This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance.

Hello all, I'd like to nominate Redskin for adminship. In his seven months here on the wiki, he has accomplished a great deal.

1. His edit count shows he is dedicated to the betterment of the wiki as a whole. He is active in all namespaces and is regularly found licencing images, categorising pages correctly and generally helping out in the mainspace.
2. As a chat moderator, he has proven to be a reliable and trustworthy member of the community. On numerous occasions he has caught sockpuppets in Chat, but has had to ask an administrator to take further action; with sysop tools he could have done it quicker and more efficiently. Similarly, he has been entrusted with rollback and custodian rights, the effectiveness of which he could enhance with the extra sysop tools (deleting unneeded images and protecting pages, respectively).
3. Redskin is also active in other aspects of the community, particularly in the War Room. Recently, he showed great composure and kept a level head where others didn't in a certain controversial topic.
4. With our current administrative team at only twelve active users, and an ever increasing community size with the release of new content every month, it seems logical to have another user to reinforce the current ones. In addition, I will be inactive for quite some time, meaning Redskin (with a similar level of activity to me) could fill the void I would leave.

In addition to all of these points, Redskin also has a clean block record and a few minor policy infractions early in his time here (ironically his first was from me for not licensing images). I hope that you see him as the same candidate that I do and vote appropriately. elmo's ramblings 00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

I accept this well written nomination, and I would also like to tell Elmo that his time here has been well appropriated and that I hope he enjoys his inactivity and personal time away from the wiki. Redskin-2600:38, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Support Edit

1. Support — As nominator. elmo's ramblings 00:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
2. Support — He's a great user, is largely active, and he's very nice to the community. If anyone should be made an admin, it should be him. Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!} 00:18, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
3. Support — A great aid to the wiki, he's very trusted and is for the betterment of the wiki. Argorrath _{おしゃべり}00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
4. Support — A fine editor and friend on this Wiki. Charcoal121 00:26, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
5. Support — Per the previous nubs. Hip-techboy ^Christmas 00:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
6. Support — He's a hardworking user and I think that if any one should be an admin, he should. Tr0529 ^{Merry Derpmas!}
7. Support — Per nominator. SXe Fiend · talk 03:31, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
8. Support — Per nom. Dizturn^Talk 03:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
9. Support — I agree with Elmo and everybody else, and Red has helped me with certain things. Angel of Anarchy _(Jeremy14) · Talk!03:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong Support — Per all. Codfan5695 ^Talk15:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
11. Strong Support — I feel that those chastising Redskin for making those mistakes fail to realise that he has learnt from those experiences and improved considerably as a result. It shows in his attitude for one. For this reason and those that Eltomo wrote, I consider him trustworthy enough for administration tool access and am strongly supporting his request.
    

    Vera ^{Talk to me.}

    
    16:08, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
12. Strong Support — Per all, especially Eltomo and Panzer. I.W. F.T.W. _(talk) 16:20, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
13. Support — Redskin is an excellent Wiki contributor, hard worker, and an all around good guy. Aces! - Words 18:24, March 4, 2012
14. Strong Support — Yes, I feel that now is the time for Red to be granted admin tools. He really deserves it. As per JJ and Elmo.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 22:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

    Adminship is not an award :|. One does not deserve adminship. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 01:01, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    So 2k+ edits on mainspace alone and being a hardworking chat moderator who does, to the best of his ability, contribute to the wiki greatly is NOT dedicated in your eyes? You really should reconsider that thought. And don't even try rebutting me with petty semantics.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 13:28, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    What he means that despite Redskin's, or any other good candidate's contributions adminship is not deserved. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 14:21, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    First off, Quality over Quantity. Second of all, you didn't make any ground breaking, amazing, pedanatic rebuttal that deserves to not get a rebuttal, and saying that I would only offer "petty semantics" is rather offensive. An you obviously didn't read what I wrote carefully, as what you wrote for your reason of support makes it sound like you're supporting him getting a medal. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 23:44, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    Keep personal arguments out of this, argue the RfA, not each other. But yes, adminship is not deserved. Maybe that was just an error in the wording of the support vote, though.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  23:53, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    Understood. Edited OP as seen fit.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 15:05, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

