RuneScape:Requests for adminship/LordDarkPhantom

LordDarkPhantom}}}|
__NEWSECTIONLINK__

''I LordDarkPhantom, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realise that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realise 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,'' 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC).

Questions for the nominee
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

The main administrative work I intend to take part in would be: deleting and restoring images, and blocking vandals. Others have pointed out that I do not do much anti-vandal work, however I am patrolling the rc frequently, and warning users. That is the main reason that I do not report much to the CVU; most vandals are only one-offs and I think we should give them a fair chance firstly.

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

I think my best contributions to the RS Wiki are my image uploads. I regularly upload files; either to improve their quality or make small changes. Also, I think my small maintenance edits are a really good contribution. I find pride in the fact that this wiki has the most information from any other RS help site, however the quality of layout/grammar is sometimes lacking. It is sometimes tedious, but I think it makes a great impact upon all of our readers.

'''3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?'''

I think I have had a few disagreements in the past, though I think I remained civil and polite at all times. I was slightly annoyed when Mr Psycho wrote a few comments about me to others, but we managed to straighten that out. I think the main thing to do when you are stressed due to other users would be to keep a level head, and stay polite at all times. If I missed any out, feel free to tell me.

Additional questions (asked by the community if necessary)
'''In light of recent events on here, there is something that I think would help move this RFA along. My question for you is simply what do you think sets you apart from the typical user? What can you give to the wiki using the tools should they be bestowed upon you?''' 17:46, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - As nominator. --Coolnesse 19:55, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I like LDP, but we don't need another admin at the moment. 19:58, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The wiki does not have a clear need for another sysop. Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to LDP's edits. His main contribution to the wiki is as an image person. That doesn't need sysop tools to do. Anyone can still upload images. Perhaps he needs to move images once in a while, but that has been alleviated by the custodian usergroup. As for his antivandalism credentials, I'm sorry to say that he has almost none. I can't remember a single instance where he reported a vandal to the CVU. The fact that we don't need another sysop, coupled with the fact that LDP has no need for sysop tools, means that I oppose. 20:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have reported vandals a fair few times, however I usually just add warnings to users' talk pages. In fact, 90% of the time (really rough estimate) a tab of mine is on the rc, and I refresh that every moment I get. 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - What? He has developed no need for the tools, thus giving him tools wouldn't make sense. (2x edit conflict) 20:01, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * The main things I see that admins could do are: blocking users, deleting/undeleting files, editing protected pages. All three of those things cannot be done without being an admin in the first place. I have now answered the above questions :) 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting/undeleting and editing protected pages is fairly rare already. The only main thing I can see here is blocking and moving files, but custodians can do that, so the only thing is blocking. Now, since you don't edit cvu much, you shouldn't need that too. I don't see why you'd request the rights. 16:03, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you handle images as often as he does, the need to delete is reasonably frequent. --Henneyj 16:13, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking sd and greater detail categories requires deleting images? I doubt that. 14:18, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquidy. Plus on User:LordDarkPhantom_Bot he has 14 edits, that makes me wonder about the mastery he has on it. 20:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't ever claimed (and never will tbh) to have mastered the use of the great AWB. The reason I haven't done much with my bot account is the fact that most of my AWB edits (around 1000+ I would guess at) have been made on this account, when having a bot account was not necessary. Though really, I cannot understand why I need to master the art of AWBing  19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just brought that up since Coolnesse mentioned it in the opening section. 13:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * After reading Dtm's Notice of Intent, I cannot bring myself to continue to oppose this. 16:14, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * After some discussion on the IRC, I am going back to Opposing this. While we can trust a large portion of our users, giving all of them sysop rights is just not a good idea. While our sysops are supposed to not be different than other users, they are and nothing will change that. A few acts of using Sysops tools will benefit the Wiki, but rather pointless if someone can do the exact same thing within a few minutes anyway. 20:42, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 99% of what he does is imagework, and even that is only uploading new images. The tools would not benefit him at all. Sysop is not a badge we give someone for doing a good job, its a tool we give to those who need it. 20:03, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the badge part. 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - When you say that "The Wiki has no need for more sysops", I just have to disagree. I don't see things like the CVU and speedy deletion candidates being cleaned out with enough frequency. This Wiki has a lack of active sysops. --Coolnesse 20:04, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? I check the CVU and Speedy deletion category at least twice an hour, usually more. 20:05, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no? I check both of those pages whenever I'm on, and they are almost always empty. 20:05, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when does ldp frequently use cvu? He might need to delete files every now and then, but that's not common. (2x edit conflict) 20:07, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if we assume that the wiki has no active sysops, how would sysopping LDP help? Clearing out speedy deletion candidates is the easier one, but it's also the less urgent one. It doesn't hurt to have them stay there for an extra 30 minutes or so. Furthermore, because LDP lacks the countervandalism experience, I cannot be certain if he has developed the proper experience for what is blockable and what is not. The only way to develop that is through practice. Since he doesn't report to the CVU, I'm not sure if he even checks it. So, sysopping LDP doesn't get that part accomplished either. 20:05, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past I used to report 100% of all vandals, regardless of whether it was a first time offence. Now I have learned to warn them, I am using the CVU rarely (see answers to the questions above). 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is what you are supposed to do. However, you don't need sysop rights to warn people, you only need it to block. Since you only add users that need to be blocked to the CVU, less CVU means less sysop needs. 16:11, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and comment - Go get yourself the custodian and rollbacker right. -- 00:39, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * ..He does, as said in the opening section. 00:42, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was obviously directed at me. --Coolnesse 01:32, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, constructive criticism please O:) 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think he has any need for the Rights at the moment. 01:41, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was sort of expecting a barrage of opposes :) I have seen in the past that RfA candidates have been warned not to reply to everyone, but I just want to give an answer to your comments; do not think that I am trying to persuade you. I would like it if you just stuck to your votes . 19:38, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You really do great work on the wiki. I don't see any reasons why you should NOT be an admin. Is "he doesn't need the tools" a good reason? not if you ask me. Evryone with good meanings has uses with admin tools, like file deletion, merging splitting etc. Is "we don't need any more admins" a good reason? Same. More admins is always better, unless admins start abusing their tools. More admins means quicker reactions to things needing admins. I really don't see why he should NOT become an admin. 21:04, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I neither see consistent anti vandal work nor active community discussion (Yew Grove) participation. Although Lord is obviously an exceptional contributor and should be commended for his efforts, he has not demonstrated any legitimate need for sysop tools. 23:36, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all, except for those that have said "we don't need anymore sysops", because this is never a good reason to oppose an RFA. 01:23, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should add some constructive criticism, as has been requested. While your image maintenance work is great, you're lacking in other areas (anti-vandalism, mainspace contribution, ect). The only sysop tool that is needed urgently in the filespace on a regular basis is movefile, as a user may have to wait for the move to take place to continue working. Because you already have this, there are no reasons to give you the tools. Generally, I hate the kind of reasoning I just produced, because the determining factor for RFAs should be the trustworthiness of the individual. This will be reviled more over time with additional Yew Grove contributions, so I suggest you discuss more often. 01:29, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - I heard that a couple of times, but i wanna ask: How much is "more often"?
