RuneScape:Requests for adminship/Chiafriend12

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!, 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,
 * 05:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * Support As nominator., 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, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] 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?-- 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.-- 02:15, 27 April 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)
 * 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. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png Done whoozy! 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support*gasp!* chia isnt a b'crat?!?!?! its an outrage!
 * support --Iamsocool123User does not have 50 mainspace edits yet 20:37, 27 April 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., 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. 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
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., 22:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.   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)
 * 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.  [[Image:Drunk Dragon.PNG|Drunk dragon]]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...
 * 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. 15:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll say it before Chia does, I am not even an admin [[Image:Drunk Dragon.PNG|Drunk dragon]]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.  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... 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)