15. Support — Per my reason in the comments.-- 02:19, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
16. Support — I feel Redskin has contributed greatly to the community and is able to use his current powers responsibly and correctly as is. I would completely trust him with the tools of an admin to help keep the wiki a better place. +Per All. ^Smilular Talk 02:33, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
17. Strong Support — Now is the perfect time Anthony can be admin. His spectacular contribution to this wiki is comparable to many admins themseleves and can match or even beat many more normal editors' contributions. Due to his contributions, he has made himself a spot to become an admin. CoDE-2KGo to my talk page!02:38, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
18. Support — I believe he is ready for adminship. He has proven to be a valuable asset to this community in the mere months hes been here Qw3rty!
19. Strong Support — Per all!!! XSCX surprise!!!! 13:35, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
20. Support — I've had to think about this for quite a while as both arguments bring up very valid points, but I have decided to support for I feel that argument is better. Allow me to address my own concerns.
    
    Redskin clearly retains the mindset I would full well expect from an administrator. He has always been one to ask questions when he was unsure of something and he seems to double check things before he takes action, which is something even some of our long-standing administrators don't even do. He takes his job seriously when it comes to chat moderating, and his minor infractions are just that: minor. Those opposing cannot do so on the grounds that his small mishaps as a chat moderator (all the while learning, mind you) will in any way destroy his ability to become an administrator.
    
    Eltomo's supposed leave of absence will undoubtedly create another administrative position, and as Callofduty4 has pointed out below, Redskin is the best and only candidate currenly nominated. With only 7 sysops active, I would be in favor of electing another.
    
    Some have been concerned with Redskin's behavior, and on that basis I almost voted to oppose. It is true that Redskin occasionally over-reacts at things and can sometimes create a bigger situation out of what might have been nothing. However, I protest that this, while not the best behavior on earth, is completely normal, and will not affect his ability to administrate. Be mindful, voters, that those that supported my RfA did so knowing that I am rather intrusive when it comes to other user's problems, yet the RfA was a complete success. The candidate doesn't have to be 100% problem-free, especially when they excell in so many other areas.
    
    Redskin has undoubtedly contributed loads more than I could ever hope to the mainspace by way of page edits and photos. He has more than sufficiently contributed to the War Room and its discussions, and even helped sway the outcome of some of those. He is active in chat and most definitely shows a deep connection to the community. He is always willing to help a user should they ask for it.
    Though Redskin may seem mildly inexperienced, I feel obligated to remind the users here that all administrators felt that way when they were first nominated. It's not against the law for a nominated user to not know some things about the wiki, as we are all here to learn. I have no doubt in Redskin's ability to adapt quickly to becoming an administrator and to react progressively to the changing environment about him.
    
    Azuris once said to me (ages ago) "What defines the need for administrators is the inactivity of formerly-active administrators and the proven responsibility of the user who people think should become the next administrator." If Redskin has not met these qualifications, please desysop me immediately. Shotrocket6 10:44, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

    tl;dr You had me change my vote. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 12:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

    "He has always been one to ask questions when he was unsure of something and he seems to double check things before he takes action, which is something even some of our long-standing administrators don't even do." Because we don't need to. I'm perfectly fine with him double-checking before he does something, but that doesn't mean he can keep going through situations of which he's no sure of himself. "I have no doubt in Redskin's ability to adapt quickly to becoming an administrator and to react progressively to the changing environment about him." wat

    "...his minor infractions are just that: minor. Those opposing cannot do so on the grounds that his small mishaps as a chat moderator (all the while learning, mind you) will in any way destroy his ability to become an administrator." He's still learning? If it's taken him this long to learn how to be a chat mod then I can assure you it will take a lot longer for him to learn how to be an admin. I don't want some guy who doesn't know anything about being an admin, yet will go around asking people for every situation - I want somebody that knows what he's doing.