 * PS:Another useful sysop thing for image people is merging/splitting histories. About the other things i am not going to comment. 02:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the comments, it helps me understand better why you have opposed. I don't understand why people think I'm lacking in the mainspace. Perhaps because most of my work is on images? I mean, the edit report says that I have made nearly 4K edits to mainspace. Forgive me for adding that I browsed your edit report and you have nearly 1K in mainspace. I admit that I do not contribute much to the Yew grove, though. 17:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize your Mainspace count was that high (and I am well aware that my own count is low, this has never been a secret), though you have to consider the quality of the edits. Were they considerably routine/repetitive tasks, adding divine quality content, or administrative work? I don't know the answer to this question, though the answer plays a roll in your worthiness for Adminship. Never the less, with the addition of the custodian group, you have access to all the tools you need at this time. Thanks for taking the opposition so well. 22:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I would have supported before the custodian usergroup was made, but since movefile was added to that i believe you don't have a big need for the tools. Since almost all of your work is in the file namespace you don't really need the tools. Your a great editor don't get me wrong just i don't feel you need the tools. 08:24, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - LDP is a great editor, with fantastic image work, however this does not qualify him for adminship, especially as Custodianship has been added. Frankly, I can see no need for him to have the tools, and he probably won't be using them enough to have a true purpose. And when he has a use for them, there are plenty of admins willing to complete tasks for him. To be honest, I think all the supports are because of the supporting editors friendship with each other (because they often work together in the File namespace), but that's just my assumption and should not affect this RfA. 08:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm gonna cut this short, which is gonna make me look like an ass. You do some great image work, add a few templates and what not, but this doesn't qualify you for adminship, sorry bro. 19:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i'm gonna defend Phantom now. He does lots of mainspace things too, but you don't see it that much. He made a total of Special:Editcount/LordDarkPhantom mainspace edits. That is much more than "adding a few templates". I'd like to ask you: please check things before you say something. 12:29, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Swiz isn't saying he doesn't help, but that he doesn't have a need for the tools.  16:14, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * WOAAAH JOEY. You gotta calm down man. Chill you beans. Chillax. 18:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, calm down. No where did it say that Phantom didn't do enough mainspace edits. 04:52, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am, and also was at the time of the writing, totally calm. I am just saying that saying that someone with edits does a lot more than "adding a few templates". I think i could better tell you to calm down, as caps lock is not really needed here(and don't say "i did it using shift" as you know what i mean). But we should be talking about making phantom admin or not, and stop talking about if someone is calm or not, so this is the last thing i am going to say about calmness of anyone but the subject. 22:42, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose  - I hate to do this, because Lord is an awesome guy, but I can't support him. His image work is stellar and provides some of the best images on wiki, but that doesn't require sysop tools. He isn't extremely active in community discussions (WHICH ISN'T A BAD THING!!!!)-but it doesn't help him in requesting sysop tools. Basically here's how this goes Lord-you can try for sysop, or you can keep being a stellar editor. Not every editor needs sysop tools. If you strive to become a sysop, you won't strive to be a good editor. The best editor is someone who stays true to themselves, not someone who tries to do certain things to gain support in an RfA. Stay true to yourself, keep making those stellar images, because that beats the hell out of being a sysop any day. 16:24, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Support - I can't see him misusing the tools ever, so as long as he remains active, I see no problem giving these to him.  17:41, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sysop tools would be useful to him, and he can be trusted with them. I consider it that simple. --Henneyj 16:16, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sysop tools would be useful to just about everyone, and a lot of people on the Wiki can be trusted with them. Doesn't mean we should make all these people admins. 18:05, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

