibility. Before someone could be one, they must display a selection of qualities, such as ability to be serious when the need comes. While Chiafriend12 is doing a fine job as an administrator, I do not believe he has met the requirements to be given bureaucrat powers yet. His contributions may be noteworthy, but his character makes him unreliable to say the least. Doucher4000******r4000 18:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - As per D4k. I do like Chia, but I do not feel like this step is needed. I also recommend people look through his last RFB for some other reasons that cause me to oppose this request.Closed - Nominee has declined.-- 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)