    "It is true that Redskin occasionally over-reacts at things and can sometimes create a bigger situation out of what might have been nothing." Oh yes. We'll just move past that because ALL the people make mistakes, right? No. These qualities are definitely not something I'd like to see (unless you want to talk about how he overreacts behind his back and then have it progress over time until nobody likes him). Just moving past his flaws and giving him more flags would do nothing beneficial for anybody.

    "Redskin has undoubtedly contributed loads more than I could ever hope to the mainspace by way of page edits and photos. He has more than sufficiently contributed to the War Room and its discussions, and even helped sway the outcome of some of those. He is active in chat and most definitely shows a deep connection to the community." So he's a good user and chat mod. That doesn't excuse him from his mistakes and automatically make him the perfect choice for adminship. He needs to learn from them first before taking on even more responsibility.

    "It's not against the law for a nominated user to not know some things about the wiki, as we are all here to learn." Then he should learn them first. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from learning when and how to handle certain situations. He can't be an admin and have to ask questions about everything.

    "What defines the need for administrators is the inactivity of formerly-active administrators and the proven responsibility of the user who people think should become the next administrator." While those are the words of a sexy man, I could easily use that as my own reason. What inactivity is there now compared to activity? You want to have 8 active admins? Don't forget to add the crats - then you have 11-12. -- Azuris^talk 21:02, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

    You seem to have misunderstood me when I said that he's still learning. In no way did I mean he doesn't know how to be a chatmod, or what the policies mean, or how to edit a page; I meant that there are always small things for users to be learning. If you said you don't learn new things on the wiki every now and then, you'd be lying.

    It goes hand in hand with what I stated above that Redskin not knowing everything about the wiki (literally impossible) does not impede his ability to be a successful administrator. It's not like he's a completely incompetent user, and it's definitely not like every admin knew exactly how to be a good admin before they became one. If I thought he was too dumb to nominate I wouldn't have voted support.

    On the subject of Redskin's "overreactions," you seem to be dramatizing it quite a bit. "ALL the people make mistakes, right? No." If you don't think everyone makes mistakes then there is something wrong with your logic. Beyond that, Redskin has never been involved in any situations serious enough to warrant anything more than a mild talking-to, and even then he remains calm and rational. When I said "overreactions," I was referring to his occasional defense of his personal opinions in the chat, a quality which I do wish to see in an administrator; I'd much rather have another administrator with his own opinions than one that's a pushover.

    On your point of admin inactivity: Elmoto has stated in the nomination that he'll be inactive soon. I thought that self-explanitory. Shotrocket6 03:19, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

    "Those small things" are something I believe he needs to learn before he's given flags. What I said about Redskin's "overreactions" is that he shouldn't just be getting admin tools and receiving a "mild talking-to" - he should be learning not to overreact, and he should be learning before getting said tools. On your point of him having opinions - I'm fine with him having his own beliefs, but he should know his place as a user and what could be his place as an admin and when to get involved with a conflict and do something about it. I don't want him getting into arguments over and over and over again because he finds whatever somebody said "insulting". -- Azuris^talk 04:31, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

    You're still missing the point. The wiki is a learning experience. I don't know how else to tell you. Also, it's not like Redskin overreacts every day, or like he has done so recently; I haven't seen him demonstrate any sort of malicious behavior since the beginning of the year. That's ample time for someone like him to improve. Shotrocket6 11:23, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

    Yep. It's not like a candidate must be 99.99% perfect to become an admin. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 12:25, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

21. Something between weak support and normal support — Per Shottie. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 12:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong Support — He's a great guy and I see him doing a lot of work in multiple parts of the wiki. I'm definitely supporting this. EternalBlaze 21:59, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
23. Support — Red is an excellent editor. Rule-abiding, friendly with others, has a few minor issues, but nothing too serious. This is his time to shine. Metl^Talk 01:48, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
24. Support — Whilst there have been one or two minor cases that have arose I feel that the good Redskin has done outweighs these occurrences and he has learnt and adjusted from them since.
    