why not?
 * Why not? 22:42, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's give it to this guy and other vandals and see where that gets us?  22:51, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we trust that guy? no. really pointless comment as i said "why not" to "and a lot of people on the Wiki can be trusted with them. Doesn't mean we should make all these people admins." and that included "can be trusted" which that user can definetely not. 11:43, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Trustability isn't the only issue though. Sysop tools aren't a reward to show that the person is trusted. 15:42, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but why not give it to more people that are trusted. If we trust them that they won't abuse it, and also won't make wrong decisions, they should get the tools, because that makes evrything happen faster. 18:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's invalid. There were sysops who abused their tools before. Do you think they weren't trusted? 18:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * So because other people did those things, we can only trust people when we really need them? Most likely people only wanna help speeding up things. Also, the sysops that had their rights removed because they abused it, were all sysopped in 2006(stinko 2007) without a real trust of the whole community. Just a vote of 5 people max([1] [2] [3](wasn't even trusted). So ye, i think they weren't trusted by the whole community. The only exception is Puremexican. But is that a reason not to sysop people who are trusted? don't you trust your own trust?(which is a serious question) I still think evryone who is trusted should get admin rights. Why not? 00:31, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If we would go down the checklist on this page, we would get the following: Decide yourself. 22:42, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "The candidate demonstrate a clear need for sysop tools. Furthermore, the wiki must demonstrate a clear benefit from additional sysops." - No1 needs it. It is just useful or not. and file deletion/merge/split, along with other page deletion would be a benefit. And according to himself, he also does quite some countervandalism work, so that would be an use too.
 * 2) "The candidate must have displayed excellent judgment skills" - how could any non-admin show that? they are not allowed to tell what the consensus is or close a thread.
 * 3) "The candidate must have good character." - Totally passed
 * 4) "The candidate must have the trust of the community" - well, i think the community trusts him (correct me if i'm wrong)
 * Judgement doesn't just mean determining consensus. The point that people are arguing against is that he doesn't have a clear need for tools, considering the majority of what he does is upload files.  Anyone could use sysop tools, but we can't hand it out like candy.   22:51, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously, I disagree, considering that it's my checklist and I opposed this RfA. I do not see a clear need for sysop tools; nor do I believe the wiki will benefit from an additional sysop at this time. The point is that maintenance work nowadays really doesn't require sysop tools to do anymore. Sysop tools are more about countervandalism, which I find lacking. Furthermore, the wiki doesn't have a need for additional sysops right now. Speedy deletion gets cleared out quickly, as does the CVU. We have plenty of active sysops to take care of those tasks. 23:26, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but get your head around the fact that guidelines and recommendations don't matter! Every RfA is decided on a case-by-case basis, and depending on the current situation, they may pass or fail. Look at the old RfA's - heaps of them passed because back then, we needed admins. Today, getting an RfA to pass is much harder, there are just so many more obstacles to get through. Finally, I still think that your opinion here is affected by your good relationship with Lord, again, that was an assumption. 03:15, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just placed it here for you to decide yourself when looking at it this way. just that and nothing more. I am not trying to force my opinion into you. 11:43, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...you kind of are forcing your opinions on us... Isn't that the point of this? Convincing the majority ("near unanimous") of people that your opinion is right, therefore achieving consensus? If you weren't, you wouldn't really be rebutting any of our opinions :/ Or do i have it wrong? - 11:59, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am trying to influence you guys a little but it is still completely your opinion, so i am not forcing anything. 11:18, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose/Not Yet - Per many people above. However, I must say that with some spreading out of tasks (such as veering from mainly images to things like the community discussions, cvu, stuff Andrew said basically) I'd be willing to support Dark. The main thing that makes me oppose is that there really is no need for an image specialized sysop at the moment, nor a sysop in general I believe. This guy is always on the CVU and beats me to cleaning it up every time I get there (I'll get you yet though), and really, a sysop isn't all work and no play in my opinion. Most of us that are left go into the community and try to keep things running smoothly, have some fun, and kick/block the trolls or just the plain moronic editors. Anyways, if you do end up requesting again, I'd like to see you diversify and get involved in everything you can get your hands on, and report stuff to the CVU because it just makes things like this and life easier to show that you did. 15:34, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please place your comments at That is because it is somewhere mid-discussion so not many people will check that again. 18:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence, but you are seriously damaging any chance Lord has of passing his RfA. 08:10, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what chance actually? i only see a wall of opposes with a few supports. And how exactly am i damaging that chance? 10:59, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * First, you sound patronizing by telling others to please direct your comment . Why not is not really a good reason for support. And finally, you had already placed your opinion already (really twice). 14:47, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're being far too defensive of LDP. Please, I think it would be best if you backed off and let him respond to comments on his RfA, if he decides to (which of course he is fully entitled to not respond to anyone). In any case the RfA is just as much a judge of how well he can respond under pressure, not you. You're not doing him or yourself any good by replying and debating with pretty much every opposer since you originally posted. Thanks, 19:36, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This isn't RuneScape:Debate your cause. Anywhere else, yes, argue every oppose and do everything you can to get to to pass. Here, no. This is for the community, - the person who is being considered for adminship, to decide if that person is right for the "job". 19:39, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'll not comment anymore then. 19:55, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose/Not yet - You have not demonstrated any clear need for the tools. Yeah, your awesome with images, but you don't do much else. I see you do counter vandalism, but not very often. But then again, maybe it's just my time zone... 04:05, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to support - Dtm, that's quite an essay you've got there. It's changed my interpretation of rfa's completely. Though I don't entirely agree with you. "If the editor uses the tools only once, the wiki will have benefitted from the additional administrator. There would be no harm done by granting sysop rights to every user on the wiki, provided that nobody abuses the power given to them."?! But that's okay, because Phantom, I don't think you're gonna go in-active on us anytime soon (right?) and will use administrative tools to benefit the wiki. Thank you Dtm. I hope I won't have this outlook on rfa's ever again.  04:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Note of intent – I have decided to extend this RFA for another two weeks. The reason is that there has been almost no productive discussion during the time this nomination has been open.