    Crazy sam10 • Talk

    
    00:09, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
25. Support — Since the opposers haven't given any evidence to back up their claims, I feel that supporting is the only fair course of action. Plus, since there is no limit on sysops, it doesn't matter if there are others more qualified for adminship - this request isn't about them, it is about this user. And there is every indication that he'll be able to handle the sysop flag. ajr 23:42, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
26. Support — Redskin was the first user I ever really met on this wiki, and he quickly proved to be an excellent contributor, a great chat mod, and an all arounf friendly user. Redskin has seen his fair bit of trouble, but it is more than clear to me that he has grown from these experiences. While i'm not taking this into my voting, i'm sure it's also worht noting that had Redskin not been the kind and forgiving user with a level head that I met nearly eight months ago when I first joined the wiki, I probably would never have stayed here, and i'm sure that goes for a lot of people here as well. 00:08, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
27. Support — As with Ajr, I did not find anything serious that would suggest that Redskin would handle administrative tools improperly. His contribution to the wiki has been admirable, and I think he would continue such performance as a member of the administrative team. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 02:07, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
28. Support — I too believe that there is nothing to suggest that Redskin wouldn't be able to handle the tools properly, in fact I would say the evidence amounts to the opposite. It goes without saying that he's overcome any issues he's had in the past and now can manage the chat properly (a few hiccups with getting too hot-headed still remain though... not something that can't be fixed), and he also edits pages with a swift and professional skill. I don't doubt that he'll be able to keep up this skill with admin tools, so long as he keeps his occasional hot-headedness under control.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  20:23, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Edit

Pending — 16:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC) - I'm an idiot.

Pending — ^Smilular Talk 18:30, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending — I need to think it over. 18:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Pending — Same as Damac.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

18:38, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral — I think the most fitting right for him right now is Blog Patrol. Pierogi^Talk 00:48, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Edit

1. Oppose — The previous RfA was a mere five weeks ago. Most votes opposing the nomination were addressed as "Not Yet", and I do not believe that Redskin has changed a lot during this time frame to warrant a change of my opinion. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 00:21, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Wait, your reasoning is the previous RfA? Could you actually provide an actual reason as to why he shouldn't get the tools? Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 00:24, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   My reasoning in the previous RfA, yes. If you had checked it out before asking, I stated that I don't believe Redskin will fully be able to handle his tools. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 00:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   I have read the previous RfA. I voted on it, in fact. But it's not relevant. Say here why he shouldn't be an admin, not there. Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 00:28, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   His reasoning is saying how most of the Opposes of RfA 1 were "Not Yet"s,and how there hasn't been a sufficient time or improvement between RfAs. Phillycj 00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   I find the prospect of using reasoning in a past RfA almost laughable. You're implying Redskin hasn't improved at all or become more experienced, or the state of the wiki is the same as however many weeks ago Redskin's past RfA was. That is simply not the case.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  02:32, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   The wiki has changed, I completely agree with that. While Redskin has continued being a superb editor, I still don't see much change from him in the past 5 weeks , thus my opinion is unchanged. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 03:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Whether or not you feel it right to judge change on a time period Callofduty4, a valid point has been made. Five weeks in terms of a transformation of character is relatively small and it is unlikely that any great change has been made. This leads on to possible flaws in the accuracy and consistency in voting. The support for Redskin has risen dramatically which, providing no great change has been made (which it hasn't), makes you think maybe he should have been administrator five weeks ago? TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 16:24, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

   We can take your argument and stretch it into such fallacies like "maybe he should have been administrator when he joined the wiki". That's obviously wrong. I'm totally inclined to say that not much has changed since Redskin joined the wiki except for an increase in his edit count. Which is again wrong. What is the point you are trying to make?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:14, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but what would the point in that be? Especially when that has nothing to do with my point. My point is that Redskin hasn't changed significantly in a month, however a large shift in how many users have now supported an RFA. So I guess really shortly what I'm saying is that PotatOS may have uncovered what is an inconsistency in voting. On top of that, it is not laughable to use previous RFA or other experiences in your vote. Experience is what develops opinion, as well as giving a good sense of perspective on situations. I am sorry that you did not understand my first point, hopefully this should make it clear. TheDocRichtofen (Talk) 16:08, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose — As much as he has contributed to the wiki, I can think of a few editors more deserving of adminship at this time, and in chat, sometimes he is a little too heavy on the bans, and example being ParagonX7's's ban (although was unbanned soon after) Also, per PotatOS. Phillycj 00:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Paragon's ban is what happens when you trust Google Translate (and yes I did jump to a conclusion on that occasion) Redskin-2600:36, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   I forget who, but on another occasion, you mistook someone saying something like a quote not directed at you as a personal insult and said something along the lines of "you have 2 seconds to explain why i shouldn't ban you ass right now" But, this was all out of memory, but it was along those lines. Phillycj 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah I know what you where talking about, I then was just a bit overwhelmed and did not take care in my choice of words. Redskin-2600:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   But if you can barely be trusted with smaller tools, how can you be trusted with larger ones? Phillycj 00:47, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   While I see where you're coming from, "barely" is a bit of an overstatement. Smuffin^{[cite your sources or die]} 00:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Philly, I believe that you are just focusing to hard on these small occasions, both of these occasions were sorted out correctly and where mere mishaps. Not to mention these occurred quite a long while ago. You can think of them what you like but that is my take on it, and it's not as if current administrators haven't had some mishaps, miscommunications or mistakes of there own, but of course the topic is not other administrators, and I do take full responsibility for those mistakes and have tried to better myself off of them. Redskin-2600:52, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   He is fairly trusted with his tools and puts them to great use, but as the average human bieng we mess up so its fairly understandable to why Redskin reacted the way he did on the 2 chat events.Argorrath _{おしゃべり}00:55, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   To be honest, I feel that's Red banning me was my just desserts. What I said was offensive and broke UTP, and had he not banned me, I wouldn't have realised the error of my ways, and I'd probably have gotten a permaban from Chat by now. He has also warmed up to being a good friend and an even better contributor to this wiki. I hope my account clears everything up.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 14:13, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   No user deserves adminship. That's not how it works. It is not a matter of deserving it - it is a matter of being trusted enough to be given tools. They don't go hand in hand.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose — I believe there are other users that could use these tools better. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:40, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   That may be the case, but few are as consistently active as Redskin. elmo's ramblings 00:41, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Who are they? And how do they make Redskin any less of a candidate? If people don't want to nominate these users who could apparently use these tools "better", then that's their own problem. Not this RfAs, so do not give a baseless oppose vote here trying to solve the problem of the "better" candidates not being nominated.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  02:34, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Very well then, besides me not seeing a need for a new admin, I understand various users believe that he improperly does his job, as well as sometimes not being level headed. I also understand that when he was given other powers, he was unable to use them properly and had made many mistakes. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 01:09, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

   "Various users believe that he improperly does his job" So you are basing you opinion of of what you have heard from other people? To me that only makes you look bad for not being able to generate your own opinion. Secondly if I was unable to use my current tools properly I would have lost them by now. So please would you kindly get some facts. Redskin-2601:30, March 5, 2012 (UTC)~

   Ohh sorry, I forgot others' opinions can reflect my own. Many apologies. Also, my opinion is that you would be an inefficient admin as you were ineffcient with your other powers. They were facts as I noted that several other users said the same thing. The fact that I don't want to say any name is my choice, as there needs to be no finger pointing. The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 01:55, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

   First thing off, People make mistakes. You can't punish someone forever for that. I can see that he's grown from that, and tbh i don't think you should be relying on other people's opinions when it comes to an RfA. 02:15, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose — While Redskin is a good and level headed user, I'm not quite sure he needs the tools at this moment. Conqueror of all Zombies 00:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   And what sort of situation would necessitate the tools? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 15:29, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose — Per Daniel Strike III ^{The think tank} 01:01, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose — Per PotatOS Kratos²¹⁴⁴ 01:09, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose — While I know Redskin has the capacity to use these tools, I feel he needs a little more time, so he can smooth out any problems he has. The last time we gave a user adminship too early, he get desysopped within a few months because the community decided he was going mad with power. Redskin just needs some more time, that's all. Metl^Talk 06:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC) Redskin is not going to nd up that way, so I'm changing my vote. Metl^Talk 01:45, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