Almost all of the users opposing have argued that the user in question “doesn’t need the tools” or worse yet, that the wiki doesn’t need any more administrators. These arguments are completely irrelevant to the purpose of RFA, which is meant to determine whether or not the wiki would be harmed if the said user had sysop tools. If the editor uses the tools only once, the wiki will have benefitted from the additional administrator. There would be no harm done by granting sysop rights to every user on the wiki, provided that nobody abuses the power given to them. If LordDarkPhantom would indeed misuse these user rights, then he should not be given the tools. The discussion here should focus on whether or not a user is experienced or trustworthy enough to be granted administrator tools. I have not seen any of this.

I have noticed that many RFA contributors, as of late, have been using this process as a means to prevent new sysops from being created. I have seen Jimbo Wales’s “No big deal” quote being taken out of context. When Jimbo Wales said that adminship should be no big deal, he meant that there should not be arbitrary restrictions on granting adminship. This is because having a small, elitist group of admins will increase the authority surrounding the role and cause inequality among editors. In fact, when making the statement he decided to sysop several experienced editors (without an RFA) in order to demystify the perception of sysops.

With these points in mind, I encourage opponents of this RFA to rethink their reasons for opposing. Explain why LordDarkPhantom is inexperienced or untrustworthy. If this is not possible, consider withdrawing your opposition.

I personally am not going to take a position on whether this user should be sysopped. Do not consider this a support. I am simply trying to encourage contributors to make more useful arguments and stay on topic. Dtm142 00:18, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's about time someone actively refused to base consensus on "we don't need anymore sysops". 00:31, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I'm sorry to hear this, Dtm. It seems that there exists a fundamental disconnect about the purpose of an RfA as well as the expectations of an administrator. Several users (for example myself, Ajraddatz, and Rwojy), believe that adminship is more about the wiki's benefit and need. I know Ajraddatz does not consider people good sysops if they do not frequently use the tools. I agree with him. If the wiki does not need another administrator, then why should we sysop someone else?
 * I should also point to precedent. Several other RfA's failed because of a perceived lack of need. For example, see RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Evil1888. Granted, you haven't been the one to close them, and I respect your decision in this manner. However, do not expect the general trend in the community to change much.
 * As such, I will be standing by my opposition to this RfA. 00:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * He is trustworthy and experienced in my opinion. But clearly RfAs don't depend upon that or we would have quite a few more sysops.   01:32, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * IF THIS OFFENDS YOU, DO NOT READ THIS COMMENT THROUGH - Dragon's statement back there reminded me of something a long time ago, back in '04 or so. A person who liked to read Wikipedia said to me:
 * That speech has never ceased to motivate me. I'm just putting in my dollar, if you're wondering. 02:37, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dtm, really, totally what i meant in the discussion i had above. You just use the better words . Any sysop edits makes is useful for the wiki.
 * @halo:
 * Maybe you should start having your own opinion. You are almost completely following the opinion of others like "i would support but apparently i have to oppose because the others did it this way in the previous rfas too" 04:53, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I always have my own opinion. My own opinion is that I don't see a need for Lord to have tools.  I was simply stating a fact in that comment.   04:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * If we take Dtm's far-reaching interpretation of RfA's, then the vast majority of RfA's that we have had would have been successful. That would be a disastrous return to the early days when RfA's were handed out like candy. And this is what happens. I don't want to return to those days. 13:27, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't(return to those days), but if we can trust the person as a community(not 3 voters) we will also trust that won't happen for him. And what is wrong with having "the vast majority of RfA's that we have had being successful"? If we trust the people, why not give them the tools? like dtm said: every admin-only edit made is helpful for the wiki. 13:35, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * A support in an RfA always indicates trust of the person in question. So, if you leaf through the old RfA's... Shadowdancer had the trust of both Eucarya and Oddlyoko. Dreadnought obviously had the trust of the majority of the community. Puremexican had even larger support. I trust most of the users whom I have opposed for adminship. I just do not think it's a necessary risk to take when the addition of more administrators would not benefit the wiki. 13:44, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Liquid! You're being such a...! "Those days" never existed, these thoughts only fear you. You're truly making me angry. What sort of argument are you implying? None! 14:41, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those days certainly did exist. "Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it." The book March of Folly actually examines moments in history where leaders committed follies out of woodenheadedness. One of the main blunders was the inability to recognize past failures and rectify them.