   What makes you think I would go instantly mad with power? That sounds like a bit of an extreme scenario if you ask me. Redskin-2615:43, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   What problems, may I ask? He's been on the wiki more than enough time, if you ask me. Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 21:06, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   To answer your question Redskin, the last person we gave adminship to within 7 months of them joining the wiki was Sp3c. When he was granted admin, he was in about the same position you are in now. Good editor, never had any problems. A few months into his adminship however, he stopped editing on-wiki and mainly went to IRC, where reportedly he was always in a bad mood. He gave out ridiculously excessive punishments to users who had done very little wrong. His first Desysop forum resulted in people voting no, saying this should be a warning to him. However, the activities continued, to the point where he was desysopped two months later. I'm not saying that you could end up the same way, I am just being cautious about it. Metl^Talk 21:50, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   So you're saying that just because the circumstances are the same as sp3cs, that he's going to get desysopped? i fail to see you're logic. Every single case is different, Nyx got sysopped in less then 7 months and he's not some overlord power crazed dictator. 02:15, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

   I'd like to disagree with that statement on "He gave out ridiculously excessive punishments to users who had done very little wrong". I would appreciate it if you actually witnessed it or know a good amount about it (judging by that statement you do not) before you make a statement which could damage someone's reputation. Thank you. _Sp3c^Talk_ 07:53, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

   In addition, this statement "A few months into his adminship however, he stopped editing on-wiki and mainly went to IRC" is also false, you can check my contributions. Please for the love of god, check your facts before you do this to someone else. _Sp3c^Talk_ 08:03, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

   Metlman, Carb got adminship in four months, but I don't see any desysopping forums for him. Your reasoning is foolish. Shotrocket6 09:24, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

   Let me clarify it further for both of you: Sp3c, that information was listed on your desysop forum, so I didn't need to witness it to write it down as an example. Shot, I never said that we should desysop people who got adminship in less than 8 months. I was simply saying we should be cautious, and let a little more time pass. Besides, I changed my vote days ago, so why harp on me about it now? Metl^Talk 19:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

   It did say that, on the first one, which was proven false. And the second one isn't even on any of them and isn't even true. This is the last thing I'm going to say about it. Please read up about it, before you make false accusations about someone. _Sp3c^Talk_ 19:28, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

   We are saying this now so users, including yourself, don't cite that as a reason in the future. Shotrocket6 20:25, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

8. Oppose — Per CoaZ 08:10, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
9. Not Yet — I fear Redskin will be unable to perform his job properly, and he needs more time to learn the rules fully. Per all. LellowYucario ^Hi!  10:51, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   But he's a chat moderator, so he knows the rules perfectly fine.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:46, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

   Per Cod4, Redskin is one of the people on this wiki that know the rules almost perfectly. 15:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose — per all N7[T|C|P|A] 11:56, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose — Per all. Maybe later, but not now. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 14:23, March 4, 2012 (UTC) Changing vote. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 12:04, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

    Maybe?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

    MLG means that at the present, Redskin does not fit a sysop description in his (MLG's) mind. MLG does however believe that in time it is a possibility that Redskin will fit his (MLG's) description. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 05:56, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    That's irrelevant though. "Maybe" is not a clear cut reason.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:07, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    I took your one word question as a reasonable person would. I took your question as, "What do you mean by maybe?". I then gave you a reasonable answer based on my experience with the English language to help you better understand what MLG meant. Now, if you did not mean what I think you meant with your statement, (What do you mean by maybe?) I strongly advise you to elaborate more instead of using one word when asking questions. Elaborating will effectively help avoid any further confusion people may have when trying to understand you.

    Furthermore, seeing as how you knew the answer to your question all along, there was really no point in asking it. You simply should have made a declarative sentence rather than an interrogative sentence. Just stating, "Maybe is not a clear cut reason," would have gotten the point across far more effectively (assuming that was your intention). --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 05:33, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

12. Not Yet — Per all, maybe later. Reznov115^Talk

    Maybe?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  15:57, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

    Reznov means that at the present, Redskin does not fit a sysop description in his (Reznov's) mind. Reznov does however believe that in time it is a possibility that Redskin will fit his (Reznov's) description. --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 05:56, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    That's irrelevant though. "Maybe" is not a clear cut reason.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:07, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

    I took your one word question as a reasonable person would. I took your question as, "What do you mean by maybe?". I then gave you a reasonable answer based on my experience with the English language to help you better understand what Reznov meant. Now, if you did not mean what I think you meant with your statement, (What do you mean by maybe?) I strongly advise you to elaborate more instead of using one word when asking questions. Elaborating will effectively help avoid any further confusion people may have when trying to understand you.

    Furthermore, seeing as how you knew the answer to your question all along, there was really no point in asking it. You simply should have made a declarative sentence rather than an interrogative sentence. Just stating, "Maybe is not a clear cut reason," would have gotten the point across far more effectively (assuming that was your intention). --Guitar t-bone^{Talk to AJ} 05:33, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose — Per all. DarkMetroid567^okay 05:21, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose — Per all. Carb 0 06:03, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose — Per all. Maxwell123 11:06, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose — said it above already. -- Azuris^talk 04:39, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose — Per CoaZ. Rose Pichu  05:04, March 7, 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose — There's no doubt in my mind that Redskin is a good user, but I don't think he really needs sysop rights ATM. Sgt. S.S. 16:47, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

    As with CoaZ, what sort of situation would necessitate the tools? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 21:28, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

19. Weak Oppose — Per CoaZ. I am concerned about one thing though on this, why is that a lot of Chat people are supporting, but mainly IRC people are opposing..? _Sp3c^Talk_ 07:53, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

    Coincidence. This isn't some kind of IRC - S:C thing.

    

    Crazy sam10 • Talk

    

    09:34, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

    See Callofduty4's point below. Shotrocket6 09:40, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

    All I can see is some sort of shady implication with that statement.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  14:11, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

    As Callofduty4 said, it's because Chatters are more acquainted with him, has he spends more time there, not to say he is not known by the community as a whole The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 02:02, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

20. Not Yet — I don't really see a need for a new admin right now. Poketape ^Talk 04:47, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

    As I have asked with others already, what would necessitate another admin? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:06, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

    If there was an apparent lack of coverage by the current admins that necessitated a new one to fill the gap. Poketape ^Talk 02:46, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

    You mean, like Eltomo saying he'll be inactive for a while? Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 02:50, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

    That implies that you think there should be a fixed number of admins. How would an additional sysop affect administration activities negatively? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:46, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

    What I think Poketape is trying to say is that only admins should be needed ONLY if there's a lack of decent edits and contributions spread out by them. Admins not only edit edit and edit, but they also look over the site and make sure that there are no discrepancies, etc. If he's trying to imply fixed number of admins, it's probably just a fear of overcrowding/power abuse. Red's a good person and I know it firsthand. No need to worry.   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 15:19, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

    I don't want adminship to be treated like something that you get if you've been good and active for a while. I'd like for it to be something given when the wiki needs it given rather than some sort of expected promotion. Even with Eltomo going inactive, I don't think this wiki will be inadequately covered by the current amount of admins. Poketape ^Talk 03:55, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

    And so the candidate should be penalized for criteria unrelated to him? You have still not explained how one quantifies the necessity for an admin, and how that precludes one's candidacy. If tomorrow six sysops step down, relevancy and necessity is suddenly given to a RfA? Do you have reasoning as to why Redskin himself would be a poor choice for a sysop? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 13:22, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

    Per Bovell. - MLGISNOT4ME ^[Talk] - 13:24, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

    My argument is that there's no reason to make him an admin. You're basically saying because he's been a good user he deserves it. Poketape ^Talk 03:18, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comments/Questions Edit