 * A clear example of the dangers of ignoring history can be found in the successive invasions of Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps the biggest folly on this issue was committed by Adolf Hitler during World War II. After Napoleon invaded Russia during the winter of 1812, and failed miserably, and even after Kaiser Wilhelm II tried the same thing during World War I, also failing, Hitler refused to look at history and rectify the past mistakes. He made the exact same mistake as the previous invaders: he invaded Russia during the winter, and consequently lost. History is rife with examples of such follies occurring. I chose Hitler as an example of a monumental event that happened in recent times.


 * Similarly, we cannot afford to make the same mistakes that we have made before. To ignore the history of the wiki will be completely detrimental to its future. Sysops were running amok and power abuse was flagrant. That is what comes out of a large excess of sysops, and that is what is going to happen to us again if we take this expansive view of adminship and RfA's.


 * Most of the recent failed RfA's by active wikians failed because of a lack of need, not because of their lack of character. Has the wiki been influenced detrimentally? No. Just because they could use the tools does not mean they should. I find a similar scenario in this and other RfA's.


 * As such, I stand firmly by my opposition to this and other RfA's, and I will continue to oppose RfA's until a need arises. 20:29, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say that, you say "i do trust them, but i don't want to risk anything". I don't call that trust. Trust in my opinion is that you believe the person won't abuse the tools, and do the right things. Trust is also that you believe you don't risk anything when you make someone sysop. As you think there is a risk when you sysop LDP, you don't really trust him. From what i hear from you is that you only trust people when you need them. This is no trust, this is conditional trust. 21:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say that, you say "i do trust them, but i don't want to risk anything". I don't call that trust. Trust in my opinion is that you believe the person won't abuse the tools, and do the right things. Trust is also that you believe you don't risk anything when you make someone sysop. As you think there is a risk when you sysop LDP, you don't really trust him. From what i hear from you is that you only trust people when you need them. This is no trust, this is conditional trust. 21:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well, it seems I've not commented here yet. I support Lord's RfA and I trust him to use the tools wisely. 03:59, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He can handle the tools well, and I trust he will use them effectively. 08:08, October 31, 2010 (UTC) Support - Having watched him for quite a time, I learned that he could do it, but can't, being a user and not a sysop. He can use the tools right, I'm sure of that. Let's give this chap the opportunity to make this wiki a better wiki. And now... *snores* 15:27, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * So could Evil, Sentra, and lots of others, that doesn't mean they need the tools.  17:03, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Mero need his tools? no. Do we remove them? no. 21:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we remove any inactive administrator's tools? No. So don't use that terrible argument. 21:37, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm supporting it Joey...just so you know.  21:40, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ajr: it is not a terrible argument. We don't remove inactive admin tools because they were accepted because we needed them. As we don't need a person who creates stub articles to be admin, it is maybe a correct decision to remove his tools, when looking to it from the "only sysop ppl when we need them to be one" perspective. From that perspective, trust plays a role only after the need is checked. So why not desysop loads of inactive admins we don't need, and we wouldn't need when they would come back either? 22:33, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * What? The reason we don't desysop inactives is because there is no need to. Them having the rights and not using them isn't hurting anyone since they aren't active, and it's just a waste of time to desysop all of them. Why are you going into all this garbage about trust and stub articles, which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand? 22:38, October 31, 2010 (UTC)