Comment — It seems primarily that the main reasons for opposing Redskin's previous RfA was that he was too inexperienced and we didn't need another administrator. While Eltomo has explained a reasonable space for another administrator, and while Redskin has undoubtedly improved in these five weeks, I still don't particularly think he's ready. I've seen him get a bit too into dramatic situations when they could've been handled otherwise or even avoided. Shotrocket6 18:27, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — I'd like to ask about this kind of reasoning: "Oh, other users might use them tools better". Can someone tell me, so what? How does that make him any less qualified to the position? Because, if those guys haven't been nominated, that's their problem. It doesn't make Redskin, or anyone else any less capable of handling the tools. Commander Shepard: ^{"You're just a machine, and machines can be broken!"} 21:11, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Comment — I'm going to say this once: Redskin is a suitable candidate to become an admin. I don't know why the fuck people can't understand this. He does so much work, he puts so much effort into everything. He cares about the wiki, he knows about the rules, He knows that he has handed out an unfair ban once or twice. I know i have. When it comes down to it, We All fuck up. I've fucked up with a few things, and i know i'll pay for it later. In all honesty i don't see why people are going to focus on some bullshit ban. People screw up. Learn to deal with that. Last time i checked no one's perfect. and i think people should get over it. For a few people opposing, Take a step back and think about why your opposing. Is it because you don't think he'll be a suitable candidate or is it the fact that half of you are opposing him because of some bullshit prejudice against "chat RfA's" which is the biggest load of shit i've ever heard of. People need to learn that the chat is a medium that people are going to talk over. Deal with it. So what, people from the chat can vote on an RfA. Big fucking deal. People with the suitable amount of edits can vote if they want, and wherever they chat should have no affect on your personal opinion of said candidate. All in all, i think Redskin-26 will be a fine edition to the current sysop team. Elmo is going inactive, we have a guy here who can fill that space. So what if we have to many sysops. That argument is such bullshit. The amount of admins we have is obviously going to go down by one. (Eltomo if you can't figure it out) i'm looking at a few people, decide for yourself wither you think he could handle the tools, not follow what people say because of some chat bullshit or because your basing it off of some other guys opinion on the matter.(If i offended anyone with the swearing, deal with it.) 06:26, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with the chat users voting argument. There are quite a few users from chat who are voting oppose. It's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

However I thought about this yesterday when Drkdragonz66 and I were talking about it. It's commonplace for people who know the candidate well to disregard their bad points and instead focus mainly on their good points. It goes without saying that the guys from chat know Redskin well.

But that's not a bad thing. It's been happening forever. It happens on all wikis, and it happens in real life. This is not something that needs to be addressed. It's logical that if you use a chat (doesn't matter if it's the Chat or IRC, the same theory still applies) , the more likely you are to get support votes from people in that chat, because they know you better. That isn't a bad thing, and it's definitely not a problem. Face this - it's simple psychology that the bad things stick out more than the good and can often seem much more prevalent than the good for this reason. Is this a reason to ignore bad things completely? Not at all. But it does beg the question if the oppose votes here are dwelling too much on the petty things Redskin has done wrong. Not to mention that a ton of the votes now are "per all". I think that it's becoming a buzzword in this specific RfA now. Do those people really agree with every single oppose vote, or do they just have nothing to say?  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  13:06, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Reason i wrote all is because of something that happened yesterday, I'm not going to name names or be specific, but it annoyed and pissed me off. I felt like i had to get it off my chest. Thanks for the reply also. 15:44, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Likely the latter. Shotrocket6 14:43, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what happened yesterday. It should never have happened.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  22:17, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that I can't have my opinion about a candidate for adminship. If I believe he's not suitable, let it fucking be. It doesn't matter where he's from (IRC and Chat), that doesn't make a single fucking difference. In fact, I hope that you (us?) bringing this up doesn't escalate any further. So, no, I won't change my vote because someone is making false assumptions. I will firmly stay to my oppose vote, because it is my fucking opinion. PotatOS^{Wanna Test?|My Own Test Chambers|Ohaithar} 22:28, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Since you and me already had a good talk in Walrus land i'm just going to put this here: -- 01:34, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

*standing ovation* The Wikia Contributor ^{T | C | E | Q} 00:13, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed"' -- Redskin's rights will be modified accordingly very shortly. -- Sactage ^(talk) 00:45, March 18, 2012 (UTC)